Never posted before but wanted to add my thoughts. I've read all of this thread and I don't think anyone has posted the same thing so I'm probably way off the mark.
Is it definitely established that Garrett is a murderer and a paedophile? My first thoughts were that Tony jumped to conclusions. I think Garrett may have been searching for his missing daughter for years, similar to Tony, his wife was driven to despair like Emily. He only had the tapes to look for his daughter, the tapes were given to him by Vincent, he said he just shared material with Garrett. This is why he offered the money to Tony, he sympathised and thought his search might uncover clues to his missing daughter. Also explains why the Mayor hushed things up, he knows Garrett is just another bereaved father.
Of course I don't know how all of this fits in. I think we've seen too much of Tony being violent and impulsive and I think the ending may be him unravelling and realising all the mistakes he's made, maybe even how his own actions lead to Ollie's disappearance.
just watched the scene on iplayer .
you're right there's nothing explicit in what he says , he clearly feels guilty over something to do with Molly , but the rest of his dialogue could be taken to be about other things , Tony and us could definitely have taken it the wrong way
edit - is it my imagination or is Garrett calling Tony "Ian" in that scene ?
I wish this was a book so that I could read the end. Seriously, my heart wont take much more. I read the ends of books when I find that the suspense is getting too much for me, it doesn't spoil the story as it gives me a better insight and avoids the pointless speculation/confusion which keeps me awake at night.
I do not expect anyone to agree with me.
I agree with you, I often read the end of a book and it doesn't spoil the enjoyment for me. Similarly I don't mind knowing the end of a film or series, but I do appreciate that others would not agree, and therefore it is important not to reveal the end in a thread like this. Not that I know the end anyway!!! I just wish I had recorded the whole series so that when it finishes I could watch it all again and see the clues placed throughout each episode.
Didnt know Rupert had a problem with highly paid BBC staffers who stood idly by when Saville, Rolf, Peel and many others raped countless children. The sympathetic attitude shown in this series to paedos like Ian and Bourg really sticks in my throat.
I agree with your final sentence. I feel the writers have worked hard to try and paint Bourg as a sympathetic character and I find this utterly repellent. He may not have acted on his desires in a physical sense but he has viewed child pornography and that means innocent children suffered in order for those images to be created. He is a paedophile.
episode 8, 56 mins Mid afternoon. Emily and tony are in a car on the way to the morgue where they are meeting Baptiste and Mark.
Emily in heels walking up the marble steps, slips and falls. She gasps loudly...
Cut to Emily sitting up forcefully in bed, her face contorted in fear and shock. She is gasping for breath. Silhouette of Eiffel Tower can be seen twinkling from the window in the distance. It must be a sunday night. But emily is fresh faced. Her shock dissolves into sleepy and content sigh as her gaze moves lovingly to Tony by her side. She looks across the hallway to the adjoining room. Olly stirs in his sleep, yellow scarf by his pillow. Emily lays down and picture fades to the Eiffel Twinkling in the distance.
:D
If that's how it ends, will personally track down the writers and beat them to a pulp.
Didnt know Rupert had a problem with highly paid BBC staffers who stood idly by when Saville, Rolf, Peel and many others raped countless children. The sympathetic attitude shown in this series to paedos like Ian and Bourg really sticks in my throat.
:p
The writers have shown Ian behaved so badly his wife is living in cuckoo land
Ian has had scorn poured over him by his killer then was battered to death, wrapped up and weighted down by bricks and dumped in a lake.
Were too soft on these pedophiles.
A fate he provoked by taunting his killer which suggests he wanted to die as an easier way out than being put in jail with a load of nice new friends to look after him.
A fate he provoked by taunting his killer which suggests he wanted to die as an easier way out than being put in jail with a load of nice new friends to look after him.
Very true, i agree but the scene was not sympathetic towards pedophiles.
The anguish of the father dominated the scene.
Very true, i agree but the scene was not sympathetic towards pedophiles.
The anguish of the father dominated the scene.
