Salzmank
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Salzmank
-
-
1 hour ago, LexieLily said:
I remember the setup of the bloodied-dead man that wrote the lipstick message on the mirror of the bathroom and hung himself and I just remembered thinking (a) that restaurant was going to have to shell out major money for therapy bills if any kid found them and (b) how the hell did he get down, get away and wipe away the message in the twenty or thirty seconds it took Sharona to get and bring back Monk?
And oh, good, I'm not the only one who doesn't like Red-Headed Stranger. One of the least-sympathetic murderers, IMO.
On “…Cried Wolf”: Exactly!
On “…Red-Headed Stranger”: Yeah, we chatted about it a few pages back… That one is infuriating.
-
3
-
-
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).
-
2
-
-
On 9/27/2021 at 3:01 AM, Mediocre Gatsby said:
It's my considered opinion that you can't be a Ghost Hunter unless you're willing to speak lines with simply egregious grammar. "Grant and myself went into the room." "It really startled Grant and I." "We couldn't validate your guys's experiences." Oy.
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
On 11/10/2021 at 3:08 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:
I love this clip of John Mahoney accepting a Tony. His demeanor is sooooooo different from Martin's. It shows how good his acting is.
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.
-
6
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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?
-
3
-
-
On 1/12/2021 at 11:48 AM, shapeshifter said:
I think there's a couple of cases in which Natalie is the first to notice key evidence. I recall noticing that recently but not which episode (currently I'm living in over-the-air TV Monk land, heh).
But I was kind of looking to see if Randy ever did anything to warrant his end-of-series promotion in NJ, and noticed in "Mr. Monk and His Biggest Fan" that Randy took down the murder-rampaging perp with a Janga move in the lumber warehouse.
That episode also has a good example of something happening that makes no sense (which I maintain is contained in every Monk episode) in that the Mother of the little boy who spends the day with Randy pays $300 for that purpose.
On 1/12/2021 at 12:35 PM, Mikita said:One that I can think of is Mr. Monk and the Rapper. Natalie immediately told Monk that she didn't think that it was Murderess. She stated her reasons why. Adrian was dismissive and asked why she thought that. Natalie said she had a hunch. He dismissed that and she replied he get's hunches sometimes.
Then when they leave the recording session, Denny came out of the building to tell Monk about the "guy" that was hanging around the garage the night before the limo exploded. As soon as he left, Natalie said he's the guy. Monk replied another hunch? Natalie was right! I think there are more episodes but this one always stood out to me because she immediately knew who didn't do it and who did do it once she met Denny.
On 1/12/2021 at 1:56 PM, LexieLily said:In the episode where the high school stalker/bully of Natalie killed his father and stepmother (the neighbors of Natalie's parents) Natalie was the first to determine that there was no cell phone service up in the spot where the car crash happened meaning the father couldn't have called for help like Paul/the police report said. Natalie found the evidence that proved the father returned to the house that night and didn't die in the car crash.
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? 😉
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, LexieLily said:
Monk always solved the case and the Core Four always ended up getting the guy in the end, but would have been an interesting change and something different if one time they didn't. An episode where Monk won without the team getting the full win would be an episode I would have been interested in seeing - what if Monk figured out who the killer was and Stottlemeyer collected all of the appropriate evidence and warrants for the arrest, but the episode ended with Stottlemeyer's higher-up telling him that their prime suspect fled the country and can't be found?
Or Natalie—or Stottlemeyer, or even Disher (!)—solving the case. That’d be a small but, I think, nice change on formula.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ailianna said:
The late season episode with all Frasier's past love interests and his self analysis disguised as Lilith and his mom explains why Faye couldn't stay, in a way I think is true to the relationship and his character. She was awesome and great for him so I think some of his problems were self sabotage so it wouldn't be so bad when she eventually left him (his fear speaking there). She was lovely and artistic and good for "artsy-fartsy" conversation--so naturally he would be afraid to lose her.
“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.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:
Faye was also my favorite. And a lot of that had to do with Amy Brenneman playing her. I have liked her in every role she has ever played.
Excellent—we’re all Faye fans! Fabulous Faye! Forever Faye! 😉
QuoteQuote38 MINUTES AGO, ANNBER03 SAID:
, I think your theory about the writing and such is probably spot on.
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.
QuoteAnd most importantly neither show dumbed itself down to appeal to more viewers. There were lots of jokes on Frasier about wine and opera that I didn't get it. But that was OK. I knew something funny had been said.
