I think it's all open to interpretation and the writers certainly didn't leave it clear, they left clues to leave doubt.
What was Tony's next step, reasonable to assume after he went home he began to think he would never rest till he finds his sons body and bring the man who killed him to justice. which is why he went to Paris and met up with Monique. what ever he found out there may have given him reason to carry on the search.
Yes, agreed, I think it was deliberately left open to interpretation. Baptiste, Emily, Mark & Emilie accepted that Olly had perished, drew a line under it, moved on. Tony refused to accept this, and believed Olly had somehow survived. It was suggested that Tony was a bit delusional, but was he? You, the viewer, have to decide.
A lot of the very best tales end on a similar note, cf Inception,The Thing, Blade Runner.
It looks like series 2 will be a completely new story and so I don't think that the producers plan to confirm things either way at the moment. However, there is just a chance that they will be tempted to re-visit the original story sometime in future, particularly if people don't engage with subsequent series quite so much, and the producers feel a shot in the arm is needed.
I think it's all open to interpretation and the writers certainly didn't leave it clear, they left clues to leave doubt.
What was Tony's next step, reasonable to assume after he went home he began to think he would never rest till he finds his sons body and bring the man who killed him to justice. which is why he went to Paris and met up with Monique. what ever he found out there may have given him reason to carry on the search.
Yes, agreed, I think it was deliberately left open to interpretation. Baptiste, Emily, Mark & Emilie accepted that Olly had perished, drew a line under it, moved on. Tony refused to accept this, and believed Olly had somehow survived. It was suggested that Tony was a bit delusional, but was he? You, the viewer, have to decide.
A lot of the very best tales end on a similar note, cf Inception,The Thing, Blade Runner.
It looks like series 2 will be a completely new story and so I don't think that the producers plan to confirm things either way at the moment. However, there is just a chance that they will be tempted to re-visit the original story sometime in future, particularly if people don't engage with subsequent series quite so much, and the producers feel a shot in the arm is needed.
I'm not sure that's the case. To quote one of the writers "...... this series will have closure. We don't want people to leave feeling frustrated." This indicates that they think the answer to Olly's fate is clear so they couldn't have envisaged that some people would think he was definitely alive, some that he was definitely dead and others completely stumped!
I really don't know what was left unclear. I have rarely seen a final episode which went more out of its way to resolve all the issues.
The boy was killed. We saw his blood all over the floor for goodness sake. They did not show his body, presumably to spare us a horrible sight - while murder stories often show killings and dead bodies I cannot think of any that have shown us a body of a child with its throat cut, especially when that child has been shown alive and well in many previous episodes. We surely did not expect to actually be shown pictures of a child being murdered?
Anyone who thinks that the writers left any doubt about whether Ollie is dead are inventing something that was not in the plot. OK he might have been abducted by aliens, or Dr Who could have landed in the garage and whisked him away in the Tardis; we don't know what happened when the camera was not rolling - but we do know what the writers wanted us to believe. That is 100% certain.
I'm not sure that's the case. To quote one of the writers "...... this series will have closure. We don't want people to leave feeling frustrated." This indicates that they think the answer to Olly's fate is clear so they couldn't have envisaged that some people would think he was definitely alive, some that he was definitely dead and others completely stumped!
As i say it's fiction and if they have put certain scenes in unintentionally then they should look back at the scenes from other peoples point of view.
Was there any reason to confuse viewers with Monique turning up at the wedding, can only think of one reason how they met up again, Tony went to Paris. why would he travel from UK to Paris. we know he knows his sons killer is from Paris.he doesent know who he is but there is a photo of him is in a small file in police station. the only friend he has in Paris is Monique.
Why did they have him turn up at the flat were the boy answers the door looking like Grisly Adams. i know it shows Tony has let himself go but what is more unbelievable is he would search for him so long. know he would only have a vague recollection of him and he practically goes in disguise. did they really overlook that.
So if the writers want a reason why viewers are leaving the ending to interpretation then they should look again rather than say it's all clear.
I really don't know what was left unclear. I have rarely seen a final episode which went more out of its way to resolve all the issues.
