# Veronica Mars 1/25/2006 "Donut Run"



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

Wow, what an elaborate episode!

I'm glad to see the PCH/09'er B-story moving along.

How do you think this will impact Veronica's future?

Oh, and for this to have been a Duncan episode, there wasn't enough of him to see more of the character than we've seen before.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Um, who was the blonde riding with Donut at the end?


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> Um, who was the blonde riding with Donut at the end?


It was obviously someone Vinnie knew, unless Veronica has been secretly keeping track of other blondes with similar hairstyles for just such an occasion.


----------



## Sinuralan (Dec 27, 2001)

Those writers are too cute. Sticking the LOST numbers in there. Very nice.

One thing I like about Veronica Mars is you do actually get a story, some sort of resolution at the end of each episode. Yeah, the plot/mystery keeps building, which is great an essential, but they don't feel the need to leave you hanging from a cliff each week. That's good.

I'm guessing the blondie was just the girlfriend.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

4 8 15 16 23 42 -- too funny.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

One thing that continues to bother me... the bus crash. Haven't heard anything about that in a good long while. They've switched to focusing on the dual plot lines of the 09er that was killed on the bridge, and Duncan's kid and the Mannings. It'll be interesting to see how they end up tying all three of these plotlines together.

I sort of lost track of who exactly was all in on this... did I get this straight that everyone, except Sheriff Lamb, was in on it? Impressive.

I've got to go back and watch that again... there were layers upon layers, some of which I completely missed.


----------



## Sinuralan (Dec 27, 2001)

Well, the FBI wasn't in on it. Nor Wallace, or Veronica's dad. But yeah, pretty much everyone else.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> I sort of lost track of who exactly was all in on this... did I get this straight that everyone, except Sheriff Lamb, was in on it? Impressive.
> 
> I've got to go back and watch that again... there were layers upon layers, some of which I completely missed.


No, he was set up to go hunting for Veronica in Mexico based on the ATM transaction; Duncan hid in the trunk. The baby went with the girl and guy in the truck who picked up Duncan at the restaurant in Mexico.

When Lambs trunk popped open, he saw the water boodles and snack wrappers in the trunk and realized he got used.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dswallow said:


> No, he was set up to go hunting for Veronica in Mexico based on the ATM transaction; Duncan hid in the trunk. The baby went with the girl and guy in the truck who picked up Duncan at the restaurant in Mexico.
> 
> When Lambs trunk popped open, he saw the water boodles and snack wrappers in the trunk and realized he got used.


Right, I got that. That's why I said everyone EXCEPT Lamb.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sinuralan said:


> Well, the FBI wasn't in on it. Nor Wallace, or Veronica's dad. But yeah, pretty much everyone else.


You sure? With the way that Keith responded to the FBI agent at the end, it seemed like they were in on it too.


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

They had to get the FBI away so they could send Lamb to Mexico where he'd get waved through the checkpoint.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Right, I got that. That's why I said everyone EXCEPT Lamb.


Duh.  Sowwy.


----------



## Sinuralan (Dec 27, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> You sure? With the way that Keith responded to the FBI agent at the end, it seemed like they were in on it too.


To me it seemed like the FBI knew that Veronica was involved (how else would she hold a conversation with a tape), but that that wouldn't be enough to convict her of anything and both Keith and the FBI agents knew that. Hence their statement that kidnapping cases don't just go away... they might not have enough on her yet, but just because she walks away today doesn't mean she's in the clear.

That was my interpretation of what happened. Keith did appear to clean up some of the evidence that Veronica had left behind (the diapers etc.)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sinuralan said:


> To me it seemed like the FBI knew that Veronica was involved (how else would she hold a conversation with a tape), but that that wouldn't be enough to convict her of anything and both Keith and the FBI agents knew that. Hence their statement that kidnapping cases don't just go away... they might not have enough on her yet, but just because she walks away today doesn't mean she's in the clear.
> 
> That was my interpretation of what happened. Keith did appear to clean up some of the evidence that Veronica had left behind (the diapers etc.)


Yeah, I guess I can sort of see this too. Hrm.

I really have the same problem with this episode that the people over on TWoP have... I really disliked the blatant attempts at VIEWER manipulation. I get the whole trying to convince the other characters, but there were scenes with Veronica by herself... the scene with Veronica on the phone, and the scenes with her moping in her bedroom by herself. What possible point could those have had except to deliberately attempt to mislead the viewer?

That aside, I guess the best part of this episode is that they sent Teddy Dunn packing. I never believed ANY of his scenes this season with Veronica, including the ones in this episode. He's just a lousy actor.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I really have the same problem with this episode that the people over on TWoP have...


Speaking of TWOP, did anyone else here notice the shoutout? 
When Veronica was talking to Duncan's recording on the cell phone there was a flyer with TWOP in big letters tacked up on the bulletin board behind Veronica.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

The girl that was in the truck that helped them was Duncan's mom's assistant? Can't really remember her role in all of it. Will need to go back and watch.


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> ... the scenes with her moping in her bedroom by herself. What possible point could those have had except to deliberately attempt to mislead the viewer?


Presumably Veronica (and Duncan?) came up with this entire plot between last episode and this one. Nice continuity that they emptied the next door apartment awhile back. The moping was to (a) convince Keith, and (b) loud music hid any incidental noise (crying? excavation between the apartments?) while the baby was in the next apartment.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

edc said:


> Presumably Veronica (and Duncan?) came up with this entire plot between last episode and this one. Nice continuity that they emptied the next door apartment awhile back. The moping was to (a) convince Keith, and (b) loud music hid any incidental noise (crying? excavation between the apartments?) while the baby was in the next apartment.


I got the loud music... but the door was closed. There wasn't any need for her to ACTUALLY be moping in her room, as she was shown doing... She could've grabbed a good book and sat back for a while with the CD player spinning "Now That's What I Call Breakup Music Volume 15."


----------



## edc (Mar 24, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> There wasn't any need for her to ACTUALLY be moping in her room, as she was shown doing...


50/50. Privacy is nonexistent in the apartment, and Wallace always pops in (as he did). She needed to play the part.

If you really want an in-story explanation, perhaps the "moping" was wrestling with the moral ambiguity of the situation.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

mwhip said:


> The girl that was in the truck that helped them was Duncan's mom's assistant? Can't really remember her role in all of it. Will need to go back and watch.


Yes, she was -- and, you may recall, she is Celeste's illegitimate daughter from years ago, making her the baby's aunt.

I really liked this episode. At first, I was prepared not to, because when Lamb arrived to arrest Veronica at the beginning I thought, "How many times can they recycle the plot where Veronica is arrested/searched/accused of something she obviously didn't do?" And yet the plot circled back on itself numerous times, with Lamb actually being smarter than we think, but also being used in a way we don't expect, such that he is both right and wrong simultaneously.

I do agree somewhat with the complaints about viewer misdirection. Much of it was warranted and defensible, but it probably did go a bit far. Also, it's becoming a bit awkward with the way the part-time characters like Wallace and Weevil are shuttled into and out of the story, and mysteries and drama around them come and go with their presence or absence. But those are minor quibbles. I love the way Thomas & Co. continue to explore Veronica's moral ambiguities, and how -- finally -- they blew up in her face with Keith. That was an exceptionally well-played sequence, and Veronica richly deserves whatever fallout comes from it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Argh! _Veronica_ preempted by the BC basketball game! @#$%&*!!

Have to wait until Saturday now. I'm not listening to you... I'm not listening... la la la la!


----------



## Agent86 (Jan 18, 2002)

The LOST numbers on the fortune at the end was cool. I saw it and I thought "Were those the LOST numbers?". One instant replay/freeze frame later, and it was confirmed. God bless TiVo .