That may be true in the case of Garrett, but the writers HAVE tried to portray Bourg in a sympathetic light and I consider that to be wrong. Bourg is a paedophile who has viewed pornographic images involving innocent children whose lives were ruined to create those images.
I have a feeling Bourg may not make it to the end of episode 8. He gives the impression he is running around tying up the loose ends of his past. A massive klaxon should sound when he was finally willing to talk to Malik. Maybe he will end up taking his own life?
I agree with your final sentence. I feel the writers have worked hard to try and paint Bourg as a sympathetic character and I find this utterly repellent. He may not have acted on his desires in a physical sense but he has viewed child pornography and that means innocent children suffered in order for those images to be created. He is a paedophile.
I think you are going to find that Bourg suffered abuse as a child. He is damaged by it. We are watching a drama here where people aren't all nicely packaged so that the viewer knows exactly how to feel. Tony is hardly your standard father with a missing child. Bourg is not the paedophile character of the tabloids. Viewers are being invited to have a range of emotions and opinions about these people. It is challenging viewing which is why I'm enjoying the series. Add on unravelling what happened to Ollie.
That may be true in the case of Garrett, but the writers HAVE tried to portray Bourg in a sympathetic light and I consider that to be wrong. Bourg is a paedophile who has viewed pornographic images involving innocent children whose lives were ruined to create those images.
Yes, They could have portrayed him a bit harsher and it's deserved, he has been battered and someone has threatened to kill him if he opens is mouth but i still dont want him coming out of this as a good guy even if he is a reformed character, he deserves locking up like the rest of them
It is fiction after all and the writers have to justify why people are doing certain things, Bourg has been helping pedophiles for years so i think the writers had to justify why he is suddenly going to put a right wrong, i suppose wanting the injections he has received and the effect they have had justifies his actions in the next 2 episodes. there are so many things going on and i just hope they all come together, we still dont know Bourgs relationship to Garrett yet, maybe that's how he helps solve the mystery.
:)
One thing that does look pretty sure the Mayor looks corrupt, up to now it looks like he is putting the brakes on a full investigation into 53 tapes showing child sex abuse + killings+ a missing person Ian Garrett/ he is only allowing a limited investigation because he is scared of it being made public.he is also looking for any excuse to shut it down.
My first post. I would like to point out that the mayor was not the mayor in 2006. He was the investigating judge overseeing the abduction investigation (according to the French system). I don't think that in 2014, as a mayor, he had any official role. I am not an expert on the French system, but I would question if a mayor in France has any authority over a police investigation even with respect to budget. I think Baptiste suggested that the mayor can only apply pressure on the police before they approached him in 2014 (after the police declined reopening the investigation).
I agree with you, I often read the end of a book and it doesn't spoil the enjoyment for me. Similarly I don't mind knowing the end of a film or series, but I do appreciate that others would not agree, and therefore it is important not to reveal the end in a thread like this. Not that I know the end anyway!!! I just wish I had recorded the whole series so that when it finishes I could watch it all again and see the clues placed throughout each episode.
Hopefully it will come out on DVD in the new year. I shall then watch it all again piecing all the clues together and seeing what was relevant and what wasn't.:)
Has anybody properly studied the opening title sequence or is it just me?
It's a montage of actual shots from the series (e.g. Ollie at the pool bar) but there are a few shots which I can't place:
1. Something that appears to be melted ice cream with raspberry sauce on a rocky surface
2. A child's swing covered in snow
3. A finger drawing on a steamy window of "daddy big ears" holding hands with a child
4. A remote street corner at night time in the glare of headlights
5. Several images of forests.
Are these possibly scenes that we are yet to see? Surely they must be relevant to the series.
My first post. I would like to point out that the mayor was not the mayor in 2006. He was the investigating judge overseeing the abduction investigation (according to the French system). I don't think that in 2014, as a mayor, he had any official role. I am not an expert on the French system, but I would question if a mayor in France has any authority over a police investigation even with respect to budget. I think Baptiste suggested that the mayor can only apply pressure on the police before they approached him in 2014 (after the police declined reopening the investigation).
