In the episode "Fur", why did the animals become inanimate corpses again when the woman died but her son didn't?
One would assume it would be attributed to the same power that kept the woman alive when her own father died... Which brings up a whole new light of problems now that I think about it...
She told them that she was the one they wanted. Maybe by some law of the woods her life was equal to their vendetta so when she died so did their reason for living.
The animals were inanimate until the resurgence of the "Troubles" while her son was active and living, so there is something different between the cases.
It's probably something like a self-sustaining power within the family. If you have it, you use it to keep yourself alive even if you aren't aware of it (much like other troubled use their powers without realizing it). So the mother was alive, died, got stuffed but wasn't aware of such, and so kept herself alive for all intents and purposes. The power was inherited by the son who ended up the same way. As far as things like her giving birth or whatever... chalk it up to the power itself as presumably it allows things to mimic something unless injured. As for the animals... it might be a sort of 'hell' for the animals - imagine being alive but not and 'trapped' with the people that killed you. She was their freedom from that. Or maybe the power is sort of selfish and self-seeking; it wants to be self-contained (stuffed into one container). And as the animals weren't related, the power wasn't given to them to self-animate.
It may also be that it worked because she believed it to be so. She believed that the animals wanted her in order to stop and so that's how it works.
The EFFING TIMELINE. If Nathan's Dad wasn't in jail during the Colorado kid's killing, and was suspected for it, that would make Nathan about eight before being adopted. They do not recall being adopted. WHAT? >.<
Pretty much every character has memory issues. Who's to say he's an exception to the craziness in the town?
It's also implied that Nathan might have been traumatized because he had been abused by Max Hansen. The Chief told Audrey that Nathan and his mother had been treated horrifically. Plus, y'know, Hansen did kill a whole family, didn't he? That's not exactly something a kid would like to dwell on.
It's also possible that Max was sent to prison for something else when Nathan was very young, got out for some amount of time around the time of the Troubles but stayed away/was kept away from Nathan, and then went back to prison after he killed that family.
It would have to be pretty widespread amnesia on this specific point, since that adoption is the kind of thing the ENTIRE TOWN would have noticed, and it's hard to believe nobody ever said anything where Nathan could hear them.
This is less about amnesia and more of a small town thing - when everyone knows something, but doesn't talk about it because everybody knows it. And then as Nathan is growing up, they just don't talk about it because it either never comes up or they don't want to break it to him that his father isn't his father. Then everybody knows that Nathan doesn't know, so they don't talk about that either. Conversations are bizarrely organic like that, if there is no reason for it to come up, it doesn't. How often do you have conversations with someone about something you already know they know?
The time line is pretty messed up. Nathan says he's "been with" women before his curse activated in one episode, but then another episode establishes he was cursed when he was 8 years old! Even that episode suggested he was interested in girls at that age, which seems a little precocious by itself.
Nathan was cursed in 1983, as he says in "Butterfly. This is the year when Lucy was in town, trying to stop the Troubles, in which, as we know, she temporarily succeeded. So Nathan's affliction subsided for a time and returned later, although there are pieces of conflicting information as to when it actually returned.
In "A Tale of Two Audreys", why doesn't Nathan turn on his headlights when the plague of darkness hits?
Probably because the scene was shot as "day-for-night", in other words, a scene is shot in daylight, then darkened in processing so that it looks like night. This is done for a number of reasons, such as a time issue making it impossible to wait for actual night at that location - or, in this case, the sudden fall of darkness during the day. This being the case, it would have required an expensive special effect to adjust only the headlight beams so they weren't darkened too.
Also, it was suppose to be Darkness not just night. That is, it's magical 'stuff' rather than simply the absence of light. So headlights might not have worked anyway. And in the following scene, we can see that it's not so dark that people don't cast shadows/they can't see what's going on. So... a a wizard a troubled did it.
How did Dwight survive Afghanistan?
Good luck and good doctors?
Also, we don't know how the bullet thing works. If it alters their course but doesn't really cause the bullets to do really weird things like make 90 degree turns, then by proxy of being trained to take cover and such, much of the bullets would hit something on their way to him. Also, he would still be wearing body armor as a soldier. Also again, his Trouble started in Afghanistan; he didn't go there with it active. It may very well be that his Trouble started and he -was- hit by a bullet (or several) and was hurt hard enough to be given an honorable discharge (or was given one after several such injuries).
Well, "The Lighthouse" pretty much demonstrates that Dwight will make the bullets do really weird things like make 90 degree turns, so I can only theorise that his trouble didn't actually activate during a firefight.
Where the hell was Dwight during the Second Season Finale?
Dwight is called in to clean things up. Nothing to clean up there.
How did Lucy kill Simon Crocker, when he was looking for her after she disappeared?
We don't know where she goes. Maybe he got too close and she offed him.
We only know he was looking for her after she left Lucy Ripley. It isn't stated that she had definitely disappeared by then, only that she was on the run. Also, Simon Crocker suggests she didn't necessarily have to kill him with her own hands - maybe it was someone acting on her behalf.
We also only have the word of someone who'd never seen him before that a person calling himself Simon Crocker came to visit her.
If Simon Crocker really wanted Duke to take up the Crocker legacy, why the hell did he hide his weapons box in such a convoluted way? If he was expecting the Rev to explain matters to Duke when necessary, why not just give the box and the key to the Rev? And if that wasn't his plan, how was he expecting Duke to ever figure out his abilities at all?
