The Fall (RTE1/BBC2) [** Spoilers **]

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jezzer wrote: »

regarding the scene where he drove off, no way, if a cop ever saw somebody approach a crime scene and then turn around they would be up their ass in seconds...

The way I see the car scene is that Stella had no real reason to assume that it was him at first. They were at that spot because it's where he made the phone call from, they weren't expecting to find him. The police cars were blocking the road, have you never been driving somewhere and see a checkpoint or an accident blocking the road and just turn around and go another way? Sure you could argue she should have been on high alert anyway and shouted for a car as soon as he turned his lights off.

Someone else mentioned them not following Katie. I refer again to the constant references the other week to budget cuts on their investigation. They've got a full surveillance operation on Specter's house which must be costing a few bob, as well as a team watching Rose's husband's house.

Personally I find it all a bit more believable than these cop shows where they solve murders by silly coincidences or jumping to the right conclusion every single time. I imagine in real life things like this are messy and take time. Remember that woman in Bristol who was murdered around Christmas a few years ago? They had her landlord hauled through the press for days as the murderer and he had absolutely nothing to do with it. Police make mistakes all the time.

Dan_Solo

The Black Oil wrote: »

Well, all we can do at this stage, whether the show has merits or not, is to keep yapping about it. If it's provoking a reaction that's more than some shows manage. Roll on the denouement.

Please tell me there isn't a third series... I'd almost forgive them if they wrap it up shortly.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jezzer wrote: »

i also though bringing a relationship between the indian professor and roses husband into it was stupid and as much as i would have liked to see the indian professor and gibson lez up, it was another stupid situation to add to the mix, gibson is a high profile cop in belfast to track a killer and she decided to lez up in front of everybody....serious lack of professionalism there, the show is gone to sh*te really...credibility gone.

Why would Gibson "lezzing it up" be unprofessional?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please tell me there isn't a third series... I'd almost forgive them if they wrap it up shortly.

Jamie Dornan said

If there was a 3rd series it was unlikely he'd be involved. The way he worded it though sounded like Specter's story is wrapped up one way or another this series.

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The way I see the car scene is that Stella had no real reason to assume that it was him at first. They were at that spot because it's where he made the phone call from, they weren't expecting to find him. The police cars were blocking the road, have you never been driving somewhere and see a checkpoint or an accident blocking the road and just turn around and go another way? Sure you could argue she should have been on high alert anyway and shouted for a car as soon as he turned his lights off.

As soon as I saw him phoning Gibson from the old shed location I assumed he had the cop on to know not to go back there and was a bit WTF when he nearly drove right into half the PSNI there. Even if he hadn't returned there, he should have known he was leading them straight to a place where they'd have loads of extra evidence to nail him?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As soon as I saw him phoning Gibson from the old shed location I assumed he had the cop on to know not to go back there and was a bit WTF when he nearly drove right into half the PSNI there. Even if he hadn't returned there, he should have known he was leading them straight to a place where they'd have loads of extra evidence to nail him?

That's true but I think he's shown quite a few times that he enjoys taking risks. He's arrogant and extremely self assured. I mean coming back to Belfast at all was risky. Replying to the call from the foundation set up for his first victim was risky. Going to visit the girl who survived his attack was unbelievably risky. Everything he does is risky. Returning to his shack was probably one of the less risky things he's done

I don't think he phoned her from the actual shed although it seems likely it was on the same road so same difference really.

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

That's true but I think he's shown quite a few times that he enjoys taking risks. He's arrogant and extremely self assured. I mean coming back to Belfast at all was risky. Replying to the call from the foundation set up for his first victim was risky. Going to visit the girl who survived his attack was unbelievably risky. Everything he does is risky. Returning to his shack was probably one of the less risky things he's done

I don't think he phoned her from the actual shed although it seems likely it was on the same road so same difference really.

There's certainly plenty of what he says that indicates he's fully expecting to be captured imminently and perhaps not even particularly bothered if he is.
Maybe he's as upset with the PSNI's performance as we are!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There's certainly plenty of what he says that indicates he's fully expecting to be captured imminently and perhaps not even particularly bothered if he is.
Maybe he's as upset with the PSNI's performance as we are!

