I only watched the first half of the show so I'm risking spoilage to ask that very question. My eyes must be too accustomed to HD now because this is the 2nd episode in a row I've had a hard time seeing what's going on in the show (the photos in the closet last week). Between the darkness and the smoke I couldn't tell if it was dolls or her kids. Then there was something in the captioning when Tommy was in the building helping her about "oops I fell down" making it seem like she was high on drugs or something. Were they supposed to be dolls or what?jgerry said:Lou: "I ate the edible panties."
Man, that opening scene was intense! Everything was great, then I'm like, why is this crazy woman throwing dolls around? It was so very very clear they weren't real people. Took me out of the moment. Or did I miss something?
I don't know what they should have done differently, but it wasn't done very well. My wife and I were asking each other what they were. I thought it was a stuffed doll that fell on the ground right as they got there. It looked like a cat that the woman tossed out to Tommy.TAsunder said:Yeah, they should have used real kids or stunt dwarves for that scene just so it would look more realistic.
I thought this was a really strong episode. The best of the season so far, IMO.
I didn't think they were dead when she was throwing them out the window - if that's what was happening, it was so hard to tell - otherwise they wouldn't have been surprised and saying stuff like "but they seemed fine."TAsunder said:the kids were dead. they probably really would look like rag dolls since they were dead
Pretty sure when they were all out and the EMTs were placing the bodies in a row that someone commented "they were all dead before we got to the scene"jeff125va said:I didn't think they were dead when she was throwing them out the window - if that's what was happening, it was so hard to tell - otherwise they wouldn't have been surprised and saying stuff like "but they seemed fine."
Is this a true "spoiler", or a guess as you indicated?7thton said:Well, I hate to say it, but the beginning scene was kinda lame. I'm really sick of the scenes with nothing but music over the top of them. Rescue Me does it in EVERY episode. At this point, it's far beyond played out. It's cliche.
Also, I was confused with the beginning scene. I won't go in to detail, but I thought the narrative could have been more clear.
And whoever mentioned that this should be in HD was dead on. Is FX on that bandwagon yet?
My guess about the ending?
Tommy gives the kid to Lou. My wife called it, actually.
I think that's a very good guess.7thton said:Well, I hate to say it, but the beginning scene was kinda lame. I'm really sick of the scenes with nothing but music over the top of them. Rescue Me does it in EVERY episode. At this point, it's far beyond played out. It's cliche.
Also, I was confused with the beginning scene. I won't go in to detail, but I thought the narrative could have been more clear.
And whoever mentioned that this should be in HD was dead on. Is FX on that bandwagon yet?
My guess about the ending?
Tommy gives the kid to Lou. My wife called it, actually.
Maybe it's technically a smeek? I suggested the same thing above, although I also offered the possibility of sheila getting the baby (which seems less likely to me).mcb08 said:Is this a true "spoiler", or a guess as you indicated?
"Chocolate, strawberry, vanilla ... a whole neopolitan thing."jgerry said:Lou: "I ate the edible panties."
Yeah, I think that was the intent. To show how Tommy was struggling with what to do. He knows how his wife is with the kids. Especially now that she has gone off the deep end. Compared to his vision of Sheila and him being happy.TAsunder said:In his little vision, sheila with the kid seemed like a benign / positive experience compared to his wife. Did I miss something?
Ok, finished the episode and went back and watched the fire scene and remembered exactly what was so confusing. It was the two times the woman threw something or someone from the window. It was nearly impossible to tell what it was as it was falling, then when Franco ran over, presumably to catch it, they didn't show it on the ground at all - so HD or a lack of smoke or better lighting wouldn't have made any difference at that point. If it was a kid, then Franco didn't seem too concerned or he/she was clearly dead. If the latter is the case, then the comment you mentioned makes it even more confusing. The firefighters didn't seem to think the kids - or at least not ALL the kids - were dead when they pulled them out.dianebrat said:Pretty sure when they were all out and the EMTs were placing the bodies in a row that someone commented "they were all dead before we got to the scene"
dianebrat said:Pretty sure when they were all out and the EMTs were placing the bodies in a row that someone commented "they were all dead before we got to the scene"
I didn't catch that comment from the EMT's but even if they said that, the crew could have thought that some of them were alive during the rescue. There appeared to be no obvious signs of death. It's not like they had time to check vitals while in the heat. So they could have (wrongly) assumed that the children were simply unconscious. That would make things even hit harder when they found out that all the kids were bereft of life.jeff125va said:the comment you mentioned makes it even more confusing. The firefighters didn't seem to think the kids - or at least not ALL the kids - were dead when they pulled them out.
I'm 100% there with you, and that's exactly why I thought it hit the guys so hardEvilMidniteBombr said:I didn't catch that comment from the EMT's but even if they said that, the crew could have thought that some of them were alive during the rescue. There appeared to be no obvious signs of death. It's not like they had time to check vitals while in the heat. So they could have (wrongly) assumed that the children were simply unconscious. That would make things even hit harder when they found out that all the kids were bereft of life.
