Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S01.E10: Cycle


Recommended Posts

As I remember it, not quite.  I think Pilcher described what happened to Group A,  but while he was talking, we saw the images.  

 

 

Not the "bagged family".  If that image is true (it might not be -- I may be remembering incorrectly), then that family did not die from an abbie attack.

Showing images of the "picture a narrator is painting" is a very very common TV and film trope. See gone girl. It doesn't mean the images are shown by omniscient narrator as truthful its just illustrating the words.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Why was lot 33 there in the first place? Build something there and make it something not worth snooping in. Did anyone ever need to go there? if the tunnel led to the mountains you could get into it that way.

 

That one I can actually fan-wank somewhat.  The entry in the shack could serve as an emergency entrance in case someone needed to get from town to bunker (or vice versa) quickly.

 

But what was under the metal plate in the middle of the plot?

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I don't know if anyone still shecks this forum but I had a thought:  What if, around the 7th episode, they realized they had the ratings for a second season, but all of the the actors' options had run out -- non of Pilcher, Ethan, Pam, Theresa or Kate were available...

 

That would explain the tacked-on ending.  Just have a couple of scenes in episodes 9 and 10, and hey, presto, The Hitler Youth of Wayward Pines!

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure the whole thing was in the can well before any of it aired. I don't think the ending was changed to make it seem second-seasonable. It may have been done that way all along to leave the door open, knowing the actors' options would be long gone by the time it aired and one could even entertain the notion, but I do not believe this was a tacked on/reshoot thing. Unless you've seen articles suggestnig to the contrary? Because I could totally be wrong. I'm just going off what I've read.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
What if, around the 7th episode, they realized they had the ratings for a second season, but all of the the actors' options had run out -- non of Pilcher, Ethan, Pam, Theresa or Kate were available...

That would explain the tacked-on ending.  Just have a couple of scenes in episodes 9 and 10, and hey, presto, The Hitler Youth of Wayward Pines!

 

The entire show (all 10 episodes) was filmed before it aired:  "Filming took place between August 19, 2013 and February 14, 2014 in Burnaby (interiors) and Agassiz (exteriors), in British Columbia"

http://globalnews.ca/news/780328/stars-set-to-begin-work-on-wayward-pines-in-b-c/

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I'm pretty sure the whole thing was in the can well before any of it aired. 

 

 

The entire show (all 10 episodes) was filmed before it aired: 

 

You guys are total spoilsports!  :-(

 

LOL

  • Love 2
Link to comment

I was away and just caught up on this last episode last night. I really enjoyed the ending. I thought when Ben woke up they were going to tell him he was still in Seattle and that everything had been a dream in his head. I was getting preemptively angry about that when I realized that was not what was happening, lol. I have to say I really liked this series beginning to end, yes it was stupid and hokey at times but every week I looked forward to watching it.

That being said I hope they do not do more seasons and just leave the story as it is. I can see what happened to Under the Dome happening to this series too. The first season I enjoyed UTD for what it was, a summer show that was meant to last one season. Then the ratings were good and the execs got greedy and now we are on Season 3 and the plot is all sorts of ridiculous. I hope that doesn't happen with WP.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Showing images of the "picture a narrator is painting" is a very very common TV and film trope. See gone girl. It doesn't mean the images are shown by omniscient narrator as truthful its just illustrating the words.

 

Alfred Hitchcock got into trouble for that as long ago as 1950, with Stage Fright. Flashback footage illustrated the story a character was telling, a story that turned out not to be true. Audiences fulminated: "You showed us filmed images! That means it must be true! You tricked us!" Hitchcock swore he wouldn't do it again. (Not because he'd done anything wrong, more because he just didn't want that kind of audience reaction again.)

 

Never did understand why anyone would have had a problem with it. When I saw it on TV as a kid I thought the flashback-fakeout was brilliant.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...