Yes, his line to Katie about serial killing being a slow suicide and even the stuff he said to the girl in hospital suggest he knows fine well what's in store for him. It seems to be more a case of him being determined to take Stella down with him.

I do wonder if his father being British Army has any relevance to anything? He clearly doesn't like women much anyway but Stella being English must really grind his gears.

jezzer

Yes dan solo, in actual fact it seems he is upset with the p*ss poor efforts of the PSNI performance, especially gibson, regarding lezzing up in public, the cops have enough to deal with in the papers with the fact that gibson is staying in a 5 star hotel on the taxpayers whilst a murderer is still on the loose, they could do without tabloid fodder showing her lezzing up with a professor who is linked to the husband of the missing woman (the cops fault she is missing also)
The show seems hell bent on bringing lesbianism into the show with the other female cop telling gibson she was a lezzer, whats the point of this? it also seems gibson has rode all round her and would even lez out, again whats the point??? why are they portraying the deputy chief constable as a wino, sex mad bag of sh*te who tips off his mates who are about to be arrested?

Last season the show concentrated on spector and his double life family man/ killer, this year its just all over the place

tickle as you say "have you never been driving somewhere and see a checkpoint or an accident blocking the road and just turn around and go another way? "

Are you seriously taking the p*ss??? i've seen it happen and the cops would be on top of you before you could change gear

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I do wonder if his father being British Army has any relevance to anything? He clearly doesn't like women much anyway but Stella being English must really grind his gears.

That was my take too, his mother was on the other side of the NI fence I think so probably something will be made of his history to "explain" his evil streak?

Dan_Solo

jezzer wrote: »

Last season the show concentrated on spector and his double life family man/ killer, this year its just all over the place

Isn't Cubitt directing it himself this season as well as writing? That doesn't explain it really, as it's the writing that has suffered from what I see.

jezzer

yes good point on his father being in the army, i'm sure it will form part of why he is doing these horrible things, i think you are right, he knows he will be caught and is hell bent on creating more devastation before he is caught, obviously his reference to slow suicide means he will kill himself before going to prison

jezzer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Isn't Cubitt directing it himself this season as well as writing? That doesn't explain it really, as it's the writing that has suffered from what I see.

yes the directing is still ok, the show is pretty well made just the writing is deplorable

Sittingpretty

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Why would Gibson "lezzing it up" be unprofessional?

Because she's already been in hot water having slept with Olsen.

I should imagine engaging in sex with anyone involved in the case/investigation be they male or female would be out of bounds had she learned her lesson from her previous mistake.

That scene had me rolling my eyes very hard.

I'm still enjoying it though and will watch it to the end.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Because she's already been in hot water having slept with Olsen.

I should imagine engaging in sex with anyone involved in the case/investigation be they male or female would be out of bounds had she learned her lesson from her previous mistake.

That scene had me rolling my eyes very hard.

I'm still enjoying it though and will watch it to the end.

I have to agree I thought that scene was unnecessary. I know they're trying to make Gibson out to be a modern woman who doesn't feel the need to live up to any ridiculous preconceptions of what a female police officer should be but I thought they'd already made that abundantly clear. To me that scene read like it was written by a 14 year old perv or one of these slash fan fiction writers. It had no relevance really to anything. I did think Gibson kissing her to put yer man off and then pretending she thought he was the waiter was hilarious but beyond that it was unnecessary.

Dan_Solo

jezzer wrote: »

a professor who is linked to the husband of the missing woman

I'm still missing the relevance of this affair to the whole story. In fact, now I think of it, the whole Munro family stuff seems pretty irrelevant. If they're tied up in any believable fashion Cubitt will have earned his paycheque.

jezzer

yes, there just seems to be this want by the writer to involve lesbienism and needless sexual instances which have no place or relevance

extra gravy

jezzer wrote: »

there just seems to be this want by the writer to involve lesbienism

One brief kiss in 8 episodes = "a want by the writer to involve lesbienism"? Ok. There's no reason to suggest that the kiss was anything more than a minor scene designed to introduce a bit of light relief. On the contrary, your repeated references to "lezzing it up", whatever that actually means, indicate that you're too immature to handle such a scene without making a big deal out of it.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

extra gravy wrote: »

One brief kiss in 8 episodes = "a want by the writer to involve lesbienism"? Ok. There's no reason to suggest that the kiss was anything more than a minor scene designed to introduce a bit of light relief. On the contrary, your repeated references to "lezzing it up", whatever that actually means, indicate that you're too immature to handle such a scene without making a big deal out of it.