Another great episode from a consistently great series.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I got the loud music... but the door was closed. There wasn't any need for her to ACTUALLY be moping in her room, as she was shown doing... She could've grabbed a good book and sat back for a while with the CD player spinning "Now That's What I Call Breakup Music Volume 15."


I'd have to watch again to be sure, but I don't think they ever showed her moping in her room or anywhere else for more than 5 seconds before someone came in and interrupted her. The moping around the house was always in front of Keith. And the other moping was right before Wallace came in... she could have easily gotten into 'moping mode' right before that.

Brilliant escape plot they hatched. But for some reason I just didn't care. Don't like Duncan, I hope he stays away for good. Though it's still a quality series, I'm kind of not caring about the arc, what there is of it. And Logan's plot isn't thrilling me at all either. The only thing that's saving it is the weekly stories.

BTW, who did they determine was workng with the Fitzpatricks? That whole thing was confusing me. And I still don't get it.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> BTW, who did they determine was workng with the Fitzpatricks? That whole thing was confusing me. And I still don't get it.


The dead kid, Felix. Based on the picture that Weevil's tattooo artist had, he was dating Molly Fitzpatrick, who I assume is one of the Fighting Fitzpatrick clan.


----------



## brimtoast (Jan 13, 2006)

My theory about Astrid (the blonde at the end who was Celeste Kane's assistant) is that, since she looks like Veronica, her part in this is to clear V's name. The FBI mentioned a couple of times that a pretty blonde was involved with parts of the cover-up. If Celeste's assistant, who is a pretty blond who looks very much like Veronica, mysteriously disappears, suspicion falls much more on her than on V, for any evidence they uncover of a blonde accomplice.
Or she may have just gone along because Duncan knows he can't raise a baby on his own, and Astrid seemed like a good person for the job. Probably a little of both... unless there's some other brilliant reason for her being there that I totally missed.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Sweet. Finally rid of Duncan.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

Last night was my first "live" episode... I've spent the last 2 months getting started (and getting caught up) on Veronica Mars. 

I'm with you guys on Duncan. Glad he's gone, especially since so much of his performance this season has been really lackluster and emotionless. I liked him better when he was a nutcase. 

I did love the episode, though. And Lucy Lawless as the FBI agent was awesome. I almost didn't recognize her at first (until she started talking), though maybe that's because when I saw her name in the credits, I was expecting her to look tall and leggy like she did in her recent Battlestar Galactica guest spot, and here she looked a little bit more petite and dolled up. 

But can we please get the writers to move off the B story with Logan and Weevil? It's like the only reason that story exists is to justify the paychecks for Francis Capra and Jason Dohring... and frankly, the scenes with the two of them working together to uncover this plot just aren't believable.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Skittles said:


> But can we please get the writers to move off the B story with Logan and Weevil? It's like the only reason that story exists is to justify the paychecks for Francis Capra and Jason Dohring... and frankly, the scenes with the two of them working together to uncover this plot just aren't believable.


See, I was with you up until there. First of all, BOTH Capra and Dohring could have chemistry all by themselves - the two of them together is excellent, having to carry off the 09'er/PCH rivalry in public, and really still having it simmering in the background, but both wanting the same thing - to find out who exactly killed Felix. I want more of that B-story, and now that we find out that Felix was hooked up with a Fitzpatrick, things might get interesting and we'll probably get more of it.

But if you really want to complain about someone getting screentime for screentime's sake - WHY did they add the Casablancas to the title sequence? Dick is useless, good for an occasional one-liner, but that's about it. Yeah, we had the big arc with them, but that was finished in about 2 episodes... not worth it for them to be in the title sequence. Beaver is a little less useless, but we haven't seen him in so long. Why they're in there (and therefore making the big "featured actor" salary) and someone like Charisma Carpenter isn't, I don't understand.


----------



## Skittles (May 25, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> First of all, BOTH Capra and Dohring could have chemistry all by themselves


See, I don't think it's a matter that they "could" have chemistry on their own. They actually do have lots of chemistry, individually. But when they're together... sorry, I just find the whole "Let's team up to find out who killed Felix" side of things to be entirely too weak. Particularly considering that Weevil burned Logan's house to the ground, and had his boys torture him. I'm not saying the storyline is unsalvagable... but right now, it feels more like "Oh, in case you forgot, Jason Dohring and Francis Capra still work on the show!". Same with Dick and Beaver (more on that below). It just feels way too forced for me. That said, I'm hoping there's some kind of integration between the B story with the Fitzpatricks and Weevil/Logan, and the A story with Veronica nearly being killed.



> ...now that we find out that Felix was hooked up with a Fitzpatrick, things might get interesting and we'll probably get more of it.


 I hope so. In fact, I've kind of been wondering when we'd start to see some Fitzpatrick payoff, because with the two small exceptions, they've been a non-factor for most of the season.

We'll agree to disagree, I suspect.  I'd rather they get back to the fact that someone's actually trying to kill Veronica Mars (again).



> But if you really want to complain about someone getting screentime for screentime's sake - WHY did they add the Casablancas to the title sequence?


 Now this I agree with. I've been wondering that since the start of the second season. The Casablancas aren't main characters. They never were. And hopefully, they never are. Although, it's obvious they're trying to get Cassidy and Mac into a romantic situation (something that I'm all for), Beaver is a pointless character that really has no business in the title credits. Same with whatshername, Wallace's girlfriend from New York.



> Why they're in there (and therefore making the big "featured actor" salary) and someone like Charisma Carpenter isn't, I don't understand.


I agree with you again here, especially since Charisma Carpenter's character is my "love to hate" character this season... and she does SUCH a good job with her character. Kendall's a tad bit Cordelia-in-early-Buffy, but that's a character she plays so damn well. Her interaction with Allyson Hannigan a few episodes ago was deliciously evil. 

And even though I may not appreciate it as much as others, she looks REALLY good.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

Now we can get back to Keith and Veronica figuring out who bombed the bus. 

I do agree that I felt purposely mislead and it was even more disappointing because Rob Thomas wrote and directed the episode. I think he could have done better. 

Still the best scenes every week are Keith/Veronica. Those 2 have some of the best chemistry on TV right now.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> I really disliked the blatant attempts at VIEWER manipulation. I get the whole trying to convince the other characters, but there were scenes with Veronica by herself... the scene with Veronica on the phone, and the scenes with her moping in her bedroom by herself. What possible point could those have had except to deliberately attempt to mislead the viewer?


Well, other people have already talked about the mopping, but the scene with Veronica on the phone would have had some use for her plan. She was "attempting" to move away from the rest of the kids, but then having an "angry" phone conversation.

Kind of like how she and Duncan staged the break-up to be in front of the school where people would be around.

If the FBI had followed up on the phone call, they would have been able to find at least a few witnesses who saw Veronica on the phone with "Duncan". Which makes the ruse a bit more believable than if Veronica was sitting at home alone. Especially if for some reason the FBI didn't have her phone tapped, and Veronica had to tell them about receiving the call (part of her cooperating with the investigation, of course). 
Then she would really have wanted them to be able to find witnesses.

Non of this really got show in the episode, but it makes sense and isn't only a blatant attempt to manipulate the viewers. (It's that too of course )


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

cmontyburns said:


> Yes, she was -- and, you may recall, she is Celeste's illegitimate daughter from years ago, making her the baby's aunt.


Astrid is not Celeste's daughter. Veronica thought she was, as the baby who Celeste gave birth in the school's bathroom during prom. But the baby turned out the be Trina Echolls (Alyson Hannigan), and the mother is the school's cook. But then again, we still don't why Celeste was supporting Astrid in the first place.