For that matter, he could have told Duke himself at any time. Why didn't he? For that matter, why didn't he just take Duke on his hunting missions in order to teach the boy how? That's how all young predators learn to hunt - from their parents (be they human or animal).
No matter how noble he saw himself, he probably had the same problem everyone in the town has: they treat information about the Troubles like the plague.
You have to take in to account that this is the back up plan. I don't even think Simon Crocker is cold enough to take his young son on killing missions at the ripe old age of eight. (This is approximately how old Duke was in the picture with Lucy and Nathan was when his Trouble returned.) He would have waited until he was a teenager at least, but Simon died before that happened. If he was killed, who is to say that the same person didn't take out the Rev? Or all of the people who were against the Troubled. Also, he wanted to be sure that Duke would want to do his job when he did find out, so just leaving him a letter wouldn't have been the most successful option. "Dear Duke, obviously I'm dead. A Troubled person probably killed me because I was trying to kill them to save all of his family from having his Trouble. Since this got me killed, you totally need to take up my mantle and kill more Troubled people because that's not dangerous at all. Love, Dad." Better than Duke experience the Troubles, realize how dangerous they are, and have like minded people (like the Rev if he survived) guide him to his destiny. Then when he realizes his gift, he investigates his father's death (or vice versa) and finds that that mean old Lucy Ripley killed him and she's going to come back. That way he finds out about his history and is more likely to do what his father wants him to. Plus, Lucy (or the Guard, or the Chief or any number of people) could have found the letter that he hypothetically left, and cut off his line by keeping Duke (or just killing Duke period) from the information that he needed to fight her. Convolution and secrecy ensure that Duke is the only person with enough motive (the death of his father) to try to figure out what happened. This way he's protected from knowing until he's old enough to understand and protect himself. The Guard, or Lucy or anyone wouldn't kill someone who didn't know about his Trouble before he found out, they'd keep an eye on him, like they did.
The grave digger wants his son not to have his curse...so...uh...why not just have his son NOT BE A GRAVE DIGGER! It's a pretty specific Trouble. You don't need to throw yourself on a knife for it.
The Troubled do seem to be somehow driven into situations where they will use their affliction - the guy who brought animals to life by stuffing them became a taxidermist, the man who brought machines to life by fixing them became a mechanic, the man with "Groundhog Day" Loop powers had severe OCD causing him to want to repeat anything that wasn't done perfectly. Also, the gravedigger was a follower of the Rev who considered the afflictions to be an outright curse, so he probably believed that just having the powers was a terrible thing even if you didn't use them.
What was the Bolt Gun Killer doing for the past 27 years?
She was probably just living an ordinary life disguised as whomever she was wearing when the last cycle of Troubles ended. Probably also researching everything she could about Lucy, Sarah, Haven and the Troubles.
The Troubles don't work during that period. She was likely trying very hard to keep a low profile on account of having either no skin or wearing a mask of skin that likely did not fit. Those 27 years must have been horrible.
It depends though. The chameleon we've seen previous did not revert back to it's non-transformed state. Though that might have been a unique power since it's one of the few Troubles that literally transformed unlike the BGK who simply wore skin. But yeah, in all likelihood BGK was researching, waiting, and planning. If nothing else, BGK was probably keeping track of people in order to see whether they were suitable for its ideal skin.
Wait...the Barn only appears when Audrey is ready to go in? Then why was it there, already in the woods waiting for "Audrey II" to find and wander in and get her memory erased?
Howard has shown that he can summon it independently of Audrey. Obviously he called it the first time so they could have a chat. And so the Colorado Kid could take a stroll.
In "Fear and Loathing", since Ian Haskell had Jackie Clark's Trouble before he stole Nathan's, why wasn't anybody at the wake reacting with fear when he visited and shook Nathan's hand?
Because all eyes were on Nathan giving the wake so no one was looking directly in his eyes, and when he was shaking Nathan's hand afterwards, he made a noticeable point to not make eye contact for very long. Or, there might simply have been a "throwaway" Trouble he took from someone en route to the wake, it's not like those are in short supply in this town.
Are they ever going to bring up the circular maze tattoo that briefly appeared on Julia Carr's shoulder in "Spiral"?
It marks her as a member of the guard. Solved.
Well, in theory, yes, but Julia "This town is weird and I hate it and I am GONE" Carr being a member of the Guard is a little...unexplained. It does seem odd that they'd establish something about the character that ran counter to basically everything else we knew about her and then never bring it up again.
Chalk it up to Early-Installment Weirdness, maybe. Maybe Julia was intended for a larger role as the show went on but the actress wasn't available.
Why was "our" Audrey Parker blonde while the real Audrey Parker a brunette? Whoever Audrey really is, it's shown that her hair color can and does change with new personalities; there wasn't really any reason to not have the same hair as her counterpart.
Maybe Real Audrey Parker was experimenting with blonde hair when Audrey got her memories. She then decided to go back to her natural color, while Audrey liked the blonde look and kept it up.
Roy, Duke, and Wade Crocker all look Hispanic, but Simon Crocker is white. What is up with that?
Simon Crocker may not be white. The actor who plays him is half-Caucasian, half-First Nation ("Native American" in Canadian terminology). It's possible that the Crockers are meant to be of partly-Native American descent, hence somewhat Ambiguously Brown.
Eric Balfour (Duke) is Jewish.
What happens to Roland Holloway (the guy who turned into a haunted house) when the Troubles aren't active?
He probably goes dormant. He's not 'awake' but he's not dead either.