Jump to content

David Clarke: Daddy Was Framed


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

25 replies to this topic

#1

Trini Girl

Trini Girl

    Stalker

  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:http://www.biblegateway.com/

Posted Jan 18, 2012 @ 11:34 PM

Maybe he shouldn't have had an affair with a married woman -- just sayin'.

#2

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 19, 2012 @ 9:08 AM

Yeah, but that still doesn't mean he deserved to get framed for something he didn't do. Just sayin'.

#3

callietwo

callietwo

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Jan 19, 2012 @ 8:21 PM

Art imitating life, perhaps. The actor was on Men in Trees, and hooked up with the then married lead actress (and had a kid with her, IIRC... can't think of her name, she was Ellen Degeneres ex-girlfriend)

#4

Bella

Bella

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 20, 2012 @ 8:12 AM

Art imitating life, perhaps. The actor was on Men in Trees, and hooked up with the then married lead actress (and had a kid with her, IIRC... can't think of her name, she was Ellen Degeneres ex-girlfriend)

Anne Heche

#5

tina roars

tina roars

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jan 20, 2012 @ 11:08 AM

I like James Tupper in this role and I'm glad that they had to recast the part, the other actor looked way too young to fit with MS. Am I the only one who's interested in the David/Victoria backstory though? It's difficult to tell their story in flashback only so I hope we'll be getting something more than 1 or 2 minute clips down the line. I think it's very important that they show, not just continually tell us this deep love b/n the two of them as it makes Victoria's betrayal all the more tragic and sinister at the same time. Unless she truly is an evil person, which I don't think the show wants us to believe, right now I just can't find any reason why she would betray her "one true love" like that. It can't be the fear of losing Daniel only. If Conrad and his company were exposed back then for terrorist dealings, wouldn't she still be able to keep Daniel? Surely she didn't have a role in actual crime, only the resultant coverup. I guess it could be reasoned that she didn't want Daniel to end up like Amanda Clarke, the daughter of the most hated man in America.

Well, back on topic and the bottom line is that we need more David backstory and hopefully soon.

#6

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 20, 2012 @ 11:48 PM

I think it's simply that she wanted the respectability of being Conrad's wife. IMHO, however much she "loved" David, she was NEVER going to leave Conrad for him. David had money, but he wasn't Rich and Society enough for her.

I think a lot of evil deeds are done by people who are simply too WEAK to consider facing the consequences. David was going to be splashed with mud no matter what; backing Conrad kept her reputation spotless.

David was not a criminal, but he was foolish. Most married people don't leave their (wealthy) spouses for True Love.

#7

Trini Girl

Trini Girl

    Stalker

  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:http://www.biblegateway.com/

Posted Feb 2, 2012 @ 1:34 AM

It's difficult to tell their story in flashback only so I hope we'll be getting something more than 1 or 2 minute clips down the line. I think it's very important that they show, not just continually tell us this deep love b/n the two of them as it makes Victoria's betrayal all the more tragic and sinister at the same time.

Yes; a flashback episode would be a good idea.

-------
The idea of David Clarke has been mentioned elsewhere, and I think it'd be a bad idea if TPTB resurrect him.
a) The show is already way soapier than how it started, and there's only so much ridiculous melodrama I can take. Especially since I'm not into soaps anyway.

b) I feel it would completely undermine the premise of the show. Emanda has clearly stated she's out to avenge her father's death; and if he's not even dead, then all the collateral damage she's causing would be for naught. Plus, her wealth came from inheriting Nolcorp's shares from him.

c) More than anything, David being alive would unleash a slew of plot holes and ret-cons.

#8

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 2, 2012 @ 11:12 AM

I'd say the affair was more David's delusion and Victoria's self-absorption than true love.

I'm sorry for David, but he was fooling himself if he believed Victoria would leave her wealthy husband and live happily ever after with him and Amanda in a rose-covered cottage - amongst other issues, he worked for Conrad. The man would have ruined David's professional future.

#9

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 9, 2012 @ 2:09 PM

I'd say the affair was more David's delusion and Victoria's self-absorption than true love.


That really showed in last night's interview footage of David continuing to insist that Victoria was innocent in the whole conspiracy. Poor guy didn't know when to wake up and smell the coffee.

#10

RachelKM

RachelKM

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted Mar 4, 2012 @ 9:38 PM

I'd say the affair was more David's delusion and Victoria's self-absorption than true love.

I'm sorry for David, but he was fooling himself if he believed Victoria would leave her wealthy husband and live happily ever after with him and Amanda in a rose-covered cottage - amongst other issues, he worked for Conrad. The man would have ruined David's professional future.

I like David in the flashbacks, but I have a really hard time with his apparent naivete sheer gullibility. He makes Daniel almost seem shrewd, at least he got suspicious even if he is easily placated once those suspicions are aroused.

I also think his leaving that infinity box for Amanda was just bizarre if he genuinely wanted his daughter to forgive and move on. I cracked up during pilot's letter/voice over from daddy Clarke telling Amanda he wanted her to forgive the Graysons as he had in the midst of dropping this whole shit ton of crazy conspiracy her lap. OK, dad.

