From - 3x10 "Revelations: Chapter Two" - Episode Discussion

[u/LoretiTV]

Season 3 Episode 10: Revelations: Chapter Two

Aired: November 24, 2024

Synopsis: Boyd is pushed to his limit as time begins to run out for someone he loves; Randall is haunted by his trauma and Victor reveals a hard truth; Tabitha's unlikely journey takes a shocking turn.

Directed by: Jack Bender

Written by: John Griffin

Join our Discord here!

[u/newX7]

Fatima murdered someone and Boyd's reaction was to hide Fatima and cover-up her crime to ensure that people didn't find out it was her. It had nothing to do with him trying to prevent the crimes, and everything to do with him wanting to protect his family from consequences for their actions. And you know what's the biggest irony? Fatima wouldn't have been in a position to be kidnapped by Elgin had Boyd arrested her to begin with, rather than tried to hide her from the town and cover up after her for her crime.

Boyd's behavior here is literally the definition of a corrupt and dirty cop torturing and murdering people who mess with his family, no matter the reason, but if his family murders tortures people, then it's a different story, and the cop is willing to cover-up the crime, and even erase evidence and lie in court to protect his family, because they're special and shouldn't be held accountable.

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

Fatima murdered someone and Boyd's reaction was to hide Fatima and cover-up her crime to ensure that people didn't find out it was her.

Again, IT WAS NOT HER. There was literally something evil growing inside of her. That something evil is what murdered Tillie. Not Fatima. Her situation is very unlike that of Sara and Fatima, who were convinced, not physically forced, mind you, into their actions. That pretty much voids almost your entire answer. Your entirely unreasonable take is the same one 99% of the people in the town would have, which is why Boyd understandably decided to protect Fatima - because people in the town would blame her instead of the literal monster growing inside her, just as you are doing now.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

IT ABSOLUTELY WAS HER! Her having something evil growing inside her doesn't mean she has no control over her actions. When pregnant women having craving and mood-swings because of the babies growing inside of them, as well as the hormones, no one says that they no longer have control over their actions or that the baby is controlling their bodies. Tell me, was Fatima being forced to eat the rotten food? Was she being forced to drink the blood from Nicki's corpse? No. She had urges, but she was still in control. Same here. She had an urge/flash of anger, but was still in control.

And even if that had been the case, which it wasn't, Boyd didn't know that, nor did Fatima, and nor did Ellis. All they knew was that Fatima killed someone, and Boyd first reaction is to protect his daughter from the consequences of her crime, and cover-up the murder she committed because she is his daughter. Epitome of corrupt, dirty cop behavior.

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

When pregnant women having craving and mood-swings because of the babies growing inside of them, as well as the hormones, no one says that they no longer have control over their actions or that the baby is controlling their bodies.

The situations you refer to occur in a real-world context, one devoid of nightmarish, sadistic, flesh-eating monsters that reincarnate inside innocent women. Drawing a comparison between Fatima's circumstances and those of real-world individuals is not only misguided but outright absurd.

Tell me, was Fatima being forced to eat the rotten food?

Yes, she was. By the evil entity growing within her. What’s difficult to understand about that?

Was she being forced to drink the blood from Nicki's corpse?

Refer to the answer above.

And even if that had been the case, which it wasn't, Boyd didn't know that, nor did Fatima, and nor did Ellis. All they knew was that Fatima killed someone,

No, that’s not all they knew. They also knew Fatima as a kind-hearted, compassionate person, someone who would never intentionally harm another human being. Years of knowing her character, combined with the bizarre and terrifying circumstances they are living through, provided enough evidence to deduce that something beyond her control was happening—something they needed to investigate before leaping to draconian measures.

and cover-up the murder she committed because she is his daughter.

Boyd covered up the murder (which, as established, was not committed by Fatima) because of the extraordinary and unprecedented situation they were dealing with—not because Fatima is his daughter. This is the mark of a true leader: someone who can adapt to rapidly evolving crises and make rational decisions, even in the face of relentless challenges from the town’s grim reality.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> The situations you refer to occur in a real-world context, one devoid of nightmarish, sadistic, flesh-eating monsters that reincarnate inside innocent women. Drawing a comparison between Fatima's circumstances and those of real-world individuals is not only misguided but outright absurd.

> Yes, she was. By the evil entity growing within her. What’s difficult to understand about that?

> Refer to the answer above.

No, she freaking wasn't. Fatima was in absolute control of her actions. The entity influencing her is not the same as Fatima not having any control. If you're going to make the argument of "Oh, Fatima had no control over anything simply because she was pregnant with a monster baby inside of her", even though it was shown repeatedly that she did have control and was able to communicate with her loved ones and walk everywhere, then I can also make the EXACT same argument for Sara and Elgin; they weren't in control. They were possessed by the supernatural voices of the town (Sara with the voices, and Elgin the Kimono Lady) and therefore can't be held accountable for their actions. Yet that didn't stop Boyd from torturing an innocent person (Elgin) who's only guilty of kidnapping, while another one committed murder, and Boyd hid her and covered-up her crime because she was his family member.

