I understood a bit better the ending after coming back a year later SPOILERS COMING, AND IN A BIG LONG POST
So when I read it last year I coulnd’t understand why Giselle just killed Isaac with no remorse, and why there was at the same time a mini Isaac and a monster adult one in the epilogue.
So first point : Giselle didn’t try killing Isaac, she actually saved him. In ep60, when Isaac flees, I think he’s running to the top of the hill to kill himself with the sunrise. Giselle comes to shoot him so the other hunters think she finished him off and they leave him alone. And by shooting him he falls and ends up in the forest, safe from burning in the sun. What makes me think that is that in the epilogue, her friend asked if Giselle actually used the silver bullet (that would have really killed him). From a narrative standpoint, the only use of having this question is to say Giselle didn’t.
Next point, I’m actually not completly sure, I have two theories. (If we’re lucky the author left clues ? TwT ) In this ending, I think that either Isaac came back as a kid since he didn’t drink blood for years, and found Giselle back cause he’s still attached to her in some ways. And the bizarre guy at the end could then be the actual real serial killer who is just some creep who’s following Isaac around. (Cause yeah, Isaac being sometimes a killer, why not, but since the beginning that seems way too incoherent) That, or the creepy guy IS Isaac, who either just finally found Giselle and came with a kid for Giselle to care for, or has been staying in contact with Giselle and the kid actually is theirs.
The way the ending was written felt like the author wanted to punish someone (her editors ? Some bullies in the comments ?), and seemed quite mean spirited in the way it was done. But I think that she naturally might have gotten too attached to her characters to really hurt them. That would be pretty natural as an author. So she might have juste narrated in a bad ending an actually happy written ending ? Hope they still like writing and haven’t fallen out of love of telling stories yet, they really are a great story teller. And hope that they’ve started healing from whatever might have happened to them
It’s very strange that they say isaac killed the “brother” Because they clearly show in every other killing that it was NOT Issac because the chin is different, also, during the one killing, Isaac was simultaneously with Giselle so it couldn’t have been him so why? Also 10 years later Isaac(?) finally finds her and the killer is there too?
I understood a bit better the ending after coming back a year later
SPOILERS COMING, AND IN A BIG LONG POST
So when I read it last year I coulnd’t understand why Giselle just killed Isaac with no remorse, and why there was at the same time a mini Isaac and a monster adult one in the epilogue.
So first point : Giselle didn’t try killing Isaac, she actually saved him.
In ep60, when Isaac flees, I think he’s running to the top of the hill to kill himself with the sunrise. Giselle comes to shoot him so the other hunters think she finished him off and they leave him alone. And by shooting him he falls and ends up in the forest, safe from burning in the sun.
What makes me think that is that in the epilogue, her friend asked if Giselle actually used the silver bullet (that would have really killed him). From a narrative standpoint, the only use of having this question is to say Giselle didn’t.
Next point, I’m actually not completly sure, I have two theories. (If we’re lucky the author left clues ? TwT )
In this ending, I think that either Isaac came back as a kid since he didn’t drink blood for years, and found Giselle back cause he’s still attached to her in some ways. And the bizarre guy at the end could then be the actual real serial killer who is just some creep who’s following Isaac around. (Cause yeah, Isaac being sometimes a killer, why not, but since the beginning that seems way too incoherent)
That, or the creepy guy IS Isaac, who either just finally found Giselle and came with a kid for Giselle to care for, or has been staying in contact with Giselle and the kid actually is theirs.
The way the ending was written felt like the author wanted to punish someone (her editors ? Some bullies in the comments ?), and seemed quite mean spirited in the way it was done. But I think that she naturally might have gotten too attached to her characters to really hurt them. That would be pretty natural as an author. So she might have juste narrated in a bad ending an actually happy written ending ? Hope they still like writing and haven’t fallen out of love of telling stories yet, they really are a great story teller. And hope that they’ve started healing from whatever might have happened to them
It’s very strange that they say isaac killed the “brother” Because they clearly show in every other killing that it was NOT Issac because the chin is different, also, during the one killing, Isaac was simultaneously with Giselle so it couldn’t have been him so why? Also 10 years later Isaac(?) finally finds her and the killer is there too?
The kid can't be Isaac since the kid came at daytime with the womand and he can be outside without dying.