Salzmank

Geez, so no more Columbo on Sunday nights? Too bad.

On “…Cried Wolf”: Exactly! On “…Red-Headed Stranger”: Yeah, we chatted about it a few pages back… That one is infuriating.

Two random things that have come to mind as I’ve watched Monk in its new, replacing-Columbo time slot on MeTV: 1. Anyone else find the environmental activist’s death disturbing in “…and the Blackout”? For some reason that episode always seems to be on, and every time I watch it I think that murder by bulldozing a tree the victim is locked to (such a common method, there should be a word for it) is just such an awful way to go. Not sure why, maybe because of the inability to get away? That may be some relative of my claustrophobia speaking. ;) 2. “…and the Girl Who Cried Wolf.” Man oh man, this may just be the goofiest, least-convincing mystery I’ve ever seen. Monk’s solution doesn’t even explain half the mystery! I don’t viscerally dislike the ep as much as “…and the Red-Headed Stranger” because, well, everything about that one drove me up the wall, it was so off and mean-spirited. But “Cried Wolf” is just plain goofy, which is too bad because it’s by my favorite Monk writer (Hy Conrad).

And unless you say, “After you,” “Well, you know what we did here” [if the client knows what you did here, why are you saying it—again?!], and other assorted catchphrases 12 zillion times.

I’ve seen a few more of the McEwans now and enjoyed all of them. Kind of baffled that so many Christie fans don’t like these. I find them much more entertaining than the much-praised Joan Hickson adaptations—and McEwan a much more dynamic, fun presence. She’s fantastic in every episode.

I mean, as you say the demeanor isn’t the same, but I was delighted to see that he really did throw his head back when he laughed, which he did as Marty. That’s one of my favorite things about Marty.

I’ve only seen the first two episodes, but I enjoyed them both (though with reservations, natch). I first found out about Omar Sy from, yes, Intouchables—he’s an excellent actor with a real talent for comedy. I don’t speak French fluently (though I know enough to get around), but Sy’s inflections are so good that you can tell the emotion he’s conveying even if you don’t speak the language. A Lupin adaptation is a good idea; making a new character who bases his M.O. on Lupin is an even better one. The series seems to have the budget of a movie, the scripts are well paced, and the acting is all very good. My one major criticism from the episodes I’ve seen so far, though, is that they’re not surprising or complex enough. Assane Diop is supposed to be the world’s greatest thief, inspired by the fictional Arsène Lupin (to thieves what Sherlock Holmes is to detectives), but… The schemes and plots are more or less the same as you get in an average episode of Leverage. I want hyper-complex, elaborate robberies and wild, unexpected twists. To be fair, I have only seen two episodes. And that bike-delivery thing in Episode 2 really was clever. I just hope the scripts eventually match the quality of the leading man’s performance.

This a question about the original (Jason-Grant) Ghost Hunters… If anyone can help, I’d greatly appreciate it. Not sure if I’m remembering one, two, or three GH episodes (I’m thinking two), but no matter how many, I have some specific memories of it/them. First memory: Jason and Grant are investigating a staircase—I think in a private residence. There’s a door at the top of the steps. Every time they look away, the door closes. The camera at one point shows the door closing on its own. Jason and Grant try to figure out if the door is on an angle that makes it close. I think the kicker is it’s actually angled the opposite way. Second memory: Jason and Grant are at opposite ends of a staircase and the guy at the top hears a noise coming from the bottom and the guy at the bottom hears a noise coming from the top. (Of course neither of them is making a sound.) Third memory: One of them team, I think Kris Williams, puts down flour in an attic and then locks the door; when everyone returns, there are footprints in the flour. If anyone remembers an episode or episodes like these, please let me know. I distinctly remember these plot points and for the life of me can’t anything with them.

Is anyone else here a big fan of the Geraldine McEwan Marples? At least Season 1, the only one I’ve seen. I know most Agatha Christie fans don’t like these because McEwan herself is a little too impish and witty to be a faithful Miss Marple and because the screenwriters took liberties with Christie’s plots. But—as filmmaking and as mysteries, I think they’re fantastic. Production values of a Hollywood movie; fine, witty, fast-moving scripts; lots of clues and other mystery-plot niceties. Even the changes to the books work: A much-criticized change in The Body in the Library doesn’t actually alter Christie’s plot, and a change to A Murder is Announced only clarifies a same-sex relationship about which Christie was coy. Reportedly the episodes degrade in quality after Season 1, but I’m watching the Towards Zero adaptation (Season 3) now and think it’s really quite good so far. What say you?

Thanks, all! As you can probably tell I’ve only watched Monk in reruns and have definitely missed a few episodes (though I think I’ve seen “…and the Rapper”). That said, I always wanted a supporting character—Sharona/Natalie, Stottlemeyer or, yes, Disher—to solve a case entirely on his/her own. For whatever reason I always feel like I want that in a mystery show… Maybe because I like showing that someone other than the genius sleuth has brains? 😉

Or Natalie—or Stottlemeyer, or even Disher (!)—solving the case. That’d be a small but, I think, nice change on formula.