I posted my take on the letter in the original thread back in October, and it still serves as the best example of who the letter read in my head, so I think I'll just re-post here:

Dear Amanda,

If you're reading this I'm dead and I need you, in all your damaged teenhood, to understand the fucked up nature of life...

Please see the enclosed, hand written highly detailed account of the manner in which the following people fucked up our lives. I have painstakingly recounted in minute detail everything you need to know to understand the intimate lives of these bastards.... er, flawed people, in hopes that your will come to understand me, my innocence, and the human condition.

Once you have read the enclosed, please meditate and then release a bird and let it fly away taking your anger with it. Do not try to AVENGE ME. Really. I want you to forGIVE THEM so that your life will not be made into the HELL that was mine.

Cheers!

Love,
Dad

P.S. Too bad you couldn't keep the dog.

Seriously David... even Daniel could read between those lines.

#11

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Mar 5, 2012 @ 2:57 PM

I have no problem buying David's gullibility. IRL, there are many examples of people who do idiotic things for love, lust, money, etc. (Think of Conrad, who knowingly laundered money for terrorists)

Even the smartest people can have a completely unexpected weakness.




Read up on The Affair of the Necklace - France, 1785. (Not the movie, which tried to make the Comtesse a Noble Heroine) It's chock full of people who couldn't face reality. Their pursuits of their agendas made a huge scandal.

#12

RachelKM

RachelKM

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted Mar 8, 2012 @ 11:21 AM

I don't have a problem believing it is possible for someone to be that gullible; but my point was that I wonder how it is we as an audience are supposed to see David. It is totally realisitc for Emanda, after wrongly hating him and tuning her back on him for years, to flip to the oposit position and all but cannonize him once she found out he was innocent. Not just out of guilt, but also because her memories of him were seen through the vail of an 8 year old's idolatry of her father. It is just as realistic that the real man would be more complex and flawed than Emanda either rememebrs or would acknowledge.

However, if they make him too much of a dupe, then it makes Emanda's vengence seem a little less than... I mean, it's not really right to fuck with people the way she is anyway, but it's totally root worthy that she's avenging her wronged father. But if said wronged father paticipated in his own demise by refusing to see what was in front of him, well it just takes the shine off a bit.

Edited by RachelKM, Mar 8, 2012 @ 11:23 AM.


#13

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Mar 8, 2012 @ 2:40 PM

Falling in love with the wrong woman doesn't equal mass murder and treason.

David was a fool, but he didn't deserve to be (practically speaking) murdered. Not to mention, Emily's life was destroyed as well - I think this is part of her motive.

If Conrad hadn't been committing treason, David's affair would have resulted in a broken heart and perhaps being fired.

#14

Penny Robinson

Penny Robinson

    Fanatic

  • Gender:Female

Posted Apr 24, 2012 @ 8:46 PM

I'm totally unspoiled, but since I realized Charlotte was David Clarke's daughter around episode 2 (what can I say, I've watched too many soaps in my lifetime, and I know all their tricks), I'll go out on a limb here and say David is alive and in hiding, maybe living in Japan with Takeda.

#15

Trini Girl

Trini Girl

    Stalker

  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:http://www.biblegateway.com/

Posted May 3, 2012 @ 7:11 PM

He's a lefty!

#16

katsullivan

katsullivan

    Video Archivist

Posted May 4, 2012 @ 2:22 AM

Yes, that also struck me when he was writing.

#17

AbedsBestPal

AbedsBestPal

    Just Tuned In

Posted May 23, 2012 @ 1:15 PM

The possible twist that David Clarke is still alive seems to be getting to James Tupper. He was asked in an interview if he's dead and responded:

"My God, I have to tell you: I was pushing a stroller with my 3-year-old in it, and a woman yelled at me from across the street, like, "You're not dead, are you?" It's the question I get asked the most often and I get asked everywhere. It's fine, I love it. I love how invested people are in it -- it's awesome. You know, as far as I know, I think I'm dead so far."

More good stuff here:
http://www.metro.us/...has-the-answers

#18

Trini Girl

Trini Girl

    Stalker

  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:http://www.biblegateway.com/

Posted Jun 1, 2012 @ 12:39 PM

Y'all have no idea how relieved I am that they are keeping David Clarke DEAD.

Anyway, I hope in Season 2 they give us more of his history with Nolan; there should have been more of that before.

#19

DeLux

DeLux

    Loyal Viewer

  • Gender:Male

Posted Jun 1, 2012 @ 5:04 PM

Y'all have no idea how relieved I am that they are keeping David Clarke DEAD.


TA to the infinite.

In general, the "he's not really dead!" trope is obnoxious to me, because there's just no way to like a character after he has faked his death for decades. In David's case, the faked death meant abandoning Amanda, who was by then a complete mess *and* was still just a teenager. And also, burdening some hero-worshiping twenty-something with her care, which also seems bizarre.

Plus, bringing back a character whose death/life is the foundation of a whole lot of the story makes the story into something different. And I *like* the story of Revenge, which is based on Emily's grief. I don't think they need to "mix it up."

So please (to the nth) *let the dead stay dead*!