The boy was killed. We saw his blood all over the floor for goodness sake. They did not show his body, presumably to spare us a horrible sight - while murder stories often show killings and dead bodies I cannot think of any that have shown us a body of a child with its throat cut, especially when that child has been shown alive and well in many previous episodes. We surely did not expect to actually be shown pictures of a child being murdered?
Anyone who thinks that the writers left any doubt about whether Ollie is dead are inventing something that was not in the plot. OK he might have been abducted by aliens, or Dr Who could have landed in the garage and whisked him away in the Tardis; we don't know what happened when the camera was not rolling - but we do know what the writers wanted us to believe. That is 100% certain.
But writers can change their mind. We see see this all too often in dramas. So it seems certain that the writers want us to believe that Bobby Ewing or Dirty Den are dead, but they turn up alive later all the same.
The thing with any fiction though is that it's an art form rather than a science, so there are no absolutes. Many directors and producers deliberately leave room for doubt, and even when they don't you will invariably find people that disagree with the conventional wisdom.
In The Missing, I think there was some room for doubt because (1) we never saw Olly die (2) his body wasn't found and (3) at least one major character still believed he was alive.
But nonetheless my interpretation was pretty much the same as yours, i.e. that Olly died and Tony refused to accept this. But it can only be an interpretation.
What I find most disappointing is the BBC's need to tell people to watch after the credits. Of course its an advertisement for Series Two but putting up in blazing letters 'A NEW CASE' is clearly also designed to let people who hadn't figured it out that Ollie's story is over and you have just seen the end.
I remember watching an interview with David Lynch (love him or loathe him) some years ago where he refused to embellish on a film as he said it was a piece of art - His speaking about it afterwards can only take away from the art that has been created.
Executives at the BBC... - But what if people think that Series Two picks up from the end of Series One? Its James Nesbitt and the Ollie boy all over again? Answer - Lets make it absolutely clear by saying 'A NEW CASE' in the trailer. We don't think the writers of the show weren't explicit enough for the dumb British public...
I wrote the above shortly after the episode and I still think its true.
The writers promised closure and an end to the story and thats what they believed they delivered. The BBC wondered whether the ending was clear enough such that everyone would accept it. Query whether they are right or wrong but this thread and numerous like it on the internet suggest not everyone believed the ending was clear enough/the end of the case. So maybe the BBC were right and a little more in tune with the public than the writers.
I wrote the above shortly after the episode and I still think its true.
The writers promised closure and an end to the story and thats what they believed they delivered. The BBC wondered whether the ending was clear enough such that everyone would accept it. Query whether they are right or wrong but this thread and numerous like it on the internet suggest not everyone believed the ending was clear enough/the end of the case. So maybe the BBC were right and a little more in tune with the public than the writers.
Exactly - all the polls I've looked at have had roughly 80% not entirely happy with the ending.
At the very least, shouldn't the police be trying to track down the Romanian thug who murdered Ollie? It's not as though they didn't have any leads - (Rini and her brother would have been a good start)
It was like - Oh well, he's been murdered, so lets all go home and forget about it. Apart from Tony who's reduced to being reperesented as a mad man.:(
Wow. Personally I believe that Olly is dead and Tony can't let go. However, I do believe the ending was purposefully ambiguous in order to keep people talking.
What I can't get over is the arrogance of some posters on here refusing to accept the viewpoint of others. Some of these posters are all but calling others thick. How rude.
I've noticed that too.Some people can't deal with subjective views.
Surprised some ppl were dissatisfied with the finale. ('Line of Duty'... now THAT was an annoying finale! Ruined the whole series >:( )
The only part I wasn't clear about was the FOX.
Was it meant to be a real fox or Ian Garret disguised as a fox in order lure Ollie away?
Speaking of Garret, if you had to invite either him or Malik Suri to a dinner party, who would you choose?
Personally, I'd invite Garret every time. He might be a murderous pedophile but the man has charm and charisma galore! He'd regale your guests with poignant stories, jokes and anecdotes, all told in his delightful Scots accent and a twinkle in his eye.
By contrast, Malik would stand in a corner sneering and making snide comments about your food, furniture and friends. Why wasn't he put in prison for withholding evidence? >:(
I'm not sure how I feel about The Missing. Some parts I really enjoyed while other parts just bored me. Then there was something slightly disatisfying about the ending. I wouldn't say it was bad but parts felt a bit contrived like Ollie somehow surviving only to be killed again just so he had opportunity to draw the picture on the wall and be captured on the video camera.
I'm not sure how I feel about The Missing. Some parts I really enjoyed while other parts just bored me. Then there was something slightly disatisfying about the ending. I wouldn't say it was bad but parts felt a bit contrived like Ollie somehow surviving only to be killed again just so he had opportunity to draw the picture on the wall and be captured on the video camera.
That said, I think I will tune in for Series 2
Contrived is the word. I'm shocked that so many think it was a realistic timeline. As I said earlier it was a cobbled together. Having a resurrection so Ollie could draw his piccie and appear at a window was the most ridiculous. Everyone I have spoken to has said what a disappointment but they get the ending with Tony. The obsession continues even though be has been told Ollie is dead. I just don't get how folks think Ollie ended up living in Russia.
Contrived is the word. I'm shocked that so many think it was a realistic timeline. As I said earlier it was a cobbled together. Having a resurrection so Ollie could draw his piccie and appear at a window was the most ridiculous. Everyone I have spoken to has said what a disappointment but they get the ending with Tony. The obsession continues even though be has been told Ollie is dead. I just don't get how folks think Ollie ended up living in Russia.
But there's the rub.
Thinking about it it really couldn't have had an ending any other way than the "hope" that the boy may still be alive. It is a very very emotive topic and I can imagine the writers huddle at the start of the script forming.
1. We want a conclusion where we don't see the boy die and give that faint hope that he may well be out there somewhere given the hope that exists with so many with missing relatives.
2. We want to see all the "bad" characters die. Well we nearly did. Only the Romanian "killer" still at large.
3. Create a massive red herring of paedophilia. Ian and Vincent were classic cases of a red herring. A real throw you off the scenter. Especially Vincent.
The ending itself Im not sure about. In Russia? I'm guessing it's the writers way of depicting Tony's obsession that he is prepared to travel to the most bizarre and outlying places to search for his boy on the back of the faintest of tip offs.
By the way the drawing in frost looked to me like it was on a car windscreen and therefore suggesting that it has been drawn by Tony himself on his own car as a symbol of his hope.
Contrived is the word. I'm shocked that so many think it was a realistic timeline. As I said earlier it was a cobbled together. Having a resurrection so Ollie could draw his piccie and appear at a window was the most ridiculous. Everyone I have spoken to has said what a disappointment but they get the ending with Tony. The obsession continues even though be has been told Ollie is dead. I just don't get how folks think Ollie ended up living in Russia.
We don't know what clues Tony might have found in the meantime. That's how.
The ending itself Im not sure about. In Russia? I'm guessing it's the writers way of depicting Tony's obsession that he is prepared to travel to the most bizarre and outlying places to search for his boy on the back of the faintest of tip offs.
Baptiste said that the 'package' that was to be trafficked was heading to the Far East.
Thinking about it it really couldn't have had an ending any other way than the "hope" that the boy may still be alive. It is a very very emotive topic and I can imagine the writers huddle at the start of the script forming.
1. We want a conclusion where we don't see the boy die and give that faint hope that he may well be out there somewhere given the hope that exists with so many with missing relatives.
2. We want to see all the "bad" characters die. Well we nearly did. Only the Romanian "killer" still at large.
3. Create a massive red herring of paedophilia. Ian and Vincent were classic cases of a red herring. A real throw you off the scenter. Especially Vincent.
The ending itself Im not sure about. In Russia? I'm guessing it's the writers way of depicting Tony's obsession that he is prepared to travel to the most bizarre and outlying places to search for his boy on the back of the faintest of tip offs.
By the way the drawing in frost looked to me like it was on a car windscreen and therefore suggesting that it has been drawn by Tony himself on his own car as a symbol of his hope.
Not all missing children have "happy" endings do they? I enjoyed all eight episodes and like to think Ollie did die rather than get into the hands of peodophiles.
I'm not sure that's the case. To quote one of the writers "...... this series will have closure. We don't want people to leave feeling frustrated." This indicates that they think the answer to Olly's fate is clear so they couldn't have envisaged that some people would think he was definitely alive, some that he was definitely dead and others completely stumped!
I really don't know what was left unclear. I have rarely seen a final episode which went more out of its way to resolve all the issues.
The boy was killed. We saw his blood all over the floor for goodness sake. They did not show his body, presumably to spare us a horrible sight - while murder stories often show killings and dead bodies I cannot think of any that have shown us a body of a child with its throat cut, especially when that child has been shown alive and well in many previous episodes. We surely did not expect to actually be shown pictures of a child being murdered?
Anyone who thinks that the writers left any doubt about whether Ollie is dead are inventing something that was not in the plot. OK he might have been abducted by aliens, or Dr Who could have landed in the garage and whisked him away in the Tardis; we don't know what happened when the camera was not rolling - but we do know what the writers wanted us to believe. That is 100% certain.
I'm not sure that's the case. To quote one of the writers "...... this series will have closure. We don't want people to leave feeling frustrated." This indicates that they think the answer to Olly's fate is clear so they couldn't have envisaged that some people would think he was definitely alive, some that he was definitely dead and others completely stumped!
Then they could have shown us the Romanians getting rid of the body (never to be found). Nothing gruesome, just a body wrapped in a sheet being disposed of. That way we would have known he was definitely dead and we would still understand Tony wanting a body for closure. In my opinion they wanted us to feel the same as him. Yes it is 99.99% certain he is dead but there's always that slight teensy weensy chance that he isn't.
What I find hard to understand is that the parents bought any of it. I mean we were shown the night in question when Alain was telling them about what happened so we know it's true but they only had his word for it. He could have dropped that coin when he snatched the boy, he could be lying about the accident. He hadn't told them anything in all those years and then they believe his story about a drink-driving accident.
The other thing I find foolish about the plot is that when Garrett is killed by Tony, both Tony and Emily know that he bought two alibis for Vincent. Yet when the police tell them that Garrett is cleared because he has an alibi for working late when their son was taken, they accept it. Surely he could have bought an alibi for himself? But no, they just consider he's cleared now so they move on to other suspects. As I say, we are aware of certain things but they are not and yet they act like they know stuff they can't possibly know.
Having said all that I did think the ending was a good ending. Just a few holes in the plot.
Then they could have shown us the Romanians getting rid of the body (never to be found). Nothing gruesome, just a body wrapped in a sheet being disposed of. That way we would have known he was definitely dead and we would still understand Tony wanting a body for closure.
They could have, but I suspect that those people unwilling to accept Olly's death now would equally be unable to accept his death if a body or grave shown. They might argue that Olly was drugged and not dead, or his body was that of someone else. Even were DNA matched, people might say it was swapped or botched.
That's the problem Tony has, which the writers make clear in the closing scenes, that nothing will ever be enough because Tony will not accept that his son is lost. He is a reflection of the viewer that is unwilling to accept the horrible consequences.
Ultimately, the Romanian had no need to tell Georges that Olly had survived and he was forced to kill him. And less need to show Georges Olly's body. He could have just left, as was the plan had Olly died in the accident. Yet, the Romanian does both those things to confirm to Georges that the debt he owed had been repaid.. I think that is as clear as we are going to get that he had carried out the act.
Then they could have shown us the Romanians getting rid of the body (never to be found). Nothing gruesome, just a body wrapped in a sheet being disposed of. That way we would have known he was definitely dead and we would still understand Tony wanting a body for closure. In my opinion they wanted us to feel the same as him. Yes it is 99.99% certain he is dead but there's always that slight teensy weensy chance that he isn't.
What I find hard to understand is that the parents bought any of it. I mean we were shown the night in question when Alain was telling them about what happened so we know it's true but they only had his word for it. He could have dropped that coin when he snatched the boy, he could be lying about the accident. He hadn't told them anything in all those years and then they believe his story about a drink-driving accident.
The other thing I find foolish about the plot is that when Garrett is killed by Tony, both Tony and Emily know that he bought two alibis for Vincent. Yet when the police tell them that Garrett is cleared because he has an alibi for working late when their son was taken, they accept it. Surely he could have bought an alibi for himself? But no, they just consider he's cleared now so they move on to other suspects. As I say, we are aware of certain things but they are not and yet they act like they know stuff they can't possibly know.