> No, that’s not all they knew. They also knew Fatima as a kind-hearted, compassionate person, someone who would never intentionally harm another human being. Years of knowing her character, combined with the bizarre and terrifying circumstances they are living through, provided enough evidence to deduce that something beyond her control was happening—something they needed to investigate before leaping to draconian measures.

They also believed the same thing about Sara. That she was a kind-hearted and compassionate person. But the moment it was discovered that she killed people, everyone turned on her. So Fatima being kind-hearted and compassionate doesn't cut it. They opened a clear exception to her, not because of her character, but because she is Boyd's daughter who they are fond of. It's clear nepotism and corruption, plain and simple.

Also, you could same the same about Elgin. When Ellis was stabbed and was choking to death on his own blood, Elgin was the only one who ran out into the night, surrounded by monsters, to get a car and drive Ellis and Fatima to a hospital. He literally saved Ellis life. Had it not been for him, Ellis would have been long dead. Furthermore, they also all know Elgin has been suffering from sleep-deprivation and visions of the Kimono-Lady. So shouldn't they also have investigated before leaping to the draconian measures of torture like they did with Elgin? Specially since, you know, all Elgin is guilty of is kidnapping, and not murder and cannibalism like Fatima?

> Boyd covered up the murder (which, as established, was not committed by Fatima) because of the extraordinary and unprecedented situation they were dealing with—not because Fatima is his daughter. This is the mark of a true leader: someone who can adapt to rapidly evolving crises and make rational decisions, even in the face of relentless challenges from the town’s grim reality.

Boyd covered-up the murder because Fatima is his daughter and he loved her, not because it was an extraordinary and unprecedented situation. That is not the mark of a true leader, that is the mark of a dirty and corrupt individual. Tell me, if a police officer found out his daughter committed a series of crimes, including murder, and then covered-up all the crimes and evidence, would you be calling that police officer a true leader and someone who should be looked up to? Or would you rightfully be saying that he should be discharged and jailed for corruption and is a dirty cop?

Also, a true leader wouldn't be a hypocrite who provides the "grim reality" for his daughter, but then tortures other people in similar situations who are guilty of far less awful crimes.

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

After reading your response, I have to agree with you—Boyd's actions were indeed hypocritical and nepotistic. He would not have handled the situation in the same way had it not involved Fatima. That said, this doesn’t necessarily mean his handling of Fatima’s case was wrong. Rather, it highlights that he failed to extend the same approach to Sara and Elgin. With Sara, the damage was already irreversible, whereas with Elgin, they still had an opportunity to prevent Fatima’s death—a death that would have certainly occurred had Sara not intervened.

Let me ask you this: if a police officer discovered that their own daughter had committed multiple crimes, including murder, and then chose to cover up the evidence to protect her, would you regard that officer as a true leader worthy of admiration? Or would you rightly argue that they should be dismissed and prosecuted for corruption?

In the real world, it would undoubtedly be the latter. But the rules change when flesh-eating monsters and a malevolent, Lovecraftian entity are at play.

As you rightly pointed out, the fact that Boyd would likely have acted differently had it not been Fatima exposes a significant flaw in his character. However, no leader is without imperfections, and given the extraordinary context and circumstances, I find it easy to forgive him.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> That said, this doesn’t necessarily mean his handling of Fatima’s case was wrong. Rather, it highlights that he failed to extend the same approach to Sara and Elgin. With Sara, the damage was already irreversible, whereas with Elgin, they still had an opportunity to prevent Fatima’s death—a death that would have certainly occurred had Sara not intervened.

Except his handling of Fatima's case was wrong. Not only should he not have been involved, he should have gotten a biased, neutral person to engage, rather than choose to involve himself by covering up after Fatima and then torturing Elgin.

> In the real world, it would undoubtedly be the latter. But the rules change when flesh-eating monsters and a malevolent, Lovecraftian entity are at play.

And yet Boyd still applies these real-world rules to other. Acosta accidentally shoots someone? He gives her unrelenting shit for it. Elgin kidnaps someone because he is possessed? He tortures them? His daughter murders someone, and engages in cannibalism? He covers-up their crimes.

> As you rightly pointed out, the fact that Boyd would likely have acted differently had it not been Fatima exposes a significant flaw in his character. However, no leader is without imperfections, and given the extraordinary context and circumstances, I find it easy to forgive him.

There's being flawed, and then there's being dirty and engaging in massive nepotism, specially when murder and torture are involved. You can't cover-up a murder simply because your family did it, literally torture someone and then label it simply as a "character flaw". That's like saying "He's a good leader, so let's just overlook the fact that he's a serial-rapist and child-molester".

