S02.E10: I Know Who Did It

[Cranberry]

27 minutes ago, Commando Cody said:

I also didn't get why Poppy killed Bunny. 

Like Cinda told her, art = fart and a podcast is only going to be big if it involves a murder.

[cardigirl]

59 minutes ago, Commando Cody said:

I think they have dropped some things this season. Charles was talking to the prison lady, then suddenly he wasn't. I was glad Amy Schumer was only in the one episode - or was it two? Anyway, I thought she would make one more appearance. I'm glad she didn't. 

Charles sent Zazz to break up with Jan for him. He knew he wouldn't be able to do it himself so he sent his standin to break things off with her.

I'm wondering if we'll see Jan and Zazz as a couple next season.  That would be kind of hilarious. 

[dovegrey]

26 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

Like Cinda told her, art = fart and a podcast is only going to be big if it involves a murder.

It’s a big leap from that to killing someone who had nothing to do with the artist. I wasn’t convinced about why/how Poppy became a murderer, other than Cinda is an asshole and Poppy wanted a promotion. It's a lot to murder someone. This episode would have done well to spend more time on that than taking so much time to set up next season.

I think I missed how Poppy knew about Rose Cooper, how Poppy knew that Bunny had a Rose Cooper painting, why Bunny having a Rose Cooper painting made her a target (doesn't seem like Poppy cared about the money), why Poppy met with Bunny, and/or why Poppy was exploring the Arconia passages before Bunny was killed/before Cinda waged podcast war.

[paigow]

21 hours ago, dovegrey said:

I really hope the writers don't keep killing off/writing off Arconia characters to bolster the main trio's development.

Much like the outlier murder rate per capita  of Cabot Cove boosted Jessica Fletcher,  when the giant glass blimp explodes killing almost everyone in the Arconia, our trio will solve that case on network TV...

[Ilovepie]

49 minutes ago, dovegrey said:

I think I missed how Poppy knew about Rose Cooper, how Poppy knew that Bunny had a Rose Cooper painting, why Bunny having a Rose Cooper painting made her a target (doesn't seem like Poppy cared about the money), why Poppy met with Bunny, and/or why Poppy was exploring the Arconia passages before Bunny was killed/before Cinda waged podcast war.

Or why Bunny had the original painting in the bottom of Mrs. Gambolini's cage which she gave to Oliver and not Charles.

[Aryanna]

I may be wrong here but I think Poppy going back to Oklahoma and not being noticed/recognized is a comment on how insignificant she is/was.

[shapeshifter]

59 minutes ago, dovegrey said:

It’s a big leap from that to killing someone who had nothing to do with the artist. I wasn’t convinced about why/how Poppy became a murderer, other than Cinda is an asshole and Poppy wanted a promotion. It's a lot to murder someone. This episode would have done well to spend more time on that than taking so much time to set up next season.

I think I missed how Poppy knew about Rose Cooper, how Poppy knew that Bunny had a Rose Cooper painting, why Bunny having a Rose Cooper painting made her a target (doesn't seem like Poppy cared about the money), why Poppy met with Bunny, and/or why Poppy was exploring the Arconia passages before Bunny was killed/before Cinda waged podcast war.

Because you are far from alone in feeling there were too many unanswered questions, I do think it was a directorial and sound editing mistake to have made lines exchanged by Poppy and Kreps barely audible in bed in the flash back:

• [KREPS] Yes, you can. She's old. And mean. You deserve this. We both do. You get to be famous, I get a promotion, and we get to move out of this sweaty shit-box.
• [POPPY] Yes.
• [KREPS] You got this.
• [POPPY] I deserve it. I deserve it. ( giggling ) Ooh! Did I tell you about the secret passageways I found?
• [KREPS] What? fսck, I fսck¡n' love you.

[Dobian]

I also was fooled by Charles getting stabbed to death, but I redeemed myself by figuring out it was a ruse before the reveal.  When they showed his body covered by the bloody sheet with Poppy comically stepping over it to talk to Oliver and Mabel, and nary a reaction or expression of grief from Mabel as she started to grill Poppy, I knew he was alive under the sheet.  Great ending.

[dovegrey]

10 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Because you are far from alone in feeling there were too many unanswered questions, I do think it was a directorial and sound editing mistake to have made lines exchanged by Poppy and Kreps barely audible in bed in the flash back:

• [KREPS] Yes, you can. She's old. And mean. You deserve this. We both do. You get to be famous, I get a promotion, and we get to move out of this sweaty shit-box.
• [POPPY] Yes.
• [KREPS] You got this.
• [POPPY] I deserve it. I deserve it. ( giggling ) Ooh! Did I tell you about the secret passageways I found?
• [KREPS] What? fսck, I fսck¡n' love you.

I heard that part. I still don’t entirely buy it or why she murdered Bunny, given how little else with Bunny and Poppy was explained. It’s like the writers didn’t decide Poppy was the killer until episode 7 or 8 (which I know wasn’t the case), tried to make it work, said to hell with it and then went HEY LOOK PAUL RUDD ONE YEAR LATER. I get that it’s an unpopular opinion but a good story needs a good plot.

[KerleyQ]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:36 PM, shapeshifter said:

I kept hoping that Bunny wasn't really dead, but, alas, we only got Charles with the fake knife and the fake blood (not that I wanted Charlies to die!).