Well it is getting complicated and maybe ive got things wrong, the way i remember it is Babtiste met the Mayor in a bar in 2014 after work and he reluctantly agreed to re open a limited investigation.he has also threatened to shut it down. maybe your right he could only apply pressure on someone else but i wonder why did Babtiste go to the Mayor if he didn't have the authority to reopen the case, why didn't he go straight to the person who had the authority, the police. why didn't batiste go over his head when the mayor first refused and go the police. can only think the mayor was the one with the authority to re open the case.
Strange i agree, you would think the police are not answerable to the mayor in a criminal investigation.
The real cover up of the evidence happened in 2006 and as far as i remember he was involved with that as well. It's obvious Tony got away with it so it was a botched investigation.
Interesting to find out what drove Garretts wife bonkers. got a feeling she saw the video of her husband abusing and killing her daughter so makes you wonder how come this investigation didn't explode, maybe it did and we dont know yet. we shall see,
As a matter of interest, i wouldn't be surprised if the Mayor got away with it, there is no real proof unless someone blows him up.
Hopefully it will come out on DVD in the new year. I shall then watch it all again piecing all the clues together and seeing what was relevant and what wasn't.:)
Or do as the directors of the film Memento did. Release a dvd in chronological order.
maybe your right he could only apply pressure on someone else but i wonder why did Babtiste go to the Mayor if he didn't have the authority to reopen the case, why didn't he go straight to the person who had the authority, the police. why didn't batiste go over his head when the mayor first refused and go the police. can only think the mayor was the one with the authority to re open the case.
Strange i agree, you would think the police are not answerable to the mayor in a criminal investigation.
They did go first to the police but they declined to reopen even after they had found the house where the scarf and the drawing had been found. We saw was their conversation with Laurence where she finally agreed to talk to the "procureur" but she later came back to Baptiste saying that the procureur does not see the drawing on the wall as a sufficient reason to reopen. Baptiste suggested then to appeal to the mayor (saying "the mayor has no power over the justice department" but practically he has influence). Initially the mayor refused to intervene (in the meeting in his office) because of the effect of the case on the town, but later changed his mind (told Baptiste when they met in the bar, but we didn't see what he said, only what Julien told Tony later). All was in the second episode.
They did go first to the police but they declined to reopen even after they had found the house where the scarf and the drawing had been found. We saw was their conversation with Laurence where she finally agreed to talk to the "procureur" but she later came back to Baptiste saying that the procureur does not see the drawing on the wall as a sufficient reason to reopen. Baptiste suggested then to appeal to the mayor (saying "the mayor has no power over the justice department" but practically he has influence). Initially the mayor refused to intervene (in the meeting in his office) because of the effect of the case on the town, but later changed his mind (told Baptiste when they met in the bar, but we didn't see what he said, only what Julien told Tony later). All was in the second episode.
Yes i am remember them say the Procureur refused to open the case on just the drawing and maybe the scarf, i just assumed the major not the police as i thought they were just putting more pressure on rather than going to someone else. probably just getting mixed up. thanks.
Because it's the Daily Mail. they dont deal in facts. maybe they think he is unemployed.:)
To make him favorite is a bit sick. always suspect the parent. they probably want everyone talking about it I suppose
I wish i could get a bet on, the odds are ridicules, they have even quoted odds for Babtiste
Because it's the Daily Mail. they dont deal in facts. maybe they think he is unemployed.:)
To make him favorite is a bit sick. always suspect the parent. they probably want everyone talking about it I suppose
I wish i could get a bet on, the odds are ridicules, they have even quoted odds for Babtiste
The odds aren't anything to do with Daily Mail. It is punters having a bet. Seems that many are struggling with what is going on
The odds aren't anything to do with Daily Mail. It is punters having a bet. Seems that many are struggling with what is going on
Very true, i imagine the money would pour on the parents in this country if you could get a bet on. there was a rumour someone saw James Nessbit in the bookies so you never know:)
Comments
just watched the scene on iplayer .
you're right there's nothing explicit in what he says , he clearly feels guilty over something to do with Molly , but the rest of his dialogue could be taken to be about other things , Tony and us could definitely have taken it the wrong way
edit - is it my imagination or is Garrett calling Tony "Ian" in that scene ?