In the current episode, I assumed that Astrid and Vinnie pretended to be parents and brought the baby through the normal checkpoint? That seems very risky, but I guess the border patrol can't stop every baby.

And did Veronica get her 5 grand from Vinnie? That's alot for her.


----------



## Mabes (Jan 12, 2001)

Sinuralan said:


> To me it seemed like the FBI knew that Veronica was involved (how else would she hold a conversation with a tape), but that that wouldn't be enough to convict her of anything and both Keith and the FBI agents knew that. Hence their statement that kidnapping cases don't just go away... they might not have enough on her yet, but just because she walks away today doesn't mean she's in the clear.
> 
> That was my interpretation of what happened. Keith did appear to clean up some of the evidence that Veronica had left behind (the diapers etc.)


That was what I thought, but why leave the tape for them to find? It may not be enough to convict, but it proves to them that she was involved and they'll keep investigating. How did leaving the tape help get Duncan to Mexico?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

I have to record Saturday night's repeat, because WSBK had a basketball game. 
I have the Superstation pack from Dish and thus use my DVD recorder for time shifting. Last night it was too late when I discovered the game or I would have shifted to WWOR. So, it's off to program for Saturday night.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

JimSpence said:


> I have to record Saturday night's repeat, because WSBK had a basketball game.
> I have the Superstation pack from Dish and thus use my DVD recorder for time shifting. Last night it was too late when I discovered the game or I would have shifted to WWOR. So, it's off to program for Saturday night.


They do that here but they always broadcast after the game so I just set it up with a bunch of padding. They also rebroadcast on Saturday's.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Mabes said:


> That was what I thought, but why leave the tape for them to find? It may not be enough to convict, but it proves to them that she was involved and they'll keep investigating. How did leaving the tape help get Duncan to Mexico?


The only possible way I could think of would be to focus attention on Veronica by showing she was in on the deception; to help distract from Astrid who was carrying the baby on the way into Mexico.

But that seems like a real stretch.

More likely whoever Veronica convinced to place the call and play the tape just did a bad job of disposing of it.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Since I don't use a TiVo for this, I can't very well set up any padding in the TiVo sense.
I think I'll set things up to record from WWOR so that future games don't preempt VM. 
I have a DirecTV DVR for most other shows. (No locals here.)


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

dtle said:


> Astrid is not Celeste's daughter. Veronica thought she was, as the baby who Celeste gave birth in the school's bathroom during prom. But the baby turned out the be Trina Echolls (Alyson Hannigan), and the mother is the school's cook.


Good grief, thanks for that. I have no idea where my head was when I wrote that.


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

I want that soundtrack but I can't seem to find the exact one VM had.


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

Veronica has a very, VERY strong moral compass, so her promise to Meg, combined with the letters from Meg overwhelmed the other moral positions of doing something illegal, and even lying to her father. She was so convinced of the importance of keeping Meg's baby out of the hands of Meg's parents, that she was willing to say goodbye to the guy she had been in love with for three years. The only thing that she felt bad about was lying to her father, who she also really loves.

I thought the depression was real because she really does love Duncan (why? I duno, but she does) and she knew that after this was over and he was gone, she probably would never see him again.

She played everyone very well. She knew the FBI would tap her cell phone so they would high-tail it up to Big Bear, and be out of the way for a few hours. They knew Lamb would go off without telling the FBI, and thus get Duncan out of the country, past the road blocks, and she knew what PI to hire to get the leg work done, since she was being watched. The boat ruse was expertly done...diapers and spaghetti-o's indeed.

It looks like Wallace gets an episode dedicated to him.

The conversation with the deputy who is a bouncer, about him letting her into the club where he works will I'm sure pay off sometime in the future.

The "personal note to Duncan" that Veronica gave to the PI were, I assume, his real instructions for the case.

As far as Weevil and Logan go, they both want the answer so badly that they are willing to put their mutual loathing aside for the moment, but it will be back eventually. 

The bus crash will be back too, and I'm sure it'll figure prominently later in the season.

Sweeps month is coming, and that means a lot more moving forward of the plot.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Here is a screenshot


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

This episode was highly entertaining with all of the scheming and double-crossing and the always great dialogue and double entendres, but I've seen it three times now and it still has way too many plot holes. And from perusing the fan reaction at TwoP, it seems like the majority of the audience was completely confused about what actually _happened_.

The main problem is that the entire kidnaping scheme was unnecessary. There is _no way_ that Duncan, the biological father who, oh right, just happens to be a billionaire, would _not_ get custody of his own daughter by perfectly legal means. Not in any court in this country. The law overwhelmingly presumes that a child belongs with her biological parent(s), and if she only has one living parent, he gets custody. All Duncan needed to do was get Cliff (or a lawyer of his choice) to file a petition for custody, get a paternity test and that would be that.

In order for the Mannings to get custody, the burden would be on them to prove that Duncan was an unfit parent. He's a model student and citizen with no criminal record, and oh yeah, he's a billionaire. Just because he has "Type IV" epilepsy would not make him an unfit parent (and plus, most of that stuff about his violent rages wouldn't even come in b/c there is no witness to volunteer that info - Meg is dead and Logan and the Kanes wouldn't tell). And once a pscyhologist interviewed Meg's sisters Lizzie and Grace, there would be no way the Mannings would get custody anyway.

I know they attempted to explain this problem away when Veronica said that Celeste "didn't want Duncan to adopt," but that didn't solve the problem imho. First, Duncan wouldn't be "adopting" the child because she's his. (I think we can safely assume the dna test would prove that.)

Second, Duncan doesn't really need their support to file a petition for custody because he's an emancipated minor. (Or he was, he's probably 18 now.) He can hire Cliff on his own. He doesn't need them - but if he was granted custody, I have a hard time believing Celeste and Jake would turn their backs on him. They adore him and they would want their grandchild taken care of in proper Kane style.

If I ignore that huge glaring problem with the story, the episode is a lot of fun, but there are also minor problems. Most of the audience didn't have a clue who Astrid was, even though they covered that in the "previouslys." The audience was never shown that Duncan or Veronica had ever established a friendship with her and it was hard to believe she would betray her employer and risk going to jail for two people she barely knew. We know she didn't like Celeste, but come on. Why would she help them?

Plus, I know Vinnie is a worm and it's been established he has no problem double-crossing his client in a "Vinnie Classic," but there is one problem here: Celeste has an infinite supply of money. Whatever Duncan offered to pay him ($30K), Celeste could easily offer more. So I don't get why V/D felt they could trust slimy Vinnie to help them or keep their secret.

Last but not least, how is Duncan going to raise the baby all by himself in a foreign country (where he apparently doesn't even speak the language, afaik) on $50K? That money isn't going to last long and something tells me it's not easy to make a decent living in Mexico. Especially when you're a teenage fugitive on the run from the FBI (like a white teenage boy with a baby wouldn't raise a red flag in any village). Any attempt to contact his parents for money would almost certainly be intercepted by the FBI.

Ignoring these problems, the episode was still a lot of fun, though. If I don't think about it too hard afterwards.


----------



## WinBear (Aug 24, 2000)

Mabes said:


> That was what I thought, but why leave the tape for them to find? It may not be enough to convict, but it proves to them that she was involved and they'll keep investigating. How did leaving the tape help get Duncan to Mexico?


I had this crazy idea that there might be additional audio on that tape that feds haven't found or been shown to have found yet. Veronica still has that very incriminating audio of Lamb's gambling/fraud with the pro baseball player (Terrence Cook, right?).


