This is where I think it will go. Why else would they have shown the caveman scene during episode 1?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Leftovers S2 |OT| We're Going To Texas - [Renewed for 3rd and final season]
- Thread starter TheOddOne
- Start date
This is where I think it will go. Why else would they have shown the caveman scene during episode 1?
Kadayi
Banned
If we're throwing in theories I think they (the girls) faked it. I realize we'll probably never know but I just thought that there was something odd about that scene in the first episode where the girls were driving back from the Lake and they were all sat in mute silence, plus the whole naked running scene. I think they were planning to escape Miracle, and mayhap that was part of a dry run. The Lake draining could just be circumstantial and probably sifted the car which went some way to masking their tracks.
.
.
Is the emphasis on the 'what was the last thing you said to the departed' question supposed to be that Nora thinks Erika would remember the words if Evie really departured instead of running away with the help of her mother? And is Nora's emotional response when Erika directed the question to her meant to show Nora doesn't remember what the words were in her situation?
Stronger finish to a 'meh' episode.
They took the height of last episode's ending and completely ran it over. So Matt is free and not naked and tied? I mean, why not show what should be this really powerful moment? And the way he's saved is by refusing someone else's offer to take his place? Again, why not show that? We go from Matt getting naked and into the guillotine to him being free and sort of a leader just like that. And why would the woman in charge of that guillotine ritual agree to all of this? Is it one of her 'rules' if someone refuses to be freed from the guillotine then the whole thing is over?
Why does everything must be a mystery or presented in a vague manner in this show? Okay, they dealt with the goat and bird thing but why wasn't it addressed in the first 2 episodes? Our heroes move to a new place and see the goat thing happen, surely they could have thrown an aside about how everyone has a superstition of doing the same thing as in October 14th. And don't these superstitions negate how everyone else in the world is attributing mystical power to the town itself and things like the water in it?
Now we have a bird that was medically was ought to be dead but was alive. So why not think Erika's wish had an effect? Oddly, the grandmother story said you open the box and if the bird's alive then you make the wish. Erika says she made the wish and then opened the box. Is this difference supposed to have special meaning and to be brought up later? Why add that wrinkle and again encourage more questions to be asked in this so-called strictly family drama?
You see that again with Erika confronting her now-to-be-known relative (her father, i assume) and then talking with her son about him. They are intentionally leaving out the details on the fallout between the two. Common, lay it all out, Drama. Why can't you introduce something and spill the beans? Why coat everything with mystery and gaps? Why does everything have to be a big revelation to be made several episodes later?
Not sure if it's worth tallying up the theories for the Departure but we have that MIT one about actual small geographical areas and with this episode we have the lens thing as is Nora acting as an instrument of a devil. If we assert that the girls disappearance is another Departure then those theories are at odds against each other. The Lens theory also begs the question why Jill and Kevin are seemingly 'safe' from Nora. That is you assume the two departures are being governed by the same criteria, which they might not.
Is the next episode going to be a 'flashback' for what happened with Laurie and Tom?
Stronger finish to a 'meh' episode.
They took the height of last episode's ending and completely ran it over. So Matt is free and not naked and tied? I mean, why not show what should be this really powerful moment? And the way he's saved is by refusing someone else's offer to take his place? Again, why not show that? We go from Matt getting naked and into the guillotine to him being free and sort of a leader just like that. And why would the woman in charge of that guillotine ritual agree to all of this? Is it one of her 'rules' if someone refuses to be freed from the guillotine then the whole thing is over?
Why does everything must be a mystery or presented in a vague manner in this show? Okay, they dealt with the goat and bird thing but why wasn't it addressed in the first 2 episodes? Our heroes move to a new place and see the goat thing happen, surely they could have thrown an aside about how everyone has a superstition of doing the same thing as in October 14th. And don't these superstitions negate how everyone else in the world is attributing mystical power to the town itself and things like the water in it?
Now we have a bird that was medically was ought to be dead but was alive. So why not think Erika's wish had an effect? Oddly, the grandmother story said you open the box and if the bird's alive then you make the wish. Erika says she made the wish and then opened the box. Is this difference supposed to have special meaning and to be brought up later? Why add that wrinkle and again encourage more questions to be asked in this so-called strictly family drama?
You see that again with Erika confronting her now-to-be-known relative (her father, i assume) and then talking with her son about him. They are intentionally leaving out the details on the fallout between the two. Common, lay it all out, Drama. Why can't you introduce something and spill the beans? Why coat everything with mystery and gaps? Why does everything have to be a big revelation to be made several episodes later?
Not sure if it's worth tallying up the theories for the Departure but we have that MIT one about actual small geographical areas and with this episode we have the lens thing as is Nora acting as an instrument of a devil. If we assert that the girls disappearance is another Departure then those theories are at odds against each other. The Lens theory also begs the question why Jill and Kevin are seemingly 'safe' from Nora. That is you assume the two departures are being governed by the same criteria, which they might not.
Is the next episode going to be a 'flashback' for what happened with Laurie and Tom?
bodyofanamerican
Member
Yup. Another factor is bringing in the idea of faking departures a la Mark Linn Baker.
User 479360
Banned
Me too. It's one of the best shows on TV.
Apparently so, despite the fact it makes no fucking sense for Nora not to ask herself that very question before asking Erika ("ouch, somehow, I had completely forgotten I was in the same situation!"). But as usual, it makes for easy drama, so never mind that.
So you'd keep watching.
Lindelof. "It worked with Lost!"
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
I think it was meant to show that Nora does remember what her last words to her family were. (I believe she said something terribly mean to them just seconds before they vanished - it was in her POV episode last season) Nora has been trying to run away from all of those bad memories and in that one moment Erika brought all of it back.
Seemed like it was just Erika trying to get back at Nora (not right after Nora's question though, because you have to keep the drama for the end of the scene, y'know), and it's not like she could have known what was said back when Nora's kids disappeared.
And again, it's so fucking improbable that Nora would actually be caught off-guard by Erika turning the table on her. Or that she would suddenly turn into a gigantic bitch for no reason (other than drrrrama, of course) like she did in this week's episode, really.
ThLunarian
Member
That's an interesting take - she was crying because the last words thing seemed to confirm it was real, and therefore Nora might actually be a lens. I hadn't considered that but it makes sense
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Nora's character is driven by the fear of people departing again, so Erika's kid going missing is absolutely devastating her and she's doing everything in her power to dispell that possibility. She wasn't trying to help Erika or comfort her, she wanted desperately to prove it was fake, not a departure, anything just so she could feel safe.
Erika realized what was going on when Nora so coldly discounted what was a very personal reveal for Erika (the bird and the box), and turned on her hard. She wanted to make Nora hurt, and well forcing her to think about her children was a surefire way of doing that.
Fenderputty
Banned
Yup. Though I think that question flip hurt Nora more than just forcing her to remember her children. I feel like it somehow confirmed that Erika's child has departed and that her effrts to find safety are for not.
I kinda got that. ^^
Like going out of her way to hurt a neighbor who also lost a kid (departure or not). And breaking her fucking windows at night, too, because why the hell not.
Yeah, that's... "desperate", indeed. Ridiculously so.
And like I pointed out above: so unexpected, too!
ThLunarian
Member
Erigu, your arguments are based on everyone thinking rationally. They don't work here. Every character is under extreme stress and isn't considering all the variables. Their behavior is totally plausible. People do stuff that doesn't make logical sense all the time
"Maybe it's a matter of geography! Because my family was sitting at the table, and I wasn't! Makes sense, never mind how many counter-examples there would be! So I should absolutely move out for season 2!"
->
"Maybe I'm a lens! That one new theory that was suddenly introduced! Maybe that made my neighbor's daughter disappear! Never mind the fact I barely knew her, she wasn't anywhere near me when she disappeared, two other girls I didn't know disappeared as well, and people around me were just fine! So I should absolutely forego any empathy I used to feel toward my neighbor who lost a child a month ago and suddenly go out of my way to hurt her!"
Especially in Lindelof's stuff. It's almost like his characters always do stupid or horrible things for the sake of moving the plot wherever or generating easy drama.
ThLunarian
Member
Again. People do irrational things in real life all the time, and those things often generate drama. The show is using that fact to its advantage.
And do you really think that Nora didn't secretly fear that something was wrong with her for the entire time after her family disappeared? That theory, regardless of whether it's actually true, only reinforces that fear.
And if you're looking for a fresh start - which is completely plausible for her to want, given the circumstances - then you might as well go to a place where your brother already lives, and hey look at that, there's a chance that we might be immune to Departures there. Bonus!
Irrational behavior only becomes a problem in fiction if it's completely out of character. The things Nora has done have been very consistent with her development so far.
Less so in (decent) fiction, because characters doing crazy shit whenever it's convenient for the writer isn't particularly interesting.
I do think it would make sense for her to think that. It's just unfortunate that the show makes it look like Nora is just now, 3+ years later, going "whaaat?? you think it might happen again???", or finding out and freaking out about new theories regarding the departure (never mind how the first season established there was no discernible pattern... hey, there's even a miracle town, now!). That and the fact that fear has her try and hurt a neighbor who just lost her kid. "Let's break her windows! Let's steal some shit that will help me torment the poor woman! That makes sense, right? ... No? Still, it's in line with the way I've been portrayed so far, right? ... No?"