I had a moment of hope that Bunny was really alive right after Mabel found out Poppy was Becky. Since the subject of one Cinda podcast wasn't really dead, I figured maybe Bunny wasn't either, and that Cinda's podcasts were normally about fake mysteries she essentially writes. Sadly, not the case. 

21 hours ago, buckboard said:

How did Poppy know about the secret passages in the building?

Since she was after Bunny for the painting, she likely watched her and discovered them. 

14 hours ago, Haleth said:

Was Cinda in on the plan to get Becky to confess?  I couldn't tell if she knew what was going on or not.  Was Becky trying to frame Cinda or Mabel for Bunny's murder?  Or maybe no one and let the mystery evolve organically?

I figured Cinda was in on it from the way she was gushing over Mabel. Cinda doesn't gush over anyone but Cinda. So, that had to be an act. 

12 hours ago, questionfear said:

One thing that hit me about the Poppy/Becky change in hairstyle-I think it's supposed to drive home how very forgettable Becky was. She was so plain and boring to the people around her that someone with a new haircut, glasses, a different accent, and a totally different context didn't twig anyone's suspicions. Which drives home how sad she truly was as Becky. No one knew or remembered her well enough in life to recognize her in a disguise. They only cared about her as a symbolic dead girl.

After we saw the flashbacks of her life, and then her missing person case being reported on the news, I said to my son "I wonder who even noticed and cared enough to report her missing." 

3 hours ago, dovegrey said:

It’s a big leap from that to killing someone who had nothing to do with the artist. I wasn’t convinced about why/how Poppy became a murderer, other than Cinda is an asshole and Poppy wanted a promotion. It's a lot to murder someone. This episode would have done well to spend more time on that than taking so much time to set up next season.

I think I missed how Poppy knew about Rose Cooper, how Poppy knew that Bunny had a Rose Cooper painting, why Bunny having a Rose Cooper painting made her a target (doesn't seem like Poppy cared about the money), why Poppy met with Bunny, and/or why Poppy was exploring the Arconia passages before Bunny was killed/before Cinda waged podcast war.

We never saw exactly how Poppy became interested in Rose's story, but it was something she was already interested in before she met Cinda, since she proposed it as a podcast idea during that initial meeting. Maybe she came across her story while she was researching how to disappear with no trace herself? And she clearly did her research, because she knew about the painting and that Bunny had it, and it seems she knew that was Charles's father in the painting.  

As for it being a reason to kill, well, she's clearly nuts. She looked at Cinda's telling her that there needed to be a murder, and she looked at Bunny who was refusing to give/sell her the painting, and, in her mind, murdering Bunny and framing Mabel, Oliver, and Charles became the answer to her problem. 

What's less clear to me is why she didn't take that opportunity, then, to break free from Cinda and do her own podcast. Why orchestrate this story for a podcast and let Cinda profit from it, including even giving her the title?  She and Kreps were talking about how much money she was going to make, but it would seem that they skipped the part of their plan that enables them to make that money. 

2 hours ago, Ilovepie said:

Or why Bunny had the original painting in the bottom of Mrs. Gambolini's cage which she gave to Oliver and not Charles.

I assume she was hiding it because of Poppy badgering her about it. And she wanted to leave Mrs. G to Oliver to drive him crazy, but she also probably figured that, given how close the two of them are, the painting would still get to Charles. 

[jabRI]

2 hours ago, Aryanna said:

I may be wrong here but I think Poppy going back to Oklahoma and not being noticed/recognized is a comment on how insignificant she is/was.

I know this is a popular opinion, but I disagree.  Doesn't matter how insignificant you were before.  Once you are 'news' your face is everywhere.  I'm from Detroit and when Hoffa went missing his picture was in the paper every day, with constant civilian 'sightings'.  So while I understand the sentiment, I don't buy the story.  But love the show, it's just an observation.

[kay1864]

11 hours ago, Roxie said:

in the row behind MS, SM, and SG.

Has anyone noticed the common initials, that we can henceforth refer to them as SMSG?

(damn I’m so clever)

[bettername2come]

How could someone kill Paul Rudd? I could've sworn he was immortal!

[Pepper Mostly]

12 hours ago, Ilovepie said:

I think it's best to not over analyze the mystery or there are just too many plot holes. I really don't care that much though. The three together are such a delight I don't even care that much. I can't wait for Season Three!

I'm with you here. I just shrugged and wrote off the painting subplot and the other red herrings as just that. I just read a book about a Harvard student who was murdered in 1969--she was an archaeology grad student and was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment, with red ochre sprinkled over her body. This substance is commonly found in burial sites in many places. Everyone was obsessed with the red ochre! It had to be significant! It pointed to a ritual of some kind and so the killer had to be another person who understood that. Rumors swirled for decades about colleagues and professors and fellow students. 

Spoiler

But years later DNA evidence revealed that the killer was not anyone affiliated with Harvard or the greater community. It was a career criminal who'd died in state prison years before. Just a random, horrible crime. 

To me the whodunit was always secondary. I just love the clever writing and I love Steve Martin and Martin Short and Selena Gomez together and I love peeling back the layers of their backstories, along with their fellow residents of the Arconia. 

[smartymarty]

1 hour ago, Pepper Mostly said:

To me the whodunit was always secondary. I just love the clever writing and I love Steve Martin and Martin Short and Selena Gomez together and I love peeling back the layers of their backstories, along with their fellow residents of the Arconia. 

