Hardly a spoiler, since it only gives a link. Which most of the grown-ups are able to avoid clicking on.
The Missing- Series 2
12 of 242
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“Warning. The above spoiler could cause unnecessary turmoil in some people. Do not click unless you want to know more of what will happen in future episodes. You have been warned.”
“Warning. The above spoiler could cause unnecessary turmoil in some people. Do not click unless you want to know more of what will happen in future episodes. You have been warned.”
I must be very thick, I got nothing from that spoiler.
Originally Posted by fredster:
“I must be very thick, I got nothing from that spoiler.”
“I must be very thick, I got nothing from that spoiler.”
You are good...i see what you did there. I am not falling for that. On threads like this even if you mention that there is nothing in that link it is a spoiler
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“No because she was 8 months pregnant in 2014 which I forgot and newly pregnant when she was with Morrissey.”
“No because she was 8 months pregnant in 2014 which I forgot and newly pregnant when she was with Morrissey.”
I didn't think that was the case. What evidence was there that she was pregnant in the present day?
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“Julien is demonstrably a failed detective. The first non abduction was only resolved by a frigging death bed confession. So much for his detective skills.
And this time of all places in France for another abduction it happens again in his jurisdiction. Fat lot of good that will be to resolve this case this time. Atleast this time he is retired but i hoped his superiors in the french police would have concluded that he is the last person to allocate a missing persons enquiry to. He just doesnt cut the mustard.
It doesnt help that BBC have shown his addict daughter is living in his home. Lots of useless time was wasted on her in series 1. She was nothing to the story and neither was his wife. Expect a lot of useless padding in the next 8 episodes. The money drawn from bank and chase around backstreets was a good clue to the mindset of the producers of the show. There will be a lot of nonsense for 8 weeks.”
“Julien is demonstrably a failed detective. The first non abduction was only resolved by a frigging death bed confession. So much for his detective skills.
And this time of all places in France for another abduction it happens again in his jurisdiction. Fat lot of good that will be to resolve this case this time. Atleast this time he is retired but i hoped his superiors in the french police would have concluded that he is the last person to allocate a missing persons enquiry to. He just doesnt cut the mustard.
It doesnt help that BBC have shown his addict daughter is living in his home. Lots of useless time was wasted on her in series 1. She was nothing to the story and neither was his wife. Expect a lot of useless padding in the next 8 episodes. The money drawn from bank and chase around backstreets was a good clue to the mindset of the producers of the show. There will be a lot of nonsense for 8 weeks.”
Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong...I think I recall you disliked the first series? And continued to relentlessly criticise it and seemingly force yourself to watch it? And your constant negativity and picking fault meant some posters queried why you were still watching?
Was that you? If it was, well...obviously you can watch whatever you want. I'm just curious why you would want to?
Originally Posted by Lab:
“BIB I just presumed the web tattoo was a play of words on her surname, Webster.”
“BIB I just presumed the web tattoo was a play of words on her surname, Webster.”
Oohh- nice- I like that. That'll do for now
Originally Posted by Rosie Red:
“I did get confused with the timeline switches.
Is Sam now with the army woman, or having an affair...was that bit clarified?”
“I did get confused with the timeline switches.
Is Sam now with the army woman, or having an affair...was that bit clarified?”
I certainly took it that it was an affair; he said to her "I can't keep coming round" and then something about using a hotel next time. Plus the look at his ignored phone when Gemma called- commonly used trope to denote guilt over an affair.
Originally Posted by anyonefortennis:
“No because she was 8 months pregnant in 2014 which I forgot and newly pregnant when she was with Morrissey.”
“No because she was 8 months pregnant in 2014 which I forgot and newly pregnant when she was with Morrissey.”
She didn't look pregnant in the present day to me- even when she was just wearing a t-shirt; I thought the scan she looked at was the one from 2014 and it had dropped off the fridge as she opened it, and she looked sad at whatever feelings it was triggering ie a lost baby.
Clumsy and ambiguous exposition I know, but that was what I took from it.
Originally Posted by Kat 68:
“DNA tests aren't always done surprisingly in cases like this, though obviously I'm aware this is fiction. There is a real life story documented in the film "The Imposter" where a missing child is reunited with his family several years after going missing. Missing child was American, person that came forward was French(!!) but family still took him in believing him to be their son! No DNA was ever taken. He even had different colour eyes along with the French accent. Very disturbing film, definitely worth a watch.”
“DNA tests aren't always done surprisingly in cases like this, though obviously I'm aware this is fiction. There is a real life story documented in the film "The Imposter" where a missing child is reunited with his family several years after going missing. Missing child was American, person that came forward was French(!!) but family still took him in believing him to be their son! No DNA was ever taken. He even had different colour eyes along with the French accent. Very disturbing film, definitely worth a watch.”
But the implication of that documentary and the news reports was that the family willingly went along with the impostor's story because they had played a part in the boy's disappearance. Plus that took place about 20 years ago, before DNA testing was as routine and as easily available as it is now.
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“There will be a lot of nonsense for 8 weeks.”
“There will be a lot of nonsense for 8 weeks.”
If you want to call it "nonsense" then about 90% of Series 1 was "nonsense".
How could we forget the whole Ian Garrett sub-plot, with several episodes devoted mainly to him? And Vincent Bourg the paedophile, another major character. And Greg Halpern, remember him? And the police liaison officer who Oliver's mother ended up marrying (definitely something dodgy about him)? And the broken TV in the hotel room (the consensus being that it contained a spycam)? Then there was Oliver's father's mysterious sexual encounter with Monique. Not to mention the opening scene of episode 1 in the restaurant ("I've got a son your age") which had me convinced that the beginning was actually the ending.
Oh, and then there was the bearded journalist who never stopped banging on about "knowing what really happened" (except he didn't).
In the end, absolutely none of the above had anything whatsoever to do with Oliver's disappearance or his eventual fate.
But that, to me, was the genius behind the writing. It was an exploration into the state of paranoia that grips the human mind when such an unbearable event has happened; becoming over-observant and latching on to everything and anything in order to fill the vacuum. The viewer was constantly being pushed into the desperate mind of Oliver's father.
If it's not your cup of tea, you're better off with a more binary format like Midsomer Murders.
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“
”
“
Spoiler
Unprofessional on the part of that actor - a plot embargo should be understood and respected by someone in that position.
Midway through series one I trawled the Facebook and Twitter accounts of the actors, looking for hints. Whilst some (including Tcheky) had posted photos of the shoot, to their credit they'd clearly taken care not to post anything that could be a spoiler in any way.
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“Julien is demonstrably a failed detective. The first non abduction was only resolved by a frigging death bed confession. So much for his detective skills.”
“Julien is demonstrably a failed detective. The first non abduction was only resolved by a frigging death bed confession. So much for his detective skills.”
To be fair, it was mainly Julien's detective skills that led them to the death bed.
Yes, the death bed confession was a theatrical device and a bit too "Scooby Doo" in the way it handed the culprit a remorseful narrative, but even if Alain hadn't been hit with the Big C, Tony would have pinned him against the wall of the Hotel Eden and smashed the story out of him. All thanks to Julien, a fine detective.
Originally Posted by BirdyBee:
“Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong...I think I recall you disliked the first series? And continued to relentlessly criticise it and seemingly force yourself to watch it? And your constant negativity and picking fault meant some posters queried why you were still watching?
Was that you? If it was, well...obviously you can watch whatever you want. I'm just curious why you would want to?”
“Sorry, correct me if I'm wrong...I think I recall you disliked the first series? And continued to relentlessly criticise it and seemingly force yourself to watch it? And your constant negativity and picking fault meant some posters queried why you were still watching?
Was that you? If it was, well...obviously you can watch whatever you want. I'm just curious why you would want to?”
You're not wrong. Best not to feed trolls. They crave attention as that person continually does.
Originally Posted by Davina's Labia:
“If you want to call it "nonsense" then about 90% of Series 1 was "nonsense".
How could we forget the whole Ian Garrett sub-plot, with several episodes devoted mainly to him? And Vincent Bourg the paedophile, another major character. And Greg Halpern, remember him? And the police liaison officer who Oliver's mother ended up marrying (definitely something dodgy about him)? And the broken TV in the hotel room (the consensus being that it contained a spycam)? Then there was Oliver's father's mysterious sexual encounter with Monique. Not to mention the opening scene of episode 1 in the restaurant ("I've got a son your age") which had me convinced that the beginning was actually the ending.
Oh, and then there was the bearded journalist who never stopped banging on about "knowing what really happened" (except he didn't).
In the end, absolutely none of the above had anything whatsoever to do with Oliver's disappearance or his eventual fate.
But that, to me, was the genius behind the writing. It was an exploration into the state of paranoia that grips the human mind when such an unbearable event has happened; becoming over-observant and latching on to everything and anything in order to fill the vacuum. The viewer was constantly being pushed into the desperate mind of Oliver's father.
If it's not your cup of tea, you're better off with a more binary format like Midsomer Murders.”
“If you want to call it "nonsense" then about 90% of Series 1 was "nonsense".
How could we forget the whole Ian Garrett sub-plot, with several episodes devoted mainly to him? And Vincent Bourg the paedophile, another major character. And Greg Halpern, remember him? And the police liaison officer who Oliver's mother ended up marrying (definitely something dodgy about him)? And the broken TV in the hotel room (the consensus being that it contained a spycam)? Then there was Oliver's father's mysterious sexual encounter with Monique. Not to mention the opening scene of episode 1 in the restaurant ("I've got a son your age") which had me convinced that the beginning was actually the ending.
Oh, and then there was the bearded journalist who never stopped banging on about "knowing what really happened" (except he didn't).
In the end, absolutely none of the above had anything whatsoever to do with Oliver's disappearance or his eventual fate.
But that, to me, was the genius behind the writing. It was an exploration into the state of paranoia that grips the human mind when such an unbearable event has happened; becoming over-observant and latching on to everything and anything in order to fill the vacuum. The viewer was constantly being pushed into the desperate mind of Oliver's father.
If it's not your cup of tea, you're better off with a more binary format like Midsomer Murders.”
Perfectly summed up.
Originally Posted by Davina's Labia:
“Midway through series one I trawled the Facebook and Twitter accounts of the actors, looking for hints. Whilst some (including Tcheky) had posted photos of the shoot, to their credit they'd clearly taken care not to post anything that could be a spoiler in any way.”
“Midway through series one I trawled the Facebook and Twitter accounts of the actors, looking for hints. Whilst some (including Tcheky) had posted photos of the shoot, to their credit they'd clearly taken care not to post anything that could be a spoiler in any way.”
Have I got this right? You were actively looking for spoilers?
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“You are good...i see what you did there. I am not falling for that. On threads like this even if you mention that there is nothing in that link it is a spoiler”
“You are good...i see what you did there. I am not falling for that. On threads like this even if you mention that there is nothing in that link it is a spoiler
”
I told you I was thick. My brain doesn't work like that! Those spoilers told me nothing.
Originally Posted by fredster:
“I told you I was thick. My brain doesn't work like that! Those spoilers told me nothing.”
“I told you I was thick. My brain doesn't work like that! Those spoilers told me nothing.”
I didn't get anything from all those pictures in the spoiler, except how much he loves himself
can I just get something confirmed -
we're seeing 3 different time periods right ?
2012
2014 and
2016
is that right ? the young black guy is at a funeral in 2012 yeah ?
we're seeing 3 different time periods right ?
2012
2014 and
2016
is that right ? the young black guy is at a funeral in 2012 yeah ?
Originally Posted by Davina's Labia:
“If you want to call it "nonsense" then about 90% of Series 1 was "nonsense".
How could we forget the whole Ian Garrett sub-plot, with several episodes devoted mainly to him? And Vincent Bourg the paedophile, another major character. And Greg Halpern, remember him? And the police liaison officer who Oliver's mother ended up marrying (definitely something dodgy about him)? And the broken TV in the hotel room (the consensus being that it contained a spycam)? Then there was Oliver's father's mysterious sexual encounter with Monique. Not to mention the opening scene of episode 1 in the restaurant ("I've got a son your age") which had me convinced that the beginning was actually the ending.
Oh, and then there was the bearded journalist who never stopped banging on about "knowing what really happened" (except he didn't).
In the end, absolutely none of the above had anything whatsoever to do with Oliver's disappearance or his eventual fate.
But that, to me, was the genius behind the writing. It was an exploration into the state of paranoia that grips the human mind when such an unbearable event has happened; becoming over-observant and latching on to everything and anything in order to fill the vacuum. The viewer was constantly being pushed into the desperate mind of Oliver's father.
If it's not your cup of tea, you're better off with a more binary format like Midsomer Murders.”
“If you want to call it "nonsense" then about 90% of Series 1 was "nonsense".
How could we forget the whole Ian Garrett sub-plot, with several episodes devoted mainly to him? And Vincent Bourg the paedophile, another major character. And Greg Halpern, remember him? And the police liaison officer who Oliver's mother ended up marrying (definitely something dodgy about him)? And the broken TV in the hotel room (the consensus being that it contained a spycam)? Then there was Oliver's father's mysterious sexual encounter with Monique. Not to mention the opening scene of episode 1 in the restaurant ("I've got a son your age") which had me convinced that the beginning was actually the ending.
Oh, and then there was the bearded journalist who never stopped banging on about "knowing what really happened" (except he didn't).
In the end, absolutely none of the above had anything whatsoever to do with Oliver's disappearance or his eventual fate.
But that, to me, was the genius behind the writing. It was an exploration into the state of paranoia that grips the human mind when such an unbearable event has happened; becoming over-observant and latching on to everything and anything in order to fill the vacuum. The viewer was constantly being pushed into the desperate mind of Oliver's father.
If it's not your cup of tea, you're better off with a more binary format like Midsomer Murders.”
I agree. To me that's what made the series such compelling viewing. There were so many strands to the story, we were taken in so many different directions.
I didn't find it at all unrealistic either. When you think of some of the high profile cases of missing children, they have usually involved many different lines of inquiry.
Some things, like the exposure of Ian Garret, didn't lead directly to finding out what happened to Oliver, but it remained an important element of the whole story.
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“can I just get something confirmed -
we're seeing 3 different time periods right ?
2012
2014 and
2016
is that right ? the young black guy is at a funeral in 2012 yeah ?”
“can I just get something confirmed -
we're seeing 3 different time periods right ?
2012
2014 and
2016
is that right ? the young black guy is at a funeral in 2012 yeah ?”
No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.
Originally Posted by Nihonga:
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
Lol.......
There are 3 timelines.....
Kidnap, i think earlier than 2012
Return and death of girl 2014
Current 2016
Originally Posted by Nihonga:
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
And 2003 of course, if we are taken back to when Alice (and presumably Sophie) disappeared. But apart from the opening scene and a few flashbacks we haven't revisited that time period. Alice (or Sophie) died a few weeks after returning in December of 2014 in what looks to have been a fire in which her father was involved. But Julien appears convinced that it wasn't Alice, is that right ?
Originally Posted by Mitu_Pappi:
“Lol.......
There are 3 timelines.....
Kidnap, i think earlier than 2012
Return and death of girl 2014
Current 2016”
“Lol.......
There are 3 timelines.....
Kidnap, i think earlier than 2012
Return and death of girl 2014
Current 2016”
Originally Posted by RichmondBlue:
“And 2003 of course, if we are taken back to when Alice (and presumably Sophie) disappeared. But apart from the opening scene and a few flashbacks we haven't revisited that time period. Alice (or Sophie) died a few weeks after returning in December of 2014 in what looks to have been a fire in which her father was involved. But Julien appears convinced that it wasn't Alice, is that right ?”
“And 2003 of course, if we are taken back to when Alice (and presumably Sophie) disappeared. But apart from the opening scene and a few flashbacks we haven't revisited that time period. Alice (or Sophie) died a few weeks after returning in December of 2014 in what looks to have been a fire in which her father was involved. But Julien appears convinced that it wasn't Alice, is that right ?”
That's why I said "so far" there are only two timelines. "So far" because the majority of the story "so far" has been focused on and set in two timelines. The other timelines - except as plot points - haven't been as significant as 2014/6 ... so far
Originally Posted by Nihonga:
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
“No, the funeral is set in 2014. So far there are only two timelines: 2014 and 2016.”
That's how I'm reading it. The original kidnapping isn't a timeline in the drama, it's an event in the distant past.
12 of 242