And her boyfriend just had the same idea at the same time, because his father (who had just been declared sane, never mind his escape toward the end of the previous season... ah, Lindelof! reminds me of Claire's mother getting better out of nowhere, just so she could rid the writers of another child character!) decided to move to Australia or whatever. This is all so organic!
Any previous instances of her becoming so fucking cruel/vicious just to alleviate her secret fears? Again, it feels like she just turned into a gigantic bitch overnight.
Sounds like maybe you should stop wasting an hour of your life each week watching this if it grates you so badly.
Another thing i had an issue with was that 3 weeks have passed since the disappearance and it has been covered by the news and it's being discussed if this is another Departure. Yet, there seems to be no impact on Miracle's status as a hotspot for tourists from all over the world and from people treating stuff like it's water and such as sort of Departure-immunity. You'd think having a Departure in Miracle cripple the industry that was built around it. But there are no sings to that.
I would like to see this point elaborated upon in the town-residents level. Residents who hope this was a Departure so they can stop being the center of attention, so they wouldn't have to deal with freaks and hippies trying to swarm the town and ruin its fabric. So they could go back to their normal lives. On the other side, residents who now make their livelihood on this industry that has been developed around Miracle wishing it to be a non-Departure case because it will an economical blow otherwise.
And then you have the tension inside the Murphy's, with John beating up every person who tries to assign mystic properties to the town ('no miracles in Miracle), while his son is squarely in the 'Evie departed' camp.
I would like to see this point elaborated upon in the town-residents level. Residents who hope this was a Departure so they can stop being the center of attention, so they wouldn't have to deal with freaks and hippies trying to swarm the town and ruin its fabric. So they could go back to their normal lives. On the other side, residents who now make their livelihood on this industry that has been developed around Miracle wishing it to be a non-Departure case because it will an economical blow otherwise.
And then you have the tension inside the Murphy's, with John beating up every person who tries to assign mystic properties to the town ('no miracles in Miracle), while his son is squarely in the 'Evie departed' camp.
Kadayi
Banned
My view as well. To me it seems this season is all about exploring the possibility space of a post departures world beyond that explored in the book, thus being taken to a place where no one departed. So it makes sense that another part of that exploration could be one of people using the conceit of a second departure as a means to escape from their present reality.
Nah, it's amusing/interesting to see such poor writing.
It's kinda weird to see people praising that stuff though. When Lindelof does that in movies, he gets called out for it. Is the bar simply lower for TV audiences and critics? Does the episodic format somehow make it harder to spot?
On the contrary, we've since been shown that people were actually willing to kill or die to enter the town. Huh.
Then again, nobody even mentioned the town in season 1 (I know why, thanks, but it makes for a clumsy introduction), so maybe the news are just really slow, in the Leftovers world. Maybe all the newspeople departed.
In all impunity, too. Guess firefighters rule the world.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
If you're watching the show just so you can shit on it in this thread maybe you should leave.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Erigu will follow Damon Lindelof til the end of days until everyone knows how much of a hack he is.
Wait, we can do that? Just asking people we disagree with to leave?
Okay, then: if you like the show, you should leave the thread. C'mon, guys. Do it for me.
Anyway, "no thanks."
And there's really no reason to take it so poorly when someone merely criticizes something you happen to like, you know?
But it really shouldn't take that long! What the hell, people?!
ThLunarian
Member
Damon Lindelof is a storytelling genius, haters be damned
I'm exaggerating a little, but I do have a high opinion of his work
Nah, shit watching is a thing. It helps him sleep at night.
And maybe shitting on my posts like that helps you sleep at night! Everybody's happy.
bodyofanamerican
Member
You're 100% right. Even Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan (no big fans of the show) admitted as much on their podcast this week, that no one does story like Lindelof and the way he extricated himself from the S1 plot was masterful.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
Edit: Aaaahhhhh forget it. Disagree all you like, just don't be so obnoxious and sarcastic about it, please.
greendomo's ghost
Member
This is one of my favorite shows on tv at the moment, right up there with Fargo. I think the writing's great, personally. Although I feel like there's a lot of things up in the air, I hope some are answered/resolved before the season is over.
bodyofanamerican
Member
Well, let's hope so.
I mean, we're talking about the guy who:
... on a show that is supposed be a drama with deep themes for adults and takes itself very seriously
... had one of the main characters
... a reverend
... beat somebody quite possibly to death
... over some money
... toward the end of an episode that was entirely dedicated to him
... without that violent action having any kind of consequence whatsoever for the character or the plot past that scene.