Me too. However, it does bother me that (1) Poppy didn't clean her fingerprints off the knife she planted in Oliver's kitchen to frame him, and (2) had the threesome turned over the knife to the police immediately-- rather than inhibit a murder investigation -- the murder would have been solved much, much earlier (someone else can look up which episode it was that they found the knife), as that was the only evidence pointing to Poppy.

Looking forward to the smug-off between Paul Rudd and Steve Martin.

[FGomez]

I would like to comment two things

(1) People are discussing if the "solution" is plausible (which I think is not, but whatever). But you are overlooking a more important fact. That is, there was exactly zero hints before the end of ep.9. Episodes 2 to 8 were irrelevant in order to solve the mystery. And of course there is no chance of imagining that Poppy could be Becky until she herself told that, out of the blue.

(2) People are saying that they are here for the comedy, that they don't care about the mystery. But fact is 90% of messages in the forum are related to the mystery, including here a lot of them saying that the mystery doesn't matter.

We are watching the series, trying to solve the mystery and then ... boom! a comedy gem explodes. This is what makes this series special. After a bad mystery in season 1 and a even worse mystery in season 2, that magic could be lost in season 3.

[JenE4]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:26 AM, AnimeMania said:

Charles didn't even use the scary type of tomato, he had to squeeze it to get any juice out. Everybody knows the scary ones have the reddish-green seed blobs that ooze out as soon as you cut it!

The problem was that he cut the tomato vertically through the stem instead of horizontally to expose all the gooey seeds and whatnot. Someone on set should have caught that and refilmed.

Anyway, I’m glad to see that I wasn’t the only one confused by the reveal—and even happier to see others fill in some of the blanks I missed, such as Poppy originally wanting to create this art mystery podcast. It just didn’t make any sense to me why “Poppy” wouldn’t just create the Becky mystery podcast on her own. If she’s the one creating the whole mystery and telling Cinda what to record, why not just do it herself? But I guess that falls into the category of if the two main characters just talked to each other, there wouldn’t be a movie/show. The person who killed Bunny appeared to be a tall man, yet wasn’t it Krepps who did it, with Poppy as an accomplice? They’re saying Poppy actually performed the stabbing? We’re just supposed to accept that was Poppy—and they specifically filmed with another actor so we couldn’t tell it was Poppy?!? Okay… I think I’m also confused about the painting mystery overall, but I guess I’ll read the other threads. This season was definitely entertaining and funny. I just had a hard time following it. Even season 1 when the Jan thing came out of the blue, I still understood what was happening and why each character was a suspect. But I think that was a key difference in the seasons. Season 1 the episodes were a bit more stand-alone with every episode focusing on one suspect with one key piece of evidence—until they ultimately cleared that person and found a new piece of evidence for the next episode. This season was a lot more jumbled up with the clues and suspects, so I had a harder time following the mystery plotline. I’m not sure what this says about my mental capacity that I was befuddled trying to follow a silly show, but there you have it. Maybe another woman down to long-haul COVID brain fog? Lol. Are we going with that or just poor writing?

Edited August 25, 2022 by JenE4

[Commando Cody]

15 hours ago, cardigirl said:

Charles sent Zazz to break up with Jan for him. He knew he wouldn't be able to do it himself so he sent his standin to break things off with her.

I'm wondering if we'll see Jan and Zazz as a couple next season.  That would be kind of hilarious. 

Oh yeah. I forgot all about that.  I meant to watch the season again before the final, but I didn't have the time. 

[Suzn]

4 hours ago, Pepper Mostly said:

To me the whodunit was always secondary. I just love the clever writing and I love Steve Martin and Martin Short and Selena Gomez together and I love peeling back the layers of their backstories, along with their fellow residents of the Arconia. 

Exactly!  I can pick at the loose threads and complain about plot holes, but none of that detracts from my enjoyment of that fabulous trio and associated characters.

I could have done without Amy Schumer but her part was very small.  I've never been particularly a fan of Shirley MacLaine but she was perfect as Rose Cooper.  There are no small unimportant roles OMITB!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, FGomez said:

2) People are saying that they are here for the comedy, that they don't care about the mystery. But fact is 90% of messages in the forum are related to the mystery, including here a lot of them saying that the mystery doesn't matter.

For me there is a difference between the plausibility of every detail of the mystery not mattering and the mystery not mattering. I was interested in the mystery but not in a follow every clue way. 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, JenE4 said:

The person who killed Bunny appeared to be a tall man, yet wasn’t it Krepps who did it, with Poppy as an accomplice? They’re saying Poppy actually performed the stabbing? We’re just supposed to accept that was Poppy—and they specifically filmed with another actor so we couldn’t tell it was Poppy?!?

I can somewhat clear up this one:

• Jayne Houdyshell/Bunny is just 4'9" (networthageheight.com/jayne-houdyshell-net-worth) especially at home in her slippers.
   

• Adina Verson/Poppy/Becky is 5'7" (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6418951/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm) and probably at least 5'9" in the Doc Martin-ish boots.

But I have no clue about the heights of the body doubles. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by shapeshifter

[FGomez]

56 minutes ago, Dani said:

For me there is a difference between the plausibility of every detail of the mystery not mattering and the mystery not mattering. I was interested in the mystery but not in a follow every clue way. 

I don't think that plausibility is even a requirement in a whodunit. Look at the most famous books by Agatha Christie: The Orient Express and Then There were none (10 little n***). The solutions are not plausible, in the sense that those kinds of things don't happen in real life.

