|
Post by Lola m on Mar 21, 2006 22:33:50 GMT -5
Another great analysis, Spring!
Love love love your opening comments.
I think this fits well with Fotada's comments about this season's stress on the concequences of "stepping outside the group".
People want to fit in, yes. They lie and hide things and make themselves vulnerable to blackmail because of that need. They are desparate, as you said, because it feels as though they are fighting for their lives. But they also have a deep need for love and acceptance for who they really are. And I gotta think that this push-pull between needing to fit in and needing to be loved for who and what you are is somehow a part of this season's mystery(ies).
Wonderful, wonderful catch about the important bit of dialog!!
I soooooo missed how "clue-y" that was! Whether or not the bus crash is directly related to Peter, I have to agree that it seems to point the way not only to blackmail as a motive (which was already becoming apparent) but to the secret being somehow sexual or related to a relationship that was being hidden.
Like you, I found no definitive answers in the ep. But it felt like . . . pieces were aligning, moving closer to falling into place. Like if I just pushed down on the right ones, they'd all snap together. ;D
Again, just gotta say, it's a wonderful insightful review! The ideas of risk and vulnerability; the comment about needing inner confidence; the reminder of Logan's truly dire situation without downplaying the potential harm to Hannah (I join you in the "eeeep she looks like a veritable baby" feelings); the foreshadowy bus comment by Jackie; etc. Excellent observations throughout the analysis, Spring. You really pulled it all together for me.
#claps#
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Mar 22, 2006 10:24:43 GMT -5
Rewatching. Some things I noticed (and probably have already been mentioned):
"Pleasuring inanimate objects is so 2005." "Whereas this year it's all about pulling kids out of the closet" (ref. Nobody Puts Baby In The Corner)
Wasn't the "outing of all outings" referring to the baseball playing brother? Didn't strike me as anything deeper than that.
Mention of a community college. So stratification next year with the "haves" in the cast going to Hearst and the "have-nots" going to the community college?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 10:33:29 GMT -5
Another great analysis, Spring! Thanks, Lola. Yes - Veronica calls Peter's comment, and permanent disappearance shortly afterward, "ominous," because at that point, she is thinking that he might be the blackmailer. But then we find out that no, he can't be the blackmailer . . . but you know, it's still ominous, just in a different way. I am just bothered though, by the whole idea of someone, whose target is really one one very particular person, choosing to send a busload of kids over a cliff. Even if someone were evil enough that the mass killing didn't bother them, it still seems like a very odd, messy, complicated, "will bring you tons of unwanted attention" kind of plan. Surely, an individual "accident" could be more easily arranged, and would be more easily "written off" by authorities. I tend to think the motive for the murder is NOT about trying to get just one person (and everyone else just happened to be along for the ride). It's just so hard to buy that a murderer wouldn't come up with a simpler, less drastic plan. But we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 10:38:27 GMT -5
Rewatching. Some things I noticed (and probably have already been mentioned): "Pleasuring inanimate objects is so 2005." "Whereas this year it's all about pulling kids out of the closet" (ref. Nobody Puts Baby In The Corner) Yes - good catch - we got an image of a literal "coming out of the closet" this season. My memory is that the poster gave no idea what the "outings of all outings" was referring to - i.e., there was no telling. Though I gotta say, one teenage baseball player doesn't sound like much of an "outing of all outings in Neptune." Though I guess it could have seemed that way to "Mizz P." Veronica did say "Neptune" though, not "Neptune High." Just made it sound like something bigger than Kelly Kuzzio. Yes - I wondered about that too - I mean, if they weren't continuing to set up "continuing education in Neptune" possibilities for the characters.
|
|
|
Post by zimshan on Mar 22, 2006 11:19:26 GMT -5
AH, Spring! Another excellent review.
I started pulling quotes out and suddenly I realized, I was pulling out every damn line! Obviously I’m not going to comment on all of them. And better still anyway, since my comments probably would have been ‘AH! I LOVE IT!’ to ‘Such a nice catch!’ to ‘Exxxcellent!’ I’ll spare you with my repetitive monkey icomments and just say, you did it again!
