White Collar

**hey** · 2012-08-24 14:22

Originally Posted by Elcura

Considering the way it played out, Neil didn't need to have a plan.

He didn't need a plan for robbing a museum? Surely you jest.

That's the point, he did the crime because he was being blackmailed and when offered the information he rejected it. He called Peter straight away who had figured out Neil was up to something and the two got over Neil's crime and their bond gets stronger (at least for 5 minutes).

Calling peter immediately does two things, both of which Niel would be an idiot to not know: 1) it gets her arrested with the information (and thus gives the information to peter), and 2) It makes Niel seem significantly less suspicious, making it easier to convince Peter that he was blackmailed, and had no choice. Refusing to take the information from her in the first place also does two important things: 1) it suggests that she was the one who broke into the Marshal's building and 2) if Peter was listening, as he was, it makes it almost impossible for him to not believe that he didn't want to do it in the first place, and only did because he didn't think he had a choice.

He didn't need to do anything as a back up plan

Backup plan? No it most likely his first and only plan.

It would've been a lot better to let it play out and maybe reference it later (or even build on it so the fallout is better). What we got was the lazy version.

I won't argue against that.

**Elcura** · 2012-08-24 14:35

Originally Posted by hey

He didn't need a plan for robbing a museum? Surely you jest.

For dealing with Peter, bad phrasing.

Originally Posted by hey

Calling peter immediately does two things, both of which Niel would be an idiot to not know: 1) it gets her arrested with the information (and thus gives the information to peter), and 2) It makes Niel seem significantly less suspicious, making it easier to convince Peter that he was blackmailed, and had no choice. Refusing to take the information from her in the first place also does two important things: 1) it suggests that she was the one who broke into the Marshal's building and 2) if Peter was listening, as he was, it makes it almost impossible for him to not believe that he didn't want to do it in the first place, and only did because he didn't think he had a choice.

You can theorize these things and I can't say you're wrong, but there's no evidence to suggest you're right either (at the time of the episode at least). What we saw was an honest progression of events ruined by a single line that caused this speculation.

We don't doubt that Neil could've know this, but the events just flowed too naturally (at least to us) for it to be a massive setup. I mean, you can always say a series of events in a TV show was really a master plan, but without the proper preparation it just falls flat.

**Saga** · 2012-08-25 02:01

Elcura, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you're getting at:

Obviously, this is a TV show. They intentionally pick the scenes, shots, dialogue, etc. all to feed certain information to the viewer. To someone with no inclination that Neil had a plan the entire episode, everything the producers chose to show us leading up to Peter's "revelation" came off as completely genuine with NO intent to deceive. The scenes, dialogue, motives, everything they chose to show us gave absolutely no hint that Neil planned any of it. For Peter's sudden realization that Neil might've planned everything to come at the very end, out of the complete fucking blue, signifies poor storytelling on the show creators' part.

Basically by asking the question, there became an issue where there wasn't one previously. Now Peter has to disprove his retarded theory instead of accepting Neil's seemingly genuine moments. Extreme example but it's kind of like the Glenn Beck thing about raping/murdering a child, etc. Obviously it's a false statement, but raising the question raises the previously nonexistent issue. Now Beck has to defend allegations of raping and murdering a girl some odd years ago purely because someone brought it up. In the show, it's just lazy.

Now, there are two ways to look at the episode. One way is that the bit at the end about Neil maybe planning everything is contrived and was a last-minute add-on. This seems the most likely. Normally, producers would drop subtle hints like a shot of Neil giving some guilty or suspicious look after other characters go offscreen during the parts Neil's accused of planning. There are no hints, it's just genuine > genuine > genuine > WHOA COULD BE BULLSHIT COULD BE REAL MAN WHO'S TO SAY

Second way to look at it, which I think is kind of cool, is that we look at the episode as ourselves, the viewers, being the ones who were conned. The whole episode we're bearing witness to Neil Caffrey's true con-artist potential. The viewer's meant to be blindsided, as Peter was. Kind of cool to think about, but totally out of the usual realm of possibility for this show's level of conveyance. The show's not really shy about showing the viewer a telling glance or look or having a character drop a giveaway line. They don't really do "subtle" very well. That's why I think we chalk up that part at the end with Peter to poor storytelling.

**kuronosan** · 2012-08-25 09:18

I just think calling it Aizen-level planning is a little bit of a stretch when all scenes indicate otherwise.

**Elcura** · 2012-08-25 09:37

While you're all certainly free to think and feel what you will about the episode, I think I will conclude my part in it by just saying that this is like the indoctrination theory for ME3. A rushed, shoddy ending is being analyzed and broken down to make it more interesting than it actually is.

**hey** · 2012-08-25 09:45

everything the producers chose to show us leading up to Peter's "revelation" came off as completely genuine with NO intent to deceive.

It did not seem that way to me.

**Thunder** · 2012-08-25 12:10

I thought Neil was being Neil the entire time. Ergo, lying to Peter. His wants have changed from unlimited money to finding out who his father was right before leaving to the island and just like he conned peter when he [neil] wanted/had the treasure... he's going to con peter again while he wants to know who his father is.

And why is this being analyzed so hard and Peter's decision to make Neil run from the FBI isn't? Isn't that kind of the same thing? Peter's character (imo) went from lawfully good to operating in grey areas with NO development (unless I missed it?) of that side of him inbetween. He was always against Neil doing sketchy things to catch criminals and would actively make their lives harder in order to things "right"

**Elcura** · 2012-08-25 12:29

Originally Posted by Thunder

And why is this being analyzed so hard and Peter's decision to make Neil run from the FBI isn't? Isn't that kind of the same thing? Peter's character (imo) went from lawfully good to operating in grey areas with NO development (unless I missed it?) of that side of him inbetween. He was always against Neil doing sketchy things to catch criminals and would actively make their lives harder in order to things "right"

The difference is they built that up and Peter's decision was explained over several episodes.

This is one line with no prior evidence in the episode other than people wishing for more (on both sides).

**Thunder** · 2012-08-25 14:05

Prior evidence, to me, was that Neil has already lied to peter pretty good during that nazi treasure thing. I still think he's a conman and is battling with giving a shit about peter

I dunno, I think the writers wanted to create two sides, those who think Neil has changed and those who think he hasn't and I think they succeeded at that

And I didn't even think it was that bad of a line. Peter would be an absolute moron if he didn't consider Neil lying to him because the whole episode (to me) was kind of shitty since the entire, "you wouldn't believe me if I told you I was being blackmailed ; ; so I stole a valuable piece of art from under your nose and gave it to that chick.. but I called you after I did it so it's all k" was retarded as Neil had pretty much two decisions to make after being blackmailed and he chose the more reckless one. In my opinion, anyway

**Elcura** · 2012-08-25 14:09

Originally Posted by Thunder

I dunno, I think the writers wanted to create two sides, those who think Neil has changed and those who think he hasn't and I think they succeeded at that

Well if you're looking for unintended consequences of (bad) writing this I can agree on. I completely doubt they had any of this planned, since the people who want to believe in Neil are basically told not to without any evidence to support a maybe. That lingering doubt is potent if coupled with the events of the episode.

The setup was indeed pretty lame to begin with, all I can say is that last line is the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of suspension of disbelief. It's a means to an end I hope.

**hey** · 2012-08-25 21:37

I completely doubt they had any of this planned, since the people who want to believe in Neil are basically told not to without any evidence to support a maybe.

I'm still not sure why you think there's no evidence. Niel has repeatedly shown us that he will do whatever he needs to to get what he wants. Whether that is a boat load of treasure, to be back in new york with peter, or to find out who sam is. He always does what what he needs to. That is evidence.

**Elcura** · 2012-08-26 04:56

Originally Posted by hey

I'm still not sure why you think there's no evidence. Niel has repeatedly shown us that he will do whatever he needs to to get what he wants. Whether that is a boat load of treasure, to be back in new york with peter, or to find out who sam is. He always does what what he needs to. That is evidence.

That's not evidence. Do you actually know what I'm talking about here? I'm talking about proof in THIS episode about what Neil did, reasonable doubt about a character means nothing when it comes to taking action. What you think a person is capable of is not evidence because no matter how much you analyze Neil and Peter (or think you know about them) you can't conclusively say whether Neil was innocent or conning Peter.

Again, you CANNOT say whether it was one or the other. With evidence, you could.

**Tajin** · 2012-09-06 22:52

Next weeks episode would've been the bomb if they had kept Neil and Peter on good terms this season, but they already blew that; as for this week's ep. a bit of a stretch the way Alex came back, but then again the whole show idea is a huge stretch

**Laugana** · 2012-09-07 11:27

Stupid spoiler rules

Spoiler: show

**Tajin** · 2012-09-12 00:25

Ok that wasnt near as epic as I expected. Here is hoping they stop the power of friendship bullshit all the way to the last episode at least

**kuronosan** · 2012-09-12 15:17

Calling it now:

Spoiler: show

**Iono** · 2012-09-12 15:25

Originally Posted by kuronosan

Calling it now:

Spoiler: show

Thought someone called that already? I've been pretty much guessing the same too.

Question for people who know art

Spoiler: show

**Laugana** · 2012-09-12 15:35

Originally Posted by Iono

Thought someone called that already? I've been pretty much guessing the same too.

Question for people who know art

Spoiler: show

He was pretending to be Banksy.

Spoiler: show

**kuronosan** · 2012-09-12 15:38

Regarding the product placement, my wife pointed it out first and we laughed hysterically.

"Need to Parallel Park? Use the automated parking system. Ford Taurus. Kachow!"

**Iono** · 2012-09-12 15:43

yea, not to mention the horoscope :/

Thread: White Collar

Thread Tools

Re: White Collar

Re: White Collar

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads