S04.E05: Adaptation

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

Back to Jonk, my immediate guess was that at some point, after he freaks out some more, Oliver is going to find out from Loretta that Jonk's reputation is all publicist created, and not remotely real. 

Or maybe at least Jonk is gay.

[ofmd]

I quit mid-episode. This season just doesn't work for me.

This show used to be so charmingly quirky, witty, etc., and now it just feels like they're just painting by numbers. AND painfully unfunny, like Paul Rudd's character.

I guess I'll have to read up on who killed Sazz.

[peeayebee]

10 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

Like others have guessed, Glen actually knew that was Marshall when he mentioned the beard.

I'm not on-board with that. I just rewatched that bit, and I think it was just a joke about Glen's damaged brain. He saw his "favorite trio" and just assumed that Marshall was Mabel. I don't think there's anything more to it than that.

Edited September 26 by peeayebee

[Yeah No]

10 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

I think Marshall is going to be one of their red herring suspects eventually. My theory is that Sazz wrote the original screenplay, and she maybe hired Marshall in some capacity, like an assistant. Like others have guessed, Glen actually knew that was Marshall when he mentioned the beard. If Marshall was working for Sazz, Glen may have seen him hanging around with her at the bar. So my guess is that he stole Sazz's script, and that's the problem with the movie she was talking about when she left Bev that voicemail. I don't think he's going to actually turn out to be the killer, but I think that they'll suspect him once they realize that Glen knows him, and they find out how. 

I was genuinely surprised that, when they kept going on about how one person could have done that all in 12 minutes if they were in super great shape, Oliver didn't immediately throw out Jonk as a suspect. Instead, we got Martin Short's freaking brilliant scenes as Oliver attempted to reenact it. "It's already been 38 minutes" and the bird feather in his hair had me dying. I thought Steve Martin was excellent in his more serious scenes in episode 2, as  Charles mourned Sazz, but Martin Short was just as excellent in these comedic scenes. 

Back to Jonk, my immediate guess was that at some point, after he freaks out some more, Oliver is going to find out from Loretta that Jonk's reputation is all publicist created, and not remotely real. 

I like your theory about Marshall, I think he is most likely a red herring too. And I had the same thought about Jonk being a suspect because much is being made about his "strong ass arms". But I think they are deliberately trying to mix us up, and to be honest it's not really fun or entertaining anymore. I think they think they're being cute and funny but it's clunky and not working. They just have to stop with the ridiculous red herrings already.

The problem with this season is that in every episode we just keep getting thrown more potential suspects and half way through we're no closer to narrowing them down. I just don't believe the Brothers/sisters are a murderous team (or maybe one is but the other isn't). I think they like a lot of others here might have some knowledge or involvement in something not yet explained but not any actual murder. The show seems determined to keep deliberately confusing us all the way through. Then at the 11th hour it'll pull a rabbit out of a hat and the least likely person or people will be revealed. And they'll concoct some far fetched scenario that most or all of us would never have figured out to justify it.

[cardigirl]

23 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I'm not on-board with that. I just rewatched that bit, and I think it was just a joke about Glen's damaged brain. He saw his "favorite trio" and just assumed that Marshall was Mabel. I don't think there's anything more to it than that.

I think I agree with you, peeayebee. I took it as a joke about Glen seeing things that aren't there.

But I can also see a scenario where Marshall and Glen do know each other and are possibly working together as the murderers and that's why Marshall shot Glen. We'll find out (maybe) in the next episode.

[peeayebee]

47 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

The show seems determined to keep deliberately confusing us all the way through. Then at the 11th hour it'll pull a rabbit out of a hat and the least likely person or people will be revealed. And they'll concoct some far fetched scenario that most or all of us would never have figured out to justify it.

But isn't this the whole idea of the series? We get fed lots of red herrings. We can't tell who the killer is, but we can't help but guess. Characters' actions and motives are revealed to be innocent or at least unrelated to the crime. In the final ep we are finally given the details about the actual killer's motivation and method. 

