I think there is a paedophile ring going on but it has nothing to do with Ollie, that plot will be the red herring and it will turn out to be the hotel owners who took Ollie
As someone said earlier in the topic, I wish I had waited till all 8 had been broadcast and watched them in a batch, the anticipation is massive week to week.
So many characters you either don't trust, like or feel you can't trust, so many episodes left for it to not just answer the unanswered questions, but also to introduce more.
Having read all the opinions in the topic, I find myself agreeing with all theories: Its the hotel owners, its Ian, Its Vincent, Its the mum, Its the hotel owners - at this stage you can theorise and come up with compelling case for all,thats the beauty of the writing, we just don't know where it will take us next. Add into that the intrigue of the journalist, what the parents did in the intervening time, Ians backstory and so forth and it is magnificent.
On the 'Great Nesbit Debate' - add me to the column of 'Not usually a fan of his work but think he is playing this perfectly'
Re BIB I agree with that. He's not my favourite actor but I do appreciate his performance in this drama, especially his portrayal of the broken man he has become.
There's quite a contrast between Olly's parents and they way they have dealt with their loss, the father has fallen apart and seems unable to move on, but the mother appears to be getting on with her life despite her deep sorrow. People react differently I guess and I'll be interested to see where the storyline takes us the week.
I'm looking forward to it. Roll on tomorrow evening!
That's understandable. He probably feels responsible and culpable considering he was with Ollie when he disappeared, as well as the cause of his marriage break-up as a result.
My Nesbitt phobia ruled it out for me too, kind of regret it now
It's not too late to catch up if you have access to BBC iPlayer...all episodes are still available.
It seems quite a few people gave this a miss because of Nesbitt, but you'd be quite surprised to see how brilliant he is in The Missing. It must be quite challenging to take on the part of a deeply tormented father desperate for any little sign of his son, without appearing to go completely OTT.
No, he's really got this one nailed.
I've looked back, flipping through a few scenes on iPlayer. It is cleverly written because most things can be easily explained, and look less suspicious (to me anyway) on a second viewing. The wife's behaviour for example, it's less strange looking at those scenes again. Though I still find it peculiar that she would arrange a meeting with the slimy journalist (who she clearly despises) to find out what her ex husband had found.
Of course, there is still one thing that can't be ignored. What possible reason could the Ken Stott character have to arrange a false alibi for the paedophile ? He just has to be involved in some way.
I'm still going with it being a planned abduction, I don't it was pure coincidence that they had to stop in that particular town. I looked at the swimming pool/bar scenes again, the window of opportunity was tiny wasn't it ? Snatching a little boy in a crowded bar just a couple of feet away from his father was taking a great risk. Tony noticed he was missing within 10/20 seconds and the perpetrator was also taking a chance that the boy might have struggled. Makes you wonder if he knew his abductor ?
Ollie had his shoulder bag in the bar, Tony picks up Ollie's bag just outside to the right of the bar, then proceeds to check out the gent's toilet, where he drops the bag and leaves it. Presumably the police retrieved this later ?
IThe wife's behaviour for example, it's less strange looking at those scenes again.
I haven't watched any of it for a second time, but when she so casually agreed to get rid of Ollie's favourite toy, my first thought was WTF? If that were my little boy, you'd have to put a gun to my head to make me ever want to depart with his fox.
There's something really not right about that scene. I know she has a bit of a breakdown in the bathroom straight after - but still. No sane mother would do this imo.
She's portrayed as being quite sane otherwise. Hm, I don't know. So far there is no indication to suggest she's being overly manipulated by the liaison officer, but god knows what's to come in the next 5 episodes
I haven't watched any of it for a second time, but when she so casually agreed to get rid of Ollie's favourite toy, my first thought was WTF? If that were my little boy, you'd have to put a gun to my head to make me ever want to depart with his fox.
There's something really not right about that scene. I know she has a bit of a breakdown in the bathroom straight after - but still. No sane mother would do this imo.
She's portrayed as being quite sane otherwise. Hm, I don't know. So far there is no indication to suggest she's being overly manipulated by the liaison officer, but god knows what's to come in the next 5 episodes
Yes, I did look at that scene again. I agree, I couldn't do it. We even have some of our old dog's toys we can't bear to part with. But they were moving house, and everyone is different. As you say, she did appear upset afterwards but didn't want to show it to her new bloke..which in itself could be suspicious I suppose.
Yes, I did look at that scene again. I agree, I couldn't do it. We even have some of our old dog's toys we can't bear to part with. But they were moving house, and everyone is different. As you say, she did appear upset afterwards but didn't want to show it to her new bloke..which in itself could be suspicious I suppose.
Me too, I couldn't part with Ollie's toy. But then I'm guilty of even keeping my house rabbit's food bowl
Perhaps her actions were a type of emotional de-cluttering. She's moving on, physically and relationship-wise. It still seems a bit harsh to me though. We've seen her break down but she's quite a tough cookie, or rather, has needed to become one to survive.
Looking forward to tonight's episode and seeing the fall-out from the party video and more revelations.
I have a question about the timeline. There seems to be a discrepancy to me. I don't know if it's an error, or something intentional.
In the scene with Julien questioning Tony, he discusses the assault on Greg. He says it and the subsequent payoff happened in February 2000. There's perhaps an implication (not from Julien, just from the timing of it) that Greg might be Oliver's dad.
Later, when explaining the incident, Emily's dad says Oliver was just a baby when it happened. So Oliver was born February 2000 at the latest.
The disappearance happens in 2006. I think it's during the Brazil/France World Cup quarter final, so July 2006. So, Oliver has to be six years old. Yet they refer to him as being five years old, and on the posters it says he's five.