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Personally, I like Dick.

Reminds me of highschool people I knew. Except he's more clever, actually.


Great episode. I feel I missed a few things though.



Small point, but do Weevil and Logan need to find out if it was Hector or the other guy that killed Felix? Or do we assume they both did, since they discovered he was in with the Fitzpatrick's (in some fashion). They were both there.

But since they didn't tell Weevil about Felix (initially or to save their butts), I guess there's a bit more going on.



Poor Veronica, all broken-hearted and alone. And Mwhip is stuck in Dallas and me in Atlanta.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Magnolia88 said:


> The main problem is that the entire kidnaping scheme was unnecessary. There is _no way_ that Duncan, the biological father who, oh right, just happens to be a billionaire, would _not_ get custody of his own daughter by perfectly legal means. Not in any court in this country. The law overwhelmingly presumes that a child belongs with her biological parent(s), and if she only has one living parent, he gets custody. All Duncan needed to do was get Cliff (or a lawyer of his choice) to file a petition for custody, get a paternity test and that would be that.


How do we know for sure it's Duncan's baby? Is it possible Duncan knows it isn't and that he's playing along for other reasons?



Magnolia88 said:


> Last but not least, how is Duncan going to raise the baby all by himself in a foreign country (where he apparently doesn't even speak the language, afaik) on $50K? That money isn't going to last long and something tells me it's not easy to make a decent living in Mexico. Especially when you're a teenage fugitive on the run from the FBI (like a white teenage boy with a baby wouldn't raise a red flag in any village). Any attempt to contact his parents for money would almost certainly be intercepted by the FBI.


Since I have no doubt he'll be back soon enough I'm sure that doesn't matter. And whatever the reason is that brings him back will probably tie in well enough that the FBI involvement won't affect him at all, or might even have been prearranged, too, for some as yet unrevealed plot.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

Generally speaking, the biological parent is going to get custody over the child's grandparents. But since Meg and Duncan weren't married, there will have to be a paternity test to determine parentage, and that will only happen pursuant to a court order. Any court order is going to require a hearing. If there's a hearing, there's a good chance that Duncan's medical issues will come up. That presents two problems. 1) Duncan and his family have already shown that they will go to extraorinary lengths to hide his medical condition. 2) A court could reasonably decide that giving custody a young, single father with his medical condition is not in the best interest of the child and assign custody to the maternal grandparents instead.

The really scary possibility? I'm wondering if Duncan didn't want a paternity test to be done, because of suspicion that Meg is also a victim of incest and the baby might not be Duncan's. If so, while the court probably wouldn't let Meg's parents keep the child, they might allow the child to be placed with the adoption agency they chose, and Duncan would have zero claim to parental rights and/or custody of the child.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

Magnolia88 said:


> The main problem is that the entire kidnaping scheme was unnecessary. (snip)


Good analysis. Some of the same thoughts occurred to me as well, but I put them aside in favor of enjoying an otherwise well-constructed episode. As I commented in my first post earlier in this thread, one of the show's real (and only) weak points so far this season is the effort it has gone to to shuttle characters in and out of the story for long stretches of time. Not much about Wallace's disappearance or re-emergence (or, as we are starting to see, his time in between) has played very well, for example, although I have no doubt that once underway, the show will spin the middle story with its usual finesse. This episode struck me as simply the vehicle for getting Duncan out of the way for a while (or permanently) while offering the chance to tell a good yarn and set up some future trouble for Veronica along the way. In the grand scheme of things, somewhat clunky for all the reasons you mention, but in isolation, largely a success.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

With Astrid involved, does that mean Celeste was in on it too? Astrid was pretty comitted to Celeste, which we were reminded of in the recap before the episode.

Something bugged me about Vinnie [updated] until I thought of this possibility. Why was he so easily bribed by Veronica, when he could simply have turned around and gotten even more money from Celeste? It had to be because Celeste was in on it. But if that was the case, why communicate via the secret message the way Veronica did?


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

jschuur said:


> With Astrid involved, does that mean Celeste was in on it too? Astrid was pretty comitted to Celeste, which we were reminded of in the recap before the episode.
> 
> Something bugged me about Lamb until I thought of this possibility. Why was he so easily bribed by Veronica, when he could simply have turned around and gotten even more money from Celeste? It had to be because Celeste was in on it. But if that was the case, why communicate via the secret message the way Veronica did?


You mean Vinnie, not Lamb. The more I think about it, the more I think Celeste may very well be in on it too. If nothing else, hiding away out of the country does keep Duncan from being with Veronica. The reason for communicating via the secret message is simple - plausible deniability. Celeste can't tell the police what she doesn't know. All she knows, for certain, is that she paid Vinnie a large sum of money to find Duncan, which could quite plausibly include searching for him in Mexico. She doesn't know where Duncan is or how he got there.


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> You mean Vinnie, not Lamb.


Correct. Thanks.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

dswallow said:


> How do we know for sure it's Duncan's baby? Is it possible Duncan knows it isn't and that he's playing along for other reasons?


The only evidence we have is that Meg referred to Duncan as "the guy who knocked [me] up." Meg said Duncan was the father and we have zero evidence to suggest it could be anyone else. All the speculation about possible incest is just that, speculation. I think if that were the case, Meg would have at least given a hint to Veronica.

If we were given any _hint_ that Duncan might not be the bio-dad and thus might not have gotten custody, then the kidnaping scheme might have made more sense. But we weren't.

The main issue is that _Veronica_ has no reason to think the dad is anyone other than Duncan. So Veronica should have encouraged and helped Duncan to get custody by legal means and the whole kidnaping thing should have been a last resort, when and if it looked as if Duncan could not get custody in court. I don't care what Duncan thinks, because he's never struck me as a brain trust anyway. It's why Veronica thinks he won't get custody that confuses me because she doesn't have any reason to think he won't.



AJRitz said:


> A court could reasonably decide that giving custody a young, single father with his medical condition is not in the best interest of the child and assign custody to the maternal grandparents instead.


I just can't see that at all. There is a huge presumption in favor of the biological parent, and Duncan may be a "young single" father but he is by no means an typical "young single" father. He's a billionaire with two powerful and well-connected parents. His medical condition is a non-issue and the evidence about his epilepsy probably wouldn't even be admissible.

In any event, the Mannings also have major issues -- Lamb knows about Grace and there are the notebooks. Lizzie and Grace would both be questioned and I think Lizzie's loyalty to her dead sister would make her tell the truth about her nutjob parents. She knows Meg didn't want the baby raised by their parents.

Also, the Mannings had already taken steps to put the baby up for adoption through that religious agency! That alone would probably disqualify them from getting custody. They didn't even want the baby at all until Duncan filed a petition for custody? Fugheddaboutit. No court is giving the baby to the Mannings when they wanted to give it away. Duncan is the dad and he actually _wants_ to raise his child.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

Why would anyone contest Duncan as the father? Thats the real question-the kid would be heir to millions after all. I'm reserving judgement on this for now, but it would seem its going to take a very big surprise-something that both Veronica and us don't know about-to make sense out of this. Right now, the whole plotline is kind of a mess.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

lonwolf615 said:


> Why would anyone contest Duncan as the father? Thats the real question-the kid would be heir to millions after all. I'm reserving judgement on this for now, but it would seem its going to take a very big surprise-something that both Veronica and us don't know about-to make sense out of this. Right now, the whole plotline is kind of a mess.


The Mannings aren't any normal family. They have a comfortable living - they don't appear to be millionaires, but they're certainly upper middle class at least - so money isn't as much of a motivation for them. Plus, no matter how much money was involved, it pales in comparison to their firm beliefs in how to raise their children.

