Who do you think started the fire?

[Zable]

It was odd to me that Fallon thought it so almighty important to tell her family about Liam's family's wealth right away that she'd disrupt her brother's wedding shoot for it. She lied about him going to vote with her, and she set up that argument between her parents by knowing how to push their buttons. That scene during the wedding, when Fallon turned to look at Michael and it seemed that it might be romance-driven -- I first thought that cwDynasty was doing the reverse of what happened when Jeff and Fallon married on The Colbys: When all eyes were riveted on the couple saying their vows, Zack seated at the back was looking across at the unhappy Sable, who had her head down twisting her wedding ring. I'm thinking now that nuFallon was already scheming then, looking at Michael and assessing whether he would fall in with her plans.

 

[Zable]

P.S: More ideas from The Colbys?….

John Moretti: Are you telling me your husband did this?

Sabella Colby: My husband is a jealous man. A very possessive man –

Moretti: Mrs Colby, may I remind you that only yesterday at the hospital you told me your husband (never/didn’t/couldn’t whatever)

Sable: My husband was in the room.

*****

Zack: Baby? What baby?

 

[Ked]

Blake kicked the door and it rattled so hard, the screwdriver fell out

No it didn't. It came out because Michael pulled it out. Right when Blake opened the door, you can see that Michael was not just on the other side, but he was pulling it open as well. He was the one who got the screwdriver out, not Blake.

 

[Zable]

Yeah, you're right. Someone pulled it out, presumably Michael. And the door slide to one side, didn't open inwards or outwards. Michael had to chose between trying to help Steven or Alexis & Cristal, poor dude.

Edited to add: "the screwdriver fell out"... Lord, in my mind's eye, recalling it, I was clearly seeing Michael outside the door reaching for it but it tumbling out first, then Blake opening the door, looking startled seeing Michael. WTF. I need a shrink.

 

[Zable]

@Ked Liam was wearing black. Do you think it was him who set the fire & put the screwdriver through the latch?

 

[Ked]

Yeah, you're right. Someone pulled it out, presumably Michael. And the door slide to one side, didn't open inwards or outwards. Michael had to chose between trying to help Steven or Alexis & Cristal, poor dude.

Yeah... only, when Michael went back to help Steven, Steven was nowhere to be seen. My guess is he had already made it out the window by then. So he didn't need help.

I wonder how the Season 2 Premiere is going to handle this. Will it pick up right where we left off and play out a sort of "Act 2" to the Stable-house Inferno? Or will we get a flash-forward with everyone flashing back to the night in question?

 

[Ked]

@Ked Liam was wearing black. Do you think it was him who set the fire & put the screwdriver through the latch?

Nope. No motive. Why tell a girl you're in love with her and then try to set her (and her family) on fire? Only explanation would be that Liam is crazier than Claudia, but I don't think we should go down *that* particular road. ^^

 

[Zable]

May be motive, yet to be revealed. I still think it's Fallon as mastermind in league with someone.

 

[tommie]

I think Ted Dinard is the most logical explanation.

He's clearly unhinged and bitter enough to do something like this, especially if he went back doing drugs.

 

[Zable]

@Ked Re: How Season 2 handles the continuation.....It's anybody's guess. Season 2 could start off at a later point and harken back to Stable-house Inferno night in conversations, and not show flashbacks.

I've not watched the series, only seen clips. I've read that cwDynasty has used flashbacks, but I don't know how they used those flashbacks. Don't know if there was a specific purpose to them.

In Gran Hotel, the flashbacks were its most unique feature, I thought, because they acted as the truth monitor. In the beginning viewers don't notice this aspect -- we think the flashback complements the current scene in the present. Like, someone reads a letter and the flashbacks show at the same time for a visual filling in of the details. Then gradually we notice that the flashbacks don't seem to be presenting the same picture. Someone could be saying something like "My boss was a stern man, I was a little afraid of him when I met him" but the flashbacks could show that there was a little flirtation in their encounter. The flashbacks gradually change to the point that when there is a startling difference in what's being described in the present and what's being shown in the flashback, we believe the flashback. Then there's a twist to the flashbacks: one person says something in the present but the flashbacks show what somebody else says, and viewers are left wondering who among the lot are speaking true and this is when story details mentioned episodes back come into play.

 

[tommie]

I've not watched the series, only seen clips. I've read that cwDynasty has used flashbacks, but I don't know how they used those flashbacks. Don't know if there was a specific purpose to them.

They used flashbacks from 2007 (I think) to show how life was with Alexis, Blake and teenaged Fallon, Steven and Jeff.

 

[Daniel Avery]

If they plan to have season 2 pick up right where they left (that is, the place is still on fire and various characters are stumbling out of the building) then it would stand to reason that these scenes have already been filmed and are under armed guard . It would be much more cost-effective (not to mention good for continuity) to continue filming as the fire continued to burn and everyone was already "made up" with soot marks, mussed hair and torn/burned clothing, etc., then insert those bits into the season two premiere. So the producers and actors would have a pretty good idea of who survives and how...and who doesn't...simply by what they filmed as part of the s2/ep1 bits that were not part of the cliffhanger script. They might film some "misleading" scenes just to preserve some of the mystery, of course...

