S01.E09: The Garveys At Their Best

[ganesh]

Because there would be a serious lack of knowledge about the world and people would be desperately trying to make sense of what happened if the show was only 6 months out. Kevin has been "investigating the GR" for a year and doesn't have any information. For that to be the case, three years out, I just don't buy. None of the cops know anything. The federal agencies know nothing? We live in a world where the government has data on everything. They wouldn't use that? 

 

They did the time jump as a cheat to not establish the motivations of the characters. And they're not flashing back to < 3 years to actually establish their motivations. I don't buy that Laurie joined the GR because I really don't think she would have abandoned her kids. Of course, Tom could have left for some reason. It would be good to know that. How long has Matt been on his kick? It would explain better his state of mind that he thinks he's Job. 

 

Obviously, I'm not ganesh, but I would also be tempted to see a "just after" episode...or even a couple scenes, if only to establish that in "The Leftover" universe, people react to earth-shattering events the same as they do in this universe.

 

Basically. People aren't behaving like people would. But because I haven't seen anything from 0 to 3 years, I can't accept that these people are behaving how these people would behave in this world because there's no basis. Setting the show at less than a year would justify all the chaos. 

 

And people didn't vanish from pictures.

 

I don't think the baby vanished. I think the show has just been cheating this whole time. 

 

Referring to something as a "session" with someone has a pretty limited number of contexts.

 

Patti could have just as likely been referring to her initiation session with Laurie into the GR. She could have been referring to a number of conversations they had from the scene we saw in this episode up to any time when Laurie joined the GR too. I don't have a problem with it. I think it's ridiculous that Laurie joined the GR because I know nothing about what's happened to her in the meantime. 

 

I've never got the impression that people have stopped trying to understand what happened. A worldwide Cataclysmic event occurred, so of course it would've been investigated and researched to hell and back by every government agency on the planet. Yes, it's been 3 years since The Departure and they still don't know what the fuck happened, but that doesn't mean people have stopped trying to figure it out.

 

Yeah but absence of evidence and all that. This is a reasonable speculation, but it's only speculation. It's not really supported by the show. I get that Nora works for an agency, and that's really good, but they could allude to more and they've deliberately either been silent or just have the feds be like "why are they smoking?" It's been three years, you should know by now. 

 

The show didn't say, "It's been three years and we don't know anything, but the new Nora Data Survey agency is collecting data and is going to issue a report sometime next year." Then I would agree that this is canon. They said, "it's been three years and we don't know anything." To assume people are doing actually research is fine, but it's only a fanwank. 

 

I'm getting the impression that TPTBs need us to do a lot of fanwanking to make the show work. It's very sloppy in its world building. Everyone on the show is basically acting like the event just happened because no one really knows anything. 

[Sofie Fatale]

. I think many of the complaints about the characters on this show have boiled down to we're not 100% sure they are reacting as normal people would, whether it's how they're investigating/not investigating, they can't/haven't moved on,  strange cults have emerged with a disinterest/impunity from the world at large, and/or something weird is happening with animals.

This is the problem I have with those complaints. How can we be 100% sure how they should react? Why should we be?This crazy event has NEVER happened before so who knows what people are going to do. It's new territory that the show can play with. Write cannon for... All the stuff we've seen like cults/rabid animals/ intense interest or disinterest/real looking dolls being sold to grieving leftover family etc..it all belongs because, hey who knows what belongs.

[A Boston Gal]

Sophie, I agree! How do we know how we'd react, especially three years out. What I'm saying is, if we could get a small hint of how they were processing the event of 10/14 soon after it happened, then yes, we'd be able to empathise with their confusion, fear and panic. We could share that beginning with them. But seeing these characters three years out after  such an event, with no other information (at least to begin with) left me with a very arms-length sensation about it all.  

 

Anyway, this discussion has been going around and around since the beginning of this show. I'm just stating how I feel; it's not like a plot point or twist (ie: Laurie was Patti's therapist)  that's fun to debate. Just my personal preference, that's all.

Edited August 28, 2014 by A Boston Gal

[hardy har]

Oooooooh. That makes more sense, A Boston Gal. It never occurred to me that the universe on the show might not be our universe. I try not to read about shows I'm into and I haven't read the book, but is it a working theory/question that The Leftovers Universe might be different from ours? It's honestly never crossed my mind.   

[stillshimpy]

I think there would be some value in seeing how the characters we know reacted in the direct aftermath, because it would give us a view into their process. There is no way to know how the world at large would react.  I feel like I know myself pretty well and I have to say, I'm sure I would be really screwed up, still, three years later but there would be degrees of that.  If I'd lost someone directly it would be worse than if it happened all around me, but not to me.  

 

Just saying, it would reshape -- and not in a good way at all -- my understanding of reality.  I don't think that I'm all that unusual in that.  

 

However, because it is a type of loss, grief and world event that is a little hard to understand, that's specifically why it would be good to get a glimpse of it all.  After a traumatic event (speaking generalizations here, so judge the accuracy of that accordingly) most people walk around in shock ,feeling like someone just punched them in the stomach.  Frequently angry, vs. sad because anything that messes with ones existence on such a fundamental level would result in a lot of anger.  Demands for answers, terror, sadness and trying to accept to follow at differing paces for everyone.  

 

I think it is reasonable that someone like Laurie would spin off into a cult.  Psychiatrists have to learn a very developed level of emotional detachment to keep themselves psychologically safe when dealing with other people's issues.  Otherwise the crushing pain and sadness of what they do for a living would warp the living crap out of them.  They have to have extremely good emotional boundaries that are often referred to as professional detachment.  

