Yeah, that would make sense from a plot standpoint if they made the baby someone other than Duncan's. But you're right, it still wouldn't help on the character front - like why Duncan acted the way he did this season if he's really a good guy, and why Veronica put up with him for so long, and when would Meg have the time to sleep with someone last spring other than Duncan
( ... )
when would Meg have the time to sleep with someone last spring other than Duncan.
Well, when Veronica was babysitting to investigate Meg's claims, she got propositioned by one of the fathers. At the time, I wondered if Meg was involved in something like that because he seemed like he was assuming that anyone Meg recommended would be in to that sort of thing. Maybe the baby's father is some sort of big wig in Neptune that was paying her for it.
I've seen that theory, but I have a really hard time subscribing to it. I think that having Meg sleep with Duncan was out-of-character, but at least in the realm of possibility, but her being promiscuous like that would basically be character assassination. I can possibly buy her seeking comfort with a friend, or possibly Cole, but not some sleezebag she babysits for.
Well, I figured it went with the "no one is what they seem!" theme that RT seems to have going on. And if she freaked out after Duncan broke up with her, maybe she did it to get back at him. Or her freaky parents finally drove her over the edge.
As much as I hate the notion of Meg sleeping with someone other than Duncan (or even that she slept with Duncan, actually), that would make the most sense. I think I've got a glitch for part of your plan, though:
While in Napa over the Christmas break, Duncan got Astrid involved in the plan, unbeknownst to his mother.
Duncan couldn't possibly have known over Christmas break that Meg was going to die. Hence, he couldn't have gotten Astrid involved in advance, because he wouldn't know a plan was needed back when he was in Napa. I think the writers tried to be way too clever in including Astrid, when it would have made sense for someone else - hell, Vinnie's mother! - to be the extra agent in the plan.
Also, I really need a 'WTF?' VM icon. The 'bitch please' isn't directed at you in the slightest, but rather the scheme in this ep. :P
Okay, so I admit to not knowing that much about the VM timeline for the last few episodes, because, well, quite frankly, who wants to rewatch OAV and DR again and again? But Meg died sometime between Christmas and New Years, right? And Duncan wasn't back yet, or he would have spent New Years with Veronica, right? So he probably found out about Meg while in Napa, and he and Veronica came up with the plan on the phone
( ... )
they're convoluted only for the sake of a gotcha that a large part of the audience isn't even glad to see. (I'm assuming, anyway.) So what's the point of them?
This is what's bugging me the most right now. If the gotcha had been enjoyable, then it might have been worth a few convulsions. But the story without the gotcha was much more enjoyable than with, so the twist doesn't do anything. I'm also not seeing any point to it all, other than to prove that the writers can jerk people around for the sake of jerking them around. I mean, deceiving someone to throw them a surprise birthday party is a good thing; deceiving them in order to say "Haha! You get no presents this birthday at all! Fooled you!" is...er, not.
I mean, deceiving someone to throw them a surprise birthday party is a good thing; deceiving them in order to say "Haha! You get no presents this birthday at all! Fooled you!" is...er, not.
See, a lot of what you point out is what led me to believe Celeste was in on it. I can't buy that Celeste would ever do anything to estrange herself from Duncan. Even him being with Veronica probably couldn't have accomplished that. And we know that she was willing to risk prison for him once by covering up the evidence of Lilly's death. Why not do this? (Aside from you know, the gaping "Why are they kidnapping the baby to begin with plot hole
( ... )
Yes, I agree, Celeste should have been involved, it's the only thing that makes sense. And if it wasn't for Vinnie's comment I probably would think that she was. However, a spoiler whore on my flist posted a Donut Run FAQ specifically pointing out that Celeste wasn't in on the deal. I don't know if she had other reasons for her assertion, but either way, that comment can't really mean anything else. Unless they were playing Vinnie too, but then why wouldn't Celeste's involvement have been made clear to the audience?
