Maybe I'm being a Monday Morning QB too then, because that doesn't actually explain what happened in the movie itself. The Syndicates' plot was only uncovered because of Mulder and Scully...who weren't still supposed to be investigating those kinds of cases. Had M&S actually been intimidated into simply following orders like The Syndicate was TRYING to do to them, simply blowing up the building to get rid of the evidence would have worked because no one else would have known, or bothered, to look for anything like that because of what was written on the toe tags after the explosion.
I would think that the Syndicate would have known by then that Mulder doesn't follow orders, and that he would continue to investigate cases like this, even if he wasn't supposed to. If there's one thing they should know about Mulder, it's that he's going to stick his nose in their business. The X-Files had been shut down before, at the end of Season 1, which didn't stop him. As you later said, they thought wrong about the bomb destroying the evidence. But that's what makes it so hard to swallow. These guys are essentially running the world and the fate of mankind, and they can't destroy a few bodies? They can't explain it away without blowing up a building? They've covered up much larger things than 4 dead bodies, and didn't have to engineer such a public display to do it. That's my difficulty with the whole thing. It's not just that I dislike their plan because in hindsight it didn't go so well, it's that it seems so out of character for them. It feels like something specifically written for a blockbuster movie (and it WAS a cool opening, I'll never deny that), as opposed to something that naturally fits in with the X-Files mytharc.
As far as any over-engineering goes, it's not like The Syndicate should be regarded as all that smart anyway considering they were the ego maniacs who apparently thought they could make a deal with the devil, lie to everyone about what they were doing, and actually think no one would ever see through their lies resulting in it blowing up in their faces...also not the result they wanted. They apparently thought the bomb would be enough to incinerate all of the evidence. They obviously thought wrong.
Maybe you're right, maybe not. The way the offices in question were described was as a provisional medical quarantine office, which would seem like a good place for the bodies to be taken considering what they were infected by, but since killing anyone who The Syndicate thought might expose their plans never seemed to concern them that much, why the rest was is hard to accept as a possibility seems to be unnecessary over reaching.
I understand how much resolve the Syndicate has. I know they'll kill, capture or ruin anybody they feel like to protect their secrets. I'm not hung up on the fact they would do such things, but rather how they did it in this instance. I'm not surprised they'd kill innocent people, but I'm surprised they'd do it seemingly for the hell of it. They didn't blow up a building, or any other such public display, to cover other things up in the past that I can recall. Or at least not SO publicly. They'd just gun people down in the street, abduct them in broad daylight, whatever, they're shadowy nature protected them. They tried to cover up an event that happened in a small Texas town, that few people knew about, by blowing up a building in front of the entire world. Their cover up drew more attention to what they were trying to hide than the actual event did. If it was done for the sake of throwing off the families, as the OP believes, why this? The cover story already in place had the perfect death and means of making the bodies unrecognizable built right in. They die of huntavirus, and here's their ashes, for safety's sake we cremated them for you. No charge! The families would have less questions than them dying in a terrorist attack. Why weren't our family members evacuated? Why were they left there to die? Isn't this cover up in our town, in addition to a bombing that just so happened to kill only our loved ones and one of the responders kind of strange? If it was done to destroy the bodies, why put them in a building and blow the building up? Why not just destroy the bodies and send the fake remains back to the family? Why blow up a building in front of the whole world to destroy 4 bodies? As for the FEMA people, my point was that if they didn't put the bodies in the presence of FEMA people, there wouldn't be any need to kill FEMA people. Why take them to a FEMA setup if you'll just have to kill them later? Why not take them to one of their facilities where we've seen them holding aliens in the past?
This only goes to show how ambiguous the whole thing was. The OP was arguing that the bodies might not even have been in the building, that the whole thing was just a plan to throw off the families. And that they didn't want to destroy the bodies, keep them for testing. You seem to think, or at least you're throwing it out there, that they were trying, but failed, to destroy the bodies. And then you have me who can't make heads or tails out of any of it. It would seem that maybe they didn't do a very good job of explaining what happened, and since this is the setup for the rest of the movie, it's not a very good thing to be ambiguous about. I can deal with the end of a movie not being completely explained, to leave it open ended and let the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. But if you do it with the beginning of a movie, the setup, it makes the rest of it murky. To me at least. It puts me in a frame of mind of "why is any of this happening?". For example, I'm not caught up on who or what was flying the spaceship at the end. The rest of the movie doesn't rely on understanding that. It might raise some questions, but I had a few vague ideas of what might be going on, and that's good enough for me. I have a harder time doing that with the setup though.
Regarding the one soldier, it's not like the evidence was sitting in the city morgue. It was in a highly guarded facility where that one soldier wasn't the only soldier there, as we saw in that sequence of the movie.
I definately need to do a re-watch, mainly all I remembered about the sequence was Mulder BS-ing the guard. Walter Reed is pretty secure by our standards (as you said, the city morgue it ain't) but it clearly wasn't secure enough for this. I don't think it's very secure by Syndicate standards, especially considering the seriousness of what was being guarded. Mulder didn't even have to fake credentials like he did to get into the Syndicate base in E.B.E. You'd at least think they'd have somebody there in the know (specifically in the know about Mulder) to guard the place, and not just a soldier. Regardless of how many soldiers were there, if they're going to go through all the trouble of blowing up the building, you'd think they'd go through as much trouble to get rid of, or hide, the evidence.
Like SAC Darius Michaud perhaps? He fits your criteria and still accounts for The Syndicate believing everything else makes some sort of sense in their plan.
Not really what I was getting at, but It did occur to me that maybe Michaud wasn't what he seemed. But before I draw any conclusions, let me ask you something. At first I took it all at face value, that Michaud's role was to simply lead a wild goose chase in the Federal building while the actual bomb went off. But that just begs the question of why call in the bomb threat in the first place? As far as the plan goes, it has nothing to do with it. If nobody calls in the threat, nobody is looking for the bomb, in either building. Maybe a script move to have M&S present for the opening scene, which I understand. But do you think maybe Michaud called it in? Instead of leading a wild goose chase that was part of the plan, he was ACTUALLY looking for the bomb? It's not the impression I got while watching, but it became a possibility the more I thought about it. In this scenario Michaud would have still only have been a small part in the plan (since he didn't even know the actual building the bomb would be in), and can't be the cause for all of its problems, but it would answer a few questions. And make him a cooler character, if that's even possible. Terry nailed it, for such a small part. He couldn't just grab a bunch of FBI people and go looking for a bomb on a hunch without admitting to knowledge of a bomb plot, but if he engineered the bomb threat, he could "respond" to it. His staying with the bomb could then be seen as not just ensuring the plan went off, but just realizing he'd tipped his hand to the Syndicate and was going to die anyway, so he just went down with the bomb in the cleared building, keeping everybody else out. A sacrifice for good instead of a senseless death for what he believed in, or what he thought he was believing in. As I'm pretty sure somebody (either Kurtzweil or WMM) put it out there that Michaud was a patriot, and that his patriotism had been used to fool him. I took this at face value to mean that Michaud was still a clueless accomplice up until his death, but maybe he had second thoughts and was actually trying to stop it. Was any of this an impression you got or am I just (too late) overthinking it? It still only explains Michaud's actions (or rather, offers a different one, the hoodwinked explanation still holds water), and maybe explain why Kurtzweil approached Mulder. Maybe he was Michaud's fail safe plan, his "if anything happens to me, tell Mulder the truth" guy. It wouldn't make the overall plan seem any smarter to me though, as it was still blowing up an entire building for the sake of covering up 4 deaths. What I was getting at with my original statement was that maybe somebody within the Syndicate, while still working under the disguise of trying to cover this up, was actually trying to tip off Mulder at the same time.
"Got a cigarette Nels?"
reply
share
WhoToTrust
11 years ago
Maybe I'm being a Monday Morning QB too then, because that doesn't actually explain what happened in the movie itself. The Syndicates' plot was only uncovered because of Mulder and Scully...who weren't still supposed to be investigating those kinds of cases. Had M&S actually been intimidated into simply following orders like The Syndicate was TRYING to do to them, simply blowing up the building to get rid of the evidence would have worked because no one else would have known, or bothered, to look for anything like that because of what was written on the toe tags after the explosion.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I would think that the Syndicate would have known by then that Mulder doesn't follow orders, and that he would continue to investigate cases like this, even if he wasn't supposed to. If there's one thing they should know about Mulder, it's that he's going to stick his nose in their business. The X-Files had been shut down before, at the end of Season 1, which didn't stop him. As you later said, they thought wrong about the bomb destroying the evidence. But that's what makes it so hard to swallow. These guys are essentially running the world and the fate of mankind, and they can't destroy a few bodies? They can't explain it away without blowing up a building? They've covered up much larger things than 4 dead bodies, and didn't have to engineer such a public display to do it. That's my difficulty with the whole thing. It's not just that I dislike their plan because in hindsight it didn't go so well, it's that it seems so out of character for them. It feels like something specifically written for a blockbuster movie (and it WAS a cool opening, I'll never deny that), as opposed to something that naturally fits in with the X-Files mytharc.
And yet there was Mulder being assigned to the Dallas detail anyway. Those guys are essentially running the world and the fate of mankind, and yet knowing what they know about Mulder, they allow him to be assigned there anyway? If they can make one such mistake, why not more? They'd already proven themselves to have a long history of making bad decisions based on poor forethought anyway. As I've proposed later though, maybe M&S were tipped off by someone in the conspiracy who felt the truth needed to be exposed.
As far as any over-engineering goes, it's not like The Syndicate should be regarded as all that smart anyway considering they were the ego maniacs who apparently thought they could make a deal with the devil, lie to everyone about what they were doing, and actually think no one would ever see through their lies resulting in it blowing up in their faces...also not the result they wanted. They apparently thought the bomb would be enough to incinerate all of the evidence. They obviously thought wrong.
Maybe you're right, maybe not. The way the offices in question were described was as a provisional medical quarantine office, which would seem like a good place for the bodies to be taken considering what they were infected by, but since killing anyone who The Syndicate thought might expose their plans never seemed to concern them that much, why the rest was is hard to accept as a possibility seems to be unnecessary over reaching.by AdmiralTugBenson - I understand how much resolve the Syndicate has. I know they'll kill, capture or ruin anybody they feel like to protect their secrets. I'm not hung up on the fact they would do such things, but rather how they did it in this instance. I'm not surprised they'd kill innocent people, but I'm surprised they'd do it seemingly for the hell of it. They didn't blow up a building, or any other such public display, to cover other things up. They'd just gun people down in the street, abduct them in broad daylight, whatever, they're shadowy nature protected them. They tried to cover up an event that happened in a small Texas town, that few people knew about, by blowing up a building in front of the entire world. Their cover up drew more attention to what they were trying to hide than the actual event did. If it was done for the sake of throwing off the families, as the OP believes, why this? The cover story already in place had the perfect death and means of making the bodies unrecognizable built right in. They die of huntavirus, and here's their ashes, for safety's sake we cremated them for you. No charge! The families would have less questions than them dying in a terrorist attack. Why weren't our family members evacuated? Why were they left there to die? Isn't this cover up in our town, in addition to a bombing that just so happened to kill only our loved ones and one of the responders kind of strange? If it was done to destroy the bodies, why put them in a building and blow the building up? Why not just destroy the bodies and send the fake remains back to the family? Why blow up a building in front of the whole world to destroy 4 bodies? As for the FEMA people, my point was that if they didn't put the bodies in the presence of FEMA people, there wouldn't be any need to kill FEMA people. Why take them to a FEMA setup if you'll just have to kill them later? Why not take them to one of their facilities where we've seen them holding aliens in the past?
This only goes to show how ambiguous the whole thing was. The OP was arguing that the bodies might not even have been in the building, that the whole thing was just a plan to throw off the families. And that they didn't want to destroy the bodies, keep them for testing. You seem to think, or at least you're throwing it out there, that they were trying, but failed, to destroy the bodies. And then you have me who can't make heads or tails out of any of it. It would seem that maybe they didn't do a very good job of explaining what happened, and since this is the setup for the rest of the movie, it's not a very good thing to be ambiguous about. I can deal with the end of a movie not being completely explained, to leave it open ended and let the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. But if you do it with the beginning of a movie, the setup, it makes the rest of it murky. To me at least. It puts me in a frame of mind of "why is any of this happening?". For example, I'm not caught up on who or what was flying the spaceship at the end. The rest of the movie doesn't rely on understanding that. It might raise some questions, but I had a few vague ideas of what might be going on, and that's good enough for me. I have a harder time doing that with the setup though.
The thing is, you and the OP have been basing all of your questions on the idea that the building being blown up was done solely to get rid of the bodies, but that doesn't explain why a bomb threat was called into a different building, especially one that was so obviously supposed to be mirroring the Oklahoma city bombing that was ultimately pinned on a "mad" bomber. The bomb threat was the main reason the FBI was there after all, and bomb threats happen all too often. And how long had it already been that the bomb threat had been called in? Long enough for Mulder and Scully to get there from Washington at least. In that light, it could be viewed that given where the first incident had taken place, The Syndicate simply decided it could be a two birds with one stone situation.
Regarding the one soldier, it's not like the evidence was sitting in the city morgue. It was in a highly guarded facility where that one soldier wasn't the only soldier there, as we saw in that sequence of the movie.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I definately need to do a re-watch, mainly all I remembered about the sequence was Mulder BS-ing the guard. Walter Reed is pretty secure by our standards (as you said, the city morgue it ain't) but it clearly wasn't secure enough for this. I don't think it's very secure by Syndicate standards, especially considering the seriousness of what was being guarded. Mulder didn't even have to fake credentials like he did to get into the Syndicate base in E.B.E. You'd at least think they'd have somebody there in the know (specifically in the know about Mulder) to guard the place, and not just a soldier. Regardless of how many soldiers were there, if they're going to go through all the trouble of blowing up the building, you'd think they'd go through as much trouble to get rid of, or hide, the evidence.
Sometimes though, even some who consider themselves as "in the know" don't know as much as they think they do. Those types are more about doing what they're told, and not necessarily thinking for themselves in the moment. Those people ARE the droids you're looking for.
Like SAC Darius Michaud perhaps? He fits your criteria and still accounts for The Syndicate believing everything else makes some sort of sense in their plan. by AdmiralTugBenson - Not really what I was getting at, but It did occur to me that maybe Michaud wasn't what he seemed. But before I draw any conclusions, let me ask you something. At first I took it all at face value, that Michaud's role was to simply lead a wild goose chase in the Federal building while the actual bomb went off. But that just begs the question of why call in the bomb threat in the first place? As far as the plan goes, it has nothing to do with it. If nobody calls in the threat, nobody is looking for the bomb, in either building. Maybe a script move to have M&S present for the opening scene, which I understand. But do you think maybe Michaud called it in? Instead of leading a wild goose chase that was part of the plan, he was ACTUALLY looking for the bomb? It's not the impression I got while watching, but it became a possibility the more I thought about it. In this scenario Michaud would have still only have been a small part in the plan (since he didn't even know the actual building the bomb would be in), and can't be the cause for all of its problems, but it would answer a few questions. And make him a cooler character, if that's even possible. Terry nailed it, for such a small part. He couldn't just grab a bunch of FBI people and go looking for a bomb on a hunch without admitting to knowledge of a bomb plot, but if he engineered the bomb threat, he could "respond" to it. His staying with the bomb could then be seen as not just ensuring the plan went off, but just realizing he'd tipped his hand to the Syndicate and was going to die anyway, so he just went down with the bomb in the cleared building, keeping everybody else out. A sacrifice for good instead of a senseless death for what he believed in, or what he thought he was believing in. As I'm pretty sure somebody (either Kurtzweil or WMM) put it out there that Michaud was a patriot, and that his patriotism had been used to fool him. I took this at face value to mean that Michaud was still a clueless accomplice up until his death, but maybe he had second thoughts and was actually trying to stop it. Was any of this an impression you got or am I just (too late) overthinking it? It still only explains Michaud's actions (or rather, offers a different one, the hoodwinked explanation still holds water), and maybe explain why Kurtzweil approached Mulder. Maybe he was Michaud's fail safe plan, his "if anything happens to me, tell Mulder the truth" guy. It wouldn't make the overall plan seem any smarter to me though, as it was still blowing up an entire building for the sake of covering up 4 deaths. What I was getting at with my original statement was that maybe somebody within the Syndicate, while still working under the disguise of trying to cover this up, was actually trying to tip off Mulder at the same time.
All a person can do is speculate, but it DOES have to be noted that Michaud is actually shown watching Mulder and Scully searching the wrong (or right, depending on how you look at it) building and not doing anything about it. Speculate away about what that may mean regarding those who may have been privy to what was happening and trying to tip someone off who could possibly expose the truth.
reply
share
AdmiralTugBenson
11 years ago
And yet there was Mulder being assigned to the Dallas detail anyway. Those guys are essentially running the world and the fate of mankind, and yet knowing what they know about Mulder, they allow him to be assigned there anyway? If they can make one such mistake, why not more? They'd already proven themselves to have a long history of making bad decisions based on poor forethought anyway. As I've proposed later though, maybe M&S were tipped off by someone in the conspiracy who felt the truth needed to be exposed.
I don't know if the Syndicate allowed them to be there, or even knew they would be there. I know they keep tabs on Mulder, but I don't know that they know where he is 24/7, I figured it was just coincidence they were there, just like coincidence he found the bomb. Really I just chalked up their being there, and possibly the bomb threat, to it being "their movie". If you don't put them in that scene, where do you put them in? We've had the prehistoric Texas scene, the present day Texas scene, and now the Dallas scene. If you don't put them in there, it's a long time before the main character actually show up. I think they kind of had to put them there for script purposes. But as far as making it fit in the movie, I just figured the bomb threat was another bonehead part of the plan, or later on that maybe it was part of Michaud's possible good guy plan. I don't think M&S were tipped off though, Mulder didn't seem to act that way. He was kind of in his "this is stupid busy work" type of mood from the best I could tell. Not really looking for anything. I don't recall any dialog that explained why they were on that other building that had to do with anything other than hunches and boredom.
The thing is, you and the OP have been basing all of your questions on the idea that the building being blown up was done solely to get rid of the bodies, but that doesn't explain why a bomb threat was called into a different building, especially one that was so obviously supposed to be mirroring the Oklahoma city bombing that was ultimately pinned on a "mad" bomber. The bomb threat was the main reason the FBI was there after all, and bomb threats happen all too often. And how long had it already been that the bomb threat had been called in? Long enough for Mulder and Scully to get there from Washington at least. In that light, it could be viewed that given where the first incident had taken place, The Syndicate simply decided it could be a two birds with one stone situation.
I don't understand. You mean they might have wanted blow up that building anyway, but put the bodies in there to kill two birds with one stone? Or that they wanted to kill M&S. If it's the latter I think, just like getting rid of the bodies, they could have done it much easier than set this whole thing up. And they wouldn't have known Mulder would wander over to another building out of boredom or a hunch. They could have killed him many times already anyway. But they always seem to be changing their minds on whether he should live or die, and I know from some spoilers I read that it's a complicated situation. Still though, no sense in blowing up a building over it.
Sometimes though, even some who consider themselves as "in the know" don't know as much as they think they do. Those types are more about doing what they're told, and not necessarily thinking for themselves in the moment. Those people ARE the droids you're looking for.
I'm not talking about somebody "considering" themselves in the know, I'm talking about somebody actually in the know. Who knows what they're guarding, who knows who Mulder is and won't be BS'd into letting him by. A syndicate member, one of their henchmen, etc. Somebody in on it, not a soldier just doing his job. Have it in their possession at one of their secure locations and not Walter Reed.
All a person can do is speculate, but it DOES have to be noted that Michaud is actually shown watching Mulder and Scully searching the wrong (or right, depending on how you look at it) building and not doing anything about it. Speculate away about what that may mean regarding those who may have been privy to what was happening and trying to tip someone off who could possibly expose the truth.
I remember that, but I just figured that either way Michaud was going, he wasn't too concerned with what Mulder and Scully were doing over there. He had more pressing matters on his mind. Either he knew that building was going to blow, but was probably confident that Mulder wouldn't blind luck his way upon the bomb in the vending machine. Or if he was trying to stop it, probably wasn't concerned with their screwing around over there, he had plenty of people and dogs with him searching the building he thought it was really in, and they were coming up empty anyway.
"Got a cigarette Nels?"
reply
share
WhoToTrust
11 years ago
And yet there was Mulder being assigned to the Dallas detail anyway. Those guys are essentially running the world and the fate of mankind, and yet knowing what they know about Mulder, they allow him to be assigned there anyway? If they can make one such mistake, why not more? They'd already proven themselves to have a long history of making bad decisions based on poor forethought anyway. As I've proposed later though, maybe M&S were tipped off by someone in the conspiracy who felt the truth needed to be exposed.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I don't know if the Syndicate allowed them to be there, or even knew they would be there. I know they keep tabs on Mulder, but I don't know that they know where he is 24/7, I figured it was just coincidence they were there, just like coincidence he found the bomb. Really I just chalked up their being there, and possibly the bomb threat, to it being "their movie". If you don't put them in that scene, where do you put them in? We've had the prehistoric Texas scene, the present day Texas scene, and now the Dallas scene. If you don't put them in there, it's a long time before the main character actually show up. I think they kind of had to put them there for script purposes. But as far as making it fit in the movie, I just figured the bomb threat was another bonehead part of the plan, or later on that maybe it was part of Michaud's possible good guy plan. I don't think M&S were tipped off though, Mulder didn't seem to act that way. He was kind of in his "this is stupid busy work" type of mood from the best I could tell. Not really looking for anything. I don't recall any dialog that explained why they were on that other building that had to do with anything other than hunches and boredom.
