Post by Belchic on Sept 14, 2015 12:43:45 GMT -5
Here are 2 episodes that both have something in common: They're both film noir mystery episodes.
Just like in other murder mysteries, a selection of suspects are determined to find out who is the culprit behind the mystery (and yes I know none of these episodes involve murder), near the end, they think they find the guilty one, but then later, the real culprit is revealed.
In "The Maltese Chicken", the mystery is the case of Cornelia's missing egg. The suspects were Lucy, Dumpling and Cruella. At first, the farm thinks Lucy is the culprit, so she is exiled from the farm, but then they find out Dumpling is the real culprit, so Lucy is brought back with apologies.
In "K is for Kibble", the mystery is the case of the disappearing kibble. The suspects were Dumpling, Scorch, Swamp Rat and Rolly. At first, the farm thinks Rolly is the culprit, so he is exiled from the farm, but then they find out Swamp Rat is the real culprit, so Rolly is brought back with apologies.
Something about this bothers me.
I can understand what went on with "The Maltese Chicken". They found out Lucy was innocent when the discovered egg shells in her nest turned out to be plastic. Even though it's never explained how those got in her nest, it still makes sense. I get how they found out her innocence.
"K is for Kibble", on the other hand, bothers me. They never explain how they found out Rolly was innocent. It was clear that he was the guilty one, and Marlow pointed out all the key facts:
1. He wasn't hungry one morning.
2. He was mysteriously missing at the night of the stake out.
3. He was hit by friendly fire.
Not to mention, he was caught sleep-eating all over the farm, including the chow tower.
How did they find out he was innocent all along? Marlow asked, "Did anyone see the kid eating the kibble?" Well, duh! She saw it herself along with Lucky and Cadpig as her witnesses! She also asked, "What was that rumbling we kept hearing?" Most likely Rolly's stomach or Rolly causing a ruckus when he was eating. Ever think of that?
Also, what exactly did Swamp Rat do to frame Rolly? That was never explained.
babclayman, I know you don't like it when I call you out, but do you think maybe you can help explain this to me? I want to know what went on in "K is for Kibble". I understand Lucy's innocence (that one makes perfect sense), but I don't get how they found out Rolly was innocent.
Just like in other murder mysteries, a selection of suspects are determined to find out who is the culprit behind the mystery (and yes I know none of these episodes involve murder), near the end, they think they find the guilty one, but then later, the real culprit is revealed.
In "The Maltese Chicken", the mystery is the case of Cornelia's missing egg. The suspects were Lucy, Dumpling and Cruella. At first, the farm thinks Lucy is the culprit, so she is exiled from the farm, but then they find out Dumpling is the real culprit, so Lucy is brought back with apologies.
In "K is for Kibble", the mystery is the case of the disappearing kibble. The suspects were Dumpling, Scorch, Swamp Rat and Rolly. At first, the farm thinks Rolly is the culprit, so he is exiled from the farm, but then they find out Swamp Rat is the real culprit, so Rolly is brought back with apologies.
Something about this bothers me.
I can understand what went on with "The Maltese Chicken". They found out Lucy was innocent when the discovered egg shells in her nest turned out to be plastic. Even though it's never explained how those got in her nest, it still makes sense. I get how they found out her innocence.
"K is for Kibble", on the other hand, bothers me. They never explain how they found out Rolly was innocent. It was clear that he was the guilty one, and Marlow pointed out all the key facts:
1. He wasn't hungry one morning.
2. He was mysteriously missing at the night of the stake out.
3. He was hit by friendly fire.
Not to mention, he was caught sleep-eating all over the farm, including the chow tower.
How did they find out he was innocent all along? Marlow asked, "Did anyone see the kid eating the kibble?" Well, duh! She saw it herself along with Lucky and Cadpig as her witnesses! She also asked, "What was that rumbling we kept hearing?" Most likely Rolly's stomach or Rolly causing a ruckus when he was eating. Ever think of that?
Also, what exactly did Swamp Rat do to frame Rolly? That was never explained.
babclayman, I know you don't like it when I call you out, but do you think maybe you can help explain this to me? I want to know what went on in "K is for Kibble". I understand Lucy's innocence (that one makes perfect sense), but I don't get how they found out Rolly was innocent.