Jump to content

Whodunnit? (2013): The Mole in Small Town X


  • Please log in to reply

2067 replies to this topic

#451

zumpie

zumpie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:30 PM

Yes, she was on both counts and did win the first week. I'm quite thrown by the comments on Sasha. I mean, clearly, Cam's the biggest bitch in the house and Dana's the laziest. How is Sasha lazy at all? And a bitch because...she's anti-team asshole and doesn't want people playing both sides? Weird.

 

I agree. I actually like Sasha and think she's one of the better players----while generally not being dickish or douche-y about it all.

 

BTW, notice that Kam and Uly sent Cris to do the dirty work of monitoring Lindsay? We didn't even see much of either of them during this time frame, particularly Uly.....


  • 1

#452

ESparks

ESparks

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:34 PM

Just now showing up to this forum.  

 

I enjoy the show and I take the cheesiness in a Jim Kirk over-the-top fun way.  I really wish they'd decide on scripted or reality though.  "I don't want to go in the pool-there was a dead body in there!"  You KNOW he wasn't really dead.  Yet if they were going full-scripted, people would be a lot more freaked out.  That is my biggest gripe.  

 

I am also confused as to the point of figuring out who the killer is, because I don't know how truthful the show is being with me.  I haven't re-watched to see if I'm wrong but as I recall, the first murder happened when everyone was spread all over the house and grounds.  The only two I remember as being outside are Adriana and Geno and the Killer was outside for the first murder.  So I have been going with Geno as my suspect.  However, the Killer in the videos looks like someone more slightly built.  But are they ACTUALLY showing the Killer in a hoodie and sunglasses or just some recreation actor?  That's the problem when you go too far with the scripted/reality.  In addition, the focus seems to be on on solving the mechanics of the murder with nothing pointing to a person.  I have a sinking feeling it'll come down to "hidden' clues like on The Mole ("There was an M on the wall during every interview...") instead of actual clues.  And at least on The Mole that was sort of an extra bonus, not the whole solution.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and the solution will be brilliant.

 

I have a half-suspicion that the Killer keeps calling the contestants "Mortals" and there's a contestant named Ulysses (though Ulysses/Odysseus was mortal, he deal with a lot of Gods) but I haven't got much more than that.  

 

I keep waiting for people to discover that the puzzle-clue is a bonus for them and maybe they shouldn't shout it out in a crowd or bust open their videotapes, etc. where everyone can see.  

 

I'm interested in how the finale will play out.  We re-create a lot of shows like this at home and I like the structure (three separate clue locations, teamwork is necessary) but it's unclear as to how or why we are figuring out the murderer and not just the crimes.


Edited by ESparks, Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:36 PM.

  • 1

#453

zumpie

zumpie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:39 PM

However, the Killer in the videos looks like someone more slightly built.  But are they ACTUALLY showing the Killer in a hoodie and sunglasses or just some recreation actor?

 

 I believe I read somewhere that it's an actor----which, of course, is to further throw everyone off (since some of the guys---and Dana----are pretty big!)


  • 0

#454

HurricaneVal

HurricaneVal

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:39 PM

I, too, was eyeing the silver dome at Don's placesetting wondering if the big reveal would be his "severed" head, but after a few closeups, I realized the domes weren't quite big enough to conceal a real-sized human head.  And I can't believe I actually made that assessment!

 

Whoever the make-up artists are for this show, they are awesome, and big kudos to them.  The closeup shots of the burned body in the tree really looked real.


  • 0

#455

Latuki Joe

Latuki Joe

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:45 PM

Well, it looks like for two weeks in a row, the preview has given away the identity of the next to be murdered:

-The preview for episode 2 showed Adrianna being blown off the golf-cart.

-The preview for episode 3 showed the group sans Don.

 

And once again, combining previews, we can deduce that the next victim is...

Spoiler


Edited by Latuki Joe, Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:50 PM.

  • 0

#456

ESparks

ESparks

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 12:48 PM

I think that not knowing what clues to trust and what you're supposed to ignore detracts from the play-along-at-home factor.  The first girl murdered had huge chunks of glass in her forehead yet in the re-creation, her head hit the glass, which spidered and broke later.  That could lead you to a wrong solution.  In fact, a lack of glass in her forehead would have been a clue that the glass didn't break until later.  