Also, I don't see why Celeste would ever agree to the plan when there are court battles that can be won. And with the Kane lawyers they'd be pretty much assured a win, especially after she tells Lamb to testify about what he witnessed in NPBiaC.
and screwing the father of one of the kids she was babysitting. I meant that Meg's father would be the father. But if that's too ooky, then why not have her seek solace in the arms of Cole after Duncan's freak-out with the car at Logan's birthday party? The only thing I can't
( ... )
I guess I figured Celeste's involvement was questionable because Rob was trying to be coy. Too coy by half in my book, but whatever. If someone in the know says Celeste wasn't involved, I guess that answers that, but I still think it makes more sense if she is. /preaching to the choir
And gotcha on the whole Meg's dad thing. It IS ooky and I think my brain keeps skipping past the possibility because, well...::shudder::. But the more I think about it the more I tend to think there must be more to the story coming, since wasting 11 eps (and Meg's survival/pregnancy/death) to justify Duncan leaving is weak. I'd consider Cole a very dark horse since he had no role after that ep last year. Did he? I can't remember him anyway, even in aTthD , which was pretty continuity heavy.
Yeah, I don't get why it's so hard to spell things out once in a while. You know, most of the time I'm happy the writers don't treat the audience as if they're morons, but sometimes they seem to forget that we're not mind-readers.
I can't remember him anyway, even in aTthD , which was pretty continuity heavy. Actually, he's in ATttD. When Meg's trying to help Veronica he's the one who stops her, saying "I don't want Veronica Mars puking in my car", and then he sees Duncan leading her away and says "look, someone's already got her." And I totally wouldn't have remembered that if someone hadn't brought it up downthread. =)
The non-reaction of the Kanes was one of my major problems with the episode. It's basically impossible to bring back Celeste & Jake now after doing this to their characters. While Celeste was a bitch and Jake wasn't a prince either, I felt like I knew what they were about until this episode and its weird characterization. I can't even begin to rationalize the other stuff. Can't we just forget this ep ever happened? I'm really working on it and looking forward to Wednesday.
Why is it that the graceful exit of one of the show's least compelling characters meant having to ruin the characterizations of a handful of the others? I really wish someone had taken Rob to task about the plot/characterization holes at some point before this was put on film, because it's just baffling how anyone could read a script like that and not see the inconsistencies.
Now, no offense or anything *hee* but I think you're trying to find meaning where there is none. I really don't think that we can apply logic to any of these plot holes; they were driven more by the realities behind the scenes.
Duncan was going to leave. How? Well, TD's a nice guy, so he gets to play the pure boyfriend and look good. Unfortunately, he doesn't look good, and in trying to make him look good, the idea of Neptune filled with gray characters is disregarded. I hate to be so cynical, but that is the only way I can see this storyline justified.
The thing that makes the least sense to me is why they're so enamoured with the idea of committing felonies left and right without even trying to settle things through the courts.Because then TD would have to stick around, and we already have another court case coming up. What's really annoying is that yet another characteristic of Neptune--that the rich often get away scot-free--is thrown out the window, because Duncan would most likely get the baby. We'll see how Aaron's case sorts
( ... )
Yeah, looking for logic in all the wrong places is what I seem to be doing a lot of this season. But I really want the show not to be stupid, which is why I try to make sense out of everything.
Because then TD would have to stick around, and we already have another court case coming up. Not necessarily. Donut Run could have been about Duncan getting temporary custody and then growing a backbone and telling Veronica that he needed to concentrate on being a father and that he was taking the kid up to Napa. It would still leave Duncan smelling like roses, it would have meant a definitive break-up and it would even leave the door open for future appearances. But they wouldn't actually have to bring him back, we could just find out the outcome of the trial from a VMVO or something.
Whoa. Now THAT is an awesome thought. We do know that Aaron's trial will be coming up and that he's going to peg it on Duncan. With Duncan gone, yea, you've now set me up to be all disappointed if this doesn't turn out. Even without the switcharoo, just the thought that this whole kidnapping storyline might have more of a point later on, (to get Aaron off) makes me happier...