Plus, the Mannings don't exactly like Veronica (put mildly) and now Duncan is tainted by association with Veronica.


----------



## dtle (Dec 12, 2001)

Why does everybody keep saying that Duncan is a million or billionnair? As far as I know, his dad is still alive, just serving a small sentence for obstruction of justice. Once he's out (and done with being the First Gentleman  ), he will still own the whole Kane software. And it doesn't look like he's going to die for another 30 years.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

This episode rubbed me the wrong way for some reason. I really don't like Veronica doing something so blatantly illegal. I mean, just wrong. Like, Jack McCoy would send her away for 15 to 25 wrong, regardless of how wacko Meg's parents might be. Veronica has skirted the law before (and, okay, committed mostly harmless misdemeanors in the name of eternal justice) but this is just, well, wrong.

In fact, I think it is completely unambiguous. Maybe the writers were trying to make it seem as if it was some moral quandry and shades of grey, but I'm really only seeing that it was illegal and wrong and I agree with everyone who says Duncan, heir to millions with uber rich parents and no doubt a fat trust fund, would have gotten custody anyhow.

From the standpoint of an episode of television, I thought it was well done (though I don't really like when the subplots - Logan and Weevil - don't intersect with Veronica). But I really hate that the story went this direction.


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

> First of all, BOTH Capra and Dohring could have chemistry all by themselves - the two of them together is excellent, having to carry off the 09'er/PCH rivalry in public, and really still having it simmering in the background, but both wanting the same thing - to find out who exactly killed Felix.


Help me figure something out here.

Is this the first episode where we have seen (definitively) that Logan and Weevil are working together to find Felix's killer and playing the part of hating each other in public? If so, can we go back and determine if Logan was "in" on the torture scene a few episodes ago.

I remember there being some discussion of that on the boards after that episode, and I kept waiting for some confirmation either way during this episode. Any thoughts either way?

Oh yeah - and what exactly was Kendall doing in Duncans shower?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Personally, I like Dick.


That is sig fodder if I ever saw it. But I would probably get in trouble.


----------



## brimtoast (Jan 13, 2006)

stlarenas said:


> Help me figure something out here.
> 
> Is this the first episode where we have seen (definitively) that Logan and Weevil are working together to find Felix's killer and playing the part of hating each other in public? If so, can we go back and determine if Logan was "in" on the torture scene a few episodes ago.


The most likely explanation, from what we've been shown, is that Logan was not "in" on the torture thing. Weevil began to doubt what he had believed about what had happened on the bridge, and so he used the kidnapping/trial of Logan as a test to see if Logan was telling the truth about not knowing what had happened to Felix. Once Logan passed this test, Weevil confronted him and proposed that they work together, since they both have a stake in finding Felix's killer. Which turns out to be a smart idea for them, since as we see in this episode, they make a pretty good team.


----------



## keyzersoce (Mar 23, 2002)

Our favorite moment occurred when Veronica left her house in the morning, threw open the van doors, and discovered Vinnie sitting there with large binoculars. She said: "Good morning, Sam." He said: "Good morning Ralph..... Fritter?"

It was an esoteric reference to a classic Looney Tunes cartoon where the sheepdog and wolf greet each other at the time clock, punching in for another day of work. The wolf then spends the day trying to steal the sheep and getting constantly thwarted. In the cartoon, Ralph was the wolf and Sam the sheepdog.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

And they just dismiss costing each other their homes as a misunderstanding? 

Part of what I mean about being a mess... 

The whole Chicago storyline scares me too-could it be any more cliched? 

The thing about the Mannings is we really know very litle about them and yet we're supposed to belive they would turn their back on the possibility of having a claim on the Kane fortune? 

Wallace's dad just let him go? And his mom had no problem with him running off? Life just goes on as usual? 

The FBI only has two agents to assign to a child's kidnapping? They have to check out the hotel themselves-there wouldn't be any other agents free to get involved? Even when they know it involves one of the richest families in the state? And there's no media coverage even though the Kanes are involved? 

Like I said, I have hope all this will be explained in a satisfying matter but for right now it definately strains credibility to accept the storyline.


----------



## hereafter (May 18, 2005)

lonwolf615 said:


> The FBI only has two agents to assign to a child's kidnapping? They have to check out the hotel themselves-there wouldn't be any other agents free to get involved? Even when they know it involves one of the richest families in the state? And there's no media coverage even though the Kanes are involved?


Please tell me if I'm wrong, but did we ever once see either FBI agent flash their IDs? I don't recall ever seeing them do this, even when they first arrived in Sheriff Lamb's office. I think they just stood there. Obviously, they may have flashed their badges to the deputy initially off-camera, but we never saw it (unless it's become so ubiquitous that it doesn't even register to me anymore).

I guess after we found out how intricate the plot was to get Duncan and the baby out of there, that if Celeste Kane was probably in on it, then who's to say she didn't hire two more people (at least) to pose as FBI agents to ultimately get Lamb in the proper psychological state to head across the US-Mexico border at the first opportunity to try and outdo them.

I seem to recall that even when they showed up with the warrant (that could have been a very good forgery to fool Veronica's father) to search their apartment, that they didn't even show their IDs then, just the "warrant". Of course, Veronica looked pretty scared when they got close to the evidence she thought was still behind that cabinet door, so who knows...


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

hereafter said:


> Please tell me if I'm wrong, but did we ever once see either FBI agent flash their IDs? I don't recall ever seeing them do this, even when they first arrived in Sheriff Lamb's office.


I'd bet you're overthinking things. There really isn't any evidence that they weren't agents. The first time we saw them was indeed in Lamb's office, but that wasn't their entry into the station, where they doubtless presented their IDs or they never would have made it in. Plus they cracked Duncan's .Mac account password easily, listened in on Coast Guard/FBI agents boarding Duncan's boat, and generally had access to resources that PI's probably wouldn't have had (or have been able to pull off so credibly). I would be astonished if they weren't in fact FBI.


----------



## hereafter (May 18, 2005)

Yes, but remember whose sheriff's office we're talking about here. Veronica Mars gets things out of there on a daily basis. Even Logan was able to abscond with an important document without any trouble. Really, the only difference between this sheriff's office and the one in Mayberry is number of deputies present, that's all. 

And whoever said they were just your typical P.I.s? If they're not FBI (and the deputy who brought them in is not the sharpest tack, so who knows if they really needed to flash an I.D.), they were hired by, or already work for, Kane Software, so all of the feats you list are probably not that tough to pull off from a computer software company standpoint. 

Also, there was even the comment Veronica Mars said to Celeste right before she left the sheriff's office, about that sheriff's competence. 

But you're right, I may just be treating this the way a typical "Lost" episode gets treated, by over-thinking it...


----------



## Attack (Jul 30, 2001)

Doesn't anyone else think that the Mannings faked the adoption papers and forced Meg to say she didn't know who the father was. This would make it very hard for Duncan to stop the adoption process since the court date for him to prove he is the father could be months away and the baby would be long gone at this point.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Attack said:


> Doesn't anyone else think that the Mannings faked the adoption papers and forced Meg to say she didn't know who the father was. This would make it very hard for Duncan to stop the adoption process since the court date for him to prove he is the father could be months away and the baby would be long gone at this point.


Yes, there are a whole list of things that COULD have prevented Duncan from getting custody. The fault of the show, in this case, is that we never saw any of them. We skipped straight from baby being born to baby being taken by Duncan and Veronica.


----------



## whitson77 (Nov 10, 2002)

I hope Duncan is gone for good. That guy sucks.