 

It makes perfect sense to me that if you were to take that ability, that learned skill and innate gift towards being able to recognize, "that's your stuff and I won't take responsibility for it" , and turn it inside out with a sanity wrecker like "Millions of people just disappeared.  Not dead.  Not murdered.  Not abducted by the boogeymen we are all taught to fear in the form of serial killers: vanished into actual thin air" add in that enhanced ability to detach, mixed it with crazy-making stuff, joining the guilty remnant and leaving her children makes a certain kind of sense.  

 

Doesn't mean it wouldn't make for an interesting piece of the puzzle.  

Also, I do have a certain level of curiosity about what the hell you do when someone has just vanished.  There's a process to all things we understand about loss and death.  Much of it involves standard procedures.  You call the funeral home.  You call relatives.  You order flowers.  There are tasks.  If you lost a friend or neighbor, a lot of us freaking make food and take it to the person (Have you ever looked in someone's fridge after a loss?  Oh my God, is that a common response).  There are things to do.  Things to keep yourself occupied with and authorities to talk to when someone goes missing, or dies in an accident or of disease.  Hell, even a terrorist attack, routines were quickly built.  Donation lines are set up for those of us completely detached from direct loss.  Man, if I can't call the Red Cross with credit card in hand for a disaster, I will find something else to do.  Gathering up stuff for a donation, what have you.  

 

Those are the things we know and can relate to.  I wouldn't mind seeing some of the process, via flashback when a monumentally staggering loss is visited upon the globe and NONE of the stuff that we rely on to get us through the initial shock and pain; need to do something, is in place. 

 

We function in structures.  It would be fascinating, I think , to see what happens when those are denied us and the only left is trying to deal with the feelings without those buffers and filters of doing and tasks. 

 

But I'm okay with getting some of that next year and I think that we will.  

Edited August 28, 2014 by stillshimpy

[ganesh]

How can we be 100% sure how they should react? Why should we be?

The Leftovers Universe might be different from ours? It's honestly never crossed my mind.  

 

These are all legit comments. We have had some trauma irl that there is sort of a baseline level of human behavior as a jumping off point. If people are reacting differently because this is a different universe that's fine. Isn't it fair to expect that we know this somewhat after 9 hours of show though? Taking the show in as a whole, that doesn't really add up. Why would it be a different universe? How would it be a different universe? Did 9/11 not happen? Shouldn't they tip us off to that end. 

 

Nora has been a legit plot because we got her full story, and it seems like how someone would react given the circumstances. We don't know why exactly she joined the federal agency, but we've been given enough of her story to reasonably infer why and not to have to fanwank it. So, it seems like this isn't a different universe based on that. Why couldn't they do this with the other characters? Obviously, not all of them. Even if you're just doing a character study, there still has to be a structure in place, world-rules that we have so we can understand what's going on. The show is so sloppy to the point where they must be doing it deliberately. They've just executing poorly. 

 

We're going on how people would act because the show isn't showing us otherwise. 

 

I think there would be some value in seeing how the characters we know reacted in the direct aftermath, because it would give us a view into their process.

 

This is what's sorely missing. Even if it's in flashbacks. 

 

However, because it is a type of loss, grief and world event that is a little hard to understand, that's specifically why it would be good to get a glimpse of it all. 

 

The fundamental show concept is very surreal and that's fine. But the more you need the audience to buy in, the more you need to show process and universe. They just haven't done that. "Well, these people might not behave that way." Ok, but if you're not showing me anything, what else do I have to go on? 

 

But I'm okay with getting some of that next year and I think that we will.

 

I'm highly doubtful. This entire season has been largely misdirection or just little things that have been glossed over that just add up to too much to swallow. I mean, come on, after a full season of a tv show, you have to offer something to the viewers. I'm not saying everything needs to be wrapped up. I don't expect we'll know what the voices are in Kevin Sr's head and that's fine. But after a full season, it's not too much to ask to know something concrete about the GR or why Wayne impregnated a bunch of Asian chicks, or how they bought into him.  There's a lot going on so you can't address everything. But maybe not have so much going on then? 

 

I don't think it's good tv to say, watch this for ten hours and then next year we might get around to some answers.

[Shermie]

It never occurred to me that the universe on the show might not be our universe

 

Of course it's not our universe. It's fiction, with a huge life-changing event that has never actually happened. I don't see how what "universe" it is makes a difference in the narrative. All fictional TV shows are their own universe.

 

I think there would be some value in seeing how the characters we know reacted in the direct aftermath, because it would give us a view into their process.

This is what's sorely missing. Even if it's in flashbacks.

 

 

Except that's exactly what they gave us in this episode - the immediate reaction to the Departure. So far we've seen the first 10 seconds after it happened. Who knows - maybe the next episode will flashback to the next couple hours, with a massive reveal at the end setting it up for season two.

 

I assume there only one episode left for the season? 

[ganesh]

What they gave us was quite a misdirection in "explaining" without actually doing so. Ten seconds after, isn't really much. I'm talking about filling in major gaps of how the characters navigated the aftermath. Tom standing in the school looking like WTF? doesn't really clue us into his decision to join Wayne and leave home, which has been pretty much a substantial side plot.

What I'm referring to are flashbacks that show when and why Tom left. How Laurie ended up joining the GR 1+ year later. When did Matt go on his jag about not the rapture?

To be fair: They showed us that the people who vanished were possibly wished away. Ok, good. I think Nora's overall arc is believable and coherent as well.

But there wasn't much else of substance. Over the prior eight episodes there have been a lot of topics discussed about what the post vanish works is like and how the characters got to where they are in E1, even the dogs. The dog catcher guy wasn't even seen. The episode offered no insight to this.

I think the observation about how they haven't shown "process" is apt. For me it's garbage in, garbage out. I'm thinking they did this purposely so they can retcon in whatever they need to.

I doubt they will show us much more. I'm assuming that next episode will largely be the GR's little MD trick. Which will explain nothing but should piss everyone off.

[xlibris]

I think it is reasonable that someone like Laurie would spin off into a cult.  Psychiatrists have to learn a very developed level of emotional detachment to keep themselves psychologically safe when dealing with other people's issues.  Otherwise the crushing pain and sadness of what they do for a living would warp the living crap out of them.  They have to have extremely good emotional boundaries that are often referred to as professional detachment.  

 

It makes perfect sense to me that if you were to take that ability, that learned skill and innate gift towards being able to recognize, "that's your stuff and I won't take responsibility for it" , and turn it inside out with a sanity wrecker like "Millions of people just disappeared.  Not dead.  Not murdered.  Not abducted by the boogeymen we are all taught to fear in the form of serial killers: vanished into actual thin air" add in that enhanced ability to detach, mixed it with crazy-making stuff, joining the guilty remnant and leaving her children makes a certain kind of sense. 

Especially since, as a therapist, she would probably be confronted with this every day in other people even as she's trying to deal with the disappearance of her own fetus. And presumably she wouldn't be getting much help from her husband. That would probably do a number on her.

[WearyTraveler]

The federal agencies know nothing? We live in a world where the government has data on everything. They wouldn't use that?

 

You made this comment about the cults (GR and Wayne), but I don't think it's entirely true.  That one fed told Kevin they knew about the GR and offered to clean up his town (as in murder the lot of them).  It seemed to me the show was saying the Feds know about these people, they know they are poison, but they haven't done anything illegal to warrant prosecution, so, there are dark ops teams that take care of these issues.

 

They did the time jump as a cheat to not establish the motivations of the characters.

 

This is a huge logic leap that is not entirely supported by the evidence.  It is possible that the show did the time jump out of laziness as you suggest, but it is also possible that they are using the popular narrative device (present in literature a long time ago) of showing you the end point first and then showing you how everyone got there.  Albeit most literary works that use this device then start telling you the story chronologically from some point in the past before the end point presented in the introduction / prologue.

 

But this is not always the case.  For example, Mario Vargas Llosa, a Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote a critically acclaimed book called La Ciudad y Los Perros (The City and the Dogs), which tells the story in what appears to be random order.  When you read it, it feels as if the author had written the book chronologically and then had shuffled the chapters, like one does a deck of cards, before printing.  It's unsettling at first, and even when you're further into the book, because you never know if you have passed the ending (furthest point in the chronological line) or if the chapter you have just started to read is before, after, or around the same time as the chapter you just finished.  Yet, the finished product is quite satisfying.  I'm not saying Lindelof and Perrotta's writing is Nobel quality stuff, but the way they are telling this story reminds me a little about that book.

 

In short, I don't believe we have enough evidence yet to declare with 100% certainty what the showrunners' motivation is.  As of now, I think several scenarios are equally probable.

 

As for the character motivations we've got so far for Laurie, Patty, Matt, I think we've got the starting point.  Nora is easy because her loss was so great, we're ready to believe she would be royally screwed up.  I agree we haven't been shown the entire chain, but I disagree with you that Laurie wouldn't abandon her children, or Patty join a cult or Matt believe himself a prophet.  Laurie and Patty were having deep emotional issues when the Departure happened, traumatic stuff; one can reasonably infer that things kept getting worse until they reached the point to make very drastic decisions. Matt has suffered the event, his wife is a vegetable (I bet you she wakes up in the finale), he lost his congregation, and was having money problems that eventually got really, really bad; that's a good starting point for someone to start doing some, let's say, eccentric stuff. Depression, anxiety and an event of the magnitude of the Departure can wreak havoc with people's minds.  So, I wouldn't say it's impossible for anybody to do anything.  I think it would be interesting if / when they show us that downward journey, but I'm actually fine if they don't.

 

So far they have told us: here's person A, he was a bit of mess, then 2% of the world population disappeared and that affected person A very deeply, his mental and emotional state got worse and worse, and now he is very, very fucked up, so he does these things.  I think it might be extremely depressing to see the downward spiral of every character.  As it stands now, I think there might yet be hope for some of the characters.  Enough time has passed that they might start to move on / re-build.  I'm not sure I could sit through hours and hours of people getting increasingly more, and more depressed / screwed up to the point they join a nihilistic, chain smoking cult.

 

They said, "it's been three years and we don't know anything." To assume people are doing actually research is fine, but it's only a fanwank.

 

Actually, they showed us a congressional hearing being played on TV in the first episode where the guy interrogating the witness says something along the lines of "you're telling me that after all this work, all the studies, thousands of pages, millions of dollars, you still don't know anything?"  I think that's cannon enough to establish that yes, people are asking questions, someone is researching, they have been running around trying to figure this thing out and they haven't been able to discover anything significant.

