Having finished watching this last night, I'm firmly in the too many questions not enough answers camp.
I don’t think they need to answer everything but there were certainly more questions raised by the finale than resolutions.
I enjoyed watching it but the complete lack of any answers does leave you with the feeling you’ve been had….just like that other show that relied on mysteries and flashbacks!
I'm apparently the only person that was happy with the amount of answers, and didn't feel hard done by from the finale...
We didn't really get any proper answers though did we? Even in the scenes where we did get some answers there were often even more questions raised.
I'm not averse to some things being left open ended but it's easier to just come up with a mystery (created to keep people 'on the hook') than it is to come up with a mystery with an explanation.
We didn't really get any proper answers though did we? Even in the scenes where we did get some answers there were often even more questions raised.
I'm not averse to some things being left open ended but it's easier to just come up with a mystery (created to keep people 'on the hook') than it is to come up with a mystery with an explanation.
I don't think you'll ever get 100% confirmed answers for everything, it's not that type of show. Instead, they'll probably just imply and hint at things. Like for example (I'll spoiler tag this just in case):
We discovered the water in Cammile's coffin, implying that the water takes the place of the dead person, hence the chance in water levels. The flood at the end therefore implies everyone died. Though of course, that's probably all wrong...
I think there are going to be some serious issues with the show in the second series. Assuming wikipedia is correct they aren't going to start filming until Feb/March 2014, that's 2 years after the first series was shot which will mean the young characters have all miraculously aged, even Victor who is dead will have aged 2 years!!
I'm not sure I would have watched this had I known how long I would have to wait for any answers. I hope wikipedia is wrong and that it should be 2013 but if it's right UK viewers can expect series 2 some time in 2015. :eek:
I think there are going to be some serious issues with the show in the second series. Assuming wikipedia is correct they aren't going to start filming until Feb/March 2014, that's 2 years after the first series was shot which will mean the young characters have all miraculously aged, even Victor who is dead will have aged 2 years!!
I'm not sure I would have watched this had I known how long I would have to wait for any answers. I hope wikipedia is wrong and that it should be 2013 but if it's right UK viewers can expect series 2 some time in 2015. :eek:
I think it's true. I've read that the first series was absurdly expensive to make and i look super long to film, so i'm not surprised.
I feel kind of sorry for the people on the other thread, they are so excited they are going to get some answers at the end.
Was anybody seriously expecting them to give at any point during the series' lifespan an 100% credible explanation? Let alone during the first series?
J.J. Abrams gave an interesting TED talk in which he was discussing a mystery magic trick he had been given, and how the mystery of what was in the box was more interesting than what was actually in the box. I think that's the principle in play here, the reveal itself will only be disappointing, and the mystery of what it could be will always be more interesting. so why wait for a reveal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjVgF5JDq8
OK, thoughts about a few characters / issues that have been discussed here and on the Channel 4 pace thread. Going to put it all in spoiler tags in case people haven't seen all the way to episode 8, cos I can't remember exactly what comes from what episode!
People have been asking why Victor returned and not the rest of his family. Quick question - do we know for definite that the rest of his family died? I can't remember if we were shown that or if we just heard the gunshots. They could have survived...
It has also been asked why Camille has returned but not the rest of the children from the coach. I think this one is possibly more simple - did the driver open the door / did she manage to open the door as the coach crashed? The rest could be 'trapped' inside.
Simon's suicide - someone suggested on another thread that Victor had something to do with it. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems. They included the deaths of weird-neighbour-lady and Toni from 'self-inflicted injuries' to show us that deaths which seem to be suicide are not necessarily as they seem. I think we're meant to link that in our minds to Simon. We know very little about his past - even the priest said he was always very closed in that respect - so there's possibly something that Victor showed him in a vision that made him kill himself?
That would mean Victor has been back before - not sure how that would work. It wouldn't surprise me though - he's creepy enough!
Someone had mentioned on another thread that there seems to be a discrepancy in terms of ages with Toni and Serge - Serge claimed to be Toni's big brother when he was in the pub, but he seems younger, and in a later episode (IIRC) Toni made some comment about being the big brother. I think all of this points to Serge having been dead before, and returned (before being 'killed' again by Toni) - he was the older brother, but then when he returned he was younger because Toni had aged and he hadn't. This may also link to the killings - Toni commented that he hadn't realised Serge "didn't have a choice" in attacking the girls and eating their flesh. I think this is something that happens once you've been dead more than once - your traits become more zombie-like.