 

I'm trying to just treat the show like one of those solve-it-yourself puzzle books rather than an overarching mystery because I don't have faith that the overall mystery will be worth it.  But as a set of road-rallyish puzzles, the show is fun.


  • 0

#457

Kromm

Kromm

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:09 PM

I enjoy the show and I take the cheesiness in a Jim Kirk over-the-top fun way.  I really wish they'd decide on scripted or reality though.  "I don't want to go in the pool-there was a dead body in there!"  You KNOW he wasn't really dead.  Yet if they were going full-scripted, people would be a lot more freaked out.  That is my biggest gripe.  

 

I am also confused as to the point of figuring out who the killer is, because I don't know how truthful the show is being with me.  I haven't re-watched to see if I'm wrong but as I recall, the first murder happened when everyone was spread all over the house and grounds.  The only two I remember as being outside are Adriana and Geno and the Killer was outside for the first murder.  So I have been going with Geno as my suspect.  However, the Killer in the videos looks like someone more slightly built.  But are they ACTUALLY showing the Killer in a hoodie and sunglasses or just some recreation actor?

 

I don't think this is as difficult as that (I've noticed a whole string of people asking variations of this question though, but I have to admit being puzzled at it, since I think the division is crystal clear). 

 

Any evidence submitted to us INSIDE one of the tasks given to the contestants is true and accurate--anything we see them do or see them experience as part of the game.  In other words, during the discrete stages we see where they witness the final stage of a mock-murder, see the evidence laid out, and investigate.

 

Anything we see as part of a recreation is just that--a recreation.  The show doesn't pretend its anything else.  Measuring the physical characteristics of the person in the recreation is a non-starter, because we aren't supposed to be processing any of that as "evidence".  Why?  Because its outside the purview of the players--they don't see it so its not "official" to the game.

 

Similarly, even the whereabouts of the actual person designated as the murderer probably doesn't matter.  In a real murder investigation such would be of primary importance of course.  But the rules we've seen laid down HERE show that this game is clearly about giving them a discrete bunch of evidence and testing their observation and deduction skill of that finite set of evidence.  Its not about what they notice around the set, its what they deduce from what the show has designated as applicable "evidence" for them.  It has to be "in bounds" of the game in other words, and what is and isn't in bounds is made very clear to us--there's a discrete beginning point where the Butler basically says "go" (after they gather and he gives them the option of the one of three locations) and a discrete end point (when they are led into the diary room to give their theory to the camera.  Only things which they see within that time period "count".


Edited by Kromm, Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:10 PM.

  • 1

#458

Latuki Joe

Latuki Joe

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:19 PM

The killer in the hoodie and glasses is a different actor.  They mention his name in one of the interviews, but he worked on CSI:NY, too.


  • 0

#459

alexmarsz

alexmarsz

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:19 PM

 

He didn't really tell them anything though, just that the bomb was detonated via a remote control. He never told any of them what he saw in the attic (but Lindsey and Melina I think) and for all the knew, the remote control in question was what Adrianna had in her hand, not another one in the Attic. They also didn't know where the bomb was because neither Geno nor Ronnie told them about the seat of the golf cart that had been removed. Don for one guessed the bomb was in the ground (and probably that Adrianna herself pushed the remote control). In fact, Geno had good elements, I'm guessing Lindsey and Melina, as his primary alliance, had as well, but that left Sasha, Dana and Don completely in the dust. That's why I said he was an idiot for not talking more to his alliance about what happened and what he saw on the crime scene.

I got the sense that Ronnie felt like he shared completely, but he simply wasn't certain enough make it clear.  He also was delegating others to tell the rest of the group and you get that telephone-chain type of inaccuracy.  I just don't see any logic for him clearly saying "television remote" to Lindsey and being vague with more established alliance people.

 

Their group is probably too big to stand, and they could have pieced a lot more together even without Ronnie's clue.  (The presence of video was made pretty prominent.)  So I guess I agree that they could have done better, but they're all to blame for it.


  • 0

#460

biakbiak

biakbiak

    Stalker

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:30 PM

In the preview, you could hear Giles saying the mountain lion had been anesthetized. I was thinking he's actually meant to say "euthanized" but I realize the PETA people would be up in arms about that.



