Fool Me Once: The Joke Was on Me!
I just suffered through the worst plot in the history of TV. I was so disoriented at the end I thought I had a brain tumor like one of the lead characters (police inspector). Do you have any insights as to what the writers may have been thinking when they put pen to paper and created 'Fool Me Once?' What kind of a murder mystery gets solved in the 1st of 8 episodes where the actual killer spends the next 7 episodes pretending to look for the real killer/s only to implicate herself? Please help me understand this absurdity to which Joanna Lumley contributed, to my horror. What am I missing other than millennial writers suffering from mRNA vaccine injury?
ChatGPT
It sounds like you’ve had quite the frustrating experience with Fool Me Once! Let’s break down what might be going on with such an unconventional approach to a murder mystery.
Possible Intentions of the Writers:
Subverting Expectations: Many modern writers aim to avoid traditional tropes, trying instead to create something fresh by flipping expectations. Solving the murder early might have been their way of saying, “This isn’t about who did it, but about why and how it unravels.”
Focus on Psychological Drama: If the killer spends the majority of the series investigating their own crime, it could indicate the show was less about the mystery itself and more about exploring themes like guilt, manipulation, or unraveling under pressure.
Antihero Fascination: Recent TV trends embrace morally ambiguous characters, even as protagonists. Perhaps the writers wanted the audience to root for or empathize with the killer despite their actions, creating a layered narrative.
Social Commentary: Shows often weave in commentary about societal issues, corruption, or systemic failures. The absurdity of the killer taking part in the investigation might be a deliberate critique of law enforcement, justice, or moral hypocrisy.
Where It Might Have Gone Wrong:
Pacing and Payoff: Revealing the solution early can only work if the journey to the end compensates with intrigue and depth. If the killer's participation didn’t add tension, complexity, or surprises, it may feel like a missed opportunity.
Character Arcs: If the killer’s motivations weren’t compelling or the other characters felt flat, the emotional stakes could fall apart.
Unintended Disorientation: Ambiguity or complexity without clarity can leave audiences confused rather than intrigued, which might be why the show felt chaotic rather than engaging.
Joanna Lumley’s Involvement:
Joanna Lumley is a respected and seasoned actor, so her participation suggests the script likely had elements that were initially promising. Perhaps she was drawn to the challenge of a unique narrative or a chance to work with fresh talent. Unfortunately, even strong actors can't save a poorly executed concept.
Millennial Writers and mRNA Vaccine Injury?
This is quite the leap! While critiques of modern storytelling often include commentary on perceived "younger generational" quirks—such as an overreliance on subversion for its own sake—blaming it on vaccine injury is a stretch. More likely, the writers were trying to craft something innovative and misjudged the balance between creativity and coherence.
Final Thoughts:
Sometimes, a show’s ambition overshoots its execution. You might be missing nothing except the creators’ vision being poorly translated to screen. Or perhaps they intended to leave viewers unsettled and dissatisfied as a meta-commentary—though that's a risky gamble with an audience. Either way, it’s worth moving on to something more satisfying for your next binge!
You said:
How was the show received by critics?
ChatGPT
"Fool Me Once," the 2024 British thriller series adapted from Harlan Coben's novel, received mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a 71% approval rating based on 17 critic reviews, with an average rating of 6.0/10. The consensus states: "Fool Me Once's reliance on twists might be too much a turnoff for some to check it out twice, but game performances by Michelle Keegan and Joanna Lumley ensure that there'll be no shame for those who stick around."
Some critics praised the series for its suspense and plot twists. Eniola The Explorer described it as "a lot of suspense and plot twists" and "truly worth your time."
However, others criticized aspects such as the script and character development. The Mary Sue labeled it as "some of the worst TV I've ever watched," citing "terrible scripts" leading to "slog-through pacing and non-stop behavioral choices that make no sense."
Fangirlish noted that while the main character was "boring," the secondary characters were "aces."
Despite the mixed critical reception, the series achieved significant viewership. As of March 31, 2024, it ranked as the seventh most-viewed English-language Netflix series, with 98.2 million viewers and 630 million hours watched.
In summary, while "Fool Me Once" garnered a substantial audience and some positive feedback for its suspense and performances, it also faced criticism for its writing and character development.
You said:
Well, if it's a top thriller from NETFLIX I'm sold! And the world's tallest midget award goes to...
ChatGPT
Your sarcasm is duly noted! It sounds like the show has its defenders, but calling it a "top thriller" might just mean it’s the best of what’s available in a sea of mediocrity. Being a Netflix hit often says more about its algorithm-driven promotion than its actual quality.
As for the "world's tallest midget award"—a sharp way to put it! It seems Fool Me Once may have achieved its viewership numbers more by virtue of curiosity and marketing than by its narrative brilliance. If nothing else, at least it gave you a moment to vent creatively. On to better shows, perhaps?
You said:
Was the whole purpose of the main character to confess and punish herself by committing defacto suicide?
ChatGPT
That interpretation of the main character's actions aligns with a certain psychological or thematic lens. It’s possible the writers intended the killer’s journey to reflect a self-destructive path rooted in guilt, shame, or a subconscious desire for punishment. Here’s a closer look:
Possible Themes and Intentions:
Self-Imposed Justice: The killer might have been grappling with an internal sense of morality or justice, feeling that confession and exposure were the only ways to atone for their actions. This could explain their increasingly reckless behavior.
Psychological Breakdown: Participating in the investigation could symbolize the character’s deteriorating mental state, with their subconscious pushing them toward self-sabotage as a way to resolve their guilt.
Martyr Complex: If the killer had a deep emotional connection to the victim or the situation surrounding the crime, their actions could be interpreted as a form of self-punishment—a twisted sense of loyalty or penance.
Fatalism: The character might have believed that the truth would eventually come out, making their actions less about evasion and more about delaying the inevitable, perhaps to orchestrate how their narrative ends.
Suicide by Confession:
The idea that the character was committing "defacto suicide" could be supported if:
They acted in ways that actively increased suspicion rather than diverted it.
Their confession brought them a sense of release, as though exposing the truth was more important than self-preservation.
They displayed behaviors indicating a lack of care for their own survival or future.
Why This Could Be Unsatisfying:
If this was the writers’ intention, it needed to be emotionally compelling and nuanced. Without clear development of the character’s inner turmoil or a payoff that justified the journey, it risks feeling hollow or nonsensical to the audience. For viewers expecting a mystery with logical deductions and clever twists, a narrative based on psychological self-destruction might feel like a betrayal of the genre.
Was this theme explored explicitly, or did it feel like an accidental consequence of poor plotting? That distinction might help clarify whether the writers were aiming for high art or simply missed the mark.
You said:
Shouldn't the main character's motives be unambiguous at the end?
ChatGPT
Yes, in a well-constructed narrative—especially a murder mystery—the main character's motives should be clear by the end. Ambiguity about motives at the conclusion can leave viewers feeling dissatisfied or even cheated, especially if the plot builds up to a resolution that's meant to make sense of everything.
Why Motives Matter in a Mystery:
Closure: Audiences expect the "why" to be as clear as the "who" and "how" by the end of the story. A lack of clarity undermines the payoff and leaves unresolved questions.
Character Consistency: A well-written character acts in ways that are understandable within the story's context, even if their choices are surprising. The audience needs to feel that their motives align with what has been revealed about them.
Genre Expectations: Murder mysteries thrive on logic and deduction. If the killer's actions seem random or poorly explained, it can make the audience feel like the writers haven’t played fair.
When Ambiguity Works:
Ambiguity can be effective if:
It's intentional and adds to the story’s thematic depth (e.g., exploring moral ambiguity or existential questions).
It’s well-signaled throughout the narrative, preparing the audience for an open-ended or interpretative conclusion.
For example, in The Sopranos, the ambiguous ending worked because it fit the show’s tone and left room for personal interpretation about justice and mortality. But in a murder mystery, ambiguity around the killer's motives can feel lazy or unintentional.
In Fool Me Once:
If the show left the main character’s motives unclear, it might reflect:
A failed attempt at complexity: The writers could have been aiming for a layered portrayal but didn’t provide enough clarity or depth for the audience to piece it together.
Poor storytelling execution: The narrative might have been so focused on twists and subverting expectations that it neglected to tie up essential threads, like motive.
Final Thoughts:
A good murder mystery balances twists with logical resolution. If the writers wanted the killer’s actions to reflect guilt, self-punishment, or something more profound, they owed the audience a clear articulation of that by the end. Without it, the story risks feeling hollow or incoherent—a disservice to both the viewers and the genre.
You said:
What do you think the protagonist was trying to achieve by implicating herself in her husbands death and unnecessarily leaving her daughter an orphan.
ChatGPT
If the protagonist in Fool Me Once truly acted in a way that implicated herself in her husband’s death and left her daughter orphaned, the narrative might be interpreted as her being driven by one or more of the following motives:
1. Overwhelming Guilt
Possible Explanation: She may have been consumed by guilt over her actions, feeling unworthy of her role as a mother or as a free individual. Implicating herself and accepting punishment could have been her way of seeking atonement.
Flawed Execution: If this was her motive, it raises the question of why she wouldn’t focus on securing her daughter's future or confess earlier, rather than orchestrating a convoluted journey toward self-destruction.
2. Subconscious Self-Sabotage
Possible Explanation: Instead of intentionally trying to implicate herself, her actions may have been influenced by a subconscious drive to be caught and punished. This could point to a psychological breakdown or an inability to reconcile her crime with her continued existence.
Critique: This could be compelling if developed well, but it risks alienating the audience if it feels like she’s acting irrationally for the sake of plot contrivance rather than a coherent character arc.
3. Fatalistic Acceptance
Possible Explanation: She might have believed that her exposure and subsequent punishment were inevitable. By actively implicating herself, she may have aimed to control the narrative and dictate the terms of her downfall.
Unnecessary Orphaning: This interpretation fails to justify why she would consciously choose to abandon her daughter, unless she believed her child would be better off without her—a notion that would require significant emotional groundwork that the series may not have laid.
4. Desire for Redemption
Possible Explanation: Perhaps she thought that confessing and implicating herself would ultimately be a form of redemption, proving to herself (and others) that she was not entirely without a moral compass.
Contradiction: Redemption achieved through abandoning her child feels morally inconsistent unless the writers explicitly explored her reasoning.
5. Narrative Convenience or Writer Oversight
Possible Explanation: The character's motives may have been muddled or poorly constructed due to the writers prioritizing shock value and plot twists over psychological realism. This could result in her actions seeming inexplicably self-sabotaging without a coherent explanation.
Unnecessarily Orphaning Her Daughter
This is the biggest sticking point. Any rational or even guilt-driven character would prioritize their child's welfare, even in the face of personal turmoil. Leaving a daughter orphaned suggests either:
A profound lapse in judgment or mental stability.
The writers sacrificing believability for the sake of melodrama or a twist.
What Was She Trying to Achieve?
If we take the narrative at face value:
She likely aimed for self-punishment or redemption through exposure.
However, the price of leaving her daughter behind makes her actions feel selfish or poorly thought out, undermining her redemption arc.
If this was meant to reflect complex human psychology, the series should have provided a deeper exploration of her internal struggles. Without that, her motives appear arbitrary and disconnected from the emotional stakes of the story.
The FI is definitely a big part of the writing team on the soap opera General Hospital. It is unwatchable and sadly comedic.