As for the scar on Lena's back - I think Serge knows what it is, and that's how he knew how to treat it. Maybe he's had a similar scar before, and recognises it as a mark linked to the returnees. I dunno exactly where they're going with it, but the scar and other points do suggest a connection between Lena and Camille - I've said right from the first episode that there was going to be more to the relationship between them. It was Lena's comment to Frederic in the first episode that did it, when she asked him "How do you know you just can't tell us apart? How do you know I'm not Camille?"
So, yeah - that's my not-very-coherent thoughts at the moment!
OK, thoughts about a few characters / issues that have been discussed here and on the Channel 4 pace thread. Going to put it all in spoiler tags in case people haven't seen all the way to episode 8, cos I can't remember exactly what comes from what episode!
People have been asking why Victor returned and not the rest of his family. Quick question - do we know for definite that the rest of his family died? I can't remember if we were shown that or if we just heard the gunshots. They could have survived...
It has also been asked why Camille has returned but not the rest of the children from the coach. I think this one is possibly more simple - did the driver open the door / did she manage to open the door as the coach crashed? The rest could be 'trapped' inside.
Simon's suicide - someone suggested on another thread that Victor had something to do with it. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems. They included the deaths of weird-neighbour-lady and Toni from 'self-inflicted injuries' to show us that deaths which seem to be suicide are not necessarily as they seem. I think we're meant to link that in our minds to Simon. We know very little about his past - even the priest said he was always very closed in that respect - so there's possibly something that Victor showed him in a vision that made him kill himself?
That would mean Victor has been back before - not sure how that would work. It wouldn't surprise me though - he's creepy enough!
Someone had mentioned on another thread that there seems to be a discrepancy in terms of ages with Toni and Serge - Serge claimed to be Toni's big brother when he was in the pub, but he seems younger, and in a later episode (IIRC) Toni made some comment about being the big brother. I think all of this points to Serge having been dead before, and returned (before being 'killed' again by Toni) - he was the older brother, but then when he returned he was younger because Toni had aged and he hadn't. This may also link to the killings - Toni commented that he hadn't realised Serge "didn't have a choice" in attacking the girls and eating their flesh. I think this is something that happens once you've been dead more than once - your traits become more zombie-like.
As for the scar on Lena's back - I think Serge knows what it is, and that's how he knew how to treat it. Maybe he's had a similar scar before, and recognises it as a mark linked to the returnees. I dunno exactly where they're going with it, but the scar and other points do suggest a connection between Lena and Camille - I've said right from the first episode that there was going to be more to the relationship between them. It was Lena's comment to Frederic in the first episode that did it, when she asked him "How do you know you just can't tell us apart? How do you know I'm not Camille?"
So, yeah - that's my not-very-coherent thoughts at the moment!
I think you're reading way too much into that comment from the first episode,
wouldn't the girls themselves know they'd swapped and have discussed it by now? It was probably just her joking around or trying to work out whether he really likes her or just wants to sleep with her...
Was anybody seriously expecting them to give at any point during the series' lifespan an 100% credible explanation? Let alone during the first series?
J.J. Abrams gave an interesting TED talk in which he was discussing a mystery magic trick he had been given, and how the mystery of what was in the box was more interesting than what was actually in the box. I think that's the principle in play here, the reveal itself will only be disappointing, and the mystery of what it could be will always be more interesting. so why wait for a reveal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjVgF5JDq8
Whilst I can see what you are saying, it's my own personal opinion that an unresolved mystery in a fictional story is more often than not a dressed up con trick. It's very easy to come up with weird events that stimulate discussion, the difficult part is connecting those weird events via a 'plausible' explanation, whether that be supernatural or science fictiony!
There is a problem with TV shows in that they do not want to reveal too much as they know people are probably watching for that explanation and they want to keep these people watching into second/third/fourth series. This leads to the distinct possibility of that answer never being provided before the show is cancelled, meaning they sometimes don't even bother to think of one. That is not clever writing too me, regardless of how well made the show is.....and don't get me started on JJ Abrams, Lost :mad: .
Whilst I can see what you are saying, it's my own personal opinion that an unresolved mystery in a fictional story is more often than not a dressed up con trick. It's very easy to come up with weird events that stimulate discussion, the difficult part is connecting those weird events via a 'plausible' explanation, whether that be supernatural or science fictiony!