But there are other requirements. The solution has to be coherent (including coherent with the personality of the murderer), and there has to be enough hints for the mystery to be solvable. And the motive has to be solid and known by the reader. The litmus test is that, if you reread the book from the beginning, knowing already the solution, then you spot the hints, and everything makes sense.

This doesn't happen in this series. Poppy could pronounce Chikasee correctly, so we know she is Becky ... what?  No, no, no hints at all. Poppy is decided to escape from her town, but then she goes back? Poppy can't face her father or her bosses, but has no problem to force Bunny into another apartment and stab her in cold blood? For what reason? No, no, the pair murder-murderer is very incoherent.

Please, if somebody can talk to Steve Martin, tell him to hire a mystery writer. He is very talented for other things, but no for this.

Edited August 25, 2022 by FGomez

[Aryanna]

15 hours ago, jabRI said:

I know this is a popular opinion, but I disagree.  Doesn't matter how insignificant you were before.  Once you are 'news' your face is everywhere.  I'm from Detroit and when Hoffa went missing his picture was in the paper every day, with constant civilian 'sightings'.  So while I understand the sentiment, I don't buy the story.  But love the show, it's just an observation.

I agree with you in the real world. I just read it as the show being humorous and taking a jab at her insignificance.

[chaifan]

So sad this season is over, so happy with how they set up Season 3, and yep, pretty confused about everything in between...

First, I agree with those who said above the mystery is secondary to the joy in watching Martin, Short and Gomez together.  As I said prior, I'd be happy watching them do the daily Wordle and chatting about events of the day.  But, as others have pointed out, what's the point of revolving a show around a murder (per season) and having so many unanswered questions in the end?  I think they need to find that happy medium spot for Season 3.

Killer Reveal Party... I'm confused as to how much the Arconians were in on the whole plan.  The reactions to Charles being stabbed seemed very real, but they could have all been acting.  But if that was the case, why were they all surprised when he stood back up?  They all gasped, as if they really thought he was dead.  So did they not know about the fake stabbing ahead of time?  And only Alice was in on the whole thing?  What would be the point of acting surprised that he was alive if Poppy/Becky was already confessing?

For those wondering, yes, Cinda was in on the killer reveal plan.  Charles said (upon revival) that they told her about Becky/Poppy, and her comments afterwards confirmed it.  "I know the game you played with me in Oklahoma, and they know the game you played with them in this overpriced building." 

I do wish they had left a few little crumbs earlier in the season that would have led back to Poppy.  Sneezing around birds (the Mayor could have had a bird), chats with maintenance guy during podcast interviews with him revealing the passageways, did she ever order the #14 sandwich earlier in the series?  They could have done this, with enough other misdirect to keep us wondering.  (Or was this all done and I missed it?)

Speaking of the #14 sandwich, when the 3 asked Ivan (the waiter) about it, he said it was the owner's sister's favorite sandwich.  I really thought that was going to tie in somehow.  That that was how Poppy ended up in NY - some distant relation or other connection to the diner.  But nope. 

It was also weird to see Mabel being friendly with with Alice at the end.  After all, everything Mabel said in the Killer Reveal Party about Alice using her to benefit her gallery was correct.  I'm surprised she wants anything to do with her.

And, finally... Paul Rudd!  Squee!  So looking forward to Season 3!  My guess as to the "her"...  it will be someone new.  Not Lucy, not the ex wife, not the girlfriend, not Mabel. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, FGomez said:

I don't think that plausibility is even a requirement in a whodunit. Look at the most famous books by Agatha Christie: The Orient Express and Then There were none (10 little n***). The solutions are not plausible, in the sense that those kinds of things don't happen in real life.

But there are other requirements. The solution has to be coherent (including coherent with the personality of the murderer), and there has to be enough hints for the mystery to be solvable. And the motive has to be solid and known by the reader. The litmus test is that, if you reread the book from the beginning, knowing already the solution, then you spot the hints, and everything makes sense.

What makes a good mystery and what a good mystery show are not the same to me. I agree that this wasn’t a good mystery but that doesn’t matter much to me because it was still a good show. The mystery was passable enough that I don’t care about the details that are bothering other people.

I don’t care that it wasn’t possible to figure out that Poppy was Becky. There was enough of the dynamics between Poppy and Cinda for me to be okay with the resolution. I don’t care if it wasn’t possible that the person we saw in flashback to have been Poppy. I always viewed them as a formless stand-in for the real killer because Charles, Oliver and Mabel didn’t see those things. 

I still enjoyed the mystery elements within the show enough that the overall quality of the mystery itself doesn’t really matter to me. 

[shapeshifter]

41 minutes ago, chaifan said:

Speaking of the #14 sandwich, when the 3 asked Ivan (the waiter) about it, he said it was the owner's sister's favorite sandwich.  I really thought that was going to tie in somehow.  That that was how Poppy ended up in NY - some distant relation or other connection to the diner.  But nope. 

Ivan's remark about the "liverwurst and marmalade" sandwich being the "owner's sister's favorite" is, IMO, a skillfully concocted red herring by the writers to keep the audience and Mabel distracted from looking up that sandwich on the menu:
     The #14 sandwich
and from noticing that "14 sandwich" sounds like "14 Savage."