Oh, this interested me… I watched another episode of The Good Cop tonight on the chance that it may be better—and it was. More to the point, though, the writer (an old hand from Monk, as all the Good Cop writers were) used that same Monk trick I was going on about above: apparently motiveless murder, but the murderer killed the victim to gain access to something that victim had. I’m not going to say what episode it was just in case anyone wants to see the show, but I find it quite something that they used that same solution again! What I will also say is that this episode is marvelously clued—at least as well as some of the best Monks. This one restored my faith in the Monk writers. Also, I feel bad for Monica Barbaro, who plays Groban’s love interest. She’s quite good in this (and, er, very attractive), but the show around her flopped, so she’ll get no credit for that.

“So I’m alone because I’m afraid of being alone?” 😉 All you’re saying is true, but it was also a way for the writers to keep the character more or less the same (romantically, at least) throughout eleven seasons. That’s what makes the Laura Linney arc so unsatisfying, I think; she’s not suitable for him, yet she’s the one he ends up seeking because the show is ending. (Of course, no guarantee that “she’s the one”—as you say, Frasier will probably never find “the one.” Except maybe Lilith. 😉) If he’d ended up with Faye, who I think is the most compatible with him, he’d have to lose some of his over-the-top, snooty ways because she’d call him out on them (and is, I think, the only one of the girlfriends to do so—except, again, Lilith). I guess the Faye/Cassandra name thing could be a result of that desire for self-sabotage. There’s really no other psychologically convincing reason he would mix up two such unlike people with such unlike names.

Excellent—we’re all Faye fans! Fabulous Faye! Forever Faye! 😉 As I said in the Monk thread for me it is definitely the writing. Both shows you could the episodes were clearly plotted out from start to finish. With some shows it seems like the plot was made up as it went on. And also both shows had little things you could easily miss but catch on a second viewing. Yes, spot-on about the clarity of the plot. That’s something else the writers’ theater-background probably taught… Also, re: what I was saying there about detective stories, I should note that Frasier’s “Retirement is Murder” (S2:E13) is a pure detective story, complete with an Ellery-Queen-esque dying clue, a false solution, and a least-likely suspect who’s the killer. The writers just had to be mystery fans. And yes again! Frasier’s pretty much the only sitcom I can actually say I learn from! 😄

Yes, her dry sense of humor was excellent. I feel like (alone among the show’s almost-always excellent characterizations) many of Frasier’s girlfriends are written too one-note, and with Faye I just think the characterization’s deeper. She almost fits too well—which may be one of the reasons she’s dropped so perfunctorily. It’s not Frasier unless Frasier’s having some problem with his love life! Excellent point, I hadn’t even thought of that, but of course you’re right. (Obviously, I haven’t seen enough Wings!) The Frasier ep with Shalhoub as the newsstand owner was a hoot—but it left me feeling so sorry for his character! 😄 Thank you so much for the warm welcome!

I’m responding to this post more than six years after you wrote it, but I just found this thread now. I’m a big fan of John Stewart’s Green Lantern too; he’s probably my favorite GL, even if only because he was the first one I knew (in this show). He’s just a great character, as you say, and the writers clearly put a lot of thought into how to use him. And that “Legends” dialogue you quote works so well because the writers don’t belabor the point and don’t mock the hero saying it; they use it as a teachable moment without coming off as preachy. _____________________________________ This really is such an excellent show. Offhand, the inclusion of “Am I Blue?” in “This Little Piggy” and Superman’s tearful monologue in “For the Man who Has Everything” are just fantastic writing, kids’ superhero show or not. (The latter episode even improves on its fine Alan Moore source material.)

We were talking in the Monk thread about Frasier, and I realized that, even though Frasier is probably my favorite TV comedy, I’ve never posted in this thread! (By the way, as I mentioned there, fans of Frasier tend to be fans of Monk and vice versa—I’m still wondering exactly why, though my suspicion is because of the complex-but-seems-easy writing.) Anyway, @peacheslatour and I were talking in that thread about Faye (Amy Brenneman), who’s by far my favorite Frasier girlfriend. I’m wondering if anyone else really likes Faye. I know the fandom tends to love Claire, and I certainly don’t mind her, but I’ve always thought Faye was the only person to call Frasier out on his snobbishness and genuinely humanize him more. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that I think she was really attractive.

So, I’m not trying to turn the conversation here in the Monk thread away from Monk—honest!—but did anyone here watch Netflix’s one-season The Good Cop? With Tony Danza and Josh Groban as father and son detectives. Monk creator Andy Breckman also created it and brought several Monk writers along. I’m watching “Who Killed the Guy on the Ski Lift?” (Episode 7 of 10) now, and… Ehh, I can see why Netflix canceled it after only one season. Judging from this episode—and from reviews—it’s certainly not as accomplished as Monk, though it’s clearly the same writers. The comedy is surprisingly weak—I’ll have to see about the mystery as it goes on. Anyway, apropos of what we were talking about before, the show basically seems like Frasier as filtered through a Monk sensibility! 😄 EDIT: Actually, I’ve changed my mind. The writing isn’t actually that weak (some of the lines could be funny)—the acting is. It just goes to show how much Monk was made by Shalhoub et al.’s performances. Danza’s comic timing is good, as is to be expected, but Groban and the entire supporting cast’s is atrocious. EDIT 2: So, it’s not good. The killer’s identity was obvious, and I spotted every clue. Ehh, at least it had clues, right…? But mostly it just doesn’t work as a show.