It's probably a mistake, because I can't see how it would form part of the storyline, but I would have expected them to have the timeline for something like this all worked out.
The other possibility here is that I've misunderstood something!!
Could Ollie have been taken by the guy the wife was having the affair with - maybe he thinks Ollie is his son? I don't know if this has been suggested before as I'm coming into the discussion late.
I have a question about the timeline. There seems to be a discrepancy to me. I don't know if it's an error, or something intentional.
In the scene with Julien questioning Tony, he discusses the assault on Greg. He says it and the subsequent payoff happened in February 2000. There's perhaps an implication (not from Julien, just from the timing of it) that Greg might be Oliver's dad.
Later, when explaining the incident, Emily's dad says Oliver was just a baby when it happened. So Oliver was born February 2000 at the latest.
The disappearance happens in 2006. I think it's during the Brazil/France World Cup quarter final, so July 2006. So, Oliver has to be six years old. Yet they refer to him as being five years old, and on the posters it says he's five.
It's probably a mistake, because I can't see how it would form part of the storyline, but I would have expected them to have the timeline for something like this all worked out.
The other possibility here is that I've misunderstood something!!
I thought the same thing - I assumed the attack in 2000 was before Ollie was born, and was surprised when they said he was just a baby.
Did they mention him by name or could it have been another baby?
Comments
Agreed. Never liked Nesbitt but I think he has been brilliant in this.
Yeah,me too. I think the football has gone for a burton.
So many characters you either don't trust, like or feel you can't trust, so many episodes left for it to not just answer the unanswered questions, but also to introduce more.
Having read all the opinions in the topic, I find myself agreeing with all theories: Its the hotel owners, its Ian, Its Vincent, Its the mum, Its the hotel owners - at this stage you can theorise and come up with compelling case for all,thats the beauty of the writing, we just don't know where it will take us next. Add into that the intrigue of the journalist, what the parents did in the intervening time, Ians backstory and so forth and it is magnificent.
On the 'Great Nesbit Debate' - add me to the column of 'Not usually a fan of his work but think he is playing this perfectly'
Roll on 9pm !
My Nesbitt phobia ruled it out for me too, kind of regret it now
It's not too late to catch up if you have access to BBC iPlayer...all episodes are still available.
It seems quite a few people gave this a miss because of Nesbitt, but you'd be quite surprised to see how brilliant he is in The Missing. It must be quite challenging to take on the part of a deeply tormented father desperate for any little sign of his son, without appearing to go completely OTT.
No, he's really got this one nailed.
As is her mouth - she looks like the Joker out of Batman (probably botox or something I imagine)
Of course, there is still one thing that can't be ignored. What possible reason could the Ken Stott character have to arrange a false alibi for the paedophile ? He just has to be involved in some way.
I'm still going with it being a planned abduction, I don't it was pure coincidence that they had to stop in that particular town. I looked at the swimming pool/bar scenes again, the window of opportunity was tiny wasn't it ? Snatching a little boy in a crowded bar just a couple of feet away from his father was taking a great risk. Tony noticed he was missing within 10/20 seconds and the perpetrator was also taking a chance that the boy might have struggled. Makes you wonder if he knew his abductor ?
Ollie had his shoulder bag in the bar, Tony picks up Ollie's bag just outside to the right of the bar, then proceeds to check out the gent's toilet, where he drops the bag and leaves it. Presumably the police retrieved this later ?
There's something really not right about that scene. I know she has a bit of a breakdown in the bathroom straight after - but still. No sane mother would do this imo.
She's portrayed as being quite sane otherwise. Hm, I don't know. So far there is no indication to suggest she's being overly manipulated by the liaison officer, but god knows what's to come in the next 5 episodes
Yes, I did look at that scene again. I agree, I couldn't do it. We even have some of our old dog's toys we can't bear to part with. But they were moving house, and everyone is different. As you say, she did appear upset afterwards but didn't want to show it to her new bloke..which in itself could be suspicious I suppose.
Me too, I couldn't part with Ollie's toy. But then I'm guilty of even keeping my house rabbit's food bowl
Perhaps her actions were a type of emotional de-cluttering. She's moving on, physically and relationship-wise. It still seems a bit harsh to me though. We've seen her break down but she's quite a tough cookie, or rather, has needed to become one to survive.
Looking forward to tonight's episode and seeing the fall-out from the party video and more revelations.
In the scene with Julien questioning Tony, he discusses the assault on Greg. He says it and the subsequent payoff happened in February 2000. There's perhaps an implication (not from Julien, just from the timing of it) that Greg might be Oliver's dad.
Later, when explaining the incident, Emily's dad says Oliver was just a baby when it happened. So Oliver was born February 2000 at the latest.
The disappearance happens in 2006. I think it's during the Brazil/France World Cup quarter final, so July 2006. So, Oliver has to be six years old. Yet they refer to him as being five years old, and on the posters it says he's five.
It's probably a mistake, because I can't see how it would form part of the storyline, but I would have expected them to have the timeline for something like this all worked out.
The other possibility here is that I've misunderstood something!!
I thought the same thing - I assumed the attack in 2000 was before Ollie was born, and was surprised when they said he was just a baby.
Did they mention him by name or could it have been another baby?
Assault February 2000.
Baptiste says Ollie was almost 3 years old in September 2004.
Ollie is said to be 5 years old in July 2006.
Say Ollie is born October 2001. Conceived January 2001.
Baptiste must be wrong.
Yeah, Emily's dad said, "Ollie was just a baby."
Was that the one where the missing girl had a twin sister, and it ended with the twin dying her hair blonde and riding her sister's bike?