Maybe Meg's parents bombed the bus.


----------



## brimtoast (Jan 13, 2006)

whitson77 said:


> Maybe Meg's parents bombed the bus.


That would be AWESOME. They could have bombed it because they knew Meg was pregnant and would rather she be dead than shamed. And then when she was the only survivor and woke up from the coma, they would have to kill her themselves. And secretly Veronica had a hunch that this was the case all along, which is why she helped Duncan run off with baby before the Mannings could kill her, too. And that would explain why she didn't feel they had enough time to go through legal channels. Mystery solved! What plot holes? Ta-da!


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't know about that---would they really kill however many kids just to off Meg? Surely there would be easier ways to take care of her that weren't so...public.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

brimtoast said:


> That would be AWESOME. They could have bombed it because they knew Meg was pregnant and would rather she be dead than shamed. And then when she was the only survivor and woke up from the coma, they would have to kill her themselves. And secretly Veronica had a hunch that this was the case all along, which is why she helped Duncan run off with baby before the Mannings could kill her, too. And that would explain why she didn't feel they had enough time to go through legal channels. Mystery solved! What plot holes? Ta-da!


Exactly! Which explains why, in the "alternate ending" stunt earlier this season, Mrs. Manning killed Meg when she woke up from her coma. Perfect!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Finally got this episode on Saturday. Annoyingly, while the Wednesday episodes are HD this Saturday repeat was only broadcast in SD! What a drag!

I'm pretty sure Celeste was in on the plot; anyway that's what I assumed. This would also solve Duncan's problems living abroad: it would be oh-so-simple for the Kanes to set up accounts that the FBI couldn't track, that Duncan could use. On the other hand, they would have to know that they would be giving up their son forever, or virtually forever (is there a statute of limitations on kidnapping charges? If so, does the clock stop when you flee the jursdiction like it does with some other crimes?) That seems pretty unlikely. So, I guess I don't know.

Also, Duncan _does_ speak Spanish. Pretty well, too. In fact, he used it at the end of the episode when talking to the hitchhikers.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I think that the kidnapping is off a bit but not much. I think there had been some sort of arrangement where they would take care of the baby. Remember that duncan had visited meg a lot previous to our finding out about it. Only once he discovered how they were bad parents did he change his mind. Regardless of whether he would win a length court battle, the fact is that they are psychopaths. Would you want your baby with a psychopath for months while you try to get custody?

I was also wondering whether his mom was in on it. There is a decent amount of possibility there. If she is, what was the point of the note veronica gave to vinnie?

The whole finnel family plot line is too disjointed right now. It seems like the writers are kind of scrambling to keep all these things in play, and it's getting to the point where they can't juggle it all at once. Maybe that's why they moved so quickly with the baby storyline. Basically, unless they can tie all 4-5 of the major plots (bus crash, finnel saga, felix murder, baby duncan, and maybe some steve gutenberg weirdness) together, it's going to be a rough season.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Is there really even enough evidence to prove Duncan kidnapped the baby?

If Duncan showed up tomorrow without the baby, would charges stick?


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> Basically, unless they can tie all 4-5 of the major plots (bus crash, finnel saga, felix murder, baby duncan, and maybe some steve gutenberg weirdness) together, it's going to be a rough season.


I'm afraid, then, that you'll need to buckle up. Last season, every character was a principal participant in the Kane murder story, with the exception of Wallace, whose role it was to be Veronica's best friend and muse, since she had no one else. It would be a real stretch to have another mystery this season that just happens to involve all of these characters in the same way, where they don't necessarily need their own subplots, and so they've all gotten other things to do. I'm not saying that some of these threads won't come together later, and I think everyone may have a hand in solving the bus crash mystery eventually. But for the most part these all seem to be separate stories that (a) have taken the place of each character's involvement in a central mystery, and (b) have largely replaced the "mystery of the week" show format (at least lately).

I agree with your comment that juggling all the storylines and characters has been somewhat awkward; I made the same comment in a post above. This is my main gripe with the show so far this season.


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

> The FBI only has two agents to assign to a child's kidnapping?


Not to mention, if you are the sole surviving parent of a child...it is NOT KIDNAPPING! There is no way that the FBI would even be called on this case. Especially if Celeste and the rest of the Kane family are supporting his rights. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is a major flaw.

That being said...it is just a TV show, and I enjoyed the episode immensely while watching it...it is the analyzing after that is making me dislike it...

So now I am going to stop and wait, not so patiently, for next weeks *STORY*.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

hereafter said:


> Please tell me if I'm wrong, but did we ever once see either FBI agent flash their IDs? I don't recall ever seeing them do this, even when they first arrived in Sheriff Lamb's office. I think they just stood there. Obviously, they may have flashed their badges to the deputy initially off-camera, but we never saw it (unless it's become so ubiquitous that it doesn't even register to me anymore).
> 
> I guess after we found out how intricate the plot was to get Duncan and the baby out of there, that if Celeste Kane was probably in on it, then who's to say she didn't hire two more people (at least) to pose as FBI agents to ultimately get Lamb in the proper psychological state to head across the US-Mexico border at the first opportunity to try and outdo them.
> 
> I seem to recall that even when they showed up with the warrant (that could have been a very good forgery to fool Veronica's father) to search their apartment, that they didn't even show their IDs then, just the "warrant". Of course, Veronica looked pretty scared when they got close to the evidence she thought was still behind that cabinet door, so who knows...


I like that theory-it would explain away most of the shortcomings of the episode. And I can see Celeste doing it. It would be a way to help her son get his baby without formally admiting paternity, so the Mannings would have no claim on the Kane estate. very nice!.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

If the two "agents" didn't show any ID, that could be a tell, because I've barely ever seen FBI agents NOT show their badges on TV shows.

Even if there's 2 agents, both usually show, not just 1.

-smak-


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I don't see why they wouldn't show ID, even if they weren't FBI agents---they could easily make up fake ID. Who knows what FBI ID looks like? I know I don't. If someone flashed FBI ID at me, I'd have no way of knowing whether or not it was real...


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

smak said:


> If the two "agents" didn't show any ID, that could be a tell, because I've barely ever seen FBI agents NOT show their badges on TV shows.


Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I continue to be president of Club No Way. Don't forget that it requires both parties (agent and audience) to allow the agents not to flash credentials. If they were not actually FBI, sure, maybe they wouldn't have IDs to flash, except that almost anyone they tell they are FBI is going to want to see some, so they would have to have _something_ to show as insurance. And with as well-connected as they would have had to be to not actually be agents, surely they would have been able to get their hands on some convincing fake credentials. I think the whole ID thing is just a detail that was left out.


----------



## brimtoast (Jan 13, 2006)

stlarenas said:


> Not to mention, if you are the sole surviving parent of a child...it is NOT KIDNAPPING!


This point at least seems to have been addressed fairly well by people on other forums. If the Mannings didn't put Duncan on the birth certificate, which they probably wouldn't have (and he had no say in this since he was out of town at the time) then until there's a paternity test there's no legal proof that Duncan is the father, and he doesn't have the rights of a parent. So until he is legally established as the sole surviving parent, it *is* kidnapping.
Hope that helps a little with the unpleasantness of after-the-fact analysis. Now, as to why Duncan didn't just have the paternity test done and then legally take his daughter away, I'm hoping Rob Thomas is nice enough to retcon an answer in during some future episode, so it doesn't just drive everybody crazy forever.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

What are other good forums for VM discussions?


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

lonwolf615 said:


> What are other good forums for VM discussions?