I'd admit this episode felt very scattered to me, but once again, you managed to really pull it all together for me. Covering things up (Hehe. Toppings indeed.), thick upper crusts (Another big HEHE) and the need for love and acceptance. Just absolutely excellent!
Except that now I'm REALLY hungry for some good pizza. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Mar 22, 2006 12:00:47 GMT -5
Thanks, Spring. Good review. If it helps, Jessy Schram is 20 (not 12), making her only 4 years younger than JD. She definitely looks younger, though. That assumes that the biographical stuff on IMDB is right, too. I particularly enjoyed your discussion of Keith at the casino. Risking only what's yours to risk is a good bit of wisdom for us all.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 13:18:18 GMT -5
AH, Spring! Another excellent review. I started pulling quotes out and suddenly I realized, I was pulling out every damn line! Obviously I’m not going to comment on all of them. And better still anyway, since my comments probably would have been ‘AH! I LOVE IT!’ to ‘Such a nice catch!’ to ‘Exxxcellent!’ I’ll spare you with my repetitive monkey icomments and just say, you did it again! I'd admit this episode felt very scattered to me, but once again, you managed to really pull it all together for me. Covering things up (Hehe. Toppings indeed.), thick upper crusts (Another big HEHE) and the need for love and acceptance. Just absolutely excellent! Except that now I'm REALLY hungry for some good pizza. ;D Thanks, zimshan. I appreciate the positive feedback. Also, you've helped me decide what to have for dinner!
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 13:25:05 GMT -5
Thanks, Spring. Good review. If it helps, Jessy Schram is 20 (not 12), making her only 4 years younger than JD. She definitely looks younger, though. That assumes that the biographical stuff on IMDB is right, too. I particularly enjoyed your discussion of Keith at the casino. Risking only what's yours to risk is a good bit of wisdom for us all. She's 20? Well . . . that info helps some, as part of what comes to mind when Logan & Hannah are smooching is the actors themselves - I kept thinking, gee, they've got that 24 yr old actor smooching a 14 - 15 yr old . . . now - well, it still looks kinda squicky because of Jessy's majorily youthful appearance, but at least I know the reality is that "Hannah" is a grown woman. So, thanks, Sharky for the info, and thanks for the positive comments on the review! Keith and his refusal of a "line-of-credit" says a lot about him - as Lobo immediately says, after Keith says no: "Good man!" Keith isn't going to be sacrificing his future (and Veronica's) for immediate present gratification . . . he is, indeed a "good man."
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Mar 22, 2006 17:30:13 GMT -5
Another great analysis, Spring! Thanks, Lola. Yes - Veronica calls Peter's comment, and permanent disappearance shortly afterward, "ominous," because at that point, she is thinking that he might be the blackmailer. But then we find out that no, he can't be the blackmailer . . . but you know, it's still ominous, just in a different way. I am just bothered though, by the whole idea of someone, whose target is really one one very particular person, choosing to send a busload of kids over a cliff. Even if someone were evil enough that the mass killing didn't bother them, it still seems like a very odd, messy, complicated, "will bring you tons of unwanted attention" kind of plan. Surely, an individual "accident" could be more easily arranged, and would be more easily "written off" by authorities. I tend to think the motive for the murder is NOT about trying to get just one person (and everyone else just happened to be along for the ride). It's just so hard to buy that a murderer wouldn't come up with a simpler, less drastic plan. But we'll see. **nods** I also don't think blackmail of one particular person can be the only reason for the bus crash. It just seems so . . . overkill. But blackmail is involved in some way. Either as motive for the crash, or . . . or maybe afterward? Perhaps Curly was paid to do something to the bus. And later, perhaps when he saw the real consequnces of his actions, maybe he was going to blackmail the person or group that hired him? And got scared and drunk and blabbed or partly blabbed to Weevil or anther PCHer? And Weevil beat him up, but he also somehow told him about Veronica? And Curly was killed before he could talk? And maybe the PCHers (or Fitzpatrick's or both) are now also planning on blackmailing the instigating party(ies)? Um. Or something like that. Thanks again, Lola-loo![/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 22, 2006 18:58:57 GMT -5
Edited to add (upfront):
And now looking back a bit on this page I see that many of my points below have already been covered. We are especially in agreement about the bus crash. Maybe I should have read up before posting, but I wanted to respond to the review before getting hung up/tired down with my own review.