Both times I watched the episode, these descriptives were very distracting.
They work so well as distractions/red herrings because "owner's sister's" pairs 2 possessives, and "liverwurst and marmalade" are 2 sandwich ingredients that virtually no one has ever considered pairing.

Also, someone upthread questioned why Bunny's last words to name her killer would be "14 sandwich" rather than "Poppy White."
Poppy/Becky was just as invisible to Bunny as she was to almost everyone in her life. To Bunny, Poppy/Becky was nameless; she was just the "#14 sandwich."

And Bunny probably knew Rose was in hiding, not dead, and did not want to help the #14 sandwich girl with her true crime podcast, which made Bunny another person thwarting Poppy's dreams.

Edited August 25, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Snazzy Daisy]

One Killer Q for S02•E10
 

[shapeshifter]

35 minutes ago, SnazzyDaisy said:

One Killer Q for S02•E10
 

Thank you for posting this, @SnazzyDaisy!

I flove Jayne Houdyshell's last line, speaking as Bunny to Poppy, starting at the 6 minute mark:

Spoiler

Poppy, I hope you are happy at your new home in prison, because you would *never* pass board approval at the Arconia.

And, even though Adina Verson says here Poppy's reason to kill Bunny was that Bunny was an easy mark, that does not totally negate the idea that Poppy had spoken to Bunny about  Rose's disappearance. 
IDK.

[Irlandesa]

8 hours ago, FGomez said:

I would like to comment two things

(1) People are discussing if the "solution" is plausible (which I think is not, but whatever). But you are overlooking a more important fact. That is, there was exactly zero hints before the end of ep.9. Episodes 2 to 8 were irrelevant in order to solve the mystery.

Poppy may not have been an immediate suspect but I do think Cinda was suspected earlier in the season.  The increase in the importance of Poppy's prominence as Cinda's minion made me put her on my list even though I couldn't quite come up with a motive.  I realized it was her last week even as they seemingly went all in on Cinda.

I am not all that bothered that not all the clues lines up or even that Poppy might have come out of nowhere to some.  A lot of mystery shows are like that.  They might provide a motive for a lot of people.  Or maybe even a red herring or two. But ultimately, a lot of them pull the perpetrator out of thin air and retroactively show clues that aren't shown to the audience until the "This is how they did it" moment.  I'm thinking of shows like Murder She Wrote, Psych, Death In Paradise and Monk are like that.  

And I'd rather have it be some side character than lose some of the great residents of the Alconia.

[Natalie68]

On 8/22/2022 at 10:50 PM, TakomaSnark said:

Andrea Martin is an international treasure. She played Julie Klausner's mother on Difficult People for three seasons, also on Hulu. She was wonderful and had a great episode where she and Tina Fey (as herself, directing an episode of The Blacklist) were day drinking and discussing the best cameras for making older women looking young (the Fonda 5000 😁😁).

Love her!  The Robin Williams movie Club Paradise has her in it and she is a scream!  The shower scene is hilarious!

[jabRI]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Also, someone upthread questioned why Bunny's last words to name her killer would be "14 sandwich" rather than "Poppy White."

I was just going to say this, thank you!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, jabRI said:

I was just going to say this, thank you!

I would assume because the dying brain isn’t coherent and she didn’t know Poppy’s very well. 

[Snapdragon]

7 hours ago, chaifan said:

First, I agree with those who said above the mystery is secondary to the joy in watching Martin, Short and Gomez together.  As I said prior, I'd be happy watching them do the daily Wordle and chatting about events of the day.  But, as others have pointed out, what's the point of revolving a show around a murder (per season) and having so many unanswered questions in the end?  I think they need to find that happy medium spot for Season 3.

I agree with so much of this.  I feel that there's really no point in including a mystery in a show unless you're actually going to put some effort into making that mystery worthwhile.  If you want to make a show that's more about the characters than the mystery, then episodic is really the way to go.  Something more along the lines of Bones, Castle, Psych, etc (Or going further back, Murder She Wrote and Matlock.  Sidenote: I used to watch the crap out of Matlock as a kid.  Loved that show!)  The mystery writing probably would have been stronger if they did mini mysteries that lasted one to three episodes, with the season long arcs being ones that revolved around the characters' personal lives.  That being said, it's not like they're going to change the format of the show now so they need to hire some stronger mystery writers.  They should get some of the writers who worked on Desperate Housewives.  That show was able to showcase fun, witty characters and outrageous comedic situations while still having an engaging and thought out mystery going on in the background (Well, the first five seasons, anyway).

[CraftyHazel]

On 8/24/2022 at 9:14 PM, jabRI said:

I know this is a popular opinion, but I disagree.  Doesn't matter how insignificant you were before.  Once you are 'news' your face is everywhere.  I'm from Detroit and when Hoffa went missing his picture was in the paper every day, with constant civilian 'sightings'.  So while I understand the sentiment, I don't buy the story.  But love the show, it's just an observation.

John Liszt, anyone?  Yes, I know he was pre-internet, but his photos were out there, the case was covered on TV, and he managed to hide in plain sight for 20 years.

John Liszt

[Irlandesa]

42 minutes ago, CraftyHazel said:

John Liszt, anyone?  Yes, I know he was pre-internet, but his photos were out there, the case was covered on TV, and he managed to hide in plain sight for 20 years.

Yeah.  It's amazing how much a different hair color, glasses and a different makeup job can fool people.  Just think about how many times an actress is declared "unrecognizable" when they're photographed without makeup on, in sweats or with a few extra pounds on them.