TWOP


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

cmontyburns said:


> Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I continue to be president of Club No Way. Don't forget that it requires both parties (agent and audience) to allow the agents not to flash credentials. If they were not actually FBI, sure, maybe they wouldn't have IDs to flash, except that almost anyone they tell they are FBI is going to want to see some, so they would have to have _something_ to show as insurance. And with as well-connected as they would have had to be to not actually be agents, surely they would have been able to get their hands on some convincing fake credentials. I think the whole ID thing is just a detail that was left out.


I probably agree with you, I just notice that on most TV shows it's a detail that's usually not left out.

I mean, did you ever see Mulder/Scully not show ID's when visiting a home or something.

We know they're FBI agents, they don't have to show the audience every time, but they almost always did.

-smak-


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> Plus they cracked Duncan's .Mac account password easily, listened in on Coast Guard/FBI agents boarding Duncan's boat, and generally had access to resources that PI's probably wouldn't have had (or have been able to pull off so credibly). I would be astonished if they weren't in fact FBI.


Except, if they're in on the plan duncan could have given them his password, and the whole boat thing never really happened, it was just part of the ruse... 
And it sure explains Celeste's asssistant helping out doesn't it? That looks like a huge clue in this light. 
Its probably not right, but I'm sure intrigued by the possibility. Here I was, thinking this show had finally let me down, when this theory came along to suggest it was even smarter than I had thought. Right or wrong, I'm grateful for that.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

lonwolf615 said:


> Except, if they're in on the plan duncan could have given them his password, and the whole boat thing never really happened, it was just part of the ruse...
> And it sure explains Celeste's asssistant helping out doesn't it? That looks like a huge clue in this light.
> Its probably not right, but I'm sure intrigued by the possibility. Here I was, thinking this show had finally let me down, when this theory came along to suggest it was even smarter than I had thought. Right or wrong, I'm grateful for that.


OK, then, riddle me this: if they were in on it, what was the point of them going to Veronica's apartment to search it?


----------



## hereafter (May 18, 2005)

cmontyburns said:


> OK, then, riddle me this: if they were in on it, what was the point of them going to Veronica's apartment to search it?


Regardless of whether Celeste and her fake "FBI agents" were in on this whole plan, Celeste still really does not like Veronica Mars and would have loved to have implicated her in this whole plot once her son was safely away. If even not getting Veronica in trouble with the law, she would have loved getting her in trouble with her father, the former sheriff, and really messing with the trust in that family and their family dynamic.

Just a thought.


----------



## brimtoast (Jan 13, 2006)

I just want to remind people that Donut Run is being rerun on UPN at 9:00 tonight. So if you know anyone who missed it the first time or who wants a chance to see it again, now's the time.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

cmontyburns said:


> OK, then, riddle me this: if they were in on it, what was the point of them going to Veronica's apartment to search it?


Good point. Actually, watched the show again, and I have to say there are problems with the bogus FBI theory, unless Veronica isn't in on it. Which is of course possible...Something else though-the change in Keith as they search. He goes from genuine concern to joking around, even while Veronica appears to be most worried. Couldn't help thinking something tipped him off they weren't really FBI and he suddenly knew his daughter wasn't getting arrested-he really looked to be relieved. 
And yes, if Celeste did hire them it would be in character to use the opportunity to do a littte snooping around the Mars household, not to mention giving VM a scare. Payback for all VM has done to the Kanes.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

lonwolf615 said:


> Good point. Actually, watched the show again, and I have to say there are problems with the bogus FBI theory, unless Veronica isn't in on it. Which is of course possible...Something else though-the change in Keith as they search. He goes from genuine concern to joking around, even while Veronica appears to be most worried. Couldn't help thinking something tipped him off they weren't really FBI and he suddenly knew his daughter wasn't getting arrested-he really looked to be relieved.
> And yes, if Celeste did hire them it would be in character to use the opportunity to do a littte snooping around the Mars household, not to mention giving VM a scare. Payback for all VM has done to the Kanes.


If Veronica wasn't in on it, then Duncan wasn't in on it, because he wouldn't side with a plan of his mother's that either cut Veronica out or threw suspicion on her, both of which this would have done. Except Duncan had to be in on it, because the .Mac stuff and the missing boat bit were misdirections that were clearly part of the plan, and required the agents to pursue them in order for Duncan to get away. Thus Veronica would have had to be in on it too, since she was clearly in on the rest (and, let's face it, probably cooked the whole thing up). So we're back to it making no sense for them to search the Mars apartment if they were part of the plan, which means they weren't part of the plan.

As for Keith's bravado, well, Keith doesn't back down to anyone. Putting on a false front was his way of protecting Veronica, whom he knew to be guilty but the agents didn't. He's not happy with her, but he's not ready to let her learn her lesson by going to jail.

This was a complex epsiode and deserves scrutiny and questions like this. There are definitely holes that would be nice to justify through some kind of cool secret twisty explanation, mainly because the writing on the series is generally so intelligent. But in this case I think they're just holes.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

lonwolf615 said:


> Something else though-the change in Keith as they search. He goes from genuine concern to joking around, even while Veronica appears to be most worried.


That's just because he knows that he found her hole to the next apartment and fixed it, and she doesn't know.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I like Veronica Mars the show. I do NOT like Veronica Mars the person. I was hoping her father would kick her out of the house.

I agree with the people who say that Duncan is very rich and wouldn't have a hard time getting custody. Plus he has (the unscrupulous and very dishonest) Veronica Mars on his side.

Weevil is the wimpiest gang leader I've ever seen. He's like a gang leader from West Side Story or an Elvis Pressley movie.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I like Veronica Mars the show. I do NOT like Veronica Mars the person. I was hoping her father would kick her out of the house.


Yeah, it's always amazed me how much slack people cut her (both on the show and in the audience) because she's cute and likable. For all her desire to do the right thing (in big picture terms), she is one of the most self-centered, selfish chracters I've ever seen. And I'm sure that's a deliberate choice on the part of the writers...


----------



## Church AV Guy (Jan 19, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> Weevil is the wimpiest gang leader I've ever seen. He's like a gang leader from West Side Story or an Elvis Pressley movie.


Boy am I going to regret saying this, and dating myself, BUT, he kind of reminds me a little of Eric Von Zipper, the biker from the Frankie Avalon, Annette Funicello beach movies from the mid 1960s. There does not seem to be a lot of substance to his menace. I'm being a little hard on him here, he isn't an imbecile.


----------



## Rosenkavalier (Nov 9, 2001)

One more thing about this episode that I hadn't seen mentioned before (I avoid TWOP out of concern for my sanity, so I can't say if it was covered over there): the high school that Wallace attended in Chicago was Trevor Hale Memorial. "Trevor Hale" was the name that the might-or-might-not-be lead character chose for himself (in order to get released from the mental hospital) in the pilot episode of Rob Thomas's first TV series, Cupid.


----------



## lonwolf615 (May 19, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Weevil is the wimpiest gang leader I've ever seen. He's like a gang leader from West Side Story or an Elvis Pressley movie.


Or maybe the Fonz, with VM as Richie?

In the thread for the next episode I wondered why Weevil wasn't killed by his rival. The reply I was given was the rest of the gang would know...well, duh, are they criminals or the boy scouts? As long as they couldn't prove it in a court of law I would think any gang leader would be glad to have his followers think he's capable of murder. But on this show "gang violence" seems to be tying a guy to a flag pole.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Just watched this tonight (we're catching up this spring/summer on shows we never watched). Totally jumped out of my seat when the lost numbers were on the fortune from the cookie. Too cool!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Cool enough to dredge up a three year old thread??? :shrug:


----------



## Aniketos (Mar 6, 2006)

This thread bump makes me happy and sad at the same time.