Really? They showed the lion covered in a sheet and people examining him.
  • 0

#461

Willowsmom

Willowsmom

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:33 PM

Just because someone is supposed to be dead doesn't mean they're not the killer.  Anyone ever read or seen Ten Little indians (sometines called And Then There Were None)?


  • 1

#462

Latuki Joe

Latuki Joe

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:41 PM

In one of the interviews, Willowsmom, they assured us that they wouldn't be pulling an "And Then There Were None."  I think it is mainly because the guests deal with "corpses" which are alive, so it wouldn't be fair to throw people off that way in this case.


  • 0

#463

Kromm

Kromm

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:45 PM

This show is tightly and inherently based on "And Then There Were None" but... its not supposed to be an identical copy.  Using the overall plot of that book?  Yes.  Using its solution?  No, that's where the line is drawn, I believe.


  • 0

#464

Gregzilla

Gregzilla

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:55 PM

Anyone check out the Clue Tracker on the Whodunnit? ABC site? Browsed it and caught something interesting....

 

Spoiler


  • 0

#465

diznee

diznee

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 1:55 PM

Just rewatched some scenes, and Ronnie told his group that he and Geno didn't know if the bomb was on the cart itself or in the ground, which is probably what screwed over his team (note that Don said the bomb was planted in the ground). This is pretty suspicious, because both he and Geno were at the crime scene and saw that the underside of the golf cart seat had been cut. Kam even explicitly stated in front of them that he thought the bomb was probably placed on the kart. That said, I do think Ronnie wasn't sure and said the bomb was in the ground, resulting in him not getting first place on the quiz.

 

Really? They showed the lion covered in a sheet and people examining him.

 

Yeah, he definitely said anesthetized. The sound of the gun also suggested it was a tranquilizer.


  • 0

#466

ESparks

ESparks

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:10 PM

 

Any evidence submitted to us INSIDE one of the tasks given to the contestants is true and accurate--anything we see them do or see them experience as part of the game.  In other words, during the discrete stages we see where they witness the final stage of a mock-murder, see the evidence laid out, and investigate.

 

 

That's just it - I'm not sure if the show is following that strictly.  For instance, the example I gave earlier with the girl and the glass shards in her head.  It wasn't just the re-creation that differed with the evidence, the solution of the murder involved the fact that the glass didn't shatter when her head hit it but weakened the glass so it'd break after she hit the floor.  In that case, the evidence the players were shown contradicted with how it really happened.

 

Also, there was a question as to whether the golf cart had the bomb in the cart (because of the cut seat) or in the ground (because the tree limb forced Adriana to drive off the driveway onto the grass).  It turned out to be in the cart, but then what was the point of the tree limb?  Without it, Adriana would have used the control, hoping to open the gate, but turning on the killer's camera and he would have blown her up whether she was on the driveway or not. 

 

Sometimes the players will say something too like (completely making up an example) "She didn't drown because her shirt isn't wet" and you don't know whether that's a clue, or if the people designing the puzzle didn't think to wet her shirt.


  • 1

#467

Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:17 PM

This show is tightly and inherently based on "And Then There Were None"

Nope, this show is only loosely - very loosely - based on the Christie masterpiece in that 'high concept' way so popular in Hollywood. You may need to read/listen to the prequel book to appreciate my distain.  Although for heaven's sake, if you are by any chance an Audible member, get the free version of the book and don't waste your money on it. Zuiker may write for TV, but he's no author. Prior to Whodunnit? I listened to Inferno, and even Dan Brown is a better writer. And does a lot more research. How many people here have watched Downton Abbey? Raise your hands. With no more information than that you already know that a butler is addressed by his last name, not his first.

 

Since some plot points of the book might spoil the show, I will put the rest of my rant about it behind bars, as it were:

Spoiler

  • 0

#468

DementedDaisy

DementedDaisy

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:22 PM

Just my opinion, of course, but the producers have to set up some red herrings for the contestants.  Sadly, for us viewing at home, those red herrings lead to confusion about why the "killer" did certain things.

 

For example, the glass -- I don't think that we're supposed to spend a whole lot of time thinking about it.  But for the contestants, that's a clue that leads to incorrect information, which leads to an eliminated contestant. 