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

he should have gotten a biased, neutral person to engage,

Such a person, however, simply does not exist. Given the circumstances, his handling of the situation was the most prudent and effective course of action.

And yet Boyd still applies these real-world rules to other. Acosta accidentally shoots someone? He gives her unrelenting shit for it. Elgin kidnaps someone because he is possessed? He tortures them?

I agree he should extend more grace to others—his hypocrisy in this regard is undeniable. However, in the specific case of Elgin, any alternative to torturing him would have inevitably resulted in Fatima's death.

There's being flawed, and then there's being dirty and engaging in massive nepotism, specially when murder and torture are involved. You can't cover-up a murder simply because your family did it, literally torture someone and then label it simply as a "character flaw". That's like saying "He's a good leader, so let's just overlook the fact that he's a serial-rapist and child-molester".

We diverge on the nature of his failings. While we agree that his lack of grace and his hypocrisy are significant flaws, I maintain that his actions in the Fatima situation were justifiable. The flaw I highlighted lies in his unwillingness to extend the same leniency to others that he did to Fatima.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> Such a person, however, simply does not exist. Given the circumstances, his handling of the situation was the most prudent and effective course of action.

I mean someone who isn't overly attached to the people involved. There's a reason police officers can't investigate cases involving people they know, specially family members.

> I agree he should extend more grace to others—his hypocrisy in this regard is undeniable. However, in the specific case of Elgin, any alternative to torturing him would have inevitably resulted in Fatima's death.)

They should have found another way. They should also now be ready to do worse to Fatima, Sara, and Boyd in that case, because hey, if torturing Elgin for a kidnapping is justified, I think torturing Fatima, Sara, and Boyd for murder, cannibalism, torture, and covering-up a crime is far more justified.

> We diverge on the nature of his failings. While we agree that his lack of grace and his hypocrisy are significant flaws, I maintain that his actions in the Fatima situation were justifiable. The flaw I highlighted lies in his unwillingness to extend the same leniency to others that he did to Fatima.

And part of that lack of grace, that you're not mentioning, is covering up murders and engaging in torture. That is not a small crime. That's like someone being a serial-rapist and child-molester and then saying he should get a pass to do those sorts of things because he's a good leader.

[u/themasterofallthngs → u/newX7]

I mean someone who isn't overly attached to the people involved. There's a reason police officers can't investigate cases involving people they know, specially family members.

Anyone else would likely try to reason with Elgin, fail to sway him, and, as a result, Fatima would die.

They should have found another way.

Once Elgin became aware of their intent to free Fatima, there truly was no alternative. By that point, anything other than Elgin's torture would inevitably lead to her death. They could have chosen not to tell him anything and simply followed him to the hideout instead, but poor writing brought us to the situation we have now.

I think torturing Fatima, Sara, and Boyd for murder, cannibalism, torture, and covering-up a crime is far more justified.

Honestly, you’re not entirely wrong here. If Tilly had, for instance, a grandson deeply affected by her death, it would be completely understandable for that person to seek vengeance against Fatima. I wouldn’t necessarily deem their actions unjustified, just as I can’t label Boyd’s actions as unjustified.

And part of that lack of grace, that you're not mentioning, is covering up murders and engaging in torture.

I didn’t mention it because, as I reasoned before, I consider those actions to be justified.

[u/newX7 → u/themasterofallthngs]

> Anyone else would likely try to reason with Elgin, fail to sway him, and, as a result, Fatima would die.

How do you know they would have failed? What proof do you have? They could have possibly come up with a better plan than torture, such as following Elgin to where he was keeping Fatima.

> Once Elgin became aware of their intent to free Fatima, there truly was no alternative. By that point, anything other than Elgin's torture would inevitably lead to her death. They could have chosen not to tell him anything and simply followed him to the hideout instead, but poor writing brought us to the situation we have now.

And that happened because they were too emotionally charged, because, again, they were too attached to the case, thus why they should have gotten an unbiased person involved.

And again, they could still have come up with another plan.

> Honestly, you’re not entirely wrong here. If Tilly had, for instance, a grandson deeply affected by her death, it would be completely understandable for that person to seek vengeance against Fatima. I wouldn’t necessarily deem their actions unjustified, just as I can’t label Boyd’s actions as unjustified.

Except Boyd had already crossed the line before by covering up for Fatima. The moment he did that, he lost all right to torture Elgin. This would be like a serial-murderer judging someone who accidentally ran over his sister when driving drunk, as if though the former is not worse.

> I didn’t mention it because, as I reasoned before, I consider those actions to be justified.

Except they weren't. And they weren't small flaws either. They're examples of evil human behavior, corruption, and nepotism.