[FGomez]

1 hour ago, CraftyHazel said:

John Liszt, anyone?  Yes, I know he was pre-internet, but his photos were out there, the case was covered on TV, and he managed to hide in plain sight for 20 years.

John Liszt

According to wikipedia, John List lived with his family in New Jersey and, after the crime, he settled in Denver.

[cardigirl]

21 hours ago, FGomez said:

I don't think that plausibility is even a requirement in a whodunit. Look at the most famous books by Agatha Christie: The Orient Express and Then There were none (10 little n***). The solutions are not plausible, in the sense that those kinds of things don't happen in real life.

But there are other requirements. The solution has to be coherent (including coherent with the personality of the murderer), and there has to be enough hints for the mystery to be solvable. And the motive has to be solid and known by the reader. The litmus test is that, if you reread the book from the beginning, knowing already the solution, then you spot the hints, and everything makes sense.

This doesn't happen in this series. Poppy could pronounce Chikasee correctly, so we know she is Becky ... what?  No, no, no hints at all. Poppy is decided to escape from her town, but then she goes back? Poppy can't face her father or her bosses, but has no problem to force Bunny into another apartment and stab her in cold blood? For what reason? No, no, the pair murder-murderer is very incoherent.

Please, if somebody can talk to Steve Martin, tell him to hire a mystery writer. He is very talented for other things, but no for this.

I have to say, I agree with this. There are rules for mystery writers, they're called "fair play" and I don't think this show, which began as a murder podcast of the trio trying to figure out Who Killed Tim Kono, played fair in this season.  

I do enjoy the comedy, the pathos, and the "vibe" that the show has created, making us all want to see more of the characters' lives. That's a wonderful achievement, and something I relish. 

But I am a little disappointed that they didn't at least try to make it more solvable this season. 

Last season, many suspected Jan, but it wasn't until the very last episode that we were told the MOTIVE for the murder. The trio found the bassoon cleaner early in the investigation, and I think many people figured out what that was waaaay before the end of the series, which definitely turned the spotlight on Jan.  I don't think we were given any kind of clue like that this season. 

Nevertheless, I enjoy this show so much, I'm sad this season is done, and I am really looking forward to Season 3. If we will get more of a mystery in that series, who knows? But I definitely want to see how the characters' lives are going. And I hope for some loose ends to be tied up. 🕵️‍♀️

Edited August 26, 2022 by cardigirl

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, cardigirl said:

I have to say, I agree with this. There are rules for mystery writers, they're called "fair play" and I don't think this show, which began as a murder podcast of the trio trying to figure out Who Killed Tim Kono, played fair in this season.  

I do enjoy the comedy, the pathos, and the "vibe" that the show has created, making us all want to see more of the characters' lives. That's a wonderful achievement, and something I relish. 

But I am a little disappointed that they didn't at least try to make it more solvable this season. 

Last season, many suspected Jan, but it wasn't until the very last episode that we were told the MOTIVE for the murder. The trio found the bassoon cleaner early in the investigation, and I think many people figured out what that was waaaay before the end of the series, which definitely turned the spotlight on Jan.  I don't think we were given any kind of clue like that this season. 

Nevertheless, I enjoy this show so much, I'm sad this season is done, and I am really looking forward to Season 3. If we will get more of a mystery in that series, who knows? But I definitely want to see how the characters' lives are going. And I hope for some loose ends to be tied up. 🕵️‍♀️

I didn't find the first season much easier to follow. 🤔

I'm leaning towards accepting that this is not your grandmother's (who would be me 👵🏻) murder mystery——that they are playing around with social media and inevitable spoilers as part of the solve. If that is the case, I may be off the case🕵️‍♀️ but still watch the show.

Alternatively, maybe they are just going with more of a far-out, dark comedy, Twin Peaks vibe. 
I can't be the only one who thought of Twin Peaks when they did the slo-mo bit to freak out Cinda. 

But I will try to rewatch the season and see if the clues fit together for me now that I know whodunnit.

Edited August 26, 2022 by shapeshifter

[cardigirl]

Just now, shapeshifter said:

I didn't find the first season much easier to follow. 🤔

I'm leaning towards accepting that this is not your grandmother's (who would be me😉) murder mystery——that they are playing around with social media and inevitable spoilers as part of the solve. If that is the case, I may be off the case,🕵️‍♀️but still watch the show.

Alternatively, maybe they are just going with more of a far-out, dark comedy, Twin Peaks vibe. 
I can't be the only one who thought of Twin Peaks when they did the slo-mo bit to freak out Cinda. 

But I will try to rewatch the season and see if the clues fit together for me now that I know whodunnit.

I fall into the same category (grandmother), but you can have a mystery that's written well enough to keep people guessing, while following the rules of fair play. 

And to be honest, a good amount of the popularity of this show is because people enjoy trying to figure out the mystery, as well as laughing at the comedy and great lines. 

I have rewatched the season, and I'm not finding much in the way of "Oh, I should have known!" moments in it. But I am laughing a lot! 😁

[Cranberry]

I'm kinda torn, because on the one hand I didn't care all that much about the mystery resolution and was just along for the ride (which was easier with season one because I waited until the entire season had aired and just binged it, which didn't leave me much time to wonder about suspects), but on the other hand, I don't think we should just accept lazy writing... and even though I love the show, I think an unsolvable mystery with unclear motivation is lazy writing. We shouldn't have to be headcanon-ing why Poppy did what she did; it should have been clear.

