MovieChat Forums > Shetland (2013) Discussion > Loved Series 3 until the conclusion

Loved Series 3 until the conclusion

posted 8 years ago by [email protected]
4 replies | jump to latest

Throwing suspicion on those involved in the organized crime trade was clever, but the explanation of how the murders came about made no sense at all. If Leanne was doing everything so Asha would show up, and if she just saw Michael meeting Asha at the hotel in Brussels, how could she have known who he was? He hadn't checked in - she didn't have his name. And more to the point, how could she have possibly known that he was connected to Arthur McCall and his lawyer? And how would she have known how to contact either of them? And why would telling them bring Asha around, which is what Leanne said she wanted? A poor, poor conclusion to an otherwise riveting story, and unfortunately, it really ruins the series. If you can't come up with a plausible solution, why bother?

[–] caviar1234 8 years ago

I agree that the conclusion part is a letdown and makes no sense at all. It seems as if the writer has ruined the whole build-up of this series. No wonder I never liked the Foyle and Gently episodes written by David Kane.

[–] SrEditor 8 years ago

I'm in agreement with both of you.

Even though I had suspicions about Lena from the beginning, the convoluted motivation was just too poorly explained. I mean, the motivation itself was not sufficient to explain all the actions.

[–] jbaddock 8 years ago

I mean, the motivation itself was not sufficient to explain all the actions.

I think it was, because she was clearly obsessed by her mother's suicide and thought nothing about leaving Robbie locked in the container, so there was a distinct lack of empathy there. However, how she came about it, as others have said, doesn't make sense, especially how she knew about Salwar (sp?), etc. She would have needed to have a pretty detailed knowledge of the Glasgow underworld and of Salwar's involvement with McCall to have even thought of setting it all up. Another point is this: how did the killer know where Maguire/Thompson was going to be when he carried out the shooting? Maguire was following Leanne/Lena, and the killer apparently didn't have any transport, so how did he get there, bearing in mind that it was in the middle of nowhere? That was actually when I first started suspecting Leanne/Lena, because I thought she had deliberately lured Maguire there, but then panicked and took the first shot accidentally. Realistically, that is the only plausible explanation for the marksman being in position at that particular moment - he knew Maguire was going to be there.

It's a pity, really, because the Glasgow parts of the story were good, but, to be brutally honest, Asha would have made more sense as the villainess.

[–] Helena727 7 years ago

I agree. It was a terrible letdown.

I'm absolutely willing to accept that Lena wanted revenge and in her grief/instability didn't care who suffered in her quest for it.

But: How on earth can it have been easier to follow Michael from the hotel than to follow Asha? That was never addressed, which annoys me. Granted, if she had followed Asha, we wouldn't have a 6-part complicated story -- but it has to be at least addressed in Lena's or someone else's explanation at the end.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."