Sue
Hey, Spring,
I'm just about to rewatch this ep with Allie prior to tonight's new episode, so I may have more comments after the rewatching. Only watching once is certainly not enough at all these days---a fact that was driven home by rewatching episodes 11, 12 and 13 in the past few days. So many things made more sense or seemed much clearer.
But I loved your summation of the overall theme:
and
Also, I think you may have hit the nail on the head with regard to the general motive for murder---really any murder:
Obviously, this doesn't necessarily help us zero in on who exactly did which murders or specifically why but it helps me focus on looking for clues: who is protecting something valuable enough to entice a person to such drastic measures.
The murder of Felix is probably going to be "simpler" (in motive and how it was done) -- there are a number of reasons I suppose why one person or persons might be driven to murder another. [BTW, in my re-watching I took particular note of the scene where Weevil is being beaten by his gang and accuses Thumper directly: "You killed Felix, you were the last one on the bridge with him." Felix doesn't even make a token attempt to deny it----he simply shows Weevil the video of Weevil beating Curly Moran and implies that if Weevil attempts to accuse him publicly he (Thumper) will turn the video over to the police. It may be that we already know who killed Felix. The motive appears to be mixed up with the F-P's. Whether it is more related to the drugs (Felix found out and protested?) or Molly F-P is as yet unknown.
My theory: either the F-P's had ordered Thumper to "take care of Felix" (to protect something valuable to them?) or Thumper decided he had to do that on his own (to protect something valuable to him?) the opportunity to do it then and there and set Logan up for the murder as well was just too good to pass up.
---------
To me the bus "accident" was in a whole nother ball park. To kill all those innocent bystanders in order to get at one person speaks of an evil beyond just protecting something.
Two things: One reason I don't think it was aimed at Veronica is because I question whether you would really set up something that elaborate and horrific with no guarantees that your intended victim would be on the bus. I mean, the explosives and rat had to be set in place before the field trip even started. What if Veronica got sick or just didn't attend. The same argument goes for just about anybody on the bus except maybe the driver or the teacher. Did the murderer confirm that his victim was still on the bus before calling the cell phone which triggered the blast? So the bomb wasn't on a timer or anything and the killer could have aborted by simply not placing the call. That argues that the intended victim was still on the bus.
OR: that there was no specific victim and the bus crash was caused for some bizarre but nebulous reason that I sure can't figure out. Still, whoever killed driver, teacher and (how many?) kids---one of them pregnant. Way worse even than Aaron Echolls. He/she better have one heck of a honking big motive.
Which brings me to:
I loved this line. But before reading further I totally didn't connect it necessarily to only outings of the homosexual variety.
Peter might have been referring to the outing of a spectacular secret of some other kind. (Altho, I know it was in the gay chat room so maybe I'm stretching here.) But outing the F-P's and PCHers drug connections/dealings? Outing Woody and his land grab plans. [Oh, yes, and rewatching the older eps also reminded me that Big Dick was into real estate fraud. I could so totally see him as being part of Woody's (possibly/presumably nefarious dealings). Question is, is Big Dick still calling behind the scenes shots? If so, is Little Dick as simple as he seems? Or, maybe, is the other Casablancas----you know, the one actually smart enough to be a mastermind AND who wants his Dad's approval so badly----in on something with his new company? ? ? ]
As to this:
See my comments above about Thumper not denying Weevil's accusation.
And regarding:
I just rewatched last night and I believe totally that he targeted her from the get go. He knew exactly who she was and he planned his entrapment campaign exceedingly carefully.
Altho the actress actually is 20.
And I really loved this observation, which I completely missed:
Wonderful job.
As usual you found a lot of layers and details which I completely overlooked and which really enhance the ep.