[Suzn]

The bottom line for me is that I really don't care enough about the mystery to worry about the fact I will never solve it ahead of time.  There are some very good guessers who had it pretty well figured out, but I don't think that solid clues were given.  The good guessers filled in gaps with their own imaginations.

Anyway...I am watching for other reasons.  I was looking forward to the denouement, but I miss them already!

[Milburn Stone]

Well this season was...diverting, I suppose.

I'm not enamored of the many "meta" bits they inserted into the dialogue this season. Those comments about the podcast that were really about the show itself, wink wink. Like when Martin Short said "this isn't very good for a finale"---or whatever he said. 

[shapeshifter]

3 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

I'm kinda torn, because on the one hand I didn't care all that much about the mystery resolution and was just along for the ride (which was easier with season one because I waited until the entire season had aired and just binged it, which didn't leave me much time to wonder about suspects), but on the other hand, I don't think we should just accept lazy writing... and even though I love the show, I think an unsolvable mystery with unclear motivation is lazy writing. We shouldn't have to be headcanon-ing why Poppy did what she did; it should have been clear.

I'm always skeptical of the "lazy writing" descriptor in reference to high-quality shows like this, where I just don't think that would happen.
I can't help concluding that the lack of clear cluing in the dialog and action and camera focus was deliberate
——like some kind of experiment that didn't work as well as hoped for?
——like that lack of cluing on-screen was a conscious choice to let the inevitable social media buzz play a part?
——sort of an "if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach in reference to social media (if not spoilers)?

I keep coming back to this information you posted in the media thread, @Cranberry (thank you) and wonder if the initial decision to send potentially spoilery episodes to reviewers was made in concert with Martin and Short or other OMITB producers or writers:

On 8/24/2022 at 5:30 AM, Cranberry said:

Hulu sent screeners to a number of reviewers, some of whom were unscrupulous and leaked major spoilers. Collider accidentally posted a spoiler-filled article before they meant to, and although they took it down, the damage had already been done (and a cached copy of the article was still available). Also . . .

IDK. 
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I really do need to rewatch to come to a definite conclusion——which makes me glad the episodes are not too long or numerous.
Maybe they did *NOT* expect spoiler leakage by Hulu, but *DID* anticipate a lot of online sleuthing, and so deliberately left out a lot of clues to be sure the denouement was a surprise?

[Cranberry]

I hate that, though. It's not what happened with this show*, but there have been so many instances of showrunners changing their finale plans because viewers correctly guessed the identity of a killer or Gossip Girl or whoever. Some writers become so consumed with surprising people that they'll prioritize that over a conclusion that makes sense. I would much, much rather pick up on all the little clues and correctly guess a mystery's solution than have it come out of nowhere and "surprise" me. Showrunners should reward their viewers for being clever, not punish them by changing a planned-but-guessed conclusion to something that they couldn't have predicted. 

*I think with this show, they went with what they'd always intended, but deliberately didn't include enough clues to actually solve it before the finale.

[Irlandesa]

16 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I'm always skeptical of the "lazy writing" descriptor in reference to high-quality shows like this, where I just don't think that would happen.
I can't help concluding that the lack of clear cluing in the dialog and action and camera focus was deliberate
——like some kind of experiment that didn't work as well as hoped for?
——like that lack of cluing on-screen was a conscious choice to let the inevitable social media buzz play a part?
——sort of an "if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach in reference to social media (if not spoilers)?

I agree.  I get calling it not satisfying.  I get wishing there were more clues.  I don't think this was in any way lazy writing. I think they worked hard to get to where they wanted to go but maybe too hard to obfuscate and not enough to reveal.

10 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

I would much, much rather pick up on all the little clues and correctly guess a mystery's solution than have it come out of nowhere and "surprise" me.

True.  But then they'd face the criticism of it being "too easy." 

I would like to know more about what happened in OK, though.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Irlandesa

[shapeshifter]

1 minute ago, Cranberry said:

I hate that, though. It's not what happened with this show, but there have been so many instances of showrunners changing their finale plans because viewers correctly guessed the identity of a killer or Gossip Girl or whoever. Some writers become so consumed with surprising people that they'll prioritize that over a conclusion that makes sense. I would much, much rather pick up on all the little clues and correctly guess a mystery's solution than have it come out of nowhere and "surprise" me. Showrunners should reward their viewers for being clever, not punish them by changing a planned-but-guessed conclusion to something that they couldn't have predicted. 

I just hope that the writers, editors, etc. didn't make changes out of frustration after learning that Hulu would be sending out copies of episodes to reviewers before they aired. 

Actually, it didn't occur to me that anything was changed——although, now that you mention it, I will cogitate on that possibility when I rewatch——rather, I just thought that they may have left intended bits on the cutting room floor to counteract the spoilers.
For example, as I posted upthread, although we didn't see it until this episode, I thought the audio in the bed scene with Poppy and Kreps was muted to the point of being almost inaudible. 
Maybe that bed conversation and some other flashbacks in this episode were originally intended for earlier episodes and were moved to #10 to prevent clever tweets and reddits from ruining it for the rest of us (never mind Hulu's promotional sharing)? Even here in our "Only Speculation Without Spoilers In the Thread" I reached a point of considering avoiding that thread because some of the posters were just so good at figuring things out. 

