The killing of the baby was a bit much, and the guinea pig was just silly.
It seemed to imply that they witnesses needed to be walked through specific moments by the investigator.
I’d love to see the outake with the guinea pig interrogation.
Agree, it fell apart at the end. Would have made a better ending for the Indian girl to escape.
shareWell, the whole premise of the episode was just how far a seemingly normal person would go to protect their comfortable existence. (I mean, that's aside from the horrors of living in a society where they can actually get into your head, and it's actually illegal for you not to comply.) By the end she became a full-on monster - even most serial killers wouldn't kill a baby...
But why "crocodile"??
I understand the premis and moral of the episode.
Perhaps “Crocodile” is an allusion to become a cold reptilian killer?
I thought the killing of the baby was a little over the top.
But really, the part I can’t get past is the goddamned guinea pig.
I know. That last bit....geesh. How would the prompt the GP? Here, smell these cedar chips.
shareCrocodiles kill and eat their hatchling and they "release tears". The woman was crying everytime she killed somebody, including the baby, just to keep her wonderful life as it is.
shareThank you.
I must say, this is just really helpful, I've been racking my brain since I watched it about the title.
shareSciFi doesn't have to be completely rational.
Maybe they did not need any interpretation of speed or events with the Guinea Pig and just get the picture of the face.
I though this was the best of the first 3 so far anyway. Why did they call it Crocodile?
I can buy into a sci-fi story with a far out conceit as long as tone is consistent and the internal logic of the story makes sense.
However, the dark and serious nature of the story and the weight of the ending were completely ruined for me by the mental image of investigators grilling Godger the guinea pig for info.
OK, I raised an eyebrow at that myself, but I suspended my disbelief if only because that murdering "b" had to get caught. Can you wonder if anything like that ever happened in real life, where someone get stuck on a murdering roller coaster to try to cover up something that someone else did to begin with? What I found the least believable in that story was the skinny lady killing that guy.
share
I agree. Her killing him made no sense.
😎
It's not necessarily inconsistent or a plothole. Maybe the technology is really easy to pull up the most immediate memories of someone & work backwards, without any prompting necessary. Maybe it's just when they need you to think back to a specific day that is harder, and they need to go through all that memory jogging. If that's the case, they could just stick the device on the guinea pig and pulled her face immediately since it just happened.
shareI liked "Crocodile" the most from the first 3 episodes, haven't seen the other three. "Crocodile" literally terrified me. It was very dark and brutal. I was like OMG...
share
Her killing the baby made me feel a bit ill. I was also alarmed by a world which would make that horrible "re-caller" machine, and made it mandatory that you have to submit to it. That's worse than the terror of 1984. George Orwell would have been amused.
😎
I wish that the insurance investigator could have just stayed calm and said, listen, that porn means nothing, I've seen way worse, and just sipped her coffee quietly and then said, "Well thanks a lot, I really should get going."
Also, I thought for a moment that possibly they could extract memories from the dead husband somehow, sort of in line with that thing about the last thing you see being imprinted on your retina? But of course, dead means no brain activity.
This one won't leave me for a while.
And also, they did great making the two people involved in the original death look like totally different folks after time passed.
Couple thoughts on 'Crocodile':
How did Mia kill Rob in the hotel room? If she stabbed him, I didn't see what she used.
Imagine a world where this technology is around and the government has the power to force you to do it. As soon as the police had a suspect in a crime, the case would be solved. And it would be a lot easier coming up with a suspect if you had access to any witnesses' memories.
If anyone who's threatening to you asks, "Who did you tell you were coming here?", the correct answer is, "Everyone! I told every-fucking-body! Why do you ask?" (This obviously works better if they don't have a device that can access your memories, but keep it in mind.)
I'm not sure how long marriages would last if couples had access to this technology.
Throughout the episode I couldn't help but feel like it would have worked better as a black comedy rather than a bleak murder drama, especially with the guinea pig twist being the witness to bring her down.
shareEh, the guinea pig part was not the less credible thing here. Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if animals were used as test subject for this technology. So, it’s not that farfetched for me.
What is too farfetched is that she instantly became an expert assassin and cover up artist. I just didn’t buy it.
I also found it strange how there are no safe guards against self-incrimination in these type of situations. When the insurance lady said that the incriminating stuff she got was protected like a Catholic confession, I really bought it.
If this technology were to exist in the future, I am pretty sure that a law forcing people to give their thoughts would be problematic and it might be considered an invasion of privacy, subject to fourth amendment protections.