If you're going to start basing the reasoning you're using to back up your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid on your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid, then why are we even discussing it?
I wasn't saying that M&S had been tipped off from the very the beginning. I was suggesting it had been the plan of someone to tip them off at some point, based on YOUR premise that Michaud and Kurtzweil had been working together since one of them (Michaud most likely) learned of the bomb threat and what was going to be piggy-backed along with it.
The thing is, you and the OP have been basing all of your questions on the idea that the building being blown up was done solely to get rid of the bodies, but that doesn't explain why a bomb threat was called into a different building, especially one that was so obviously supposed to be mirroring the Oklahoma city bombing that was ultimately pinned on a "mad" bomber. The bomb threat was the main reason the FBI was there after all, and bomb threats happen all too often. And how long had it already been that the bomb threat had been called in? Long enough for Mulder and Scully to get there from Washington at least. In that light, it could be viewed that given where the first incident had taken place, The Syndicate simply decided it could be a two birds with one stone situation. by AdmiralTugBenson - I don't understand. You mean they might have wanted blow up that building anyway, but put the bodies in there to kill two birds with one stone? Or that they wanted to kill M&S. If it's the latter I think, just like getting rid of the bodies, they could have done it much easier than set this whole thing up. And they wouldn't have known Mulder would wander over to another building out of boredom or a hunch. They could have killed him many times already anyway. But they always seem to be changing their minds on whether he should live or die, and I know from some spoilers I read that it's a complicated situation. Still though, no sense in blowing up a building over it.
That's not what I said. I said that the government (and as a result, The Syndicate) had obviously known about the bomb threat for quite awhile...at least long enough for Mulder and Scully to get from Washington to Dallas anyway...and that they could have viewed such a bomb threat as an 'opportunity'.
Sometimes though, even some who consider themselves as "in the know" don't know as much as they think they do. Those types are more about doing what they're told, and not necessarily thinking for themselves in the moment. Those people ARE the droids you're looking for. []
by AdmiralTugBenson - I'm not talking about somebody "considering" themselves in the know, I'm talking about somebody actually in the know. Who knows what they're guarding, who knows who Mulder is and won't be BS'd into letting him by. A syndicate member, one of their henchmen, etc. Somebody in on it, not a soldier just doing his job. Have it in their possession at one of their secure locations and not Walter Reed.
Fair enough. Again though, The Syndicate is still comprised of people, people who'd proven themselves not as smart as they thought they were. Yes, it would have been in their best interests to have one of their own people guarding those bodies, but whether they were just arrogant enough to think no one would be onto what they were trying to do as fast as M&S (who had at that point been tipped off), or whether it was a simple oversight on their part that didn't make that happen, it simply didn't happen.
All a person can do is speculate, but it DOES have to be noted that Michaud is actually shown watching Mulder and Scully searching the wrong (or right, depending on how you look at it) building and not doing anything about it. Speculate away about what that may mean regarding those who may have been privy to what was happening and trying to tip someone off who could possibly expose the truth.by AdmiralTugBenson - I remember that, but I just figured that either way Michaud was going, he wasn't too concerned with what Mulder and Scully were doing over there. He had more pressing matters on his mind. Either he knew that building was going to blow, but was probably confident that Mulder wouldn't blind luck his way upon the bomb in the vending machine. Or if he was trying to stop it, probably wasn't concerned with their screwing around over there, he had plenty of people and dogs with him searching the building he thought it was really in, and they were coming up empty anyway.
All of which don't address the fact that Michaud as the SAC (AND as someone who obviously knew about what the bomb was supposed to be covering up) knew M$S were at the wrong/right building but didn't call them off or let anyone know that he knew they were actually at the wrong/right building.
reply
share
AdmiralTugBenson
11 years ago
If you're going to start basing the reasoning you're using to back up your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid on your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid, then why are we even discussing it?
Well, why are we discussing any of this? I didn't think it was a debate, I thought it was fun. I've tried bouncing a few theories off you, asked some questions, questioned some of the things you said, for the sake of understanding the beginning of the film better. I thought we were having fun and talkin' a little X-Files, exchanging ideas. Since I'm currently not convinced the plan was smart (though you have provided some food for thought) I have tended to use words like stupid and boneheaded to refer to the plot. I'm not
telling anybody it was stupid, or that the movie is stupid (I have said many times I enjoyed it), just saying I thought their plan was stupid. You yourself told me I shouldn't consider them or their plan "all that smart", it's the same thing, although more polite. I threw out there what I thought might have been a real world reason for M&S being there, and reconciled it with the film world. As a different perspective on it, for fun. I purposely used phrases like "I just figured", "I don't know", "I think" and "my opinion" throughout all my posts to make clear that I wasn't trying to say any of this was concrete. If I slipped up an didn't do that during some statements (although I tried to make it a point to when I was putting out an idea) I figured it would still come across as opinion. It appears I'm not going to be swayed completely, not because I'm not listening to what you're saying, but it would appear that there's not enough information provided in the movie itself to get a complete grasp on what they were thinking, leaving it up to speculation why they did what they did. Maybe, (pun time) The Truth Isn't Out There, or at least the truth I was looking for when I opened the thread. It doesn't seem as dumb after some discussion, but I'm not yet seeing the need for it all. As you said in a previous post, it's all perspective, that's just my perspective. Maybe when I start my own Syndicate I can do things the Admiral Tug Benson way. If you'd rather not discuss it with me then we can move on. I'd assumed this discussion was approaching a natural end anyway, we've dissected this one part of the movie about as much as it can be.
That's not what I said. I said that the government (and as a result, The Syndicate) had obviously known about the bomb threat for quite awhile...at least long enough for Mulder and Scully to get from Washington to Dallas anyway...and that they could have viewed such a bomb threat as an 'opportunity'.
That's why I asked it as a question and prefaced it with: "I don't understand". I actually didn't understand what you were saying, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Turns out you didn't mean either of the things I thought you were saying, so my fault.
All of which don't address the fact that Michaud as the SAC (AND as someone who obviously knew about what the bomb was supposed to be covering up) knew M$S were at the wrong/right building but didn't call them off or let anyone know that he knew they were actually at the wrong/right building.
All of it was a theory that I understand was not really supported by anything in the film, I just thought it would be cool. I asked you what you thought about all of that earlier, because I was curious if you, as somebody I see active on the Series board, knew of anything that might back up or shoot it down. I wasn't even sure it was "my" theory, I figured somebody else probably threw that out there at one point in the 15 years this movie has existed. I did think I addressed what you were saying though, once again just as a possibility. But maybe I didn't do a good job of saying what I was thinking. We don't know what's going through his head or anything when he looks across at the other building. And to add the "real world perspective" again, maybe it was just a good shot, maybe it's not supposed to have any meaning other than to show that Mulder and Scully are on top of a different building. Like I said, I thought it COULD fit because Michaud had a lot on his mind (I would assume, given his situation, and also given the way Terry played him so tired/disturbed/somber) and wasn't too concerned with what two agents were doing. Two agents who don't have a sparkling reputation anyway, especially Mulder. He has men and dogs with him, M&S would have been handy I'm sure, but it's not like he was all alone over there. If he was a good guy I thought maybe he was thinking "It's just as well that they're over there so they don't get killed by my mistake" or "I don't need Spooky over here telling me the Loch Ness Monster planted this bomb, so keep ya butt over there while I find the bomb... and kiss her already". Or if Michaud was bad he was maybe thinking, "Good, they're going to get killed, he'll never find that bomb anyway. It's not like he's going to suddenly go get a soda during a bomb search" or "If I pull them off that building then it blows I'll look bad and possibly be exposed". I don't know what he was thinking, you put it out there all we could do is speculate and noted that look, to which I put out some possibilities that could fit the theory. I never said any of this was concrete, as I said, I didn't even get that impression while watching the movie, just some "what if" thing I came up with when thinking about the movie later that I thought would have been neat. I figured there was something concrete to dispute it. Seeing as how there's nothing concrete to back it up either, I don't consider it canon or anything, just a little fan fiction in my brain.
"Got a cigarette Nels?"
reply
share
WhoToTrust
11 years ago
If you're going to start basing the reasoning you're using to back up your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid on your opinion that the inclusion of the bombing in the movie was stupid, then why are we even discussing it?
by AdmiralTugBenson - Well, why are we discussing any of this? I didn't think it was a debate, I thought it was fun. I've tried bouncing a few theories off you, asked some questions, questioned some of the things you said, for the sake of understanding the beginning of the film better. I thought we were having fun and talkin' a little X-Files, exchanging ideas. Since I'm currently not convinced the plan was smart (though you have provided some food for thought) I have tended to use words like stupid and boneheaded to refer to the plot. I'm not telling anybody it was stupid, or that the movie is stupid (I have said many times I enjoyed it), just saying I thought their plan was stupid. You yourself told me I shouldn't consider them or their plan "all that smart", it's the same thing, although more polite.
Actually, I just said that The Syndicate could not be viewed as all that smart overall. You are the only person who has been suggesting what you have about the inclusion of the bomb in the plot.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I threw out there what I thought might have been a real world reason for M&S being there, and reconciled it with the film world. As a different perspective on it, for fun. I purposely used phrases like "I just figured", "I don't know", "I think" and "my opinion" throughout all my posts to make clear that I wasn't trying to say any of this was concrete. If I slipped up an didn't do that during some statements (although I tried to make it a point to when I was putting out an idea) I figured it would still come across as opinion. It appears I'm not going to be swayed completely, not because I'm not listening to what you're saying, but it would appear that there's not enough information provided in the movie itself to get a complete grasp on what they were thinking, leaving it up to speculation why they did what they did. Maybe, (pun time) The Truth Isn't Out There, or at least the truth I was looking for when I opened the thread. It doesn't seem as dumb after some discussion, but I'm not yet seeing the need for it all. As you said in a previous post, it's all perspective, that's just my perspective. Maybe when I start my own Syndicate I can do things the Admiral Tug Benson way. If you'd rather not discuss it with me then we can move on. I'd assumed this discussion was approaching a natural end anyway, we've dissected this one part of the movie about as much as it can be.
Probably for the best anyway. While it's true that your comments in the discussion could be viewed as you suggest, they could also be viewed as you having already formed your opinion and no possible alternatives suggested to the contrary are going to make any difference anyway. You and I have been there before after all.
That's not what I said. I said that the government (and as a result, The Syndicate) had obviously known about the bomb threat for quite awhile...at least long enough for Mulder and Scully to get from Washington to Dallas anyway...and that they could have viewed such a bomb threat as an 'opportunity'.by AdmiralTugBenson - That's why I asked it as a question and prefaced it with: "I don't understand". I actually didn't understand what you were saying, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Turns out you didn't mean either of the things I thought you were saying, so my fault.
OK
All of which don't address the fact that Michaud as the SAC (AND as someone who obviously knew about what the bomb was supposed to be covering up) knew M$S were at the wrong/right building but didn't call them off or let anyone know that he knew they were actually at the wrong/right building.by AdmiralTugBenson - All of it was a theory that I understand was not really supported by anything in the film, I just thought it would be cool. I asked you what you thought about all of that earlier, because I was curious if you, as somebody I see active on the Series board, knew of anything that might back up or shoot it down. I wasn't even sure it was "my" theory, I figured somebody else probably threw that out there at one point in the 15 years this movie has existed. I did think I addressed what you were saying though, once again just as a possibility. But maybe I didn't do a good job of saying what I was thinking. We don't know what's going through his head or anything when he looks across at the other building. And to add the "real world perspective" again, maybe it was just a good shot, maybe it's not supposed to have any meaning other than to show that Mulder and Scully are on top of a different building. Like I said, I thought it COULD fit because Michaud had a lot on his mind (I would assume, given his situation, and also given the way Terry played him so tired/disturbed/somber) and wasn't too concerned with what two agents were doing. Two agents who don't have a sparkling reputation anyway, especially Mulder. He has men and dogs with him, M&S would have been handy I'm sure, but it's not like he was all alone over there. If he was a good guy I thought maybe he was thinking "It's just as well that they're over there so they don't get killed by my mistake" or "I don't need Spooky over here telling me the Loch Ness Monster planted this bomb, so keep ya butt over there while I find the bomb... and kiss her already". Or if Michaud was bad he was maybe thinking, "Good, they're going to get killed, he'll never find that bomb anyway. It's not like he's going to suddenly go get a soda during a bomb search" or "If I pull them off that building then it blows I'll look bad and possibly be exposed". I don't know what he was thinking, you put it out there all we could do is speculate and noted that look, to which I put out some possibilities that could fit the theory. I never said any of this was concrete, as I said, I didn't even get that impression while watching the movie, just some "what if" thing I came up with when thinking about the movie later that I thought would have been neat. I figured there was something concrete to dispute it. Seeing as how there's nothing concrete to back it up either, I don't consider it canon or anything, just a little fan fiction in my brain.
The "real world perspective" comment was meant as a reference to the Oklahoma Bombing incident that had happened 3 years prior to this movie. It can't be denied after all that the end result visuals of the actual building and the building in the movie were VERY similar.
As for the rest, there seems to be no debate necessary anyway about whether Michaud was in on the plan for the bomb since he didn't even attempt to diffuse it once it became known where it was after giving an order that went against accepted protocol to leave him alone with it.
reply
share
AdmiralTugBenson
11 years ago
Actually, I just said that The Syndicate could not be viewed as all that smart overall. You are the only person who has been suggesting what you have about the inclusion of the bomb in the plot.
The details of it or the overall dissatisfaction with it? Because I'm not the only one who was scratching their head at it, I've seen other threads and the OP started this one as a response to "a lot of people posting saying they don't get why the building was destroyed". As for the details, I've just been spitballing, throwing all kinds of stuff out there for the sake of conversation.
Probably for the best anyway. While it's true that your comments in the discussion could be viewed as you suggest, they could also be viewed as you having already formed your opinion and no possible alternatives suggested to the contrary are going to make any difference anyway. You and I have been there before after all.
It also kind of seems like you might already have your mind made up about me, perhaps based on that past experience. Which is understandable, I wasn't nice to you at all on the Ancient Aliens board. I've tried to be nice for the sake of us not getting into it on the X-Files board. Not that it's taken any effort, that I've bit my tongue or anything, I have just been careful when disagreeing not to sound like an ass, as I tend to. I've enjoyed talking to you on the Series board, and you did sway me over there about Scully always being such a "stick in the mud" as I think I put it. As I said in that thread, it was nice to see you on a forum where we have common ground. I don't deny that I probably can't be swayed on this one though, because it's so open for analysis. I came in here looking for a concrete answer, something in the film somebody could point to that would make me understand, and I don't think that's there. Or maybe a CC quote or something. And to think I actually gave Scully crap for always wanting "proof"!
The "real world perspective" comment was meant as a reference to the Oklahoma Bombing incident that had happened 3 years prior to this movie. It can't be denied after all that the end result visuals of the actual building and the building in the movie were VERY similar.
I wasn't referencing your OKC comment when I said "real world perspective". I was just referencing my own comment earlier in the same post, about M&S showing up in Dallas because they hadn't been in the movie yet, and how maybe Michaud looking over was just a film making decision. Once again, just tossing it out there. Could be we're supposed to read something into it. I don't know.
As for the rest, there seems to be no debate necessary anyway about whether Michaud was in on the plan for the bomb since he didn't even attempt to diffuse it once it became known where it was after giving an order that went against accepted protocol to leave him alone with it.
I did throw it out there that maybe he just resigned himself to death because he might have thought he was doomed anyway. And with the building clear, he would be the only casualty. Maybe he didn't know how to defuse this particular bomb, or it wasn't defusable. I don't know anything about bombs or Michaud's skills with them. As you said, there's no need to debate, as there's nothing concrete to back the idea up. Just shooting the breeze.
I'll see you over on the series board though, I've gotten over my little rut and have gotten back into it. I watched too much too quick and sort of wore myself out by the time I was into Season 6. I'm in the middle of "S.R. 819" right now which I'm really into. I don't really understand all the hate I've read for Season 6. I've liked it. Maybe it's the concentration of comedic and silly episodes (I like those types) that people don't like. They don't seem as spread out as they were in previous seasons. I've also heard it was about the "Hollywood actors", but I kind of like them. What's not to like about Bruce Campbell playing a philandering demon?
"Got a cigarette Nels?"
reply
share
WhoToTrust
11 years ago
Actually, I just said that The Syndicate could not be viewed as all that smart overall. You are the only person who has been suggesting what you have about the inclusion of the bomb in the plot.
by AdmiralTugBenson - The details of it or the overall dissatisfaction with it? Because I'm not the only one who was scratching their head at it, I've seen other threads and the OP started this one as a response to "a lot of people posting saying they don't get why the building was destroyed". As for the details, I've just been spitballing, throwing all kinds of stuff out there for the sake of conversation.
Probably for the best anyway. While it's true that your comments in the discussion could be viewed as you suggest, they could also be viewed as you having already formed your opinion and no possible alternatives suggested to the contrary are going to make any difference anyway. You and I have been there before after all.
by AdmiralTugBenson - It also kind of seems like you might already have your mind made up about me, perhaps based on that past experience. Which is understandable, I wasn't nice to you at all on the Ancient Aliens board. I've tried to be nice for the sake of us not getting into it on the X-Files board. Not that it's taken any effort, that I've bit my tongue or anything, I have just been careful when disagreeing not to sound like an ass, as I tend to. I've enjoyed talking to you on the Series board, and you did sway me over there about Scully always being such a "stick in the mud" as I think I put it. As I said in that thread, it was nice to see you on a forum where we have common ground. I don't deny that I probably can't be swayed on this one though, because it's so open for analysis. I came in here looking for a concrete answer, something in the film somebody could point to that would make me understand, and I don't think that's there. Or maybe a CC quote or something. And to think I actually gave Scully crap for always wanting "proof"!
On the contrary, even AFTER experiencing the attitude I'd witnessed you directing towards those who didn't share your overall opinion on the AA message board, I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt in this thread, but it wasn't just my suggestions regarding the inclusion of the bomb that you were dismissing. As you've just said here though (and illustrated on the AA board), when you've already made up your mind that the "proof" isn't there, it's doubtful that anything presented as possible proof is going to make a difference anyway. Still, I don't consider the fact that you're here now as being the only common ground that might be of long term benefit...there's also The X-Files series itself where the aforementioned attitude also get's illustrated for what it is throughout the entire series.
The "real world perspective" comment was meant as a reference to the Oklahoma Bombing incident that had happened 3 years prior to this movie. It can't be denied after all that the end result visuals of the actual building and the building in the movie were VERY similar. by AdmiralTugBenson - I wasn't referencing your OKC comment when I said "real world perspective". I was just referencing my own comment earlier in the same post, about M&S showing up in Dallas because they hadn't been in the movie yet, and how maybe Michaud looking over was just a film making decision. Once again, just tossing it out there. Could be we're supposed to read something into it. I don't know.
So you're willing to read meaning into SOME things when doing so supports what YOU think makes sense, but not others? Got it.
As for the rest, there seems to be no debate necessary anyway about whether Michaud was in on the plan for the bomb since he didn't even attempt to diffuse it once it became known where it was after giving an order that went against accepted protocol to leave him alone with it.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I did throw it out there that maybe he just resigned himself to death because he might have thought he was doomed anyway. And with the building clear, he would be the only casualty. Maybe he didn't know how to defuse this particular bomb, or it wasn't defusable. I don't know anything about bombs or Michaud's skills with them. As you said, there's no need to debate, as there's nothing concrete to back the idea up. Just shooting the breeze.
Just seems convenient that everything you're assuming about what happened should not be viewed as in any way concrete enough to support other possibilities.
by AdmiralTugBenson - I'll see you over on the series board though, I've gotten over my little rut and have gotten back into it. I watched too much too quick and sort of wore myself out by the time I was into Season 6. I'm in the middle of "S.R. 819" right now which I'm really into. I don't really understand all the hate I've read for Season 6. I've liked it. Maybe it's the concentration of comedic and silly episodes (I like those types) that people don't like. They don't seem as spread out as they were in previous seasons. I've also heard it was about the "Hollywood actors", but I kind of like them. What's not to like about Bruce Campbell playing a philandering demon?
We seem to be a little out of sync with our current placement in the series, so I'm not sure how much specific insight I'd be able to remember about where you currently are in the series. My current rewatch has me just having watched Clyde Bruckman in season three. Like me though, there are quite a few people who've watched the entire series more than once, and since I know I've picked up additional insights each time I've rewatched all the episodes, I'm sure there will be no shortage of other Philes to suggest alternative viewpoints about the stories.
IIRC though, this is your first time through the series? If so, I won't offer any subjective reasons why I personally think some XF eps or series seasons should be especially liked or hated as I see all too often here. IMO, there are things to be learned from every ep or season if a viewer will only go into it with no preconceived personal notions about the subject matter being illustrated, and the real challenge is to just be open to it. Based on these message boards though, obviously easier said than done.
reply
share