RED ROCK [News, Spoilers and Discussion]

Strazdas

syklops wrote: »

I hope not. No more flashbacks. This isn't Lost.

I still think there's something about the Sharon and Brian storyline they haven't told us yet. What happened after she crept up behind him and why was she so upset when talking to Paudge in the pub?

CarrickMcJoe

misschoo wrote: »

Too many ad breaks ��

And too long, which is why I record it and start watching at 9.50, fast forward the ads..

syklops

Strazdas wrote: »

I still think there's something about the Sharon and Brian storyline they haven't told us yet. What happened after she crept up behind him and why was she so upset when talking to Paudge in the pub?

Oh dont get me wrong, something definitely happened. Maybe she wanted to kill him and that thought scared her. I don't know, but I dont mind a flashback episode at the start of a new season to recap what happened, but introducing regular flashbacks will turn farcical very quickly. The Dallas shower scene springs to mind.

Strazdas

syklops wrote: »

Oh dont get me wrong, something definitely happened. Maybe she wanted to kill him and that thought scared her. I don't know, but I dont mind a flashback episode at the start of a new season to recap what happened, but introducing regular flashbacks will turn farcical very quickly. The Dallas shower scene springs to mind.

I don't think they're going to have regular flashbacks at all but they're definitely holding something back about Sharon and Brian. It sounded like she was about to confess something to Paudge but changed her mind at the last moment.

walshb

So it wasn't Mother Teresa! Darn.

Two very silly things: Cleere creeping behind Brian in broad daylight. Then nothing, and wtf was with Rachel's sister spending half the episode pleading with her dad to let Rachel out, and being genuinely concerned only for her to open the door, speak to Rachel, get no reply and then locks the door?

It was not a twist at all that they'd arrest an innocent person. Been done time and time again in theses scenarios. A full season now if 'You did it. No, I didn't. You did it. No, I didn't.'

Strazdas

walshb wrote: »

So it wasn't Mother Teresa! Darn.

Two very silly things: Cleere creeping behind Brian in broad daylight. Then nothing, and wtf was with Rachel's sister spending half the episode pleading with her dad to let Rachel out, and being genuinely concerned only for her to open the door, speak to Rachel, get no reply and then locks the door?

It was not a twist st all that they'd arrest an innocent person. Been done time and time again in theses scenarios. A full season now if 'You did it. No, I didn't. You did it. No, I didn't.'

I'd say something major happened between Sharon and Brian when she crept up on him. we don't really know how that scene played out.

Arresting an innocent suspect is fine, that does happen in real life. Just as long as we don't go down the innocent person being sent to prison route which happens all the time in British soaps (very implausibly too).

gazzer

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd say something major happened between Sharon and Brian when she crept up on him. we don't really know how that scene played out.

Arresting an innocent suspect is fine, that does happen in real life. Just as long as we don't go down the innocent person being sent to prison route which happens all the time in British soaps (very implausibly too).

Yeah. That seems to happen in Hollyoaks every week. They never arrest the right person in that show

podgeandrodge

https://twitter.com/AnthropoidFilm/status/759066054186328064

podgeandrodge

McGonigle and Paudge nominated for IFTA best actor

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/revealed-ifta-television-awards-nominees-2016-35048989.html

Strazdas

podgeandrodge wrote: »

McGonigle and Paudge nominated for IFTA best actor

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/revealed-ifta-television-awards-nominees-2016-35048989.html

And Sharon and Angela for best actress.

Alfasudcrazy

Totally confused now - I only caught up with this while it was on BBC 2 and their series ended at episode 40 (their episodes were 1 hour) when Brain Mckay was stabbed and died. So the new TV3 series starts with the apparent murder of Brian McGonigle already having occurred so how did I miss this?

TV3 player only has episodes 1-44 available for viewing - where are all the subsequent episodes?

I don't want to spoil my viewing by having missed a lot of the story?

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Alfasudcrazy wrote: »

Totally confused now - I only caught up with this while it was on BBC 2 and their series ended at episode 40 (their episodes were 1 hour) when Brain Mckay was stabbed and died. So the new TV3 series starts with the apparent murder of Brian McGonigle already having occurred so how did I miss this?

TV3 player only has episodes 1-44 available for viewing - where are all the subsequent episodes?

I don't want to spoil my viewing by having missed a lot of the story?

You're missing all of January-May of 2016 (about 44 half hour episodes). You're better off waiting for BBC to be honest - I'm sure they'll catch up at some point to TV3.

podgeandrodge

McGonigle on TV3 7 o'clock show tonight...dunno if he's been on yet as I'm recording it. To do with IFTAS I presume.

Strazdas

podgeandrodge wrote: »

McGonigle on TV3 7 o'clock show tonight...dunno if he's been on yet as I'm recording it. To do with IFTAS I presume.

That Cathal bloke from Fair City was on with him.

happyday

I just watched it a second time in case I missed anything. That was a weird scene near the end where Rachel and her Dad and sister were eating popcorn and getting ready to watch a movie as if nothing happened. And then a ring of the door bell. Cut to Connor's arrest.

Strazdas

happyday wrote: »

I just watched it a second time in case I missed anything. That was a weird scene near the end where Rachel and her Dad and sister were eating popcorn and getting ready to watch a movie as if nothing happened. And then a ring of the door bell. Cut to Connor's arrest.