 

Same with the branch in the driveway.  We scratch our heads, but it definitely led to confusion and perhaps the elimination of Don.  

 

If everyone had the same information, without any red herrings, the only fact that people would be wrong about is the killer.  In which case, all we (and the contestants) would have to do is compare notes on who accused who and we'd figure it out pretty quick.

 

Of course, I could be completely wrong about all of this.

 

ETA  So. Many. Typos.


Edited by DementedDaisy, Jul 8, 2013 @ 10:14 PM.

  • 0

#469

Gregzilla

Gregzilla

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:25 PM

That's just it - I'm not sure if the show is following that strictly.  For instance, the example I gave earlier with the girl and the glass shards in her head.  It wasn't just the re-creation that differed with the evidence, the solution of the murder involved the fact that the glass didn't shatter when her head hit it but weakened the glass so it'd break after she hit the floor.  In that case, the evidence the players were shown contradicted with how it really happened.

 

Well... with the way she fell, couldn't the glass have gotten stuck when the water spilled out and over her?


  • 0

#470

DT3

DT3

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:30 PM

Regarding the glass shards and the tree limb, I'm now assuming the show plants misdirecting evidence in order to trip up the people with info from only one source or something.  Which doesn't make much sense to the actual mystery.  I guess the game isn't like a real investigation.  It's more "gather as much evidence as you can from your competitors and determine which is 'real' and which is misdirection"? 

 

(Which is pretty much what Demented Daisy said above at the same time.)

 

I can't see glass getting embedded in Shari's forehead when she was laying prone on the floor in front of the tank when it ruptured, with her feet toward the tank. 


Edited by DT3, Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:32 PM.

  • 0

#471

zumpie

zumpie

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:33 PM

Just my opinion, of course, but the producers have to set up some red herrings for the contestants.  Sadly, for us viewing at home, those red herring lead to confusion about why the "killer" did certain things.

 

For example, the glass -- I don't think that we're supposed to spend a whole lot of time thinking about it.  But for the contestants, that's a clue that leads to incorrect information, which leads to an eliminated contestant. 

 

Same with the branch in the driveway.  We scratch our heads, but it definitely lead to confusion and perhaps the elimination of Don.

 

I agree, because it was really unclear whether the bomb was in the car or in the ground----so either one was a red herring. Even the attic part was unclear (as we saw since Lindsay won this week)----was the bomb in the ground or in the car? We really couldn't tell until the reveal. Which I guess is the killer's whole plan.

 

Meanwhile, having read the spoilers from the book----I wish it would at least point towards the gender of the killer, but I really don't think so. As for the Ten Little Indians killer could return from the dead part----I actually hope not. That would be such a cop out and even too much fakery for this show. Though I would then put my $$$ on Sheri.


  • 0

#472

GaT

GaT

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:35 PM

 

Well... with the way she fell, couldn't the glass have gotten stuck when the water spilled out and over her?

 

I posted this somewhere back in the thread, but the glass from the fish tank was safety glass, it broke into tiny little pieces, you could see when they showed it breaking & the pieces all over the ground. There wouldn't be any glass shards from the tank. Somebody else mentioned the champagne flute that she broke which would probably have shards, but since she fell backwards, I don't see how they could have gotten into her forehead. I just think that the shards were a badly thought out clue, they just couldn't happen the way the show was trying to say it did.


Edited by GaT, Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:36 PM.

  • 0

#473

Gregzilla

Gregzilla

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:42 PM

Well, I guess I pulled a Dontae, then, heh...


  • 0

#474

Latuki Joe

Latuki Joe

    Couch Potato

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 2:52 PM

I think what happened with Sherri and the fish-tank is obvious.

 

They setup the scene, put the glass in her forehead and did everything as they thought it should be.  Since the actually crime reveals are filmed post-production, they perhaps hadn't considered how difficult it would be to show glass going into her head and the fishtank not collapsing instantly as a result.  It's a very difficult stunt to film, actually.

 

And so I believe the glass in her forehead was the first of slip-ups that we're just going to have to live with.  Or we can pretend that the crime reveal wasn't 100% accurate, either.


  • 0

#475

DT3

DT3

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 3:34 PM

 

they perhaps hadn't considered how difficult it would be to show glass going into her head and the fishtank not collapsing instantly as a result.  It's a very difficult stunt to film, actually.

