|
|
Post by gypsygem81 on Aug 3, 2005 5:39:05 GMT -5
I have a question. When David and Maddie are following Barbara Wylie, they follow her to a lake where she gets rid of the gun and then to the hotel where they see her coming back out and they realise that it is actually her husband. When she is coming back out, David asks 'what happened to the wiggle?', at which point I believe that he suspects it to be her husband, or at least not her. So are we to believe that it was the real Barbara Wylie that they were originally following until the point of arriving at the hotel? If so, why would Barbara Wylie have been disposing of the gun, as we find out later that she knew nothing about the murder?
Is anyone still with me? I think I'm even more confused that I was before I started writing this!
Love Gem
|
|
Stephanie
3rd Level
Icon by Dollsome @ LJ
Posts: 564
|
Post by Stephanie on Aug 3, 2005 6:40:08 GMT -5
I was thinking about the same thing. And if it was her Husband, why would he go into the Hotel only to step out a few seconds later? It kinda confuzzled me
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulberry on Aug 3, 2005 7:39:00 GMT -5
Glad it's not just me, I'm v.confuzzled with this one. When she dropped the gun into the lake, she definitely had that wiggle!
Mul
|
|
|
|
Post by gypsygem81 on Aug 3, 2005 7:51:27 GMT -5
Yay! Thank goodness you know what I mean! I felt pretty stupid asking. I just don't get it!
Love Gem
|
|
|
|
Post by elvira on Aug 3, 2005 10:03:46 GMT -5
It was the husband all along, and he was "wiggling" for an audience (Dave and Maddie, who he knew were following "the lady in the iron mask"). He kept up the charade of being his wife (i.e. wiggling) up until the time when he entered into the hotel, at which time he must have assumed that Dave and Maddie were convinced that he was she (i.e. he was his wife). So when he came out of the hotel again (still wearing the dress), he dispensed with the wiggle, because there was no reason for it anymore–no "audience" to convince. He assumed that Dave and Maddie had left at that point and were no longer watching him.
Does that make sense? That's how I always saw it, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by gypsygem81 on Aug 3, 2005 10:49:32 GMT -5
ok, I think that makes sense. So you're saying that he knew that they were following him the whole time? (you mean he saw through the paper in the lobby thing?  How?!) And he also had another room in another part of the hotel, which he would use to change etc, which is where Maddie and David saw him take off the mask? Thanks for that, Elvira. Love Gem |
|
|
|
Post by elvira on Aug 3, 2005 11:15:21 GMT -5
You're welcome, Gem!  Yeah, you've pretty much got it right, I think. The plot does not hold up under close scrutiny (how would the husband know exactly when he was being followed, and when he wasn't? Why didn't he "wiggle" all the time, just in case he was being watched?). But I think the only way the story makes sense is for it to be him all along. After all, he came to visit David and Maddie disguised as his wife. He admitted that he knew that everyone would think his wife committed the murder (remember he asks, "What jury is going to convict her?"). The wife had nothing to do with it, ever. It's interesting that they cast Dennis Christopher in the role of the husband. Christopher is a slightly-built guy and could be convincing as a woman. (Compare Christopher with a 6' Bruce Willis in a dress, and—yow! Big difference!) |
|
|
|
Post by Mulberry on Sept 12, 2005 8:27:24 GMT -5
Yep, Bruce Willis doesn't make a convincing woman does he? Being 6' tall and broad shouldered doesn't help... Ooh, I'll be back to the discussions about his slim hips and how good he looks in jeans next....
Yum.
Mul
|
|
graycav56
3rd Level
I can't imagine not rewatching with you next week.
Posts: 948
|
Post by graycav56 on Oct 24, 2007 9:20:43 GMT -5
But then later in the show you have the husband showing back up at Room 417, in costume, closely followed by his wife. I wonder why he would go to the trouble to get a second room to change in, only to waltz right up to the original room in drag?
I know this isn't Sherlock Holmes here, but that one always confused me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertviola on Aug 10, 2023 1:07:26 GMT -5
I never got WHY he did what he did.
So he killed the acid guy. But what for?
He said he was frustrated to be married to a woman he could never see. Ok. He said that he framed his wife, even though or because he knew no jury would convict her.
But assuming that after "she" killed him and the jury would just let her go, wouldn't the situation still be just like before?
He still wouldn't get to see her!
Is it to be understood that he wanted to kill the guy and get away scot-free as a means of venting his frustration that he could never see his wife? It just seems like a very halfbaked idea to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marlena on Aug 14, 2023 12:14:53 GMT -5
I never got WHY he did what he did. So he killed the acid guy. But what for? He said he was frustrated to be married to a woman he could never see. Ok. He said that he framed his wife, even though or because he knew no jury would convict her. But assuming that after "she" killed him and the jury would just let her go, wouldn't the situation still be just like before? He still wouldn't get to see her! Is it to be understood that he wanted to kill the guy and get away scot-free as a means of venting his frustration that he could never see his wife? It just seems like a very halfbaked idea to me. Hi bertviola, It's so nice to see someone posting on here. I used to post a lot, but then for a long time it seemed there was no activity here. I never thought about it before, but you are right, killing Frank Harbert does not change the fact that his wife, Barbara Wiley, won't let him look at her. I think that with Moonlighting, it's much more important to focus on Maddie and David because if you try to make sense of the cases, it will drive you crazy.  |
|
|
|
Post by bertviola on Aug 18, 2023 22:04:43 GMT -5
I never got WHY he did what he did. So he killed the acid guy. But what for? He said he was frustrated to be married to a woman he could never see. Ok. He said that he framed his wife, even though or because he knew no jury would convict her. But assuming that after "she" killed him and the jury would just let her go, wouldn't the situation still be just like before? He still wouldn't get to see her! Is it to be understood that he wanted to kill the guy and get away scot-free as a means of venting his frustration that he could never see his wife? It just seems like a very halfbaked idea to me. Hi bertviola, It's so nice to see someone posting on here. I used to post a lot, but then for a long time it seemed there was no activity here. I never thought about it before, but you are right, killing Frank Harbert does not change the fact that his wife, Barbara Wiley, won't let him look at her. I think that with Moonlighting, it's much more important to focus on Maddie and David because if you try to make sense of the cases, it will drive you crazy. Hi Marlena, Yeah, I noticed.I last saw the show 2018 and I rewatch it now and last time, to my surprise, people still responded quickly here. But it seems the forum has died down unfortunately:(. It's a shame though that those cases (especially the good ones like this) always seem to have that change in tone. This one or The next Murder you hear are so atmospheric and then turn into something goofy. I like the humour too, but I thought the show can be really good if it doesn't go for the laughs all the time. And a longer run time would have been good for some episodes:). |
|
How?!) And he also had another room in another part of the hotel, which he would use to change etc, which is where Maddie and David saw him take off the mask?