Again, when Lindelof comes up with shit like that in movies, he gets lambasted, overall. How come it's fine when he does it in a TV show? How come I'm seeing "best show on TV" comments for something like that?
Same thing for that one episode that allowed him to jerk off to the tune of "I had Liv Tyler take off her panties". How was her showing up just to do that completely out of the blue, for seemingly no other reason than "those Guilty Remnants do crazy shit, just roll with it" not worse than the much-reviled underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness?
Baroquemantic
Member
Just watched the last two episodes, and wow. This show continues to be amazing. I love it. I hope we are at least able to get enough episodes/seasons for the entire story to be told, because this show is damn good, and has me completely hooked. Can't wait for tomorrow's episode. The preview looked nuts.
That whole scene with Nora and Erika at the end was just so captivating; and heartbreaking. Great acting.
That whole scene with Nora and Erika at the end was just so captivating; and heartbreaking. Great acting.
User 479360
Banned
The girls' naked running scene makes you wonder what really happened. That wouldn't have occurred had they just vanished...
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
A lot of TV critics will ignore most/any problems that a show may have, provided it clicks with them on an emotional (or comical) level. Plus, TV is a much bigger investment, so people are more willing to forgive certain things the more hours they've put into it.
That's pretty basic. It's not a movie. It's still ongoing. If at the end of the season we got no explanation for the rape scene, we'll criticize it.
As for now, last episode got us the reason of the dead birds and the goat, so we could just wait before judging is something is out of the blue or not.
Why is that though? Why the disparity with cinema critics?
That does sound quite likely... Especially for shows that go out of their ways to give their viewers some "homework" (mysteries, anagrams, character names that reference real people, ARGs, etc) on top of that long-term time investment. That particular bit did occur to me a while ago, but I would expect professional critics to know better...
I have a few problems with that kind of angle, some of them admittedly subjective:
* "Let's wait for the end of the season" seems a bit arbitrary, and although I like that better than those "let's wait for the end of the show" I kept hearing from Lost apologists (... and even when the show did end...), I don't remember anybody going "wow, so the reverend beating somebody quite possibly to death really never mattered in the end?!" when last season ended...
* I hear that defense a lot when it comes to "mysteries" like that, but I don't think you can always fall back on "the story is not over yet! it could all make sense in the end!".
It seems to me some people will always hold some hope that "things will make sense in the end!", never mind how many tell tales signs hint at a significantly less satisfactory outcome. An example I generally come up with is some guy giving a speech beginning with "dear friends, asparagus zoo clownskin maybe sunny yet razors-", somebody interjecting "wait, this isn't making any sense!", and people going "shhh! can't you wait until he's done before criticizing?!" (obviously an extreme example, but Lost did reach that level of nonsense quite a few times, and the National Geographic bit from last season of The Leftovers was so utterly ridiculous it felt like a parody).
Maybe some of these people are looking at these things from a "real life" point of view, that is to say "everything that happens in real life has an explanation that makes perfect sense, even if it currently escapes us" (that obviously isn't true in fiction, where a writer may absolutely write himself in a corner, or be left with underwhelming / mundane / perfunctory possible explanations)? I dunno.
* Lindelof "tends" to go for shocks/surprises without any kind of foresight and has an awful track record when it comes to explaining his weird shit (meaning either those explanations never come, or they're completely underwhelming, see previous point), so I'm not particularly hopeful, to say the least.
I mean, that particular scene comes after a season of Guilty Remnants-related nonsense and is directly followed by the son-character-whose-name-escapes-me, who was just beaten, abducted, raped (??) and almost burned alive by those people, seemingly being only pissed at his mother for not mentioning Meg and suddenly going "those guys make sense! they must know something!". Just how much confidence is that supposed to inspire exactly?
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
To be fair, there are a lot of shoddy film critics too.
It sounds like maybe what you're lamenting is a dearth of "serious" TV criticism, which, I think, can be attributed to the fact that this NuGolden Age has ushered in something relatively new - something that most don't know how to properly evaluate yet, which are these deep 20+ hour character studies and what have you.
There's a whole culture surrounding film criticism and theory, and a level of sophistication that comes from that history, that simply doesn't exist, at least not to the same extent, with TV criticism.
Well, I didn't mean to imply film critics were all great at their job, sure.
I guess... Still a bit perplexed by that gap, as I consider TV shows and movies fairly close, personally. I mean, I completely understand that some people are very much into movies but simply aren't interested in or don't "get" comics or animation, for example, but TV shows and movies? They're basically siblings, in comparison. Ah, well...
bodyofanamerican
Member
All hail Ann Dowd.
talisayNon
Member
lol...
Gordon Shumway
Banned
No way..
Captain.Falafel
Neo Member
That was fuckin' nuts.