Talk:Grey Matters

From Fringepedia - The FRINGE wiki

Talk	Grey Matters	Theories

UAQ - Answered?

Submitted as Why did Newton allow Walter to live?

- To me the answer seems fairly obvious - he did not get the answer to his question about the "Door" between universes, from Walter. Why would he kill Walter when Walter is the only one who can help him fulfill his mission? Anyone have an opinion on this. My vote is to remove the UAQ - unless we are missing something. –DocH– my edits 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

- He did get the answer he wanted. Finishing with Walter, Newton states that they are done and they have what they need. He did not kill Walter for the same reason that he did not kill the people from which he recovered the brain pieces. In fact he took special attention to ensure that they were well "restored". Apparently, Newton will not hesitate to kill someone getting in its way but will not do it otherwise.--LabGo 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- On first blush - maybe, BUT - Did you see or hear Walter give him an answer. Newton said he got what he needed, not an answer. Maybe what he needed was a starting point. He knows Walter has a powerful intellect... if strong-minded Walter gave him a false lead, killing Walter would prevent him from ever questioning Walter again. Walter was wired pretty well to that monitor... maybe what Newton needed was to succeed in planting a thought, an action or a new altered memory into Walter - so he could activate (sleeper) Walter later, when needed. The focus of the UAQ is broad and vague. Did he allow Walter to live? I don't know about you, but I saw him attempt to kill Walter. He didn't "allow" Walter to live - he traded Walter's fatal injection for a chance to save his own skin (assured escape). What if (x4) Olivia never caught up to the van - stopped the van - killed the comrades - AND captured Newton. Walter would be dead - how was Newton going to call in the anti-toxin sequence? –DocH– my edits 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- As I said, he would not hesitate to kill Walter if it served a purpose. So risking Walter's life is not a problem for him if it provides him a way to escape. And I agree that he did not "allow" Walter to live he just never planned to kill him. As for planting a thought in his mind, there is no point looking at these possibilities when there is no evidence suggesting this at all. The suggestion (as the character said) is that they collected the information they needed and no we did not hear Walter (there was a commercial break!), likely because they want to preserve some mystery... but it will likely be revealed next time we see Newton attempt to cross to the other side using what he learned. I accept that as I accept the fact that August died in the car. If they are playing tricks on us and what is said and shown happens not to be true then so be it, we just have to back up. We must accept some level of interpolation. Now what if the nurse at the end was talking to a Doctor Paris present in the same room with William Bell? Do we assume Paris is Bell? Perhaps Walter was just imagining/dreaming all this while being submitted to the scan? Or perhaps Walter actually died and his mind is now in an altered state... etc... there is no end to the possibilities so we should go first with what the story suggests. --LabGo 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- After nursing the transcript all day and watching each individual scene 5 or more times apiece, I guess I get sensitized to the subtleties and nuances. I guess that comes-off as quibbling and semantics sometimes. –DocH– my edits 03:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- Instead of Walter, I changed it to "victims" to make it better. This begs the question why not kill the patients after extracting Bishop's brain tissue, so they will not leave a trace? -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 05:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- What traces? Did they leave traces? Walter had his barely detectable cranial scars for more than a decade, which no one traced. Three healthy people received those brain bits more than a decade ago, without any traces. Two of those people, Crampton and the third patient, had those brain bits removed, without leaving a trace. The first guy (Slater), was abandoned because of the security bust... and he still didn't leave a trace - he had no idea who sawed his skull open. It seems like killing them would bring law enforcement into the loop. However, if you let them live, then a few doctors scratch their heads and go "not sane" - "sane" - okay - go home. aka. NO law enforcement in the loop. Seems like 'not killing' would be the recommended solution to improving the chances of mission success. –DocH– my edits 22:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

- Okay, scrap off the "they will not leave a trace". Why not kill the victims? Usually, villains kill their victims after they get what they want. This will prevent them to talking to police/feds. This sparing of life seems to be consistent with their characteristic of "being kind, pleasant or polite". But why? Why are they like that? Are all shapeshifters like that? Is there a code they are following? Or it is simply a "mission" as you pointed out? Nobody knows. Hence, a UAQ. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 08:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

- Nevermind. No need for discussion of this. Because the question is reworded to the post-op thing, which I think is more appropriate question to ask. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 08:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

HP Lovecraft

- I don't know if you guys wanted to put this or not. But the episode seems to pay tribute to HP Lovecraft. First is Dunwich Hospital, a nod to Dunwich, the fictional town in MA, used in Lovecraft's Dunwich Horror. Second, Joseph Slater, a nod to Joe Slater, main character of the Beyond the Wall of Sleep. Third, Stuart Gordon, the same name of the director (of Re-animator) and a big fan of Lovecraft. Fourth, Dr. West - Herbert West, a character in Lovecraft's Re-animator. Lastly, Deborah Crampton - Barbara Crampton, an actress that played a character in Lovecraft's Re-animator. -- Xerophytes _{Talk | Contribs} 08:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

- Yes, Good catch. –DocH– my edits 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)