 

We function in structures.  It would be fascinating, I think , to see what happens when those are denied us and the only left is trying to deal with the feelings without those buffers and filters of doing and tasks.

 

It's interesting that the characters have all lost that structure and it seems some viewers feel that, because of the way the story is being presented, they have lost that structure too.  So, in a way, we are as "lost" (pun not intended) as the characters.  Too meta?

 

I'm not saying everything needs to be wrapped up. I don't expect we'll know what the voices are in Kevin Sr's head and that's fine. But after a full season, it's not too much to ask to know something concrete about the GR or why Wayne impregnated a bunch of Asian chicks, or how they bought into him.  There's a lot going on so you can't address everything. But maybe not have so much going on then? 

 

I think there's a difference between not getting an answer and not liking the answer.  Patty just had a lengthy monologue explaining the finer points of the GR to Kevin.  It may not have been the full picture, but it did explain the cult's basic premise.  Is the explanation riddled with logical fallacies? Sure, all cults are, and people still join them.  They work because of fanaticism, depression, neglect, etc.  People have committed mass suicides because some wacko told them to, it's insane, it's illogical, but it does happen.

 

I feel Wayne has been fleshed out actually more than the GR.  It seems to me that he's a fraud who has a gift for reading people and saying just the right words to trigger a catharsis, and who has a fetish for Asian women.  Many cult leaders in our world sleep with the younger members, call them their wives, take them away from their mothers, and get them pregnant because "God says so, He speaks through me and one of you will carry the next Messiah".  Wayne is no different.  We saw him manipulate Nora, reinforce his brainwashing of Christine, and pulling scams because he was out of money; and we discovered he's been having sex with more than one girl.  That's plenty of evidence to me.

 

I will agree with you that the show does seem ambitious in its scope, and that it has moved slowly.  I don't adore/love the show, but I don't hate it either; so, far I'm fine sticking around a little longer.  I like several characters and would like to know their fates.  I'd be perfectly fine if we didn't get any more flashbacks and just focused on moving the story forward from this point on.

Edited August 28, 2014 by WearyTraveler

[hardy har]

Of course it's not our universe. It's fiction, with a huge life-changing event that has never actually happened. I don't see how what "universe" it is makes a difference in the narrative. All fictional TV shows are their own universe.

Hee, maybe I should've clarified a little. Yes, all TV shows are their own universe, what I meant is that I haven't seen anything on this show to suggest the world isn't more or less our world. The only difference I see from Leftover Universe and my universe is that The Departure happened. 

 

What they gave us was quite a misdirection in "explaining" without actually doing so. Ten seconds after, isn't really much. I'm talking about filling in major gaps of how the characters navigated the aftermath. Tom standing in the school looking like WTF? doesn't really clue us into his decision to join Wayne and leave home, which has been pretty much a substantial side plot.

What I'm referring to are flashbacks that show when and why Tom left. How Laurie ended up joining the GR 1+ year later. When did Matt go on his jag about not the rapture?

To be fair: They showed us that the people who vanished were possibly wished away. Ok, good. I think Nora's overall arc is believable and coherent as well.

But there wasn't much else of substance. Over the prior eight episodes there have been a lot of topics discussed about what the post vanish works is like and how the characters got to where they are in E1, even the dogs. The dog catcher guy wasn't even seen. The episode offered no insight to this.

I think the observation about how they haven't shown "process" is apt. For me it's garbage in, garbage out. I'm thinking they did this purposely so they can retcon in whatever they need to.

I doubt they will show us much more. I'm assuming that next episode will largely be the GR's little MD trick. Which will explain nothing but should piss everyone off.

 

Sorry again if I came off as combative in my prior post, but I get where you're coming from now. Personally, I've been given enough to keep watching, but I can see why you're annoyed. I do agree that it's odd that we haven't gotten more info about Tom's situation. Not that I'm all that into his storyline, but I'd like to know more about whatever his deal is instead of Scott Glen's crazy train.  

Edited August 28, 2014 by hardy har

[Milaxx]

Oooooooh. That makes more sense, A Boston Gal. It never occurred to me that the universe on the show might not be our universe. I try not to read about shows I'm into and I haven't read the book, but is it a working theory/question that The Leftovers Universe might be different from ours? It's honestly never crossed my mind.   

 

 

Of course it's not our universe. It's fiction, with a huge life-changing event that has never actually happened. I don't see how what "universe" it is makes a difference in the narrative. All fictional TV shows are their own universe.

The fundamental show concept is very surreal and that's fine. But the more you need the audience to buy in, the more you need to show process and universe. They just haven't done that. "Well, these people might not behave that way." Ok, but if you're not showing me anything, what else do I have to go on?

 

I'll toss my 2 cents into the ring. I agree that most of the issue with the show is they haven't successfully developed their universe. Not a literal universe, but in every story there is a bit of world building. It's how we come to know the rules of how things are in this world that makes up this tale. I feel like they've been trying; we see the GR and get some basic rules established about who they are. Over the course of the season we've gotten to know Kevin, Nora, etc... I can't quite put my finger on it, but it still doesn't feel authentic. I'm not talking abut the lack of linear story telling. I don't need that. I just need to believe these people would do whatever it is they do and in their world/universe ti would make sense. We don't needs all the answers, especially if it's a show that hopes to last for some time. We just need to be okay enough with what we have been given that we the viewers are interested in getting to see these people more and know more about them  Sadly most of the time this show feel more artsy than good. It's like a spoof of the stereotypical art house film about extensionalism.  