Having said all that I did think the ending was a good ending. Just a few holes in the plot.
BiB At some point we have to acknowledge that this is a drama and that the writers need to have characters tell the truth so that viewers get clarity and the plot moves forward. A real man might make a false death bed confession but a character in the denouement in the last reel of a TV series would not, unless it was going to drag on into another series like Lost, Prison Break, The Mentalist etc. It was clear from the outset that this was a stand alone drama so no carryover.
Same with Garrett's alibi, we have to accept that it is real so we can eliminate Garrett and move on.
Contrived is the word. I'm shocked that so many think it was a realistic timeline. As I said earlier it was a cobbled together. Having a resurrection so Ollie could draw his piccie and appear at a window was the most ridiculous. Everyone I have spoken to has said what a disappointment but they get the ending with Tony. The obsession continues even though be has been told Ollie is dead. I just don't get how folks think Ollie ended up living in Russia.
BIB: This bit I can sort of understand. Baptiste said something about home being were you feel comfortable (or something like that) and what I took from the ending is that because Tony hadn't known a life outside of searching for his boy for the last 8 years, he'd grown attached in some way to that way of life. His "home" was looking for his boy so he continued until he was effectively driven mad by his inability to let go.
As for Russia, Baptiste mentioned the lead of a package being shipped to the east so presumably that meant Russia. Tony latched onto this "lead" and followed it.
But I agree, having Ollie survive the car crash and get up and walk (which is ridiculous- even if he did survive, his legs would be broken and he'd have internal bleeding etc.) only so he could have time to draw a picture and be seen at the window, then have him die was just contrived and didn't really make much sense at all.
Exactly - all the polls I've looked at have had roughly 80% not entirely happy with the ending.
At the very least, shouldn't the police be trying to track down the Romanian thug who murdered Ollie? It's not as though they didn't have any leads - (Rini and her brother would have been a good start)
It was like - Oh well, he's been murdered, so lets all go home and forget about it. Apart from Tony who's reduced to being reperesented as a mad man.:(
BIB:
But I agree, having Ollie survive the car crash and get up and walk (which is ridiculous- even if he did survive, his legs would be broken and he'd have internal bleeding etc.) only so he could have time to draw a picture and be seen at the window, then have him die was just contrived and didn't really make much sense at all.
Exactly.
Bad writing.
To hook us for this many weeks and then cave, as True Detective did, is reprehensible.
Oh well, I wasn't all that impressed with the brothers grim in their little post-show video chats.
The other thing I find foolish about the plot is that when Garrett is killed by Tony, both Tony and Emily know that he bought two alibis for Vincent. Yet when the police tell them that Garrett is cleared because he has an alibi for working late when their son was taken, they accept it. Surely he could have bought an alibi for himself? But no, they just consider he's cleared now so they move on to other suspects. As I say, we are aware of certain things but they are not and yet they act like they know stuff they can't possibly know.
Garrett was being murdered by Tony around the time Baptiste told Emily about his alibi. Nor did the police ever know about Vincent's false alibi other than Laurence who was just an agent at the time and was skeptical about Tony's allegation about Borg's alibi after he had just been arrested for assaulting him. So she probably thought this was made under duress and didn't pass it on to Baptiste. So why would the police assume Garrett's security guard was lying? Even if they did find out it would have been too late to question Garrett, and they had no evidence implicating Borg.
Comments
What was Tony's next step, reasonable to assume after he went home he began to think he would never rest till he finds his sons body and bring the man who killed him to justice. which is why he went to Paris and met up with Monique. what ever he found out there may have given him reason to carry on the search.
A lot of the very best tales end on a similar note, cf Inception,The Thing, Blade Runner.
It looks like series 2 will be a completely new story and so I don't think that the producers plan to confirm things either way at the moment. However, there is just a chance that they will be tempted to re-visit the original story sometime in future, particularly if people don't engage with subsequent series quite so much, and the producers feel a shot in the arm is needed.
I'm not sure that's the case. To quote one of the writers "...... this series will have closure. We don't want people to leave feeling frustrated." This indicates that they think the answer to Olly's fate is clear so they couldn't have envisaged that some people would think he was definitely alive, some that he was definitely dead and others completely stumped!