 

If I read you right, it would be impossible to film because it would be impossible to happen.  The script said she smacked the tank with her head, spidering the glass, fell to the ground and died, and then later the tank shattered on its own from the cracks.  There was no way she could've gotten glass in her head (safety glass or any kind) without the tank losing its water on impact, not that I can imagine anyway. 


  • 1

#476

flingle

flingle

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 3:45 PM

There was no way she could've gotten glass in her head (safety glass or any kind) without the tank losing its water on impact, not that I can imagine anyway.

My guess is TPTB planted the glass to act as a red herring, but then that ruins the conceit that the contestants rush to the crime scene as soon as the murder is committed since the murderer would have had to embed the glass shards in her forehead after the fish tank shattered. At least with the branch in the road, it throws people off without altering the timeline of the murder and discovery of the body.

 

I found the overacting to be a little toned down in this episode, compared to the first (or maybe I'm getting used to it!). It stills bugs though and pulls me out of the story, especially when people start crying or acting terrified about getting the "scared" card. I realize they are probably told to over-emote to get more camera time, but it just makes me think they're idiots. That, and going around locking their doors at night. That's not going to help since they are contractually obligated to fake a death scene!


  • 0

#477

Gregzilla

Gregzilla

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 3:45 PM

Perhaps all these useless clues - the glass in the forehead, the branches in the road - will end up having meaning later, so they're not exactly useless?


  • 0

#478

SzmuttyPratfall

SzmuttyPratfall

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 4:57 PM

So I am only 2 episodes in and I have to say everyone on this show is a moron, an absolute moron. Every clue points to one person. The skill set to set up the Rube Goldberg Machine-like deaths, especially in the first episode, where trajectory and the breaking point of glass and ensuring the electrocution post mortem, as well as the combustion-ness of the different elements in the second point to an Engineer's skillset. Also, the biblical clue from the first episode, and Saint Agatha in the second points to someone with knowledge of Christian theology.

 

There is an Engineer who is a Preacher's daughter, and nobody has mentioned Lindsey as being the killer... once.

 

I hope the game people decides that they all lose.

 

Edited to add that I called the Killer in the second episode of MiSTX back in the day, I would be thrilled if I did the same here.


Edited by SzmuttyPratfall, Jul 8, 2013 @ 5:19 PM.

  • 0

#479

Alexandria Bay

Alexandria Bay

    Stalker

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 5:07 PM

So, Quilt Fairy...you're saying you didn't like the book...?

It feels like the show is going the same way as the book WRT to explaining why the killer is doing it, how the killer is able to accomplish the elaborate murders, and how the killer can afford everything. That is, not explaining at all (I don't think that's a spoiler). Which makes me think it does not matter on the show if any of the contestants actually have the skill to set up any of the crimes.

Edited by Alexandria Bay, Jul 8, 2013 @ 5:11 PM.

  • 0

#480

aradia22

aradia22

    Fanatic

Posted Jul 8, 2013 @ 5:16 PM

 

I wanted Melina to say, "Then you can hear me asking Lindsay to ask you to leave and realize I want you to leave and just do it without me asking you directly, bitch.  Maybe I want both of you and your prying ears gone."

I don't know, the backstabbing is always my least favorite part of reality television (with the exception of Survivor, where that's an actual integral part of the game), but to me, I thought Melina and Sasha are coming of as far, far bitchier than Cris and Lindsey.  YMMV.

 

I find this "drama" incredibly annoying. I agree with the commenter who said they wished this was more like Clue and less like Survivor. First of all, why are Kam, Cris, Ulysses, and Lindsay so hated? Because they won't share clues with you? Well, here's a shocker. If everyone shares all the clues then it's a level playing field. They're not cheating. And they're not doing it because they hate you. It's just strategy. You need to trust enough people to get information but not so many people that it's impossible to maintain the alliance. Kam knew this from day one. I hope he's not eliminated because I appreciate that at least one person knows how to play the game.

 

I agree that Melina just came across as childish in that scene. It was like she wanted to get back at Cris but she didn't really know how. And unlike the others who got upset when they were asked to leave, Cris didn't have a problem with it. I think she was just irritated by the juvenile behavior.


  • 0