I am simply not buying it. This will be my one and only season.

[ganesh]

I just think after nine hours of show, if we're still not privy to the show runners' motives, then they've done a poor job with the show execution.

Patti may have attempted to explain something, but not really. Others asked in the thread, "yes, but to what end?" They're providing answers that are superficial at best.

Outlander is kind of a similar show. All the same questions I have, were answered in two episodes.

TPTBs are giving the impression of something going on, for sure. But there just isn't much there.

I don't necessarily mind a time jump, but you have to fill it in at some point. "Maybe they'll fill it in next season." That just isn't playing fair with the audience.

When they went +3 years in E1, I naturally expected much of the gasp would be filled in throughout the season. The same questions I've asked, similar to others, haven't been answered. That is usually how that narrative tool works.

[Pallas]

I do agree that it's odd that we haven't gotten more info about Tom's situation.

 

I think it's in the cards, and a statistical inevitability.  No showrunner ever met a daddy issue he didn't like.

 

My guess is that Michael (Tom's sire) lost his young son on 10/14 -- the boy we see in the background when Kevin goes to the house to confront Michael.  Perhaps after that, Michael sought out Tom, and Tom, Laurie and Kevin all had a very strong but various reactions to MIchael's grieving, guilty overture.

 

Tom is already confused and guilty about his compulsion to confront/connect with his sire.  "It's my fault," he told Kevin, about hurting himself when Michael shoved him.  When he mentions his visit and Kevin's knowledge of it to Laurie the next morning, he discovers that Kevin didn't tell her.  Now Tom may feel he doubly wronged his parents, first by the visit and then by revealing Kevin's non-disclosure to his mother, adding to the tension between his parents.  At the science fair -- with neither of their parents in attendance -- Tom asks Jill how she perceives them, and seems shaken when she speculates that Kevin may leave.  

 

So I'll also guess that Tom, a "college boy" like Hamlet, is questioning his place in the universe.  His biological father denies him to this day, or at least to 10/13. Tom may only now have begun speculating that his father Kevin married his mother because she was a damsel in distress (in Kevin's father's term).  Kevin and Laurie -- and their families -- kept the secret of Tom's paternity from him all his life, until recently (when he turned 18?). Kevin seems to imply that it was Laurie's idea to tell Tom, when he remarks, "She said not telling you, was lying to you" (paraphrasing, and nice passive-aggressive undermining of your wife there, Lieutenant Deerstalker).  In the aftermath of the departure, this could all add up to Tom's abandoning both fathers and pledging himself to a new, overtly symbolic father-figure.  And give weight to his dogged rescue of a damsel of his own, yet not.  

 

Cardie's theory about how most of the main characters may harbor the notion that they wished away one of the departed: when you think of the superstitions people half-jokingly erect around the fate of their favorite sports team, and how their own small gestures can affect the outcome...Imagine then the kind of "reverse superstitions" that would come into play after an event like this.  As stillshimpy noted earlier, we humans yearn to believe that we have some hand in the great events of our lives. Even if that forces us to cast ourselves as villains, or assholes; even if we say we know we're kidding ourselves.  So maybe we are following a collection of people who malinger, who suspect they broke faith with their better natures and appealed to a remorselessly literal entity who typed "Suit yourself" and hit REPLY ALL. 

 

This collective guilt might indeed attach to all the Mapleton Missing we have seen so far.  If the science fair kid who departed is the one who constructed the circuit experiment, she may have been "wished away" by one or more of the students in the circle, jealous of the kid's success and the attention it received.  Maybe even by Jill, whose project was no threat to cold fusion.  

 

And the Guilty Remnant? Perhaps each member is someone who truly believes she goaded the gods into pulling the trigger. Survivors who want to allay that guilt -- and appease those gods -- by hectoring everyone else who lost a close relation, into acknowledging their complicity.  Survivors who believe they are the remnants of connections they severed themselves; because they have something wrong inside them.  

[RedHackle]

If anyone is still wondering, the reason Nora's husband was home in the middle of the day is because he had promised her the day before he'd be home by six, but didn't get home till she was putting the kids to bed, so he promised her "I'll come home early tomorrow".  A lot of people take comp time when they've been racking up extra hours.

 

Anyway....I have a question.  Has anyone ever heard Lindlehoff explain his obsession with drippy music? Is he being ironic, or does he just have really bad taste in music?  Think Desmond listening (ad nauseum) to "Make Your Own Kind of Music", Juliette listening to "Downtown" and then Kevin listening (on his IPod, more than once) to whatever the hell that was - Everly Brothers maybe?  What's that about?  Does it signify a character being out of touch or is it nothing more than a quirk?

 

Watching the ep again, I was also struck by how perfectly they did the thing with the deer; when Kevin first sees it, the sun reflecting on the mylar baloon causes that blinding effect Kevin coudln't understand.  It also perfectly explains the deer going a little beserk, having this stupid highly reflective, glare-inducing thing caught in its antlers.  And of course later, the deer caught in his house would give Kevin the perfect call-back to the time in his life when everything was just about to go ass-up.  The odd wall damage in his house above the picture was maybe a tad heavy-handed; yes, we get it, their perfect facade is cracking.  But it didn't look like any wall crack I've ever seen - it looked like deep scrathes - amost like the damage the deer did to the cabinets.  Or am I alone there?

[ganesh]

Think Desmond listening (ad nauseum) to "Make Your Own Kind of Music"

 

You know what's funny is I heard that song on like 3 other tv shows at the time. I don't know if they were ripping off Lost or not. 

 

I always thought Desmond listened to the song was because he only had records from the 70s. I don't know why the music was so drippy here though. Much of the show has been misdirection from anything really going on, so I think it's just to distract the viewers.

[izabella]

Anyway....I have a question.  Has anyone ever heard Lindlehoff explain his obsession with drippy music?

 

It means nothing.  Don't get caught up in details, don't try to understand meanings behind little things.  It's a waste of time because it means nothing.

 

If anything, that's all they had the music rights to at the time.

[ganesh]

IMO whether they showed this episode first or third wouldn't have clarified or revealed anything more. We would just be seeing the characters motivations through more informed eyes (vanishing fetus) but not many mysteries would be solved.

 

I think earlier would have been a better choice. No offense to the actor, but Jill was insufferable. Knowing she was a pretty good kid earlier in the show, would have brought out a tragic element and maybe made her more sympathetic. Because she's pretty 1D otherwise and her scenes weren't particularly interesting. Knowing she's kind of "trapped" at least adds another half-dimension.

 

I think TPTBs aren't aware of what "mystery" actually means. It's not with holding information, which seems to be the case.

 

It's a waste of time because it means nothing.

 

I think it's part of the misdirection. Putting in stuff like that avoids having to actual work through the big issues that aren't being addressed. 

[Shermie]

No offense to the actor, but Jill was insufferable. Knowing she was a pretty good kid earlier in the show, would have brought out a tragic element and maybe made her more sympathetic.

 

But don't you feel that way now? Isn't it still tragic, knowing she was a happy-go-lucky young teen who has turned into this angsty, surly brat?

 

It's actually more shocking now - to see the sullen and self-destructive Jill character that was built over 8 episodes to be revealed that she wasn't always this way. 

[ganesh]

But don't you feel that way now?

 

Not really, no. I've exhausted my patience on her. By the time E9 rolled around, I was past the point of caring much more than it was a mildly interesting detail.  

 

My tenant was that had this been established earlier, it would have made the viewing experience more palatable. Prior to that, there wasn't much context for Jill. There hasn't been much context for anything. Maybe the show should have been exclusively Nora because she's the only character that actually has a coherent story line. Like much of the show, the execution of this is questionable. 

 

I'm still interested in Tom though. He seemed fairly well adjusted throughout the show, and he was smart enough to figure out Wayne was conning him. Why he left to join the cult is still interesting. 

[shapeshifter]

...Has anyone ever heard Lindlehoff explain his obsession with drippy music? Is he being ironic, or does he just have really bad taste in music?  Think Desmond listening (ad nauseum) to "Make Your Own Kind of Music", Juliette listening to "Downtown" and then Kevin listening (on his IPod, more than once) to whatever the hell that was - Everly Brothers maybe?  What's that about?  Does it signify a character being out of touch or is it nothing more than a quirk?

Whoa there, young grasshopper. Doncha call the Everly Brothers "drippy." I may be old, and I may like some old music, but Everly Brothers still have street cred with today's musicians.

Anyway, good question. What was the song Kevin was listening to?

[GaT]

But don't you feel that way now? Isn't it still tragic, knowing she was a happy-go-lucky young teen who has turned into this angsty, surly brat?

 

 

That pretty much describes the teen years of most people, whether there's an "event" or not. Teenagers are known for turning into angsty, surly brats.

[meep.meep]

It apparently was Jody Reynolds singing "The Girl from King Marie" - so not the Everly Brothers. The single voice should have been a give away....

I seem unable to copy relevant paragraphs to reply to, but the style of presentation that Ganesh is advocating seems like Flash Forward to me, and I think this show is a lot more interesting than that was.

[ladle]

I don't think Meg lost anyone (other than her mother dying the day before.) Or atleast I don't think it's been mentioned specifically yet.

 

If Meg's not technically a leftover, why was the GR initially following her?

[shapeshifter]

If Meg's not technically a leftover, why was the GR initially following her?

Good question. My guess: Since there are probably still--3 years later--some missing persons who have yet to be determined to be part of the event, there is probably a list of composite data of missing persons from that day with categories assigned as: accident, suicide, murder, observed as vanished, unknown, etc., and the GR is looking at all of the leftovers as potential GR members. After all, whenever someone dies, those who knew the person tend to have some measure of survivor's guilt. Actually, I would think those who lost people due to the event would feel less guilty than those who are thinking things like: If only I had driven the car, or: if only I had spent more time with her, or: if only I had locked the door on my way out, etc. Edited August 31, 2014 by shapeshifter

[ladle]

Didn't the mom die the day before the departure, though?  I don't know, it's just weird to me that the GR would spend their time following Meg when their whole existence is based on the departure and there are actual leftovers out there to follow. 

[shapeshifter]

Didn't the mom die the day before the departure, though?  I don't know, it's just weird to me that the GR would spend their time following Meg when their whole existence is based on the departure and there are actual leftovers out there to follow.

True. Hopefully it's not a plot hole.

[seamusk]

I don't think the GR are specifically following people because they are leftovers (though isn't everybody not gone a leftover?), but more so because they fit a certain profile as a potential recruit. Meg's mother having died the day makes her unique but still provides the psychological juice to be a potential recruit.

[ganesh]

They definitely established that her mom died on 1013. 

 

This again begs the question about the motivation of the GR and the lack of the show showing anything to that end. We don't really know anything except Laurie. So, I guess since she didn't "lose" anyone, the GR doesn't necessarily only focus on "leftovers". 

 

And, to be fair, a cult preys on the weak. Meg doesn't seem that weak though. 

[ladle]

Those are good points.  I don't know why I assumed they were only targeting leftovers (as in, people who'd lost close loved ones to the departure -- though of course, you're right, technically everyone who's left is a 'leftover.')  I guess it's just as likely that they are targeting the weak, and those who've lost close loved ones to the departure make for easy pickins.  I'd love to know more about how the GR operates.  Still really like the show, though, despite these deficiencies and the fact that I can't get past seeing Officer Hottie as the premature ejaculator from that episode of Sex and the City. 

[canter]

There was another similarity between Kevin and Tom in this episode. (In earlier episodes, they were both shown throwing cell phones and obtaining hand injuries.) In this episode, Kevin retrieved cigarettes from underneath a mailbox, calling back when Tom placed money under the mailbox per Wayne's instructions.

I don't know if it means anything, but TPTB do keep going out of their way to show these similarities between the two.

Edited September 1, 2014 by canter

[ganesh]

I'd love to know more about how the GR operates.

 

I can't imagine why they would show this. It's not like the GR is a major plot.

 

At least we know they hide things under mailboxes.

[TimWil]

In the episode "Guest" there is a Pre-Natal Departure panel displayed on a TV screen in the hotel. I guess what happened to Laurie wasn't all that uncommon.

[shapeshifter]

...technically everyone who's left is a 'leftover.')...

I've Googled and skimmed threads but cannot find:

What is the term that the show used for those who had lost loved ones on 10/14?

I believe it was mentioned in The Guest.

The cynical partygoers called them Oranges at the convention, but there was some other term than "Leftover."

Edited September 1, 2014 by shapeshifter

[ottoDbusdriver]

What is the term that the show used for those who had lost loved ones on 10/14?
I believe it was mentioned in The Guest.
The cynical partygoers called them Oranges at the convention, but there was some other term than "Leftover."

 

I believe the other name for them was a 'Legacy'.   When Nora was arguing at the sign-in, the woman said they would try to find Nora a badge with a legacy sticker.

 

One of the women in the hospitality suite goes through the list of names -- oranges (which is probably specific just for the conference), orphans, survivors, legacies

[ganesh]

That was only for the conference. There isn't anything used colloquially. I was thinking it was weird because I keep remembering Flashforward where they worked 'mosaic' into the world-lexicon. But I'm not surprised here because world-building isn't a priority. 

[TimWil]

Rewatched The Moment again. Laurie hears the scream as she's watching the screen, turns her head as the doctor asks "What was that?" and then turns back to the screen. There is no cut to what she's looking at. Maybe the scream had nothing to do with The Sudden Departure? And maybe Laurie didn't lose her baby, either, and had it aborted due to the incidents we saw throughout the episode coupled with the cataclysmic event of the 14th.

[ganesh]

I said previously that I don't think the baby vanished because they precisely didn't show it. If they were, they would have panned over to the screen to show that there was nothing there. 

 

It's classic retcon. If they want the baby to have vanished, then they've got that scene. If not, they can say, 'well we never *showed* it.' TPTBs haven't established for themselves what happened in the ensuing 3 years and will just make it up to fit whatever plot they want. 

[TimWil]

I agree, ganesh. I think Perrotta, Lindelof & Co are more interested in the character study possibilities posed by Laurie's decision to abort the baby soon after The Sudden Departure. The camerawork and editing are the way they are for a specific reason. Everybody who claims she saw the baby vanish, look again: because she didn't.

As I noted in a previous comment there was a Pre-Natal Departure panel commencement announcement displayed on the hotel lobby TV screen in the "Guest" episode so it certainly did seem to occur. I just don't think it did so to Laurie.

Edited September 1, 2014 by TimWil

[seamusk]

It's certainly possible that her fetus didn't disappear.  The camera work was intentionally left open to some interpretation.  Whether that is because they want to be able to ret-con that particular story line, just leave us guessing, or imply disappearance when she really aborts it later is anyone's guess.  All of those options are fine with me.  I see tv writers frequently write themselves into a corner by showing too much too early.  It's a tricky thing to balance for sure.

 

What I can say, is that I got home last night and hadn't really thought about the fact that it was a holiday weekend.  I was completely bummed that this show wasn't on.  Obviously they've made a fan out of me.

[TimWil]

The Departed girl in the school wasn't holding hands with Tom or Jill, she was standing between two boys. This leads me to believe that perhaps the only person in the Garvey family who suffered the actual sensation of someone being snatched (pardon my pun) directly from him/her at the actual moment was Kevin Jr. We don't know where Kevin Sr. was but perhaps he was somehow in direct contact with someone who "poofed" which became a factor in his mental illness.

Edited September 1, 2014 by TimWil

[ganesh]

I see tv writers frequently write themselves into a corner by showing too much too early.  It's a tricky thing to balance for sure.

 

Yeah, but it's one in a line of small things that have added up. They've got three years that they have kept everyone in the dark with. So they're going to be all cutesey with not showing whether the fetus disappeared or not. Ooooh. 

 

I can get that a show can't plan out minute to minute. I think it's fair to expect that show has sketched out the motivations of a major character and will let the viewers in on it by 9 hours. 

 

The end of E1 was supposed to be this big reveal. Laurie is in the GR! She's Kevin's wife! The chief of police! We still don't know how she got there. 

[Sofie Fatale]

I think it's pretty heavily implied that Laurie saw her baby disappear. I don't think they need to show us the actual vanishing. Her expression was enough to leave me saying, , "WTH! her baby vanished, no wonder this chick is f***ed up".

[loki567]

Hey ganesh, I think we get your complaints about the show and how they haven't filled us in about the various happenings in the three years between. You've made your argument several times. At a certain point you're repeating yourself. 

[Totale]

I do love the music choices on this show.  Spotted on another board I read, these lyrics from the song HotCop was listening to while jogging:

 

"Lightning flashed across the sky
When I opened up my eyes
She was gone, the Girl from King Marie"

 

[ganesh]

Her expression was enough to leave me saying, , "WTH! her baby vanished, no wonder this chick is f***ed up".

 

I just didn't get that from her expression. To be fair, my subsequent thought was "oh, I wonder if the baby vanished. That's very creepy and macabre." But then, for having your baby vanish, her expression was remarkably subdued and underplayed. It didn't seem to me that her expression conveyed any confusion, fear, or shock, all of which I think would be natural reactions. 

 

I would think if something that remarkable happen, and this is way more scary than kids disappearing at the science fair, they would show Laurie's expression and pan over to the monitor to really drop the hammer on the viewers. It's not a question about spoon feeding viewers, it's clearly establishing a really important piece of development for a main character. I think it's a fair criticism of the scene. 

 

I really tried to take the final scene on its own merits because the moments of vanishing are important. It's a good call, which I agree with, about how people who vanished may have been 'wished' away, for example. I actually don't think the show should explain much more than that and I can buy it. 

[izabella]

I just didn't get that from her expression. To be fair, my subsequent thought was "oh, I wonder if the baby vanished. That's very creepy and macabre." But then, for having your baby vanish, her expression was remarkably subdued and underplayed. It didn't seem to me that her expression conveyed any confusion, fear, or shock, all of which I think would be natural reactions.

 

Amy Brenneman's face is too botoxed and fillered to be able to actually show much expression.  That works for her in this role, for the most part, since the GR tends to stand around with blank faces anytime anyone tries to talk with them.

[stillshimpy]

See I think it's clear that the baby vanished and that Laurie does see something odd on the screen. She definitely looks puzzled vs. terrified, but that's because it would be impossible to believe -- even more so than the people who saw someone vanish in front of them. A normal reaction wouldn't be "ZOMG! Disappeared!" but rather, "Wait, where did it..." and particularly for something only visible in black and white on a screen...the normal reaction would be to think the machine malfunctioned rather than that the baby disappeared.

The reactions of people to having someone vanish wasn't instant terror for the most part, it was to look for them because everything we know about reality tells us that people do not vanish.

So that's why I think she just looks puzzled in the few seconds that we see her reacting. When something impossible happens in front of you, it's natural to react with an attempt to explain it away via common sense and logic, particularly for a psychiatrist Amy's subdued reaction would make sense.

Psychiatry works within bent and expanded parameters as it is. It exists as a study of things that fall outside what most people judge as being outside the normal and expected. Yet psychiatrists know that behaviors and disorders tend to manifest in their own groupings of "normal" . Normal for a depressed person. Normal for an anxious person. Normal for a bi-polar person. Normally experienced by schizophrenic persons.

So things that are abnormal don't freak people in psychiatry out because their first impulse would be "Under which criteria does this become a normal thing?"

A psychiatrist would have to go through a long list of "Well, since I deal in the abnormal normally , what just happened? It's not freaky or crazy or..." before being able to grasp that the impossible, the abnormal and the fantastical has happened.

Laurie's reaction makes perfect sense for her character's vocation. But it also makes sense that when she did encounter the "there is NO explanation, there is NO way to quantify and normalize this..." it broke her. The inexplicable to others in human behavior is explicable in psychiatry.

So what happens when the truly unanswerable and mysterious, without answer happens to someone who can normalize the outlandishly weird for everyone else? It makes sense that that person would break even more so than others.

Laurie's job was making the seemingly weird make sense for suffering people. The universe handed her the "Good fucking luck with that and it will drive almost everyone crazy."

Edited September 2, 2014 by stillshimpy

[editorgrrl]

I do love the music choices on this show.  Spotted on another board I read, these lyrics from the song HotCop was listening to while jogging:

 

"Lightning flashed across the sky

When I opened up my eyes

She was gone, the Girl from King Marie"

 

 

The lines that jumped out at me while watching were these:

This day of disaster

My heart was beating faster

I ran all the way to King Marie

I totally missed the part about her disappearance. In my defense, I was distracted by the "Jon Hamm syndrome" on display as Justin Theroux ran in those sweatpants.

[TimWil]

It needs to be pointed out one more time that Laurie's looking at the screen as someone screams. Wouldn't she have seen her fetus go "poof!" at that very moment? Two seconds later she turns her head toward the door after the doctor asks "What was that?" As I posted earlier maybe the scream is a writer's trick and wasn't anything to do with departures. Since it's part of a sequential shot montage and not a multi-screen view we really don't have a clear idea of what happens when. Anyway, I wonder if this will be addressed on the season finale Sunday night.

I think it's much more interesting from a character standpoint to have it turn out that Laurie aborted her baby, choosing to have it "disappear" at a time when the entire world is grieving the random disappearance of millions. This would definitely put the guilt in The Guilty Remnant.

Edited September 2, 2014 by TimWil