While I agree that referring to it as "lezzing it up" is immature and ridiculous it was more than one scene of light relief. Gibson kissing her to put the other guy off was light relief. Them heading off to the elevator to go back to Gibson's room was more. Personally I have no problem with a character being gay or sleeping with anyone who offers, don't care, but this particular scene felt very strange and unnecessary. It felt like "hey, let's make her a lesbian too, she's a modern woman, that's what modern women do, right?"

Dan_Solo

Can somebody clear something up for me from Season 1? When Peter has his little roll on the floor with Katy, at the end does she not say "you can kiss it better for me". I had assumed he had sex with her there (off screen) but it turns out that not only was there no three month affair, there was no affair at all?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can somebody clear something up for me from Season 1? When Peter has his little roll on the floor with Katy, at the end does she not say "you can kiss it better for me". I had assumed he had sex with her there (off screen) but it turns out that not only was there no three month affair, there was no affair at all?

There was no affair. Paul (or Peter if you like) needed his wife to lie to the police about where he was the night of one of the murders. He obviously couldn't tell her the real reason so he told her he'd been having an affair. Katie being underage would mean he'd be arrested if he told the police "the truth" so he convinced Sally to lie to the police for him. She fully believed him though and he manipulated Katie enough that she thinks there is something between them too.

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

There was no affair. Paul (or Peter if you like) needed his wife to lie to the police about where he was the night of one of the murders. He obviously couldn't tell her the real reason so he told her he'd been having an affair. Katie being underage would mean he'd be arrested if he told the police "the truth" so he convinced Sally to lie to the police for him. She fully believed him though and he manipulated Katie enough that she thinks there is something between them too.

I knew there wasn't really any 3 month affair, it's just I had assumed at that scene they'd ended up doing it. I remember the episode just ended when Katy said "why don't you kiss it better" to Peter. Maybe the idea was that we wouldn't know what happened to leave it open.

Butterface

The references to Stella "lezzing" it up are hilarious. It's perfectly believable that she could be bisexual. It's perhaps the least unbelievable of some of this week's scenes.

I think Paul is setting up Katie so that when they close in on him he'll take her down too.

I still find the show engaging even when it's unbelievable. Gillian Anderson is brilliant and is definitely carrying the show.

cloudatlas

Which episode are you guys on I'm on season 2 ep 2 on the iplayer no lesbian kiss.

Dan_Solo

cloudatlas wrote: »

Which episode are you guys on I'm on season 2 ep 2 on the iplayer no lesbian kiss.

Ep 3 was just on RTE on Sunday.

bodhrandude

cloudatlas wrote: »

Which episode are you guys on I'm on season 2 ep 2 on the iplayer no lesbian kiss.

Episode 3 RTE showed it on Sunday, you must be a Thursday viewer when they show it on BBC 2.

bodhrandude

I hope he starts killing some more people, season 1 was more interesting for that, I presume somehow he will be picking up a few fresh victims but he will probably have to move on to an area a few neighbourhoods away from the recent murders as a lot of it is under surveillance.

cloudatlas

That episode was all over the shop.

What did she say before she left Stella at the lift. 'I'm sorry I was brought up in Croydon', what's that got to do with anything. That whole episode didn't feel like it fit right, the other woman coming to the bar to apologise. Then Jim who has been a desperate mess from word go, how he got to where he is I don't know. And Katie taking selfies.

bazermc

Folks Just started watching the fall season 2 and really enjoying it, however never watched season 1.

Question is there any point is getting season 1 and starting at the startn, given I know most of the outcome?