Speaking of which:
@FGomez, if you ever apply for a job with the FBI or the NSA or anywhere else that requires a lot of deductive reasoning, and you want a letter of recommendation from a retired college librarian, anyone for whom I've ever written such a letter has always gotten the job. 😉

[Milburn Stone]

25 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I'm always skeptical of the "lazy writing" descriptor in reference to high-quality shows like this, where I just don't think that would happen. I can't help concluding that the lack of clear cluing in the dialog and action and camera focus was deliberate...

I hate the "lazy writing" epithet also, but I don't go from there to concluding that any given results were deliberate. Writing is hard! Writing a scripted TV series is especially hard. You can be a very un-lazy, very hard-working, very talented, very detail-oriented writer and still come up short. 

[shapeshifter]

One more thing about 

32 minutes ago, Cranberry said:

Some writers become so consumed with surprising people that they'll prioritize that over a conclusion that makes sense. I would much, much rather pick up on all the little clues and correctly guess a mystery's solution than have it come out of nowhere and "surprise" me. Showrunners should reward their viewers for being clever, not punish them by changing a planned-but-guessed conclusion to something that they couldn't have predicted. 

Do the more expert mystery watchers among you think this was fair play for a mystery or not:

Quote

TVLINE | We saw quite a bit of Bunny’s killer, either masked or from behind, before the big reveal — first when she approached Bunny’s front door, then inside the Arcatacombs, then in diner surveillance footage. Did you shoot any of that, or did you have a stand-in?

VERSON | It was me inside the Arcatacombs. Originally I was supposed to do all of those [scenes], but [that changed] after we did Episode 4. I remember I put on the suit and the mask, but you could still make out the shape of my legs. It was clearly a specific body type, so they had me go back up and put on big Carhartt pants. At one point, the director was like, “Umm, can you hunch just so we don’t see your breasts?” [Laughs] It was just a very physical scene — don’t show my legs, walk a different way, hold my weight differently, hunch my shoulders — so after that, they said we need to have [a stand-in]. Also, being on location, passersby wouldn’t go, “Oh, that’s the actor who plays Poppy sitting with Bunny!”

https://tvline.com/lists/only-murders-in-the-building-bunny-killer-becky-butler-poppy-explained/adina-verson-interview-2/

 

***********************

8 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I hate the "lazy writing" epithet also, but I don't go from there to concluding that any given results were deliberate. Writing is hard! Writing a scripted TV series is especially hard. You can be a very un-lazy, very hard-working, very talented, very detail-oriented writer and still come up short. 

True. I hope we get some interviews that clarify intent, regrets, etc. regarding the denouement.

Edited August 26, 2022 by shapeshifter

[cardigirl]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Well this season was...diverting, I suppose.

I'm not enamored of the many "meta" bits they inserted into the dialogue this season. Those comments about the podcast that were really about the show itself, wink wink. Like when Martin Short said "this isn't very good for a finale"---or whatever he said. 

"This doesn't feel like a finale."

34 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

One more thing about 

Do the more expert mystery watchers among you think this was fair play for a mystery or not

***********************

True. I hope we get some interviews that clarify intent, regrets, etc. regarding the denouement.

I think I posted earlier about fair play and I didn't think this season met those requirements. As far as "lazy writing" I'm not sure that's correct, but I notice that I find that when rewatching Season 1, the story and dialogue all seem "tighter."  It is well-crafted. Second season, they made so many jokes about how a second season never hits the same way as a first, I found it mildly amusing at first, but later was mostly rolling my eyes and wondering if they were trying to apologize for the storyline. Were they anticipating disappointment? 

Unpopular opinion: I didn't love the slo-mo antics during the reveal party. Excuse me, the KILLER reveal partyl  Those didn't make me laugh. Not like the elevator fight between Oliver and Teddy did. That was spectacular. However; Cinda's reactions to the slo-mo were very good. And through the tomato.  Tina Fey was great through those scenes.

Like I said earlier too, the show has a vibe that I love, and despite the mystery being secondary, I will always recommend people watch it. I'm totally in for next season too. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by cardigirl

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Do the more expert mystery watchers among you think this was fair play for a mystery or not:

Quote

TVLINE | We saw quite a bit of Bunny’s killer, either masked or from behind, before the big reveal — first when she approached Bunny’s front door, then inside the Arcatacombs, then in diner surveillance footage. Did you shoot any of that, or did you have a stand-in?

VERSON | It was me inside the Arcatacombs. Originally I was supposed to do all of those [scenes], but [that changed] after we did Episode 4. I remember I put on the suit and the mask, but you could still make out the shape of my legs. It was clearly a specific body type, so they had me go back up and put on big Carhartt pants. At one point, the director was like, “Umm, can you hunch just so we don’t see your breasts?” [Laughs] It was just a very physical scene — don’t show my legs, walk a different way, hold my weight differently, hunch my shoulders — so after that, they said we need to have [a stand-in]. Also, being on location, passersby wouldn’t go, “Oh, that’s the actor who plays Poppy sitting with Bunny!”

https://tvline.com/lists/only-murders-in-the-building-bunny-killer-becky-butler-poppy-explained/adina-verson-interview-2/

I do because any smart killer who planned something like this should also plan ways to disguise their body type. It would bother me if the stand in was noticeable smaller than the actor playing the killer. Or if the showed a noticeable feature the real killer could have had