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

I miss this show.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

JLucPicard said:


> Cool enough to dredge up a three year old thread??? :shrug:


Would you have me creating a new one just to say how cool it was?


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

jlb said:


> Would you have me creating a new one just to say how cool it was?


I suppose not if you really felt you needed to share with the world that you thought it was cool, I guess. How long has this show been off the air again??? :shrug: x 2


----------



## garys67 (Jan 13, 2005)

JLucPicard said:


> I suppose not if you really felt you needed to share with the world that you thought it was cool, I guess. How long has this show been off the air again??? :shrug: x 2


Last I checked, there is no statute of limitations on dredging up old threads. Two top of mind precedents - Joe Schmo and Leah Remini's weight discussion, not to mention the illustrious 'Mansquito' thread of yesteryear.

Further, this is VM of which we speak - as timeless a show as the airwaves have ever seen. Your puerile knee-jerk reaction almost makes me want to comment again on episodes such as 'Normal is the Watchword", 'An Echolls Family Christmas' and 'Witchata Linebacker', just to get a rise out of you.

JLuc - on this, I will give you no quarter; I will ask for no quarter. Be careful when treading on the hallowed groud of Neptune. You never know - Weevil may be right around the corner.

Just Party Down and you won't worry about old threads anymore.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Thank you *garys67* for defending my right to post my thoughts! 

Quick question to those that were "upset" by my post.......

Were you upset that I bumped, or were you upset that the bump did not contain content you were hoping for? You did, afterall, open the thread to read my comments. If you dislike someone bumping an old thread, that's one thing. But, as I said, you did open the thread to read it. You could have just ignored it.

And if you are actually reading this now....shame on you.....you're doing it again.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

jlb said:


> Were you upset that I bumped


I appreciate the reminder of VM. I have the whole series, mostly on HiDef, and it's been long enough now to start a replay!


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

jlb said:


> Thank you *garys67* for defending my right to post my thoughts!
> 
> Quick question to those that were "upset" by my post.......
> 
> ...


For the record...

I did read the thread to see if there was something new/interesting going on. Whether I find what was posted new/interesting does not diminish the fact that people are free to post whatever they want to. As was stated, there is no statute of limitations in the forum rules regarding posting to a thread - no matter how old or new it might be.

Also for the record...

I was way out of line for posting what I did.

Another lesson learned on being in the right frame of mind before posting.

And to jlb specifically, you have my apologies.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

JLuc,

Your apologies are appreciated, but not necessary. Still, graciouslly accepted. 

Where my frame of mind came from.....call me a geek....but I was so excited to see the numbers there......I had to share with somebody.....and really...it seemed better to post in an old, open thread than to start a new one.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Just an FYI, general forum rules (not specific to here, they're pretty much universal) say that once a thread is inactive ("dead") for long enough, it should stay that way, unless there is something fundamentally important that would trigger additional discussion.

I think that's why your post got such a negative reaction, jlb.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

She's hot.


----------



## Magnolia88 (Jul 1, 2005)

This thread is like a time capsule! 

But it makes me sad because I still miss VM.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Just an FYI, general forum rules (not specific to here, they're pretty much universal) say that once a thread is inactive ("dead") for long enough, it should stay that way, unless there is something fundamentally important that would trigger additional discussion.
> 
> I think that's why your post got such a negative reaction, jlb.


Could someone explain why this is a rule? What is the harm? I for one was glad to see this pop up, as I just learned to play the chords to "We Used To Be Friends" last week.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> Just an FYI, general forum rules (not specific to here, they're pretty much universal) say that once a thread is inactive ("dead") for long enough, it should stay that way, unless there is something fundamentally important that would trigger additional discussion.
> 
> I think that's why your post got such a negative reaction, jlb.


I've never heard of that rule in my 7+ years of hanging around here, and it seems particularly inappropriate in the age of TV-shows-on-DVD, Hulu, and any other number of ways to watch old shows for the first time. I think jlb should be applauded for actually searching for the original thread, since so often people are castigated for not doing so.

Most of all, I miss VM. What a fantastic show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I've never heard of that rule in my 7+ years of hanging around here, and it seems particularly inappropriate in the age of TV-shows-on-DVD, Hulu, and any other number of ways to watch old shows for the first time. I think jlb should be applauded for actually searching for the original thread, since so often people are castigated for not doing so.
> 
> Most of all, I miss VM. What a fantastic show.


Agreed on both counts.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

teknikel said:


> Could someone explain why this is a rule? What is the harm? I for one was glad to see this pop up, as I just learned to play the chords to "We Used To Be Friends" last week.


It's not a rule here.


----------



## cmontyburns (Nov 14, 2001)

By definition, there is never a wrong way to bring up how awesome Veronica Mars was. 

A new thread would have gotten just as much of a nostalgic reaction.


----------



## Kamakzie (Jan 8, 2004)

Put me down in the see no harm camp.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Thanks for the support folks.

Agreed on many thoughts above.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I've never heard of that rule in my 7+ years of hanging around here, and it seems particularly inappropriate in the age of TV-shows-on-DVD, Hulu, and any other number of ways to watch old shows for the first time. I think jlb should be applauded for actually searching for the original thread, since so often people are castigated for not doing so.
> 
> Most of all, I miss VM. What a fantastic show.


I also wanted to respond specifically to this comment, which hits the nail on the head......

We subscribe to basic cable and only get our locals (with HD). As a result, we don't normally get to see many good shows when they usually air. And once I realized my library is part of a 35 library consortium and I could get my hands on almost any DVD out there, I started borrowing DVDs to watch shows, well after they had aired.

My first big foray into this was to watch BSG (at this forum's recommendation). I watched everything BSG in about 3 months time and caught up with 3 episodes to go.

To help fill the void this summer (beyond our usual network summer shows), we will be catching up on missed (either since we never watched or couldn't watch) shows.

It starts with Veronica Mars. We're on episode 16 of S2 right now with S3 on the way from the library. We also have queued up Season 1 of Breaking Bad, Entourage, Rescue Me, and other similar shows.

And just because we are late to the game on these, I shouldn'e have to miss out on the joy of reacting to something I am seeing for the first time. And thus it boils down to how to handle that.....a new thread, or finding the old thread.

I really did not intend to upset anyone by my post. I continue to stand by the fact that if you don't want to see a new post in an older thread, you can always choose not to read it.

Time for me to step off my VM soapbox and get ready to celebrate my 43rd with watching a lot of about 3 or 4 VM episodes.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

jlb said:


> And just because we are late to the game on these, I shouldn'e have to miss out on the joy of reacting to something I am seeing for the first time. And thus it boils down to how to handle that.....a new thread, or finding the old thread.
> 
> I really did not intend to upset anyone by my post. I continue to stand by the fact that if you don't want to see a new post in an older thread, you can always choose not to read it.


Just to reiterate, there's no rule here prohibiting continuing a conversation on a given episode within an "older" thread.


----------



## ced6 (Jul 30, 2003)

Then Happy Birthday jlb!!!

And you managed to drag me back into the now playing area for the first time in like over a year, lol.


----------



## garys67 (Jan 13, 2005)

For those of you reflecting wistfully on all things VM, I surprised my wife on our anniversary with a trip to Neptune's alter-ego, San Diego, soon after the show was cancelled. My friend Curt (he lives there) and I planned out visits to many of the exterior locations and I was even able to get us into the studio where all the interiors were filmed. In addition, and this was super cool, my wife and I stayed for a night at the hotel that served as Keith and Veronica's apartment.

Enjoy... http://picasaweb.google.com/grsimon/ATripToSanDiego


----------