The boy was killed. We saw his blood all over the floor for goodness sake. They did not show his body, presumably to spare us a horrible sight - while murder stories often show killings and dead bodies I cannot think of any that have shown us a body of a child with its throat cut, especially when that child has been shown alive and well in many previous episodes. We surely did not expect to actually be shown pictures of a child being murdered?
Anyone who thinks that the writers left any doubt about whether Ollie is dead are inventing something that was not in the plot. OK he might have been abducted by aliens, or Dr Who could have landed in the garage and whisked him away in the Tardis; we don't know what happened when the camera was not rolling - but we do know what the writers wanted us to believe. That is 100% certain.
Was there any reason to confuse viewers with Monique turning up at the wedding, can only think of one reason how they met up again, Tony went to Paris. why would he travel from UK to Paris. we know he knows his sons killer is from Paris.he doesent know who he is but there is a photo of him is in a small file in police station. the only friend he has in Paris is Monique.
Why did they have him turn up at the flat were the boy answers the door looking like Grisly Adams. i know it shows Tony has let himself go but what is more unbelievable is he would search for him so long. know he would only have a vague recollection of him and he practically goes in disguise. did they really overlook that.
So if the writers want a reason why viewers are leaving the ending to interpretation then they should look again rather than say it's all clear.
But writers can change their mind. We see see this all too often in dramas. So it seems certain that the writers want us to believe that Bobby Ewing or Dirty Den are dead, but they turn up alive later all the same.
The thing with any fiction though is that it's an art form rather than a science, so there are no absolutes. Many directors and producers deliberately leave room for doubt, and even when they don't you will invariably find people that disagree with the conventional wisdom.
In The Missing, I think there was some room for doubt because (1) we never saw Olly die (2) his body wasn't found and (3) at least one major character still believed he was alive.
But nonetheless my interpretation was pretty much the same as yours, i.e. that Olly died and Tony refused to accept this. But it can only be an interpretation.
I wrote the above shortly after the episode and I still think its true.
The writers promised closure and an end to the story and thats what they believed they delivered. The BBC wondered whether the ending was clear enough such that everyone would accept it. Query whether they are right or wrong but this thread and numerous like it on the internet suggest not everyone believed the ending was clear enough/the end of the case. So maybe the BBC were right and a little more in tune with the public than the writers.
Exactly - all the polls I've looked at have had roughly 80% not entirely happy with the ending.
At the very least, shouldn't the police be trying to track down the Romanian thug who murdered Ollie? It's not as though they didn't have any leads - (Rini and her brother would have been a good start)
It was like - Oh well, he's been murdered, so lets all go home and forget about it. Apart from Tony who's reduced to being reperesented as a mad man.:(
The only part I wasn't clear about was the FOX.
Was it meant to be a real fox or Ian Garret disguised as a fox in order lure Ollie away?
Speaking of Garret, if you had to invite either him or Malik Suri to a dinner party, who would you choose?
Personally, I'd invite Garret every time. He might be a murderous pedophile but the man has charm and charisma galore! He'd regale your guests with poignant stories, jokes and anecdotes, all told in his delightful Scots accent and a twinkle in his eye.
By contrast, Malik would stand in a corner sneering and making snide comments about your food, furniture and friends. Why wasn't he put in prison for withholding evidence? >:(
That said, I think I will tune in for Series 2
Contrived is the word. I'm shocked that so many think it was a realistic timeline. As I said earlier it was a cobbled together. Having a resurrection so Ollie could draw his piccie and appear at a window was the most ridiculous. Everyone I have spoken to has said what a disappointment but they get the ending with Tony. The obsession continues even though be has been told Ollie is dead. I just don't get how folks think Ollie ended up living in Russia.
But there's the rub.
Thinking about it it really couldn't have had an ending any other way than the "hope" that the boy may still be alive. It is a very very emotive topic and I can imagine the writers huddle at the start of the script forming.
1. We want a conclusion where we don't see the boy die and give that faint hope that he may well be out there somewhere given the hope that exists with so many with missing relatives.
2. We want to see all the "bad" characters die. Well we nearly did. Only the Romanian "killer" still at large.
3. Create a massive red herring of paedophilia. Ian and Vincent were classic cases of a red herring. A real throw you off the scenter. Especially Vincent.