Amazingfun

Yes!

Dan_Solo

bazermc wrote: »

Folks Just started watching the fall season 2 and really enjoying it, however never watched season 1.

Question is there any point is getting season 1 and starting at the startn, given I know most of the outcome?

Definitely.
Though TBH I'm not sure I would've even stuck with it if I hadn't seen season 1...

jezzer

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

While I agree that referring to it as "lezzing it up" is immature and ridiculous it was more than one scene of light relief. Gibson kissing her to put the other guy off was light relief. Them heading off to the elevator to go back to Gibson's room was more. Personally I have no problem with a character being gay or sleeping with anyone who offers, don't care, but this particular scene felt very strange and unnecessary. It felt like "hey, let's make her a lesbian too, she's a modern woman, that's what modern women do, right?"

Plus there was the reference to the uniformed cop helping gibson who said she was a lezzer when gibson asked if she had a boyfriend...i just think the constant references to lesbiens is pointless and unneeded for the show, it tires to make out that most women are lesbians and as far as i am aware that is not the case, the instance with gibson and the indian professor was just ridiculous, i'm not a woman but as far as i can say straigh women do not meet each other for a drink and decide to lez off, it just doesnt happen and as part of the series is very stupid to be introducing it, unless of course they are going to try and bring in the fact that gibson is sex mad, something that spector clearly has an issue with these types of women and thats why he goes after her, but again that would just be stupid

jezzer

cloudatlas wrote: »

That episode was all over the shop.

What did she say before she left Stella at the lift. 'I'm sorry I was brought up in Croydon', what's that got to do with anything. That whole episode didn't feel like it fit right, the other woman coming to the bar to apologise. Then Jim who has been a desperate mess from word go, how he got to where he is I don't know. And Katie taking selfies.

Yes i completely agree, the croyden thing was bizarre, plus it was like something out of a soap opera when jim coincidentally knocked on the door
as you say they whole episode didnt fit, it was like they were trying to kill an hour, to the guy who only watched the second series, there is no way i would be watching this crap unless i watched the first series, i only want to find out what happens to spector

cloudatlas

jezzer wrote: »

Plus there was the reference to the uniformed cop helping gibson who said she was a lezzer when gibson asked if she had a boyfriend...i just think the constant references to lesbiens is pointless and unneeded for the show, it tires to make out that most women are lesbians and as far as i am aware that is not the case, the instance with gibson and the indian professor was just ridiculous, i'm not a woman but as far as i can say straigh women do not meet each other for a drink and decide to lez off, it just doesnt happen and as part of the series is very stupid to be introducing it, unless of course they are going to try and bring in the fact that gibson is sex mad, something that spector clearly has an issue with these types of women and thats why he goes after her, but again that would just be stupid

What's with all the 'lezzer' 'lezzing it' references do you work for the Irish Daily Star or something? Lesbian or gay woman is fine.

First of all I assume that Gibson is bisexual. Does it further the plot particularly no, does it add to her character profile that sex is a release for her and she likes sleeping with attractive people yes. Her sleeping with Olsen didn't further the plot particularly either but did you object to that, no. You could argue that there is a lot of stuff thrown in that doesn't directly further the plot but good thrillers flesh out the details.

Yes the series has a strong feminist vibe to it and Stella is a very controlled woman with desires who as they say 'can have both' so why shouldn't she? The gay female cop only said she was gay because Stella asked her if she was in a relationship with a man. There aren't many gay/bi characters on our screens so it's a welcome sight in my opinion. I get annoyed when people say 'if they're gay why do they have to go on about it'. There have been several references to straight sex, relationships, scenes in the series and you're bothered by 2 reference points to being gay.

FYI Gillian Anderson is bisexual and proud.

jezzer

cloudatlas wrote: »

What's with all the 'lezzer' 'lezzing it' references do you work for the Irish Daily Star or something? Lesbian or gay woman is fine.

First of all I assume that Gibson is bisexual. Does it further the plot particularly no, does it add to her character profile that sex is a release for her and she likes sleeping with attractive people yes. Her sleeping with Olsen didn't further the plot particularly either but did you object to that, no. You could argue that there is a lot of stuff thrown in that doesn't directly further the plot but good thrillers flesh out the details.

Yes the series has a strong feminist vibe to it and Stella is a very controlled woman with desires who as they say 'can have both' so why shouldn't she? The gay female cop only said she was gay because Stella asked her if she was in a relationship with a man. There aren't many gay/bi characters on our screens so it's a welcome sight in my opinion. I get annoyed when people say 'if they're gay why do they have to go on about it'. There have been several references to straight sex, relationships, scenes in the series and you're bothered by 2 reference points to being gay.

FYI Gillian Anderson is bisexual and proud.

what has feminism got to do with lesibanism? regarding her sleeping with olsen, i thought it shouldnt have been added in to the show either but i would accept it as a once off, then we find out she was up on jim and then she tries to get up on the indian professor woman, its all a bit too much and to me it tries to portray that women in such a position are rather loose which i dont think is fair, also why does the female cop have to be a lesbian and why does gibson have to be a bi trying to cajole the straight indian professor to lez off with her, aside from all that, it takes away from the main plotline of the show and very needlessly so

cloudatlas

jezzer wrote: »

what has feminism got to do with lesibanism? regarding her sleeping with olsen, i thought it shouldnt have been added in to the show either but i would accept it as a once off, then we find out she was up on jim and then she tries to get up on the indian professor woman, its all a bit too much and to me it tries to portray that women in such a position are rather loose which i dont think is fair, also why does the female cop have to be a lesbian and why does gibson have to be a bi trying to cajole the straight indian professor to lez off with her, aside from all that, it takes away from the main plotline of the show and very needlessly so

But why not indeed her be a lesbian if it makes no difference at all? I suppose I think of feminism as being more about choice and self empowerment not necessarily pertaining to gay woman. Lots of detectives have their personal 'vices' ways to let off steam alcohol etc., Gibson likes a wild night now and again. That whole scene with the pathologist was a bit odd granted but not necessarily because they kissed. Plenty of shows have all kinds of moments that don't necessarily further plot.

jezzer

cloudatlas wrote: »

But why not indeed her be a lesbian if it makes no difference at all? I suppose I think of feminism as being more about choice and self empowerment not necessarily pertaining to gay woman. Lots of detectives have their personal 'vices' ways to let off steam alcohol etc., Gibson likes a wild night now and again. That whole scene with the pathologist was a bit odd granted but not necessarily because they kissed. Plenty of shows have all kinds of moments that don't necessarily further plot.

well the part with them kissing, whilst unnecessary, was explained away as getting rid of the lawyer, but there was absolutely no need to take it any further, they included the uniformed cop as a lesbian which was fair enough but why also show gibson as having lesbian tendencies, again a step too far and i dont know why gibson cant just be a woman in a high ranking position without having to be a feminist etc, no need for it, in this day and age i would have imagined in this day and age that wouldnt have to be explained away. Also i'm sure the majority of detectives dont hop up on one another at an alarming rate, in the show this is taking away from the main plotline which this year has fallen flat

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jezzer wrote: »

well the part with them kissing, whilst unnecessary, was explained away as getting rid of the lawyer, but there was absolutely no need to take it any further, they included the uniformed cop as a lesbian which was fair enough but why also show gibson as having lesbian tendencies, again a step too far and i dont know why gibson cant just be a woman in a high ranking position without having to be a feminist etc, no need for it, in this day and age i would have imagined in this day and age that wouldnt have to be explained away. Also i'm sure the majority of detectives dont hop up on one another at an alarming rate, in the show this is taking away from the main plotline which this year has fallen flat

No need for her to be a feminist? Surely everyone should be a feminist?

jezzer

but why cant she just be detective gibson, what does the fact that she is a woman have to do with anything?

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

No need for her to be a feminist? Surely everyone should be a feminist?

Well, I think the PC thing these to ask for these days is equality, not feminism...
Did I say PC? ;-)

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, I think the PC thing these to ask for these days is equality, not feminism...
Did I say PC? ;-)

Yes, but really the proper definition of feminism is, or should be, equality. Too many people equate feminism with men hating battle axes who want a world run by women. Understandable as there is a lot of them about. But that's a whole different story.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jezzer wrote: »

but why cant she just be detective gibson, what does the fact that she is a woman have to do with anything?

Because like it or not it's still the case that a woman in a job like that has to work twice as hard to prove she's capable. While I am not 100% sure on all the choices they've made for Gibson's character I don't have a problem with them trying to show that women are still held to different standards.

And just to be clear, my problem with the scene in the hotel with the two women was how it fit into the story, or didn't fit, not the actual content of the scenes. That said it's possible it'll come back up in a later episode and may well prove to have been relevant. That guy seeming to know who they both were may have some relevance too.

cloudatlas

jezzer wrote: »

well the part with them kissing, whilst unnecessary, was explained away as getting rid of the lawyer, but there was absolutely no need to take it any further, they included the uniformed cop as a lesbian which was fair enough but why also show gibson as having lesbian tendencies, again a step too far and i dont know why gibson cant just be a woman in a high ranking position without having to be a feminist etc, no need for it, in this day and age i would have imagined in this day and age that wouldnt have to be explained away. Also i'm sure the majority of detectives dont hop up on one another at an alarming rate, in the show this is taking away from the main plotline which this year has fallen flat

Well it seems being bisexual has to be explained away. :pac: I suppose the fact that the killer was in the room and someone was going with her to the room reassures the viewer a bit and then when the pathologist walks away you think 'oh god she's on her own with the killer'. But I take your point about the hopping up on everyone, if it does continue it'll descend into farce.

Dan_Solo

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

And just to be clear, my problem with the scene in the hotel with the two women was how it fit into the story, or didn't fit, not the actual content of the scenes. That said it's possible it'll come back up in a later episode and may well prove to have been relevant. That guy seeming to know who they both were may have some relevance too.

If Gibson was being deliberately provocative there might be some legs in this angle of flaunting it in public. Something makes me think it's just a WTF though instead of a plot device.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If Gibson was being deliberately provocative there might be some legs in this angle of flaunting it in public. Something makes me think it's just a WTF though instead of a plot device.

Part of me thinks it was them trying to give Archie Panjabi something to do. Like they realised they'd hired a great actress for a bit part role and thought they better give her something to do other than slice livers up.

To be honest I'm not sure of the point of Panjabi's character at all?

jezzer

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If Gibson was being deliberately provocative there might be some legs in this angle of flaunting it in public. Something makes me think it's just a WTF though instead of a plot device.

yes you could be right on both counts, possibly the lawyer who was hitting on the indian professor may come into it at some point, in reality, when we look at it, gibson is proving to be a very unprofessional police officer and is making a p*ss poor attempt at the investigation, i think in reality she would probably be long since demoted if not sacked, also the deputy chief is a corrupt alcoholic, and then there were the actual corrupt cops who are now both dead, and the detective who made a balls of the background check on spector, wouldn't exactly entice you to place your trust in the PSNI, and i thought our lot down south were bad...

The Black Oil

The interpretation of the lesbian side of things seems a bit odd. Saying that, it felt a bit set up to counter allegations the show is misogynistic.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

jezzer wrote: »

yes you could be right on both counts, possibly the lawyer who was hitting on the indian professor may come into it at some point, in reality, when we look at it, gibson is proving to be a very unprofessional police officer and is making a p*ss poor attempt at the investigation, i think in reality she would probably be long since demoted if not sacked, also the deputy chief is a corrupt alcoholic, and then there were the actual corrupt cops who are now both dead, and the detective who made a balls of the background check on spector, wouldn't exactly entice you to place your trust in the PSNI, and i thought our lot down south were bad...

I don't see that anything Gibson has done in her personal life has had any impact on her investigation? If anything her investigation has been constantly hampered by the higher ups at the PSNI being more concerned with public appearance than allowing her to do her job. Even now, when it's clear that the murders and Rose's disappearance are connected they're wasting time and money investigating and keeping an eye on the husband instead of letting Stella run it as part of her own investigation.