I can certainly understand getting tired of it, but I think it's always been there.

Like many viewers, I mainly watch for the characters and the actors. The murder mysteries are just the structure for them to play, banter, and explore their personalities.

[Enigma X]

I don't know. I am still really enjoying the show. Is it perfect, no. But better than a lot of other shows.

[tennisgurl]

I like the idea of it being two killers working together, it also kind of fits into the adaptation theme of the season, with the trio trying to deal with having these duplicates around and being stressed about seeing themselves through someone else's eyes. 

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

But isn't this the whole idea of the series? We get fed lots of red herrings. We can't tell who the killer is, but we can't help but guess. Characters' actions and motives are revealed to be innocent or at least unrelated to the crime. In the final ep we are finally given the details about the actual killer's motivation and method. 

I can certainly understand getting tired of it, but I think it's always been there.

Like many viewers, I mainly watch for the characters and the actors. The murder mysteries are just the structure for them to play, banter, and explore their personalities.

Yes of course it's done similar before, but my point is that they're really going overboard with it this season. It seems like every season they try to confound us just a little bit more by introducing even more red herrings and possible suspects, one quirkier and more ridiculous and than the next. And for me it's just gone over the line into annoying and not fun anymore, not to mention not in the least bit believable. I'm already suspending a lot of disbelief because of other positives like the actors and the acting, but they're even scraping the edge of my limit.

[shapeshifter]

4 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Yes of course it's done similar before, but my point is that they're really going overboard with it this season. It seems like every season they try to confound us just a little bit more by introducing even more red herrings and possible suspects, one quirkier and more ridiculous and than the next. And for me it's just gone over the line into annoying and not fun anymore, not to mention not in the least bit believable. I'm already suspending a lot of disbelief because of other positives like the actors and the acting, but they're even scraping the edge of my limit.

I wonder it the show runners are weighing feedback on whether there can ever be too many red herrings. 
But isn't there some Writing 101 Rule of Thumb For Maximum Number of Red Herrings?

[cardigirl]

7 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I wonder it the show runners are weighing feedback on whether there can ever be too many red herrings. 
But isn't there some Writing 101 Rule of Thumb For Maximum Number of Red Herrings?

I doubt they are listening unless viewership is affected. IF they start losing viewers, then they might consider changing things up.

There are enough in-jokes in the show to make me realize that they are reading the criticisms or the opinions of the audience, but maybe not enough to change their process. #whopoisonedwinnie

I don't know about a rule for too many red herrings, but there is the rule of fair play in which a mystery writer is supposed to give the reader/audience the ability to figure it out from what is on the screen/page. I felt that they didn't do that in Season 2. They were misleading the audience in that one. Happens to be my least favorite of the seasons. 

I'm enjoying the movie references in this season and the guest characters. The only one I could do with less of is Howard, and wish they had focused more on other side characters from season 1.  We haven't seen Theo yet, or Will.  I like those characters.

 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 9/24/2024 at 2:42 PM, shapeshifter said:

One of the products Eva Longoria is marketing is "wound glue."
Sounds a little suss.

There is medical grade super glue that is sometimes used in place of stitches.

On 9/24/2024 at 2:42 PM, shapeshifter said:

When Glenn Stubbins remarks "Ah, when'd you grow the beard, lassie?" it seemed maybe he was addressing Marshall, not thinking Marshall was Mabel, although, in a later scene when Marshall and Mabel are sitting near each other, I did notice that they have the same shape faces.

On 9/24/2024 at 5:33 PM, Snazzy Daisy said:

I don’t see this as Mabel’s joke. Does Glen know Marshall from somewhere? He recognizes him even with a beard.

But "lassie" refers to a woman.  He would use "laddie" for a man.

On 9/25/2024 at 1:08 PM, chaifan said:

I really thought Mabel was going to say "animal jobs!" as a podcast idea.

Me too.

 

[shapeshifter]

1 minute ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

But "lassie" refers to a woman.  He would use "laddie" for a man.

Unless he was teasing Marshall or if Marshall self-identifies as femme. 
But, yeah, Occam's Razor says you're correct and Stubbins was just thinking Marshall was Mabel.

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Unless he was teasing Marshall or if Marshall self-identifies as femme. 
But, yeah, Occam's Razor says you're correct and Stubbins was just thinking Marshall was Mabel.

I think the show was going for a joke in having him mistake Marshall for Mabel, playing off Stubbins' general cluelessness. Then it focused on Mabel's face, which does have the same shape. At least that's what I thought right away. I never read anything more into it.

12 hours ago, cardigirl said:

I doubt they are listening unless viewership is affected. IF they start losing viewers, then they might consider changing things up.

There are enough in-jokes in the show to make me realize that they are reading the criticisms or the opinions of the audience, but maybe not enough to change their process. #whopoisonedwinnie

I think they only just crossed the line into too many red herrings this season so they wouldn't have had the opportunity yet to hear any large scale criticism of it yet. I didn't feel this way last year even though there were enough of them then too. This season it's on a whole new level in my opinion.

[JenE4]

This show has always been a series of red herrings with a deus ex machina ending that we never saw coming. Last season’s Mother-son producer duo was probably the only one that remotely made sense to me. I still don’t have the slightest clue what happened and why with that one season in which Charles’s dad has an affair with an artist and somehow the painting was the lynchpin—or maybe it was the bird?! I don’t know. The point is, this show has never been “solvable” just by watching the episodes before the finale. I think there’s a difference in modern mystery stories and classic mysteries. The popular mysteries of today drop clues along the way so when the killer is revealed, it makes sense in retrospect even if you didn’t put the clues together. But this show is more like an Agatha Christie, in which every chapter focuses on a new suspect until that person ends up dead at the end of the chapter, and the resolution is some convoluted series of actions and a grudge/motive we knew nothing about. In prior seasons of this show I think they tended to focus on one clue/suspect per episode, so even if that means we had 9 different suspects/clues throughout the season, at least the investigation was organized. Here we’re halfway through the season and it seems like all we got to show for it is a shoe print and what seems like a couple of dozen characters. They went overboard with the stunt casting this season. At least last year they brought in guest stars like Matthew Broderick but he wasn’t a suspect. Here we got an entire movie production, the residents of a building, along with unseen characters such as Helga and Dudenoff. So I can see why while this show has always gone off the rails with the story, this one seems particularly disorganized. However, I think that they’re really playing up the physical comedy this season, and I like the emphasized focus on the comedy rather than the mystery. It’s a lot of fun to watch. 

[chaifan]

I think the red herrings are a feature, not a bug.  Our trio are amateur detectives.  They're supposed to go down a lot of wrong roads before honing in on the real motives, suspects, etc.  It's why I find this show so charming.  I sort of expect each episode between the first and the last to bring up at least one red herring/fake suspect.  

At this point I'm wondering how the Westies fit in, other than the empty apartment being used as the shooting location. 

 

[Yeah No]

21 minutes ago, JenE4 said:

This show has always been a series of red herrings with a deus ex machina ending that we never saw coming. Last season’s Mother-son producer duo was probably the only one that remotely made sense to me. I still don’t have the slightest clue what happened and why with that one season in which Charles’s dad has an affair with an artist and somehow the painting was the lynchpin—or maybe it was the bird?! I don’t know. The point is, this show has never been “solvable” just by watching the episodes before the finale. I think there’s a difference in modern mystery stories and classic mysteries. The popular mysteries of today drop clues along the way so when the killer is revealed, it makes sense in retrospect even if you didn’t put the clues together. But this show is more like an Agatha Christie, in which every chapter focuses on a new suspect until that person ends up dead at the end of the chapter, and the resolution is some convoluted series of actions and a grudge/motive we knew nothing about. In prior seasons of this show I think they tended to focus on one clue/suspect per episode, so even if that means we had 9 different suspects/clues throughout the season, at least the investigation was organized. Here we’re halfway through the season and it seems like all we got to show for it is a shoe print and what seems like a couple of dozen characters. They went overboard with the stunt casting this season. At least last year they brought in guest stars like Matthew Broderick but he wasn’t a suspect. Here we got an entire movie production, the residents of a building, along with unseen characters such as Helga and Dudenoff. So I can see why while this show has always gone off the rails with the story, this one seems particularly disorganized. However, I think that they’re really playing up the physical comedy this season, and I like the emphasized focus on the comedy rather than the mystery. It’s a lot of fun to watch. 

I agree with most of this but despite red herrings in previous seasons I figured out the murderer in Season 1 and others here have figured out who the murderer is in other seasons, including last season. But those red herrings weren't as numerous or as distracting, at least in my opinion. I expect some of that but not to this degree. I feel like it's taking over the whole show this season.

I wonder if they are doing it to try to get the audience to just relax and enjoy the comedy and not focus so much on solving the mystery. There is probably a large segment of the audience that doesn't focus that much on the murder details and is just there to be entertained by all the quirky characters and comedy. And then "poof", a surprise ending! I loved that deus ex machina description. It describes exactly what I've been saying. They can make anyone into the killer at the last minute by revealing hidden motives and scenes that were never shown to us before that.

[paigow]

Only Herrings In The Building

[peeayebee]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

They can make anyone into the killer at the last minute by revealing hidden motives and scenes that were never shown to us before that.

Yes, that's true. I guess I just enjoy the ride enough that this doesn't bother me. 

[Yeah No]

1 minute ago, peeayebee said:

Yes, that's true. I guess I just enjoy the ride enough that this doesn't bother me. 

My husband is like you. Of course I spent too many years watching crime shows and mysteries not to want to figure it out. I guess I'll have to just try to relax and enjoy the ride because to do otherwise is frustrating. I know I probably won't succeed, though, LOL. 😉

[cardigirl]

2 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I wonder if they are doing it to try to get the audience to just relax and enjoy the comedy and not focus so much on solving the mystery. There is probably a large segment of the audience that doesn't focus that much on the murder details and is just there to be entertained by all the quirky characters and comedy. And then "poof", a surprise ending! I loved that deus ex machina description. It describes exactly what I've been saying. They can make anyone into the killer at the last minute by revealing hidden motives and scenes that were never shown to us before that.

I agree and feel like Season 2 was the most egregious example of this.

I like to figure it out too but have decided to just enjoy the universe they have created, covet Charles' apartment, and come here to discuss. ☺️ 

[AnimeMania]

I guess the cadaver dog was just on the show to find a cadaver. Then they retired him.

Why was there a pig in the bathroom? None of the Westies seem to be upset that she got loose.

What about the crazy ex-girlfriend, when she was talking on the ham radio it seemed odd that she knew that the pig was in the room, does she have a camera in there? Is she really in whatever Scandinavian country they said she was in?

[DoctorAtomic]

Like some of you here, I don't really watch to unravel the mystery. I lose interest, though still watch, when the trio is separated. The three of them working on the case is the strength of the show imo. However, I didn't think figuring out that two people had to be in on it was that huge of a reveal. It seemed obvious given the timeline, and when they showed the trio going over to the west tower for the first time. I guess I can chalk it up to them not really having the time to think it through with the production being all over the place. nbd. 

I don't think the Brothers sisters did it because it's too obvious and early, but I liked that they're suspects and, well, the shoe fits. 

Is McEnroe a fan of the show? 

The Jonk jokes were great. All the dwarves. 

 

[DoctorAtomic]

On 9/24/2024 at 8:09 AM, peeayebee said:

I'm surprised I've never heard of a sticky mat.