Comments 75
Reply
Well, when Veronica was babysitting to investigate Meg's claims, she got propositioned by one of the fathers. At the time, I wondered if Meg was involved in something like that because he seemed like he was assuming that anyone Meg recommended would be in to that sort of thing. Maybe the baby's father is some sort of big wig in Neptune that was paying her for it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
While in Napa over the Christmas break, Duncan got Astrid involved in the plan, unbeknownst to his mother.
Duncan couldn't possibly have known over Christmas break that Meg was going to die. Hence, he couldn't have gotten Astrid involved in advance, because he wouldn't know a plan was needed back when he was in Napa. I think the writers tried to be way too clever in including Astrid, when it would have made sense for someone else - hell, Vinnie's mother! - to be the extra agent in the plan.
Also, I really need a 'WTF?' VM icon. The 'bitch please' isn't directed at you in the slightest, but rather the scheme in this ep. :P
Reply
Reply
This is what's bugging me the most right now. If the gotcha had been enjoyable, then it might have been worth a few convulsions. But the story without the gotcha was much more enjoyable than with, so the twist doesn't do anything. I'm also not seeing any point to it all, other than to prove that the writers can jerk people around for the sake of jerking them around. I mean, deceiving someone to throw them a surprise birthday party is a good thing; deceiving them in order to say "Haha! You get no presents this birthday at all! Fooled you!" is...er, not.
Reply
Hehehehe. That was awesome.
Reply
Reply
Also, I don't see why Celeste would ever agree to the plan when there are court battles that can be won. And with the Kane lawyers they'd be pretty much assured a win, especially after she tells Lamb to testify about what he witnessed in NPBiaC.
and screwing the father of one of the kids she was babysitting.
I meant that Meg's father would be the father. But if that's too ooky, then why not have her seek solace in the arms of Cole after Duncan's freak-out with the car at Logan's birthday party? The only thing I can't ( ... )
Reply
And gotcha on the whole Meg's dad thing. It IS ooky and I think my brain keeps skipping past the possibility because, well...::shudder::. But the more I think about it the more I tend to think there must be more to the story coming, since wasting 11 eps (and Meg's survival/pregnancy/death) to justify Duncan leaving is weak. I'd consider Cole a very dark horse since he had no role after that ep last year. Did he? I can't remember him anyway, even in aTthD , which was pretty continuity heavy.
Reply
I can't remember him anyway, even in aTthD , which was pretty continuity heavy.
Actually, he's in ATttD. When Meg's trying to help Veronica he's the one who stops her, saying "I don't want Veronica Mars puking in my car", and then he sees Duncan leading her away and says "look, someone's already got her." And I totally wouldn't have remembered that if someone hadn't brought it up downthread. =)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Duncan was going to leave. How? Well, TD's a nice guy, so he gets to play the pure boyfriend and look good. Unfortunately, he doesn't look good, and in trying to make him look good, the idea of Neptune filled with gray characters is disregarded. I hate to be so cynical, but that is the only way I can see this storyline justified.
The thing that makes the least sense to me is why they're so enamoured with the idea of committing felonies left and right without even trying to settle things through the courts.Because then TD would have to stick around, and we already have another court case coming up. What's really annoying is that yet another characteristic of Neptune--that the rich often get away scot-free--is thrown out the window, because Duncan would most likely get the baby. We'll see how Aaron's case sorts ( ... )
Reply
Because then TD would have to stick around, and we already have another court case coming up.
Not necessarily. Donut Run could have been about Duncan getting temporary custody and then growing a backbone and telling Veronica that he needed to concentrate on being a father and that he was taking the kid up to Napa. It would still leave Duncan smelling like roses, it would have meant a definitive break-up and it would even leave the door open for future appearances. But they wouldn't actually have to bring him back, we could just find out the outcome of the trial from a VMVO or something.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment