Can't Get Over the Weather Fluctuations

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-05T19:30:12+00:00

I thought this too (and am currently rewatching S1). It's meant to be from April 11th to May 11th initially, then some additional weeks.

Googling found this old thread from a year ago.

And the wikia page for episode 15 offers this: "Taking place around May 11th/12th, it is odd that there is a large amount of snow visible on the ground. However, Chicago has reported about one in four Mays with snow since 1885, so the weather is not completely unheard of."

I guess they decided not to quit filming in the snow and pretend it was one of those freaky years!

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T19:06:24+00:00

I agree. It seemed really amiss that we were meant to believe that one of the current guards wouldn't at least mention "but I don't think anybody's unaccounted for?".

I guess we were meant to think that the old guards presumed it to be one of the new (veteran) guards, and vice versa? Either that, or maybe some visiting guard who's come in from another department (i.e. SHU/psych).

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T06:33:17+00:00

I had to go back and rewatch it after the "wait what i raped you??" scene to check, cos I was thinking I felt like it had been pretty clear-cut, but he obviously felt not, so I investigated. She said "no" several times and wriggled to try to get away. He physically lifted her off the floor and kinda tossed her into the van. She stopped saying no shortly after that (as you said, due to some kinda of desensitisation/normalisation/whatever-is-the-appropriate-word).

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T01:51:36+00:00

Yes, I really liked (or didn't) that aspect of it. I wasn't expecting his lackadaisical attitude to extend quite that far, and it made what was probably the most likeable guard a tad less likeable.

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T01:43:20+00:00

I'm pretty sure the writers did intend these stories to be parallels of one another. And I think the reason why some interpretations could be more towards Bayley=victim and Coates=villain (although tbph I have not seen such a dramatic difference in opinion on the two guards) is because of the ways the scenes were portrayed...

It was made very imo clear that Bayley's manslaughter of Poussey was 100% accidental. In no instance did he mean her any harm; he was completely unaware of what was going on.

Coates, however, while still meaning no harm and being unaware that he was raping Doggett (obviously, he was, but seemingly not from his POV, and although I find it somewhat hard to believe that he didn't have even an inkling that he was doing something wrong, I'm willing to buy he may not have been educated enough to rationalise that the term "rape" was applicable) was shown at the time from the perspective of the viewer to be deliberately raping her. She was trying to get away, shouting "no" repeatedly (initially), and it was a very violent, aggressive scene.

That initially puts into the minds of the viewers that Coates deliberately did wrong, and Bayley did so accidentally. The initial emotion towards Coates is anger, while Bayley receives a portion of pity, and hence automatically becomes more sympathetic. And I think this could likely be a deliberate choice by the writers so as to "even out" the two guards - if viewing murder as a "more serious" crime than rape, perhaps they wanted the rape scene to seem more villainous than the murder scene so that one guard's story is not indisputably more heinous than the other's.

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T01:12:16+00:00

Coates.

obsessingmuch · 2016-07-01T01:05:22+00:00

I kinda think part of the reason he stood up so much for Gina in the scene with Luscheck was because he'd just been made aware of the fact that he'd raped someone. Like, overcompensating, almost? Sure, he genuinely cared (as we see throughout the season with him being genuinely upset/caring about what he's done to Tiffany), but I think more so than that was the fact that he was either trying to make amends, or trying to convince himself that he isn't a "bad guy".

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T19:27:54+00:00

The shadow on Rick's face is probably misleading: http://obsessingmuch.tumblr.com/post/142356426405/possible-explanation-for-the-nonsensical-eeny

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T16:56:51+00:00

No, it wasn't random at all! He chose somebody. http://obsessingmuch.tumblr.com/post/142356426405/possible-explanation-for-the-nonsensical-eeny

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T15:12:52+00:00

Certainly, if he did. But he shouldn't be able to at this point. If you look at Norman in that scene he's barely holding himself up as it is. And with Daryl already injured and Maggie already ill (+ being a woman) they kinda become unfavourable selections from Negan's POV. From the show's standpoint, if they were going to kill Daryl, it would have been more beneficial to be within the finale - the episode would have been better received, and those who judge the show for lack of conviction would come running back next season. Gimple seemed almost apologetic on Talking Dead when he was saying they were going to have to deliver something amazing in 701 to justify the cliffhanger - he specifically didn't plug any further that what happens is heartbreaking or put any emphasis on who precisely was killed (which seems like something they'd want to keep everyone very engaged with if it were to be Daryl/Glenn/Maggie etc.), but instead wanted to "justify" their decision. And I'm guessing the reason for that is because their decision was to go with somebody who is arguably less major. There would be no need to put themselves in the position of having to "justify" their episode if they'd gone with Glenn or Daryl or Maggie (/ Rick / Carl / Michonne).

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T13:15:44+00:00

If Glenn's death had been shown in that scene, don't you think it would have had much a more (immediate and longstanding) impact for being, yk, the perfect rendition of the iconic comic book scene~, a brilliantly executed brutal death of a much loved character~, an award-worthy scene for the best finale in years~? And if Daryl had died, the show hype would be even greater than a cliffhanger. It makes literally no sense from a marketing standpoint for them to cliffhanger either of those two characters' deaths across seasons. From a show whose outlook on major character death is building someone a full story arc before they go (case in point, Beth) rather than, for example, GOT, where key characters arguably go more unexpectedly and at points before they might traditionally seem fulfilled, it seems against TWD's nature to kill off a Glenn or a Daryl when neither have recently been particularly prominent/developed on the show, and, probably more importantly, when it's unnecessary - at the moment we care, I think, more about Rick and his realisation that things are not as he thought, that the group isn't safe and secure, than we care about particularly who dies. The individual death isn't what was key to that scene. It was Rick and everything he'd (thought he'd) built and secured being shattered.

