| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SharpI
Lonely Fan
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 194
Location: Undisclosed
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
My own idea is that Gemma has been "freelancing" - she found Bree and has been trying to gain Bree's trust with the idea of turning it into profit later. (After all, flats in London are pricey.) Her "Afraid to go home" video is a sham; she's just trying to spook Bree.
After that, however, the Order did find out about her videos and expressed their extreme displeasure at her freelancing, which is why her last video is so obviously all-Order, as alex points out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trainer101
Moderator Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 2671
Location: Wasting away again ILLUMINATIVILLE...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SharpI wrote: | My own idea is that Gemma has been "freelancing" - she found Bree and has been trying to gain Bree's trust with the idea of turning it into profit later. (After all, flats in London are pricey.) Her "Afraid to go home" video is a sham; she's just trying to spook Bree.
After that, however, the Order did find out about her videos and expressed their extreme displeasure at her freelancing, which is why her last video is so obviously all-Order, as alex points out. |
I like this idea. I've always thought she was playing both sides of the fence - this would explain why.
_________________
It's STILL all connected... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EliCash
Lonely Fan
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a clever idea, and I hope you keep developing this idea and others like it...
But I just want to point out that the Order likely knew about Gemma on YouTube from the beginning (or very close to it), since she was on the list of correspondances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustAnotherLonelyGirl.
P. Monkey's Agent
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 2094
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trainer101 wrote: | | dreamerose wrote: | | trainer101 wrote: | | EliCash wrote: | | We don't know that it was a Watcher that broke in. |
I was thinking the same thing except that OpAphid video "Adventures in Babysitting" which shows the actual break in, begins and ends with the Watchers eye.
This one: |
Which could mean that it was the Watchers that broke in, that it was OpAphid that broke in, that OpAphid thinks it's the Watchers that broke in, or that OpAphid wants Bree/Daniel/us/whoever to believe that it's the Watchers that broke in.
Um, yeah. Still leaves a lot of options open. Plus, there are probably other logical conclusions, too, that I didn't think of. |
There are still way too many loose ends to come to a definitive conclusion. |
I thought maybe that OpAphid is the Watchers, and that the "Watcher" symbol meant they were "watching" whoever it was that broke in.
I'm not sure we have proof that OpAphid = The Order. They may be a branch of it or something that is more concerned in protecting its followers.
Actually I don't make any sense so goodnight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hella_samira
Suspiciously Absent
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sldsm wrote: | Those aren't the only three theories, they're not definite.
It's just as possible and plausible that Gemma was being over paranoid, went home, made a video to assure us that nothing had happened her, and decided that it would be best for Bree to listen to Daniel. Her parents did tell Bree to stay with Daniel, so it's logical to conclude that Bree should listen to her parents and stay with Daniel.
This possibility doesn't make the Gemma the Big Bad Wolf, nor does it make her video unreliable. |
I think the fact that Gemma telling Bree and Daniel to do what her parents said to do would contribute to Gemma being bad, considering Bree's parents were obviously being controlled.
Them telling Bree to stay with Daniel then wouldn't be what her parents really wanted her to do, it would be what the Order or whoever else was controlling her parents wanted Bree to do.
So then Gemma telling Bree to listen to what her parents did would really be her telling to listen to what the Order wants for her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pi
Casual Observer
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hella_samira wrote: | | sldsm wrote: | Those aren't the only three theories, they're not definite.
It's just as possible and plausible that Gemma was being over paranoid, went home, made a video to assure us that nothing had happened her, and decided that it would be best for Bree to listen to Daniel. Her parents did tell Bree to stay with Daniel, so it's logical to conclude that Bree should listen to her parents and stay with Daniel.
This possibility doesn't make the Gemma the Big Bad Wolf, nor does it make her video unreliable. |
I think the fact that Gemma telling Bree and Daniel to do what her parents said to do would contribute to Gemma being bad, considering Bree's parents were obviously being controlled.
Them telling Bree to stay with Daniel then wouldn't be what her parents really wanted her to do, it would be what the Order or whoever else was controlling her parents wanted Bree to do.
So then Gemma telling Bree to listen to what her parents did would really be her telling to listen to what the Order wants for her. |
Yeah, I always thought Gemma (at least when she's the mouth piece of the Order) telling Bree to trust Daniel was a little suspect as well. Gemma keeps saying 'go home' but she's knows that is exactly what Daniel wants to do 'go home.' So, it doesn't seem particulary innocent of her to be a big defender of 'trust each other' when on the surface it appears Gemma-Order and Daniel's goals are aligned. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Daniel is an Order-guy. His reasons for wanting to go home seem understandable, but it looks like Gemma/Order is trying to captalize on that.
Pi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lurker
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hella_samira wrote: | I think the fact that Gemma telling Bree and Daniel to do what her parents said to do would contribute to Gemma being bad, considering Bree's parents were obviously being controlled.
Them telling Bree to stay with Daniel then wouldn't be what her parents really wanted her to do, it would be what the Order or whoever else was controlling her parents wanted Bree to do.
So then Gemma telling Bree to listen to what her parents did would really be her telling to listen to what the Order wants for her. |
But Bree's parents weren't obviously being controlled. I'm not saying they absolutely weren't, but that was never made obvious. Personally, I think if they were being controlled, it makes little sense for them to have sent Bree away to Daniel's in the first place, or to have told the deacons that Bree didn't want to take part in the ceremony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lurker wrote: | | hella_samira wrote: | I think the fact that Gemma telling Bree and Daniel to do what her parents said to do would contribute to Gemma being bad, considering Bree's parents were obviously being controlled.
Them telling Bree to stay with Daniel then wouldn't be what her parents really wanted her to do, it would be what the Order or whoever else was controlling her parents wanted Bree to do.
So then Gemma telling Bree to listen to what her parents did would really be her telling to listen to what the Order wants for her. |
But Bree's parents weren't obviously being controlled. I'm not saying they absolutely weren't, but that was never made obvious. Personally, I think if they were being controlled, it makes little sense for them to have sent Bree away to Daniel's in the first place, or to have told the deacons that Bree didn't want to take part in the ceremony. |
agreed. i'm pretty sure the note bree's parents left her in "on the run" was legit. and it seems like the whole reason they got taken away was for standing up for bree's rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ennovi
Lonely Fan
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 197
Location: my room...relaxing after finals...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think your scenario A makes sense.
In my theory, I think that Gemma should not be trusted. Her whole story with the boy she is dating is an analogy her character.
1) Gemma was good at the beginning---the guy she was dating seemed like a good guy
2) Gemma was caught by the order---the guy was "kissed" by some girl and this changed everything
3) Gemma is now forced to trap Bree and Daniel by the order---the guy turned out to be not what he seemed so Gemma should not be trusted.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex
Casual Observer
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ennovi wrote: | I think your scenario A makes sense.
In my theory, I think that Gemma should not be trusted. Her whole story with the boy she is dating is an analogy her character.
1) Gemma was good at the beginning---the guy she was dating seemed like a good guy
2) Gemma was caught by the order---the guy was "kissed" by some girl and this changed everything
3) Gemma is now forced to trap Bree and Daniel by the order---the guy turned out to be not what he seemed so Gemma should not be trusted.. |
yeah that was what i was thinking too.
but it still doesn't explain how suspiciousthe timing of her introduction was (right after daniel broke into lucy's apartment). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