Anyway, I hope in Season 2 they give us more of his history with Nolan; there should have been more of that before.


I actually like that the David/Nolan history is mysterious, because it makes it more powerful -- which it has to be, because it's the basis for Nolan's involvement with Emily/the story, which is a foundation of the show. If we see Nolan/David's history, it becomes a specific thing that will therefore be more limited, and since that relationship has such a large (plot) burden to carry, it being limited in the wrong way or too limited in general could be a big problem for how the show works.

OTOH, if the relationship is executed in such a way that it explores why/how David inspired such loyalty in Nolan *convincingly* and without painting either of them in too much of a heroic/villainous light (aka, *subtly*), then it might make more emotional sense and that foundation of the show might become *stronger.*

I worry it's too early for the relationship to be executed like that, though, b/c the writers have got to still be learning what makes both Nolan and David tick and what the show needs for them to do/where their stories are going to go...

I guess my point is that I find that relationship both interesting and very important for how the show works (since Nolan/David is the basis for Nolan/Emily), and I'm worried about the writers pumping it too early in the show's run and ruining it -- taking a big support pillar away from the foundation of the show in the process.

Also, I'm worried that they'd decide to go the route of David having been using Nolan somehow...They've hinted in the more recent episodes that David was more of a shark than Emily's sugar-coated, guilt-tinged memories of him imply (he's involved in a larger conspiracy, his wife is alive, he was breaking up Victoria's family without caring much about it), and now that Emily's mother is probably coming back, they've got to drop Emily's obsession with her father down a notch or else risk making "Revenge" into the Clark-family-therapy-hour. So I think David's characterization next season will be significantly darker. Since his and Nolan's relationship was primarily a business one, regardless of Nolan's current semi-worship of him, Nolan/David seems like the obvious relationship to darken in order to show more of a shark/scary-business-guy side of David's personality. However, I hope that Nolan doesn't become a prop in that darkening of David's character, because Nolan is, overall, a more important character than David (since he exists as a major player in the *current* storyline), and I think it would be a mistake to sacrifice him at the David-needs-darker-characterization altar...and also because I don't really understand why Nolan-gets-used-but-is-OK-with-it is such a large part of the show even now. Though I'll take that to the Nolan thread.

#20

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 2, 2012 @ 1:53 PM

Okay, I'm just going to come right out and ask it: why didn't David at least tell Emanda her mother was still alive?

I can understand why he kept Charlotte's paternity a secret. I can understand why he hooked up with Victoria when he was still technically married, because it's hard for a guy to stay faithful to a wife who isn't all there anymore, although I think he should have divorced her first before any hanky-panky happened. I even understand why he told little Emanda that her mother was gone (it would have been a hard thing to explain to a little girl that mommy is mentally ill).

But in all the diaries explaining all the details of how he was framed and who was responsible, he didn't have the time to tell Emanda the truth about her mother?!

#21

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 14, 2012 @ 9:24 PM

But in all the diaries explaining all the details of how he was framed and who was responsible, he didn't have the time to tell Emanda the truth about her mother?!



Well, that would have taken some of the "edge" off his victimization, I suppose. "I was framed by the woman I loved, blah, blah, I am innocent of these crimes, blah, blah, go on with your life and forgive, blah, blah... Oh, by the way - I lied to you about your mother all your life - she's not dead. I locked her away and was about to divorce her for the woman who framed me."

#22

Humbugged

Humbugged

    Fanatic

  • Location:Scotland

Posted Oct 14, 2012 @ 10:05 PM

why didn't David at least tell Emanda her mother was still alive?


I'm guessing at some point (maybe after she skipped out from the asylum and took off with Little Amanda) that the courts vacated her parental rights .How would you explain to a kid that her mother is a violent,self harming schizophrenic who the courts have deemed it too dangerous to be around

Spoiler


We also don't know that he wouldn't have told an adult Emanda .But SWM's psychotic lover then bumped him off just as Emanda was about to reach her emancipation

Edited by Humbugged, Oct 15, 2012 @ 10:15 AM.


#23

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Oct 22, 2012 @ 2:27 PM

First Kara and then Victoria. David had the worst taste in women. Ever. It is not possible to have worse taste in women than him.

#24

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted Oct 22, 2012 @ 3:07 PM

Amen. I now understand why David chose to let Amanda think her mother was dead. I don't care what mental issues or depression you have, if somebody tries to drown my child, I would never let them near her again. EVER.

Not that I'm trying to be insensitive regarding women with munchousens/postpartum/other issues, but when the child's life is at stake...

#25

Bkwrm

Bkwrm

    Couch Potato

Posted Oct 22, 2012 @ 9:28 PM

Are we sure Victoria was telling the truth? It's not like she has a history of being honest.

#26

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

  • Gender:Female

Posted Oct 23, 2012 @ 5:04 AM

Are we sure Victoria was telling the truth? It's not like she has a history of being honest.

It has nothing to do with trusting Victoria. We know independently from Victoria that David told Emanda that her mother was dead, that her mother was actually in an insane asylum and is still alive, and that Emanda rememebered her mother trying to drown her.