The point of that scene was to make it look like the cops were coming to arrest Rachel (or maybe even Liam). I think this is meant to be a few weeks after McGonigle was murdered.

happyday

Strazdas wrote: »

The point of that scene was to make it look like the cops were coming to arrest Rachel (or maybe even Liam). I think this is meant to be a few weeks after McGonigle was murdered.

I just thought they looked happy out. Not a care in the world. Weird.

The Talking Bread

Strazdas wrote: »

The point of that scene was to make it look like the cops were coming to arrest Rachel (or maybe even Liam). I think this is meant to be a few weeks after McGonigle was murdered.

Thats obvious but they should have toned down the Flanders family vibe! A murder investigation is going on and two of the chief suspects in the community and the actual murderer and conspirator are flouncing about making popcorn and joking like there isnt a care in the world! The transformation of Rachel's personality under the circumstances and pressure was just a bit too much. Especially when they both knew they would have been two of the chief suspects and the guards were just a doorknock away from arresting them!

Strazdas

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Thats obvious but they should have toned down the Flanders family vibe! A murder investigation is going on and two of the chief suspects in the community and the actual murderer and conspirator are flouncing about making popcorn and joking like there isnt a care in the world! The transformation of Rachel's personality under the circumstances and pressure was just a bit too much. Especially when they both knew they would have been two of the chief suspects and the guards were just a doorknock away from arresting them!

Yes, I'm not sure why Liam is so confident that the cops wouldn't be coming to arrest him and Rachel. On the other hand, the two of them were moping around after Brian's death and Rachel even unwisely showed up at his funeral.

podgeandrodge

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Thats obvious but they should have toned down the Flanders family vibe! A murder investigation is going on and two of the chief suspects in the community and the actual murderer and conspirator are flouncing about making popcorn and joking like there isnt a care in the world! The transformation of Rachel's personality under the circumstances and pressure was just a bit too much. Especially when they both knew they would have been two of the chief suspects and the guards were just a doorknock away from arresting them!

I sorta took it that the "not a care in the world" attitude was them conveying an innocent attitude to Rachel's sister, and perhaps in general, not looking like they had something to hide and playing that part.

.red.

TBH,
If Rachel was my daughter, and she'd been repeatedly manipulated and raped by a paedo like Mc gonigle, then snapped and killed him and I'd helped her clean, up the only care I'd have is if the cops had anything to pin her with.
I honestly don't think I'd loose a minutes sleep over his death.

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Thats obvious but they should have toned down the Flanders family vibe! A murder investigation is going on and two of the chief suspects in the community and the actual murderer and conspirator are flouncing about making popcorn and joking like there isnt a care in the world! The transformation of Rachel's personality under the circumstances and pressure was just a bit too much. Especially when they both knew they would have been two of the chief suspects and the guards were just a doorknock away from arresting them!

Its a TV show...They go home and have their dinner when they finish:D

Strazdas

podgeandrodge wrote: »

I sorta took it that the "not a care in the world" attitude was them conveying an innocent attitude to Rachel's sister, and perhaps in general, not looking like they had something to hide and playing that part.

Yes, good point. Niamh knows nothing about Rachel and Liam's involvement in the murder.

walshb

.red. wrote: »

TBH,
If Rachel was my daughter, and she'd been repeatedly manipulated and raped by a paedo like Mc gonigle, then snapped and killed him and I'd helped her clean, up the only care I'd have is if the cops had anything to pin her with.
I honestly don't think I'd loose a minutes sleep over his death.

He was not a paedo!

HeidiHeidi

Well, that escalated quickly :eek:

From released to charged to banged up in the Joy within about five minutes.

And then straight to asking Angela to resign.

I hope this isn't going to descend into the realm of the faintly ridiculous.....

donkeykong5

walshb wrote: »

.red. wrote: »

TBH,
If Rachel was my daughter, and she'd been repeatedly manipulated and raped by a paedo like Mc gonigle, then snapped and killed him and I'd helped her clean, up the only care I'd have is if the cops had anything to pin her with.
I honestly don't think I'd loose a minutes sleep over his death.

He was not a paedo!

Why how old was she.?

syklops

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a TV show...They go home and have their dinner when they finish:D

If I was a Mod I would ban people for repeating that stupid line. No-one here is in any doubt that its fiction.

walshb

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why how old was she.?

Age is not the issue. A paedophile is a term given to a person who is lustful-sexually attracted to prepubescent humans. Age is not always relevant. It's quite a specific-precise term.

donkeykong5

walshb wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Why how old was she.?

Age is not the issue. A paedophile is a term given to a person who is lustful-sexually attracted to prepubescent humans. Age is not always relevant. It's quite a specific-precise term.

All I am trying to establish is if she is under 16 years of age. If so than of course he is a paedophile.

walshb

donkeykong5 wrote: »

All I am trying to establish is if she is under 16 years of age. If so than of course he is a paedophile.

He is not necessarily. Read up on what a paedophile is. Age is not always relevant.

Far too many times people bandy about the term paedophile completely inaccurately.

Is Conor Tyrrell also a paedophile?