 

[Willie Oleson]

Blake: I thought we were doing photos on the grand staircase in the manor.
Sammy Jo: Yeah...we're not Kardashians. Trust me this is way more on theme.

And where did he get that idea from? He'd spent quite some time with Anders, probably discussing this & thats, like not wearing the snake boots.

But I don't want the psychopaths to outnumber the "normal" characters. We already have crazy Claudia, strange Melissa, train wreck Ted, sinister Kirby, ruthless Hank...if any of the other characters turns out to be the arsonist then maybe it would be too much. The Dinards aren't going to stick around much longer I think, so it would be very convenient to end their story with the arson plotline.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Just tossing a loose thought out there:

I don't think anyone knows for sure if FakeAdam left the scene (other than Claudia, of course). So if a burned-beyond-recognition body is found in the rubble, they might very well believe it is FakeAdam. The investigation of his true identity would be forgotten as they "bury their son/sibling/whatever" and no one has any inclination to find the Real Adam, not even Alexis (who will be trying to cover her tracks as usual). It would allow the show to move on to other stories without the "Where's Adam?" question hanging over the Carringtons' heads, and clear a path for them to bring RealAdam onto the show at the writers' leisure.

 

[Ked]

Just tossing a loose thought out there:

I don't think anyone knows for sure if FakeAdam left the scene (other than Claudia, of course). So if a burned-beyond-recognition body is found in the rubble, they might very well believe it is FakeAdam. The investigation of his true identity would be forgotten as they "bury their son/sibling/whatever" and no one has any inclination to find the Real Adam, not even Alexis (who will be trying to cover her tracks as usual). It would allow the show to move on to other stories without the "Where's Adam?" question hanging over the Carringtons' heads, and clear a path for them to bring RealAdam onto the show at the writers' leisure.

Hmmm... maybe...

 

[Zable]

We already have ... ruthless Hank

I have lots of questions that come from not watching the series as I don't know all that's been revealed. So, sorry.

I know that Blake revealed (to Sammy Jo) that he knew Hank was not Adam because the kidnappers had cut off Adam's finger, and Blake said that he'd never told Alexis about that. Then, that same night as sharing that secret with Sammy Jo, Blake comes to accept Hank as Adam when he learns that Hank had a missing finger. I remember you (@Willie Oleson) saying on some thread that Hank had cut off his finger. Did you think that or know for sure? Any chance Hank might have been born with 9 fingers or had lost one in a natural accident?

If Blake had never told Alexis, how did Hank know to have that argument staged between the dude at the bar & Sammy Jo just so he could play protector and 'accidentally' reveal his missing finger? I know that Hank had known Alexis for some time because Alexis said the dog in her painting had never liked Hank. She was not his mother. The two were sleeping together, so she must have known her lover had a missing finger. Did she deliberately seek out a guy with a missing finger? Is it revealed anywhere that she had somehow learnt that real Adam had lost his finger? And cued Hank? Or is Hank having secrets of his own? Is he real Adam who had incest with his mum?

 

[Ked]

I have lots of questions that come from not watching the series as I don't know all that's been revealed. So, sorry.

I know that Blake revealed (to Sammy Jo) that he knew Hank was not Adam because the kidnappers had cut off Adam's finger, and Blake said that he'd never told Alexis about that. Then, that same night as sharing that secret with Sammy Jo, Blake comes to accept Hank as Adam when he learns that Hank had a missing finger. I remember you (@Willie Oleson) saying on some thread that Hank had cut off his finger. Did you think that or know for sure? Any chance Hank might have been born with 9 fingers or had lost one in a natural accident?

If Blake had never told Alexis, how did Hank know to have that argument staged between the dude at the bar & Sammy Jo just so he could play protector and 'accidentally' reveal his missing finger? I know that Hank had known Alexis for some time because Alexis said the dog in her painting had never liked Hank. She was not his mother. The two were sleeping together, so she must have known her lover had a missing finger. Did she deliberately seek out a guy with a missing finger? Is it revealed anywhere that she had somehow learnt that real Adam had lost his finger? And cued Hank? Or is Hank having secrets of his own? Is he real Adam who had incest with his mum?

You can have all your answers by watching this vid:

 

[Zable]

Thanks, I think. Why make me watch the entire 16+min video when you could just have told me that Alexis had read the police report and told Hank.

 

[Ked]

Thanks, I think. Why make me watch the entire 16+min video when you could just have told me that Alexis had read the police report and told Hank.

Where's the fun in that? Besides, you might as well see some of the actual scenes taking place.

 

[Zable]

^^ How very thoughtful of you.

And where did he get that idea from?

Sam Jo invited Kirby, didn't he? Perhaps, he'd learned she'd arrived and Anders was with her, and maybe Blake and some of the others still didn't know. SJ, not wanting to interrupt the Anders' reunion with their photography or a potential ruckus from Blake, found a reason to switch venues. That's my guess.