There is a problem with TV shows in that they do not want to reveal too much as they know people are probably watching for that explanation and they want to keep these people watching into second/third/fourth series. This leads to the distinct possibility of that answer never being provided before the show is cancelled, meaning they sometimes don't even bother to think of one. That is not clever writing too me, regardless of how well made the show is.....and don't get me started on JJ Abrams, Lost :mad: .
Is there a problem with it being a "dressed up con trick", surely enjoying it is all that matters?
Personally I'd be happy with it ending with them all drowning and no explanation whatsoever, I didn't watch it because I wanted an answer, I assumed we wouldn't ever get one and worked backwards...
And is Lost not an example of the mystery being better than the reveal?
Is there a problem with it being a "dressed up con trick", surely enjoying it is all that matters?
Personally I'd be happy with it ending with them all drowning and no explanation whatsoever, I didn't watch it because I wanted an answer, I assumed we wouldn't ever get one and worked backwards...
And is Lost not an example of the mystery being better than the reveal?
I felt Lost was the perfect example of how to annoy the vast majority of your loyal viewers, if I'd known how few of those little mysteries (that we all thought were part of the bigger picture, sound familiar?) would be resolved then I would not have invested 100+ hours watching it and would never consider recommending the show.
I have admitted to enjoying watching both Lost and The Returned but without a satisfactory explanation I could never watch Lost again, I know it's an extreme example but it's like watching OJ Simpson in Naked Gun or a Jimmy Saville era edition of TOTP's, seeing them after what we know now leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
The reason we watched Lost was because we were intrigued by the mysteries and how they were going to fit together, without those mysteries Lost is just another soap opera.
Was anybody seriously expecting them to give at any point during the series' lifespan an 100% credible explanation? Let alone during the first series?
J.J. Abrams gave an interesting TED talk in which he was discussing a mystery magic trick he had been given, and how the mystery of what was in the box was more interesting than what was actually in the box. I think that's the principle in play here, the reveal itself will only be disappointing, and the mystery of what it could be will always be more interesting. so why wait for a reveal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjVgF5JDq8
Of course JJ Abrams would say that, don't get me started.:mad:
It does not matter if the mystery is more interesting than what is actually on the box, of course it, but people invest on a series with the expectation that things will make sense at some point. Because there is absolutely no genius involved in making up random things as you go along and then not being able to explain the logic (even by that particular world's laws) behind it at some stage. If they are unable to do this, they are not very good writers.
I just hope this is more Twin Peaks and less of Lost. That was frankly total bull.
I bet if you get an explanation, you'll be disappointed and pick holes in it. It's a lose lose situation for the writers...
People may not be satisfied with the explanation, they usually never are, but if you are able to pick holes in a story like this, it's this simply not good writing. There is no genius involved in making up things as you go along if you are not able to create a coherent finale.
Now i just hope we get some answers next series.
People may not be satisfied with the explanation, they usually never are, but if you are able to pick holes in a story like this, it's this simply not good writing. There is no genius involved in making up things as you go along if you are not able to create a coherent finale, according to the rules of the universe of course.
Yes, but what if the rules of the universe dictated that it was an unexplainable anomaly.
And people will pick holes in anything, therefore all writing is poor...
Comments
I don’t think they need to answer everything but there were certainly more questions raised by the finale than resolutions.
I enjoyed watching it but the complete lack of any answers does leave you with the feeling you’ve been had….just like that other show that relied on mysteries and flashbacks!
We didn't really get any proper answers though did we? Even in the scenes where we did get some answers there were often even more questions raised.
I'm not averse to some things being left open ended but it's easier to just come up with a mystery (created to keep people 'on the hook') than it is to come up with a mystery with an explanation.
It's going to be fun over on the other thread when it finishes airing in the UK, so many questions being asked there that will remain unanswered.
Yes, but I'm not sure whether it's basic cable (ala Sky1) or premium cable (ala Sky Movies or HBO)
I'm not sure I would have watched this had I known how long I would have to wait for any answers. I hope wikipedia is wrong and that it should be 2013 but if it's right UK viewers can expect series 2 some time in 2015. :eek:
I think it's true. I've read that the first series was absurdly expensive to make and i look super long to film, so i'm not surprised.
I feel kind of sorry for the people on the other thread, they are so excited they are going to get some answers at the end.
J.J. Abrams gave an interesting TED talk in which he was discussing a mystery magic trick he had been given, and how the mystery of what was in the box was more interesting than what was actually in the box. I think that's the principle in play here, the reveal itself will only be disappointing, and the mystery of what it could be will always be more interesting. so why wait for a reveal? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjVgF5JDq8
It has also been asked why Camille has returned but not the rest of the children from the coach. I think this one is possibly more simple - did the driver open the door / did she manage to open the door as the coach crashed? The rest could be 'trapped' inside.
Simon's suicide - someone suggested on another thread that Victor had something to do with it. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems. They included the deaths of weird-neighbour-lady and Toni from 'self-inflicted injuries' to show us that deaths which seem to be suicide are not necessarily as they seem. I think we're meant to link that in our minds to Simon. We know very little about his past - even the priest said he was always very closed in that respect - so there's possibly something that Victor showed him in a vision that made him kill himself?
That would mean Victor has been back before - not sure how that would work. It wouldn't surprise me though - he's creepy enough!
Someone had mentioned on another thread that there seems to be a discrepancy in terms of ages with Toni and Serge - Serge claimed to be Toni's big brother when he was in the pub, but he seems younger, and in a later episode (IIRC) Toni made some comment about being the big brother. I think all of this points to Serge having been dead before, and returned (before being 'killed' again by Toni) - he was the older brother, but then when he returned he was younger because Toni had aged and he hadn't. This may also link to the killings - Toni commented that he hadn't realised Serge "didn't have a choice" in attacking the girls and eating their flesh. I think this is something that happens once you've been dead more than once - your traits become more zombie-like.
As for the scar on Lena's back - I think Serge knows what it is, and that's how he knew how to treat it. Maybe he's had a similar scar before, and recognises it as a mark linked to the returnees. I dunno exactly where they're going with it, but the scar and other points do suggest a connection between Lena and Camille - I've said right from the first episode that there was going to be more to the relationship between them. It was Lena's comment to Frederic in the first episode that did it, when she asked him "How do you know you just can't tell us apart? How do you know I'm not Camille?"
So, yeah - that's my not-very-coherent thoughts at the moment!
Whilst I can see what you are saying, it's my own personal opinion that an unresolved mystery in a fictional story is more often than not a dressed up con trick. It's very easy to come up with weird events that stimulate discussion, the difficult part is connecting those weird events via a 'plausible' explanation, whether that be supernatural or science fictiony!
There is a problem with TV shows in that they do not want to reveal too much as they know people are probably watching for that explanation and they want to keep these people watching into second/third/fourth series. This leads to the distinct possibility of that answer never being provided before the show is cancelled, meaning they sometimes don't even bother to think of one. That is not clever writing too me, regardless of how well made the show is.....and don't get me started on JJ Abrams, Lost :mad: .
Personally I'd be happy with it ending with them all drowning and no explanation whatsoever, I didn't watch it because I wanted an answer, I assumed we wouldn't ever get one and worked backwards...
And is Lost not an example of the mystery being better than the reveal?
I felt Lost was the perfect example of how to annoy the vast majority of your loyal viewers, if I'd known how few of those little mysteries (that we all thought were part of the bigger picture, sound familiar?) would be resolved then I would not have invested 100+ hours watching it and would never consider recommending the show.
I have admitted to enjoying watching both Lost and The Returned but without a satisfactory explanation I could never watch Lost again, I know it's an extreme example but it's like watching OJ Simpson in Naked Gun or a Jimmy Saville era edition of TOTP's, seeing them after what we know now leaves a sour taste in the mouth.
The reason we watched Lost was because we were intrigued by the mysteries and how they were going to fit together, without those mysteries Lost is just another soap opera.
There are more questions than answers.
Of course JJ Abrams would say that, don't get me started.:mad:
It does not matter if the mystery is more interesting than what is actually on the box, of course it, but people invest on a series with the expectation that things will make sense at some point. Because there is absolutely no genius involved in making up random things as you go along and then not being able to explain the logic (even by that particular world's laws) behind it at some stage. If they are unable to do this, they are not very good writers.
I just hope this is more Twin Peaks and less of Lost. That was frankly total bull.
People may not be satisfied with the explanation, they usually never are, but if you are able to pick holes in a story like this, it's this simply not good writing. There is no genius involved in making up things as you go along if you are not able to create a coherent finale.
Now i just hope we get some answers next series.
And people will pick holes in anything, therefore all writing is poor...