Now I'm off to watch it will Allison.
|
|
|
Post by zimshan on Mar 22, 2006 20:08:39 GMT -5
Thanks, Spring. Good review. If it helps, Jessy Schram is 20 (not 12), making her only 4 years younger than JD. She definitely looks younger, though. That assumes that the biographical stuff on IMDB is right, too. Yes, the actress is actually 20, but I heard that Rob specifically wanted an actress who looked REALLY young. Not just high school young, but REALLY young. I'm not sure if that has any barrings on what is to come or what, but she's supposed to look young for a reason. Perhaps Rob just really wanted it to look just as squicky as it does?
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 20:56:37 GMT -5
Thanks, Spring. Good review. If it helps, Jessy Schram is 20 (not 12), making her only 4 years younger than JD. She definitely looks younger, though. That assumes that the biographical stuff on IMDB is right, too. Yes, the actress is actually 20, but I heard that Rob specifically wanted an actress who looked REALLY young. Not just high school young, but REALLY young. I'm not sure if that has any barrings on what is to come or what, but she's supposed to look young for a reason. Perhaps Rob just really wanted it to look just as squicky as it does? Well - there's no way Rob T wouldn't notice how very very young Hannah looks. I don't know if he was going for "squick" so much as . . . may be just a matter of semantics here, but I'm guessing he was going more for emphasizing the inappropriate side of what Logan is doing. The actress's "look" really emphasizes Hannah's vulnerability and innocence. It is so very easy to see how terribly hurt Hannah would be if she truly became convinced that she never did and never will mean anything more to Logan than a bargaining chip he can use in making a deal with her father. I think Rob wants us looking at the black and white and gray, and this situation - with Logan so understandably desperate, yet with Hannah such a total, total innocent - forces us to do just that. Logan is in such desperate straits, for so many reasons - it takes that "total innocence" to balance that. Otherwise, I think I'd pretty much feel he was justified in his actions, and wouldn't look much farther. Notice the stark, stark, stark contrast between Kendall and Hannah. If Logan was "playing" Kendall somehow - say pretending there was a chance he's marry her and give her big bucks, in an effort to find out some info from her, that he needed for the murder trial - then my sympathies would be totally with Logan. Who cares that he's playing an experienced, savvy player like Kendall? The total innocence of Hannah juxtaposed against the totally desperate circumstances Logan faces, is what provides the real drama and conflict.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Mar 22, 2006 21:22:56 GMT -5
Quote: But it isn’t so much about our needs for food, money or sex, as it is about our common need for love and acceptance:I see I'm not the first one to quote this excellent insight, Spring. I really enjoyed your review. It really brought some things in focus for me. I think Dick and Beaver's dad has something to do with the bus crash - because he's the one that sent out the limo, mostly, and also because he's conveniently out of the country. Other than that - I am pretty clueless at to what all the clues mean.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 22, 2006 22:33:13 GMT -5
Oh, and did anyone else mention that what the detective pulled out of the envelope was a mini-tape? Veronica taped the PCHer wannabee's confession. She put the confession tape in the envelope.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Mar 22, 2006 22:56:35 GMT -5
Edited to add (upfront): And now looking back a bit on this page I see that many of my points below have already been covered. We are especially in agreement about the bus crash. Maybe I should have read up before posting, but I wanted to respond to the review before getting hung up/tired down with my own review. Sue Hey, Spring, I'm just about to rewatch this ep with Allie prior to tonight's new episode, so I may have more comments after the rewatching. Only watching once is certainly not enough at all these days---a fact that was driven home by rewatching episodes 11, 12 and 13 in the past few days. So many things made more sense or seemed much clearer. But I loved your summation of the overall theme: <snip for space> Thanks, Sue. I agree with your thoughts on most of this - though I gotta say - it is kind of a "reach" to interpret "outing" on a gay-chat posting board, to be about something other than homosexuality. Not impossibly, but it does stretch the arm a bit. The only thing I can think of - and this requires some stretching too - that could possibly explain wanting to kill only a busload of "poor kids" would be what I mentioned in one of my other reviews - trying to drive the "poor side of town" out of town, to buy up the real estate . . . only Woody, and as mentioned, Dick's dad have been tied to real-estate type of deals. BUT - that seems so lame. HEY SUE - should we host a "Guess Who Done It" game like Patti did last year? Pixi asked about this and I meant to get your thoughts on it . . .
|
|