.
I agree with you, I often read the end of a book and it doesn't spoil the enjoyment for me. Similarly I don't mind knowing the end of a film or series, but I do appreciate that others would not agree, and therefore it is important not to reveal the end in a thread like this. Not that I know the end anyway!!! I just wish I had recorded the whole series so that when it finishes I could watch it all again and see the clues placed throughout each episode.
I agree with your final sentence. I feel the writers have worked hard to try and paint Bourg as a sympathetic character and I find this utterly repellent. He may not have acted on his desires in a physical sense but he has viewed child pornography and that means innocent children suffered in order for those images to be created. He is a paedophile.
If that's how it ends, will personally track down the writers and beat them to a pulp.
The writers have shown Ian behaved so badly his wife is living in cuckoo land
Ian has had scorn poured over him by his killer then was battered to death, wrapped up and weighted down by bricks and dumped in a lake.
Were too soft on these pedophiles.
Very true, i agree but the scene was not sympathetic towards pedophiles.
The anguish of the father dominated the scene.
That may be true in the case of Garrett, but the writers HAVE tried to portray Bourg in a sympathetic light and I consider that to be wrong. Bourg is a paedophile who has viewed pornographic images involving innocent children whose lives were ruined to create those images.
I think you are going to find that Bourg suffered abuse as a child. He is damaged by it. We are watching a drama here where people aren't all nicely packaged so that the viewer knows exactly how to feel. Tony is hardly your standard father with a missing child. Bourg is not the paedophile character of the tabloids. Viewers are being invited to have a range of emotions and opinions about these people. It is challenging viewing which is why I'm enjoying the series. Add on unravelling what happened to Ollie.
It is fiction after all and the writers have to justify why people are doing certain things, Bourg has been helping pedophiles for years so i think the writers had to justify why he is suddenly going to put a right wrong, i suppose wanting the injections he has received and the effect they have had justifies his actions in the next 2 episodes. there are so many things going on and i just hope they all come together, we still dont know Bourgs relationship to Garrett yet, maybe that's how he helps solve the mystery.
Hopefully it will come out on DVD in the new year. I shall then watch it all again piecing all the clues together and seeing what was relevant and what wasn't.:)
It's a montage of actual shots from the series (e.g. Ollie at the pool bar) but there are a few shots which I can't place:
1. Something that appears to be melted ice cream with raspberry sauce on a rocky surface
2. A child's swing covered in snow
3. A finger drawing on a steamy window of "daddy big ears" holding hands with a child
4. A remote street corner at night time in the glare of headlights
5. Several images of forests.
Are these possibly scenes that we are yet to see? Surely they must be relevant to the series.
Strange i agree, you would think the police are not answerable to the mayor in a criminal investigation.
The real cover up of the evidence happened in 2006 and as far as i remember he was involved with that as well. It's obvious Tony got away with it so it was a botched investigation.
Interesting to find out what drove Garretts wife bonkers. got a feeling she saw the video of her husband abusing and killing her daughter so makes you wonder how come this investigation didn't explode, maybe it did and we dont know yet. we shall see,
As a matter of interest, i wouldn't be surprised if the Mayor got away with it, there is no real proof unless someone blows him up.
Or do as the directors of the film Memento did. Release a dvd in chronological order.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2863741/As-TV-thriller-s-gripped-nation-reaches-climax-s-MISSING-kidnapper.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v5pzc
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04vwdgm
Till Death. Could this relate to marriage?
Responsible by his actions maybe but directly kidnapping him no.
Because it's the Daily Mail. they dont deal in facts. maybe they think he is unemployed.:)
To make him favorite is a bit sick. always suspect the parent. they probably want everyone talking about it I suppose
I wish i could get a bet on, the odds are ridicules, they have even quoted odds for Babtiste
The odds aren't anything to do with Daily Mail. It is punters having a bet. Seems that many are struggling with what is going on
Very true, i imagine the money would pour on the parents in this country if you could get a bet on. there was a rumour someone saw James Nessbit in the bookies so you never know:)