And yes again! Frasier’s pretty much the only sitcom I can actually say I learn from! 😄
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, Annber03 said:
I liked Faye, too, for the same reasons you note. I liked her dry sense of humor, I liked how she just rolled with the craziness when Frasier and his family were pretending to be Jewish for her mom, and she and Frasier did have some stuff in common in terms of interests and such. Plus, she clearly got on well with Daphne, which was nice :D.
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!
QuoteDoesn't hurt that Tony Shalhoub was in an episode of "Frasier", and of course, was also on "Wings', which came from the same people who created "Frasier". I haven't seen "Monk", but given all the good things I've heard about it, I think your theory about the writing and such is probably spot on. It seems anytime I see Shalhoub pop up on TV somewhere, he's on shows that are known for their sharp, smart writing and which have incredibly talented casts and such. So yeah. I can definitely see the connection. I like Shalhoub, so I should check out "Monk" sometime. I know a couple channels show reruns during the day, so I may have to sit down and start watching them.
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! 😄
QuoteIn the meantime, glad to see another poster here in the "Frasier" discussion thread! Welcome-look forward to talking more about this show with you :).
Thank you so much for the warm welcome!
-
2
-
-
On 10/24/2014 at 10:13 PM, ribboninthesky1 said:
Yeah, it's a shame John Stewart didn't get more kudos. In the few places I read fans' thought, it was common to read "I prefer Hal Jordan/Kyle Radner." I thought the writers did a good job showing John's struggle with his humanity and roots, and his tremendous sense of personal responsibility. I also liked that the ring didn't define him - he'd still go for the jugular if he couldn't use it. Maybe I could have enjoyed the Green Lantern animated films if he was the feature. As it was, I couldn't get through them.
This series more or less ignored race, but I did like John's reaction in the Legends episode when one of the old-school heroes says something like, "You're a credit to your people."
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.)
-
2
-
-
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.
-
5
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 8/21/2020 at 3:02 PM, Kromm said:
I'm not worried about the villains. There are plenty of good actors around.
Aside from Peter Falk being literally irreplaceable as Columbo, there's also the writing to consider. Those villains worked so well because they were both acted AND written well. Not that good writers don't exist now too, but stylistically people tend to write very differently now. It will be hard to match the proper style and tone.
To be fair, MONK wasn't that many years ago and did have a SIMILAR if not identical tone.
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.
-
6
-
-
On 12/7/2020 at 10:55 PM, Gramto6 said:
Both Monk and Frasier have stories that live through time. The humor still works today and will work tomorrow. Watching a Christmas episode of Frasier on Cozi tonight I really laughed out loud...it felt so good!!
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.
-
3
-
-
59 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:
IRL I would bet that most murders are committed for the Lennie Briscoe (L&O) reasons of jealousy, revenge, or money. But Monk (as Stottlemeyer is won’t to say) gets called in whenever they have “a particularly difficult crime to solve.”
So, yes, it is his “Monk trick.” 🙂Well,
Orbach’sBriscoe’s right: even the Monk get-at-something-victim-owns motive ultimately gets back to jealousy, revenge, or money—it’s just covered up! 🙂-
2
-
-
On 12/1/2020 at 8:42 PM, Kromm said:
The apparently motiveless murder is a Hitchcock thing, even though I agree that it's not a MacGuffin. See the exhibit named "Strangers on a Train". The reason for things in that movie is only one of many ways to do an apparently motiveless murder, but I think it reinforces the idea that in Mystery fiction at least (unlike either reality or books that are Thrillers) there's always a motive somewhere. You just have to find it.
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”!
-
1
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, auntiemel said:
To me, that clip clearly looked like Camille's memory.
To me too. Or at least some sort of imagination/flashback/dream sequence.
8 hours ago, iRarelyWatchTV36 said:So was having a revolving door on the DI & other St Marie police positions always the plan? Or just adopted & instituted after BM's leaving the series??
IE, was the original S1-S3 cast meant to be the only main cast for the full run of the series, or was it built-in from the start that the main cast would be replaced after so long (every 3-4 years, on average)?
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.
-
4
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:
I'm sure it'll be a cameo/hallucination which will be disappointing.
And I think this is all about the 10th anniversary--not necessarily that the show is ending.
Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re probably right—hope so!
-
1
-
-
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!
-
1
-
5
-
Monk - General Discussion
in Monk
Geez, so no more Columbo on Sunday nights? Too bad.