Ha!
I wanted to not be distracted by them, but I was.
People in this thread are thinking harder than the writers of this show, because you’re right:
What I understood from this was that it wasn’t posthumous since she was never declared dead or struck from the roster; she was on desk duty right before she mysteriously disappeared, and all the exam/promotion/reinstatement happened after she got back to work.
On the other hand,
So they promoted her while she was “gone”? (It’s not absolutely clear.) But if they thought she was actually dead, why was she still on duty, even desk duty, in Episode 1?
I assumed her “posthumous” comment was sarcasm.
[Moderating]
manson1972, the original comment about eyebrows might arguably have been slightly inappropriate. But your post #59 was absolutely, unambiguously inappropriate. If you see something that you think is inappropriate, you should report it, not up the ante.
That was my take as well, though the dialogue was confusing at best.
My interpretation is that she was a detective, then crashed her car while drunk, killing her friend in the passenger seat. For that she was put on desk duty until cleared by a shrink. (I think I must be wrong, though, because shouldn’t she have been in jail for vehicular manslaughter?) Then the plane disappeared.
No, she definitely wasn’t a detective before the plane crashed (neither was her boyfriend/fiancé).
She had a beat, they mentioned that.
You have a point. I suspected they’d say no, and then the family and/or the doctor from the plane would go to the media about it. Because the media wants to talk to these people anyway, and it’s a sympathetic cause, and it would be embarrassing to the pharmaceutical company. All the points that you made in your post could be argued in the episode. That would have been a more interesting plot than what happened in number 2, in my opinion.
Fair enough. My post was not serious of course, but a natural result of allowing any appearance based comments that are not relevant to the topic at hand, as discussed in various Pit and ATMB threads recently. I’m not one for reporting posts but I understand what you are saying, of course. And I will take any further comments, if I have any, to ATMB, where moderator actions are discussed.
Appearance of a leading actor, especially when the media has commented on that very thing, is certainly germane.
Television and movies are visual media, and as such, character appearance is relevant by definition. I don’t know why you think nobody can ever comment on a woman’s appearance ever again, but you are just flat-out wrong. The whole thing you’re missing is if it’s “relevant” or “germane” to the topic, and appearance is clearly and obviously relevant for discussion of visual media.
Also, that “natural result” of yours is made-up bullshit. Unless you can find a single example of something similar to that posted on the boards in any thread, at any time, about any show, I call bullshit.
I watched E3 last night.
I liked the storyline with the twins, and how Olive is now dating Cal’s (former) best friend. Five years is a huge difference at that age, and I’ve been wondering how/whether the show might try to address it.
I’m glad that Kelly Taylor’s death was the result of a good, old-fashioned murder and not the work of a smoke monster, but the housekeeper must have gotten pretty close in order to place the pistol under her chin: wouldn’t Taylor have said something? “Hey!” “What the…?” Something?
Also, I’m growing tired of the “Michaela’s got a secret” thing. We know that her friend died and that Michaela was/feels responsible, but the line about “being honest with yourself” hinted at further drama and info she might even be repressing. I don’t think I’m very interested in slowly uncovering hidden secrets about any of the main characters: tell us what we need to know about their backgrounds, then focus on the mystery.
In general, I still like the show well enough. I’ll keep watching.
I thought the housekeeper snuck up behind Kelly and shot her in the back of the head.
I like the premise of the show enough to keep watching, but Jared is right. Michaela can’t keep getting lucky on the cases. She’s going to have to tell him sooner or later.
So, with her friend Evie…was Michaela drunk, tipsy, or the DD? I would guess if she was cleared then she wasn’t drinking, but they didn’t make that too clear.
From what I understood, it was Michaela’s birthday and Evie was supposed to be the DD. But the bartender thought Evie was cute and kept giving her free drinks, so Evie was drunker than Michaela. Michaela didn’t want to drive, but Evie said she needed her car the next day and didn’t want to take an Uber. So Michaela reluctantly agreed to drive even though she had been drinking.
But if Michaela were drunk she would have been dismissed from the force. I can’t imagine the NYPD saying, “Oh, you were .04? Not legally impaired. Here’s your badge.”
So sad to find out Evie’s mother doesn’t realize her daughter is dead. That’s probably good for mom, but how awful for dad.
That really resonated with me. My mother got dementia, and that ‘break it to her that X is dead’ situation happened over and over again. With fresh impact and upset and pain each time. Finally I started doing what that father did: lie. Dad hasn’t been around all day? He’s on a business trip, won’t be back until tomorrow.
I have a pretty clear memory of them showing the body with the bullet hole under the chin *and *mentioning that the shot was from under the chin…
Yep, that’s my understanding, too. I don’t think Michaela was drunk, but she’d definitely had some drinks.
Right?! I forgot about that until just now, but it bothered me, too! She gets reminded that she’d been cleared by the department of any wrongdoing, but how on earth is that possible in the face of a DUI??
Ugh. 
I’m confused. If (for example) she blew a .04, there’s nothing illegal about her driving, and in fact it would be an example of a properly executed designated driver situation. (The fact that they switched roles notwithstanding.) Wouldn’t it?
What does the “legal limit” mean if not “below this limit, you’re legal, it’s all good.”
We still haven’t seen the whole accident so maybe there are additional circumstances in her favor. Swerving to avoid a teenager dressed in black and wearing headphones while walking in the street?
I am liking the show enough to keep watching but I am worried it’s either going to come down to writers who don’t have any real end game in mind or a cancellation with no resolution.
Will the third episdoe be shown again this week? I wanted to watch but was simply too tired after a long, hard day at work.