You also use them in laboratories so you don't track dust in or track other particles out. 

[Chit Chat]

9 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I guess I'll have to just try to relax and enjoy the ride because to do otherwise is frustrating. I know I probably won't succeed, though, LOL. 

I'm not clever enough to come up with more than one or two suspects, so I'm just hanging on to this wild ride of a season and hope the payoff will have been worth it!!  The fast pace is making my brain work extra hard in keeping up with the details!  Of course, I could always just go back and rewatch an episode to pick up on any missed info! 

49 minutes ago, AnimeMania said:

Why was there a pig in the bathroom? None of the Westies seem to be upset that she got loose.

Maybe most of the other Westies are oddballs too and didn't bat an eye at seeing a pig running around!  Hammy, Hammy, wherefore art thou Hammy!!

[Emcber]

11 hours ago, paigow said:

Only Herrings In The Building

Only Celeb Cameos in the Building

Which leads me to my criticisms of this season. I feel it has way too many cameos, and Paul Rudd’s is way too long. And I like Molly Shannon fine, but she’s an actor who in anything I see her in “hey, that’s Molly Shannon.” 
On a positive note I still love the trio’s chemistry and that Da'Vine Joy Randolph is back. 

[snarktini]

On 9/24/2024 at 3:54 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

I'm glad that Charles still has a Who? up on his murder board. Because regardless of the likelihood that someone wanted to silence Sazz, I still don't see how she was the intended victim here rather than Charles.  Remember, the shot is into Charles' dark kitchen, towards a Charles-like silhouette. 

Yeah, I'm stuck on that too. The tcoordination on this murder needed to be perfect for our (allegedly) two killers -- one in the empty apartment, one in Charles's -- too perfect to predict that Sazz would be in Charles' kitchen, in the line of fire, alone, on that night. It was total happenstance that Sazz would volunteer to go to his kitchen. While I can see how Sazz makes a plausible target, why would you set up a sniper's nest aimed at a home that's not your target's?

On 9/24/2024 at 4:35 PM, Chit Chat said:

There were so many funny moments in this episode, especially John McEnroe's cameo!  That brought back some memories of his days on the tennis court and letting his temper get the best of him!  Good to see him be in on the joke! 

This was a true laugh out loud moment for me! Recognized him immediately, and having him scream at someone for screaming was just perfect.

On 9/25/2024 at 10:08 AM, chaifan said:

I loved the bit with Mabel and Bev by the elevator.  I really thought Mabel was going to say "animal jobs!" as a podcast idea.

Oh, that would have been such a good callback!

[roseha]

I have to agree with everyone who is feeling disappointed.  I really enjoyed the show until this season, but what's killing it the most for me is all the stereotypical Hollywood stuff, which is so so obvious and which the writers just don't want to let go.   Bev Melon is such an annoying cliche that I really hope she turns out to be the killer but i doubt it somehow.

It says something to me that in a show with 3 brilliant leads, the one time I laughed was at John McEnroe's cameo.  I guess I can only hope that they stay in New York as much as possible going forward.

I can't believe no one asked Bev how she knew about Sazz' getaway either.  It should have been a major plot twist.

[chaifan]

11 hours ago, Emcber said:

I feel it has way too many cameos, and Paul Rudd’s is way too long. And I like Molly Shannon fine, but she’s an actor who in anything I see her in “hey, that’s Molly Shannon.” 

Cameos usually refer to when an actor is playing themselves.  John McEnroe was a cameo.  Scott Bakula was a cameo.  Sting, Matthew Broderick, etc.   Eva, Eugene and Zach are all cameos.

I guess it's becoming common to interchange "celebrity guest star" with "cameo", but I don't understand why the original meaning of the word is getting changed to that.  If we're going to apply that to this show, then 1/2 the cast would be considered "cameos". 

21 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Of course I spent too many years watching crime shows and mysteries not to want to figure it out. I

I think that's why I enjoy this show so much.  I don't like traditional (aka "serious") crime/cop or mystery shows.  I liked Psych, Monk, shows that have a crime/mystery element but aren't serious dramas.  So I guess that's why enjoy this so much.  I'm not really watching it for the mystery. 

[Yeah No]

10 minutes ago, chaifan said:

I think that's why I enjoy this show so much.  I don't like traditional (aka "serious") crime/cop or mystery shows.  I liked Psych, Monk, shows that have a crime/mystery element but aren't serious dramas.  So I guess that's why enjoy this so much.  I'm not really watching it for the mystery. 

I think it's just my nature to want to solve any mystery. I'm thinking of a certain "vocational interest inventory" that would tell me this is part of my "investigative" side. I think some people have more of that in them than others. My husband is definitely not as investigative as I am so he isn't always looking for clues and making theories like I am. But to be fair, a murder mystery shouldn't confound people that have that bent. The genre, IMO is kind of set up for and begs for that sort of thing. So being of that bent and feeling like a show is going this far out of its way to confound me in that process is not exactly pleasant nor do I appreciate it, LOL. Throwing out all these "clues" and red herrings is only inviting people who have an investigative bent to run with them, so pretty much thumbing their noses at us and deliberately frustrating us is not exactly what I consider good entertainment. I'm still trying to get past it because I'm invested in this show but it does bug me somewhat.

[peeayebee]

46 minutes ago, chaifan said:

Cameos usually refer to when an actor is playing themselves.  John McEnroe was a cameo.  Scott Bakula was a cameo.  Sting, Matthew Broderick, etc.   Eva, Eugene and Zach are all cameos.

I guess it's becoming common to interchange "celebrity guest star" with "cameo", but I don't understand why the original meaning of the word is getting changed to that.  If we're going to apply that to this show, then 1/2 the cast would be considered "cameos". 

I always thought of a cameo as a relatively short, perhaps unannounced, appearance by a familiar actor. For example, in this show Eva Longoria is not doing a cameo because she's a regular cast member. I don't think it matters whether or not the actor is portraying themselves (or a version of themselves).

[roseha]

I think also we are getting to the point where the leads are acting out of character.  There was something off putting about Charles acting out the fantasy of the well dressed killer carrying off the body of - Sazz - whom he has previously spent the the whole season mourning?  In addition Oliver's neediness is becoming so over the top that it's just not funny anymore.

I really hope they can right the ship but I have a feeling that this season is all set and we may have to wait for Season 5 for things to get better.

[Enigma X]

I love mysteries and trying to solve them, but I do think this show, including this season, is riddled with red herrings along the way, or at least the implication that every character is involved. The final episodes are where they hone it in. Do I like that approach? No. Is it out of the ordinary for this show or any other modern-day mystery? Unfortunately, no. I’ve said before that, in my opinion, actual 'whodunnits' are not made anymore.

[DoctorAtomic]

7 hours ago, chaifan said:

I'm not really watching it for the mystery. 

It's more about Charles realizing what Sazz meant to him now that she's gone than it is about solving her murder, even though I want Charles to get some justice for her. He's never going to get closure. 

We're not going to piece it together till the last few episodes anyway. That's the way the show has always been. 

An actual twist this season would be if the sisters are the killers. 

[Yeah No]

1 minute ago, DoctorAtomic said:

An actual twist this season would be if the sisters are the killers. 

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time seeing that as a twist. When practically everyone on the cast is a suspect (including them) it's going to feel anticlimactic when the killer is finally revealed. Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat and make someone like Howard or the doorman the killer, I'm just going to be all "so what?" about it.

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time seeing that as a twist. When practically everyone on the cast is a suspect (including them) it's going to feel anticlimactic when the killer is finally revealed. Unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat and make someone like Howard or the doorman the killer, I'm just going to be all "so what?" about it.

I think if there is a twist it is why, not whom. 

[Yeah No]

14 hours ago, Affogato said:

I think if there is a twist it is why, not whom. 

I'm having a hard time conceiving of a "why" that would knock me off my seat and go "WOW, what a great twist!!!" but who knows? This show hasn't had the best track record for motives in the past. They've been a little out-there or flimsy at best. I really hope they avoid that, especially where Sazz is concerned.

Here's a twist I thought of last night - Maybe Sazz is or was the mysterious Dudenoff (or the Dudenoff replacement). Who knows? Maybe the Westies were former stunt people who for some reason couldn't get work anymore and needed a place to live and she was helping them out. There might be a motive in there somewhere if someone wanted control of those apartments. There may be several levels to this possibility that won't be tied up until future episodes.

[Enigma X]

Frankly, none of the murder reveals on this show have shocked me. I don’t expect this season to be any different. I think the murderers have either been predictable (not in a clever way) or completely out of left field. Despite that, I enjoy the show. I know and respect that many don’t agree, but to me, this show has followed the same loose formula since day one.

[Affogato]

11 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I'm having a hard time conceiving of a "why" that would knock me off my seat and go "WOW, what a great twist!!!" but who knows? This show hasn't had the best track record for motives in the past. They've been a little out-there or flimsy at best. I really hope they avoid that, especially where Sazz is concerned.

Here's a twist I thought of last night - Maybe Sazz is or was the mysterious Dudenoff (or the Dudenoff replacement). Who knows? Maybe the Westies were former stunt people who for some reason couldn't get work anymore and needed a place to live and she was helping them out. There might be a motive in there somewhere if someone wanted control of those apartments. There may be several levels to this possibility that won't be tied up until future episodes.

It is hard to think of richard kind as a stuntman. I think of the why as something that threatens the existence of the arcadia? I don’t know. 

[Affogato]

If you make almost everyone a suspect, who dunnit is not a twist. Unless o e of out three did it, of course. 

[peeayebee]

Or Hammy!

[KerleyQ]

On 9/27/2024 at 8:28 AM, JenE4 said:

The point is, this show has never been “solvable” just by watching the episodes before the finale.

I think it has been, for the most part. I know the first season, I had Jan as my main suspect fairly early on, based on some lines of hers here and there during the season. In the second season, I remember it feeling obvious, to me, that the cop had been talking about Poppy when he was talking about meeting a beautiful woman (when we were supposed to be faked out and thing he was talking about Cinda). At that point, I suspected one or both of Poppy/the cop. Third season, I honestly had a twinge of suspicion of the mother and son when they were first introduced, and kind of kept waiting for something to jump out at me saying it was them. I got distracted by some other theories as the season went on, but by the end of the season, I was split between what actually happened and another theory. The whole theme of that season seemed to be what a mother would do for her child. 

It's not always obvious exactly what happened, but I feel like the killer and some pieces of the circumstances have been there to be seen as each season progresses. Sure, there are always red herrings, but I feel like that's pretty common for a murder mystery. 

[bosawks]

All I know is that now I desperately want Howard and his headset to be integral to the capture of the killer.

[shapeshifter]

17 hours ago, peeayebee said:

Or Hammy!

Yes, even Hammy.

Disclaimer: 
I am spoiler free.

Nevertheless, @Yeah No mentioned that one of my previous theories turned out to be correct, so, I'm tagging my Hammy theory, which I hadn't considered until @peeayebee's post, which I presume was a joke, right?

The Hammy Did It theory:

Spoiler

I mean, he was in the right place at the right time, right?
Suppose someone set up the shot to
— I Don't Know. Maybe silence an annoying pigeon like in that Friends episode with Michael Rapaport as Gary — 
—but then Hammy gets caught up in the trigger string, swinging the rifle around to Charles' apartment, and:
BLAM!
😵

This doesn't explain how or why someone would remove Sazz's body (dead or alive) so quickly.
So.
Body removal theory:
Jan had actually already broken out of prison and was in Charles apartment when it happened. 
She tried(?) to save Sazz but figured it was best to clean up any traces so her presence would not be discovered.

 

Edited September 30 by shapeshifter

[peeayebee]

Yes, my Hammy comment was definitely a joke.

[Yeah No]

19 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

I think it has been, for the most part. I know the first season, I had Jan as my main suspect fairly early on, based on some lines of hers here and there during the season. In the second season, I remember it feeling obvious, to me, that the cop had been talking about Poppy when he was talking about meeting a beautiful woman (when we were supposed to be faked out and thing he was talking about Cinda). At that point, I suspected one or both of Poppy/the cop. Third season, I honestly had a twinge of suspicion of the mother and son when they were first introduced, and kind of kept waiting for something to jump out at me saying it was them. I got distracted by some other theories as the season went on, but by the end of the season, I was split between what actually happened and another theory. The whole theme of that season seemed to be what a mother would do for her child. 

It's not always obvious exactly what happened, but I feel like the killer and some pieces of the circumstances have been there to be seen as each season progresses. Sure, there are always red herrings, but I feel like that's pretty common for a murder mystery. 

I think the difference between this season and the previous ones is that in previous seasons there were fewer red herrings and possible suspects and by this time in the season we were only working on a few possibilities, one of which turned out to be the actual one. I figured out Jan in season 1 and Poppy was one of my suspects too. I was undecided between a few options last season too, but only a few and one of them was the right choice. I didn't feel compelled to engage in any wild speculation either. Some but not like this. I think the choices were fewer and more obvious.

I feel like this season is very different from that. There are umpteen red herrings and possible killers and more are introduced every week. We aren't even sure if Sazz was in fact murdered and who was if not her. We are still either wildly speculating or throwing up our hands. If they don't start helping us narrow things down a bit in the next couple of episodes it's definitely going to require a "deus ex machina" ending where all is revealed in the final episode by means of implausible but convenient explanations to tie everything to a certain person or persons.

It's funny because while that expression (deus ex machina) is used for situations like this it actually comes from philosophy and means "God in the machine". In philosophy it's used to describe the practice of using God to explain ordinary events that humans haven't yet figured out are really caused by natural/non spiritual processes.

[Affogato]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes, even Hammy.

Disclaimer: 
I am spoiler free.

Nevertheless, @Yeah No mentioned that one of my previous theories turned out to be correct, so, I'm tagging my Hammy theory, which I hadn't considered until @peeayebee's post, which I presume was a joke, right?

The Hammy Did It theory:

  Hide contents

I mean, he was in the right place at the right time, right?
Suppose someone set up the shot to
— I Don't Know. Maybe silence an annoying pigeon like in that Friends episode with Michael Rapaport as Gary — 
—but then Hammy gets caught up in the trigger string, swinging the rifle around to Charles' apartment, and:
BLAM!
😵

This doesn't explain how or why someone would remove Sazz's body (dead or alive) so quickly.
So.
Body removal theory:
Jan had actually already broken out of prison and was in Charles apartment when it happened. 
She tried(?) to save Sazz but figured it was best to clean up any traces so her presence would not be discovered.

 

Great!

Spoiler

Sazz was going to tell Charles she was retiring. That was her news. Nothing about him being in danger. 
Jan would know about the incinerator ( I think the timing is off there, it seems as if she escaped later  but maybe)   
pigs are known to be irresponsible around guns  

 

 

[Yeah No]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes, even Hammy.

Interesting theory but what a groaner if true....

[Affogato]

49 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

Interesting theory but what a groaner if true....

Bringing us back to sazz is still alive

[JenE4]

Just a tip on forum protocol: You don’t need to put speculation and theories under spoiler tags, unless you are basing it on an actual show spoiler, such as leaked information. Hammy accidentally knocking into a pigeon-control gun, while certainly creative, is not a spoiler. 😄

Edited September 30 by JenE4