The ending itself Im not sure about. In Russia? I'm guessing it's the writers way of depicting Tony's obsession that he is prepared to travel to the most bizarre and outlying places to search for his boy on the back of the faintest of tip offs.
By the way the drawing in frost looked to me like it was on a car windscreen and therefore suggesting that it has been drawn by Tony himself on his own car as a symbol of his hope.
We don't know what clues Tony might have found in the meantime. That's how.
Baptiste said that the 'package' that was to be trafficked was heading to the Far East.
Russia is in the Far East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Far_East
So presumably Tony followed that lead believing, unlike Baptiste, that it may not have been a ruse.
Not all missing children have "happy" endings do they? I enjoyed all eight episodes and like to think Ollie did die rather than get into the hands of peodophiles.
This.
Then they could have shown us the Romanians getting rid of the body (never to be found). Nothing gruesome, just a body wrapped in a sheet being disposed of. That way we would have known he was definitely dead and we would still understand Tony wanting a body for closure. In my opinion they wanted us to feel the same as him. Yes it is 99.99% certain he is dead but there's always that slight teensy weensy chance that he isn't.
What I find hard to understand is that the parents bought any of it. I mean we were shown the night in question when Alain was telling them about what happened so we know it's true but they only had his word for it. He could have dropped that coin when he snatched the boy, he could be lying about the accident. He hadn't told them anything in all those years and then they believe his story about a drink-driving accident.
The other thing I find foolish about the plot is that when Garrett is killed by Tony, both Tony and Emily know that he bought two alibis for Vincent. Yet when the police tell them that Garrett is cleared because he has an alibi for working late when their son was taken, they accept it. Surely he could have bought an alibi for himself? But no, they just consider he's cleared now so they move on to other suspects. As I say, we are aware of certain things but they are not and yet they act like they know stuff they can't possibly know.
Having said all that I did think the ending was a good ending. Just a few holes in the plot.
They could have, but I suspect that those people unwilling to accept Olly's death now would equally be unable to accept his death if a body or grave shown. They might argue that Olly was drugged and not dead, or his body was that of someone else. Even were DNA matched, people might say it was swapped or botched.
That's the problem Tony has, which the writers make clear in the closing scenes, that nothing will ever be enough because Tony will not accept that his son is lost. He is a reflection of the viewer that is unwilling to accept the horrible consequences.
Ultimately, the Romanian had no need to tell Georges that Olly had survived and he was forced to kill him. And less need to show Georges Olly's body. He could have just left, as was the plan had Olly died in the accident. Yet, the Romanian does both those things to confirm to Georges that the debt he owed had been repaid.. I think that is as clear as we are going to get that he had carried out the act.
BiB At some point we have to acknowledge that this is a drama and that the writers need to have characters tell the truth so that viewers get clarity and the plot moves forward. A real man might make a false death bed confession but a character in the denouement in the last reel of a TV series would not, unless it was going to drag on into another series like Lost, Prison Break, The Mentalist etc. It was clear from the outset that this was a stand alone drama so no carryover.
Same with Garrett's alibi, we have to accept that it is real so we can eliminate Garrett and move on.
BIB: This bit I can sort of understand. Baptiste said something about home being were you feel comfortable (or something like that) and what I took from the ending is that because Tony hadn't known a life outside of searching for his boy for the last 8 years, he'd grown attached in some way to that way of life. His "home" was looking for his boy so he continued until he was effectively driven mad by his inability to let go.
As for Russia, Baptiste mentioned the lead of a package being shipped to the east so presumably that meant Russia. Tony latched onto this "lead" and followed it.
But I agree, having Ollie survive the car crash and get up and walk (which is ridiculous- even if he did survive, his legs would be broken and he'd have internal bleeding etc.) only so he could have time to draw a picture and be seen at the window, then have him die was just contrived and didn't really make much sense at all.
My thoughts exactly.
I would like a dead Romanian.
Exactly.
Bad writing.
To hook us for this many weeks and then cave, as True Detective did, is reprehensible.
Oh well, I wasn't all that impressed with the brothers grim in their little post-show video chats.