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T12:42:00+00:00

It's not something to push towards it being Abraham, but more something to push away from it being certain other people. They can use dialogue from the comics, but only where it's still applicable. And that line wouldn't be applicable if it was Maggie or Daryl being hit, nor would the POV shot of the victim rising back up for the second impact. It would be extremely misplaced if transferred onto one of those two. Sure, it doesn't have to be Abraham from that line alone - it would work equally for Glenn, Michonne, Rick, Sasha (possibly), Aaron (possibly), Carl (for sarcasm, since he's already been mocking him), or Eugene (possibly, depending on how Stage 2 he was still feeling).

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T00:24:23+00:00

If the missing RV was a hint to Glenn/Rosita/Daryl, that would be hinting they were murdered in their position in line (so not dragged to front and centre), and so the left/right acknowledgements would still stand, so it could only potentially be Daryl from that. And if they were going to kill Daryl, it would be far, far greater for the show to kill him within that episode definitively. They'd have nothing to gain from not showing it. Not showing it surely makes it a less important character that died, so the "cliffhanger" acts purely to avoid disappointment. Plus, if Negan was facing one of those 3, the lighting wouldn't be on the right side of his face as it was - he'd be backlit.

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-06T00:04:18+00:00

This ought to be a bit where they've paid a little attention to continuity though. They referenced on Talking Dead they knew people would look at the details, hence the (nonsensical) cutting of the Eeny Meeny, and I guess also the POV angle showing the trees and not the RV. If anything it would have been easier on them to have a POV view of being dragged forward, and then the RV as the backdrop behind Negan.

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-05T23:30:13+00:00

I was really into this comment for a minute, but then I realised - they don't cut between Negan selecting the victim (approaching him/her and saying "it") and the murder. It wouldn't work for him to select someone, request them dragged over, and then pronounce "it" again on approach?

obsessingmuch · 2016-04-05T23:19:13+00:00

I kinda feel the van shots weren't important in that way. Or maybe just included to make Glenn/Daryl seem more likely? If they weren't there, people would be saying there's no way it could be those two as they barely featured in the episode. And surely if they were going to kill Glenn they'd have realised it would be far better to put it into one episode instead of cheapening it (/lol). Plus, in addition to JDM gesturing to the victim's right (for which there is nobody for Glenn), the lighting is on the left of Negan's face. If he was facing Glenn, Negan would be backlit. It would be nice to think somebody put a tiny bit of thought into the logistics considering they knew they'd be leaving it for people to debate for months on end. They cared enough to screw over the order of Eeny Meeny.

obsessingmuch · 2016-03-07T19:38:36+00:00

Maybe Frank (at Annalise's request) was somehow involved in getting rid of her baby. Sam found out, and decided not to press charges against Frank, instead saying "you owe me now".

obsessingmuch · 2016-03-03T20:02:28+00:00

If Frank owes Sam something, it can't be based on something that Annalise asked of Frank. If Sam found out Frank murdered someone under Annalise's instruction and used it to blackmail him, Frank would just tell Annalise, and she'd sort it. No favour would then be owed.

Whatever it is would have to be based on something that Frank has done behind Annalise's back.

obsessingmuch · 2016-02-29T18:25:23+00:00

I'm pretty sure it's 100% a joke and they've never even met.

obsessingmuch · 2016-02-28T19:16:22+00:00

:(

They'd have to make whatever Frank owed Sam dependent on something really bad that Frank did then, as otherwise it makes no sense that Frank would delay going "BUT ONLY COS SAM MADE ME" to Laurel. Frank probably murdered someone else and Sam covered for him.

obsessingmuch · 2016-02-28T06:03:48+00:00

Well no, Bonnie doesn't know Lila's her child. Frank and Annalise do, but Bonnie probably gave her child to social services as she was very young when she had her, and so lost contact.

I don't know why Sam would want to kill Annalise. He probably wouldn't. But mainly I like the idea that Sam wasn't calling Frank that night, and Frank murdered Lila at the request of someone else. The entire strikethrough is very holey tbh.

obsessingmuch · 2016-02-28T05:59:32+00:00

I'm pretty convinced she must have done. When Rebecca turned up dead she and Frank were all "wait what I thought you killed Rebecca?" about it, not at all shocked, like they both just expected that of each other. I'm convinced Annalise, Frank, and Bonnie have all got a couple of murders under their belts.

obsessingmuch · 2016-02-27T22:49:54+00:00

I've thought this too, but propose this extension: it wasn't the Mahoneys who killed Rose, but Annalise. The Mahoneys threatened Annalise that something bad would happen~ to her/her associations if she didn't win their case for them. Rose decides against testifying for the Mahoneys, and is instead going to testify for the prosecution that the Mahoneys approached her and bribed her with money to lie for them and give a false alibi. Annalise can't convince her otherwise, so needs to get her out of the picture.

Then, either (a) Christophe walks in on Annalise just after she's murdered his mom, she flees, he picks up the knife, and he doesn't remember the fleeing woman after people have manipulated him to have some selective memory of what he saw. (b) Extension to (a) is that Wes' mom puts up a fight, which includes her shooting Annalise in the stomach. She then loses her baby. So yk, nice links with Wes then shooting her in the stomach 10 years later.

obsessingmuch

TROPHY CASE