While I agree with you that Falk is inimitable, I think a rebooted Columbo could work if the actor takes the role seriously and doesn’t do a Falk imitation. Also, a rebooted Columbo should be kept the same even in a different world. In other words, he should drive around in the Peugeot, get yelled at for the cigar, and not carry a gun or cell phone. He’d be, for all intents and purposes, 1970s Columbo while the world has changed around him. And, as the article-writer says, he should go after modern Big Tech execs and the like. Mark Ruffalo looks like Falk, reportedly loves the show, and has expressed a desire to play the character. I think he’d be a great choice, especially based on his performance in Zodiac. As for the writing, yes, it’d be hard to get the right team, but it probably could be done. Definitely plunder the Monk ranks; in particular, Hy Conrad wrote some of the best Monk mysteries (and the best five-minute-mysteries book I’ve ever read, Historical Whodunits [2005]), and I’d expect him to do a great job with Columbo. Also, as I just wrote on these boards about Frasier, grab writers who come from a theater background—they know about cluing and complex plotting.

I wonder if there’s a lot of crossover between Monk fans and Frasier fans… Judging from the reaction to your post, all of us here are fans of both! Frasier is, I think, my favorite TV comedy ever. The writing and acting—and even, though admittedly on a TV-sitcom level, direction (making a few sets look that visually interesting must have taken such skill)—are consistently brilliant. Something both shows have in common is complex plotting: Monk almost out of necessity because it’s a mystery show, Frasier probably because most (all?) of the writers came from the theater and were used to elaborate farces and complexities. (A “well-made” play and an Agatha Christie-style mystery have a lot in common.) I don’t know if that’s what attracts us all to both shows, but I don’t think that, for the most part, the shows’ styles of humor are all that similar or anything like that. Hmm… And, yes, I was watching those two Christmas Frasiers Monday as well. While the masseur one has many good things, “Merry Christmas, Mrs. Moskowitz” is one of my favorite episodes of any show. In an episode filled with great lines (as usual), one throwaway I particularly love is how Niles nonchalantly says, “OK,” when Frasier tells him to pretend that they’re Jewish. Also, Faye Moskowitz (Amy Brenneman) is by far my favorite Frasier girlfriend.

Well, Orbach’s Briscoe’s right: even the Monk get-at-something-victim-owns motive ultimately gets back to jealousy, revenge, or money—it’s just covered up! 🙂

Oh, I should clarify that I didn’t mean the apparently-but-not-actually motiveless murder in general—which, as you say, is often a thing in mystery fiction—but rather the Monk writers’ specific solution to it: the motive is so that the killer can get his hands on something that will benefit him (e.g., will be worth a lot of money, will incriminate him, etc.). In other words, the killer has no real interest in seeing the victim dead, he just wants to get at something the victim has and kills to get it. Examples (spoilers) include “Mr. Monk Goes to the Ballgame” (in which the object is the record-breaking baseball), “…and the Very, Very Old Man” (the incriminating letter), and “…and the Paperboy” (the lottery numbers—just like that Murder, She Wrote episode I referenced), among many others. The writers were doing the same trick as late as Season 8’s “…and the Dog,” though in that one the question is why someone is trying to kill a dog. I’m not complaining: it’s a good puzzle-plot device, and the writers get a lot of variation out of it. I just find it amusing that they repeated it so many times—now I think of it as “the Monk trick”!

To me too. Or at least some sort of imagination/flashback/dream sequence. As far as I know—so take this with a grain of salt—Poole-Camille-Dwayne-Fidel were meant to be the main cast for the full run. Also, creator Robert Thorogood has written a series of books with the team, which seems to suggest those are the people he envisioned for all of these stories.

Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re probably right—hope so!

So, Season 10 spoilers, but it was the Death in Paradise production team that did the spoiling, so… Camille and Poole are coming back. https://www.instagram.com/p/CITqCQMHu5E/?igshid=144wb7s3lrazn I’m not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, Poole is my favorite DiP lead. As I’ve written above, I think the show kind of lost its way after he left (despite some excellent episodes): it’s supposed to be fish-out-of-water, not guy-who-wants-to-blend-in. On the other hand, the writers will almost definitely fail to convince us of any way he could have come back. Sherlock couldn’t do that, and that series sleuth we all knew was coming back. However they do it—he faked his death, Camille imagines him there, he’s in a flashback—will come off at best as a disappointment and at worst as laughable. Also, as someone noted at r/deathinparadise, bringing all these people back makes me feel like the show is ending. I mean, the show’s had a good run, so maybe I should be OK with its ending now, but I really like Ralf Little as Insp. Parker and want him at least to finish out a lengthy run. Well, we’ll see. Just happy that the show is coming back in spite of corona!