Really? I'd love to hear it because I felt out of all 3 that episode 1 was the worst for having no actual story whatsoever but a mishmash of scenes.
Episode 3, for all its faults, started relatively more simple with the kidnap plot unfolding from the start.
Probably giving the first one too much credit there but me and the missus found ourselves looking at each other with incredulity at some of the exchanges in the first half of episodes 2 and 3.
Jonathan making small talk with the weatherwoman was extraordinary. I don't think I've ever seen such a bland scene on television before.
I watched it Tuesday afternoon, and the difference in tone and quality of writing between the new and old was obvious. The Adam Klaus sub plot was hilarious and the "washing" gag with Maddie was well handled. The new episodes had nothing like the quality of humour shown in this ep, which is by no means the best "classic" Creek episode out there.
That's a bit unfair to make presumptions about someone you don't know. Where do you get the impression she's deemed herself "above it"?
When she and Alan were doing the interview rounds for Clue of the Savant's Thumb last year the 3 episode mini series had already been announced. She said she had a play coming up in the autumn and due to that being the only time they could fit filming around Alan's schedule she wasn't sure if she'd be able to do both at the same time.
Then somewhere around last summer it was confirmed that she couldn't do the series due to schedule conflicts.
Perhaps it is harsh but I figured, someone had to be let down and I think if you truly want to do something, you do it and make room for it, and she didn't make room for JC even though it gave her a great role in the past.
It may well be a case of she had already signed for the play and didn't want to let them down, and had she signed for JC first she would've done that. I don't know. But it just felt like I'd seen more of her last year than usual and perhaps that put her off being the secondary character. Maybe, maybe not.
I just watched Seer of the Sands. An episode which I've always considered one of the weakest from the original run. I enjoyed it SO much. Carla and Jonathan had a brilliant chemistry (almost better than what he had with Maddy) and the mix of mystery/comedy was spot on. The mystery itself - although highly improbable - made complete sense in the context of this episode and kept you guessing till the end. Jonathan even uses a rather devious and clever way of revealing the whole thing (planting a word no one "could possibly know" in a teacup!) The Adam Klaus subplot is weak, mainly as it has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot, but apparently this was done in Series 4 as the episodes were an hour long and the Adam Klaus subplot was edited out to sell shorter 45 minute eps to other countries where they'd be broadcast with advertisements.
Plus Jonathan and Carla contacted Maddy for some help via e-mail...!
I didn't see the recent repeat but I've seen this one at least twice. If I recall the mysteries that Jonathan explains are the fly on the fax, the message in the bottle, and the mystery word - solved via finding a pin dent in the dictionary? I wonder what people would think of that last one if it was used now, would it be considered completely improbable?
Perhaps it is harsh but I figured, someone had to be let down and I think if you truly want to do something, you do it and make room for it, and she didn't make room for JC even though it gave her a great role in the past.
It may well be a case of she had already signed for the play and didn't want to let them down, and had she signed for JC first she would've done that. I don't know. But it just felt like I'd seen more of her last year than usual and perhaps that put her off being the secondary character. Maybe, maybe not.
Perhaps she foresaw how the writing was going from the specials she appeared in and decided to sign up for dramas and plays that have been critically acclaimed.
Perhaps it is harsh but I figured, someone had to be let down and I think if you truly want to do something, you do it and make room for it, and she didn't make room for JC even though it gave her a great role in the past.
It may well be a case of she had already signed for the play and didn't want to let them down, and had she signed for JC first she would've done that. I don't know. But it just felt like I'd seen more of her last year than usual and perhaps that put her off being the secondary character. Maybe, maybe not.
Sheridan was contracted to play Titania in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
She said she would be able to film Jonathan Creek if it filmed in/ near London and then she would do the show in the evenings. That alone says to me she was keen to return.
The workload obviously wasn't possible, and given the low budget for Creek nowadays, it would have made sense for them to film outside of London meaning she couldn't commit.
Plus, Creek always has evening/ night shoots which wouldn't have been possible alongside the shows.
I know this is a bit of an old thread, but I sort of missed Jonathan Creek first time round and have been binge-watching it lately in compensation. Some of that binging has been courtesy of the repeats on UK Drama, but it's only when watching the same episodes elsewhere that I have realised how brutal the editing is on this channel. Certain scenes that made no sense, I have just been putting down to quirky writing, but I now realilse that UKD have simply cut entire sections to make it fit into the hour.
Examples:
- Maddy enters a restaurant with a man, saying that she doesn't want to spend any more time in a tank of boiling ink. This leads to a joke about being served boiled octopus. It is a completely baffling joke, until you realise that their was originally a preceding scene of Maddy in a sort of new-age flotation tank, which was cut.
- Jonathan is in what appears to be a birdwatching hut with Adam Klaus's interfering older sister. The sister steps outside and presently witnesses a murder. There is no explanation of why they are suddenly in this hut and what they are doing in this place which happens to be near the scene of the episode's crime. It turns out, in the original version, that Jonathan is on one of his occasional badger watches, and Adam has made him take the sister along to get her out of his hair.
I'm now wondering what other points of confusion have been due to UK Drama's garden-shears approach to editing.
Unfortunately the UKTV channels do edit for time and to allow for pre-watershed viewing.
If you want to watch Dramas on there and they are fitted into an unreasonable time slot, so you basically know that edits will have been made, then it's best to try to catch them on original channels or buy the boxsets.
UKTV made me laugh when they titled some programmes as 'extended versions' which basically meant the original (except still with ad breaks).
I know this is a bit of an old thread, but I sort of missed Jonathan Creek first time round and have been binge-watching it lately in compensation. Some of that binging has been courtesy of the repeats on UK Drama, but it's only when watching the same episodes elsewhere that I have realised how brutal the editing is on this channel. Certain scenes that made no sense, I have just been putting down to quirky writing, but I now realilse that UKD have simply cut entire sections to make it fit into the hour.
Examples:
- Maddy enters a restaurant with a man, saying that she doesn't want to spend any more time in a tank of boiling ink. This leads to a joke about being served boiled octopus. It is a completely baffling joke, until you realise that their was originally a preceding scene of Maddy in a sort of new-age flotation tank, which was cut.
- Jonathan is in what appears to be a birdwatching hut with Adam Klaus's interfering older sister. The sister steps outside and presently witnesses a murder. There is no explanation of why they are suddenly in this hut and what they are doing in this place which happens to be near the scene of the episode's crime. It turns out, in the original version, that Jonathan is on one of his occasional badger watches, and Adam has made him take the sister along to get her out of his hair.
I'm now wondering what other points of confusion have been due to UK Drama's garden-shears approach to editing.
UKTV editing of programmes is diabolical in general, there are some programmes that actually don't make sense anymore or appear badly written as they cut things that they feel are unimportant but in the grand scheme of things they are. Even old 30 min comedies from BBC they make them 40 mins and still cut the original 30 mins to bits.
As it's a cold wintry night I just re-watched Black Canary for the first time in years.
Without doubt, it's one of Renwick's finest pieces - the actors, characters, comedy, and mystery.
Comments
Probably giving the first one too much credit there but me and the missus found ourselves looking at each other with incredulity at some of the exchanges in the first half of episodes 2 and 3.
Jonathan making small talk with the weatherwoman was extraordinary. I don't think I've ever seen such a bland scene on television before.
I watched it Tuesday afternoon, and the difference in tone and quality of writing between the new and old was obvious. The Adam Klaus sub plot was hilarious and the "washing" gag with Maddie was well handled. The new episodes had nothing like the quality of humour shown in this ep, which is by no means the best "classic" Creek episode out there.
Perhaps it is harsh but I figured, someone had to be let down and I think if you truly want to do something, you do it and make room for it, and she didn't make room for JC even though it gave her a great role in the past.
It may well be a case of she had already signed for the play and didn't want to let them down, and had she signed for JC first she would've done that. I don't know. But it just felt like I'd seen more of her last year than usual and perhaps that put her off being the secondary character. Maybe, maybe not.
I didn't see the recent repeat but I've seen this one at least twice. If I recall the mysteries that Jonathan explains are the fly on the fax, the message in the bottle, and the mystery word - solved via finding a pin dent in the dictionary? I wonder what people would think of that last one if it was used now, would it be considered completely improbable?
Surely that tells you how full her schedule is.
She said she would be able to film Jonathan Creek if it filmed in/ near London and then she would do the show in the evenings. That alone says to me she was keen to return.
The workload obviously wasn't possible, and given the low budget for Creek nowadays, it would have made sense for them to film outside of London meaning she couldn't commit.
Plus, Creek always has evening/ night shoots which wouldn't have been possible alongside the shows.
The reveal is about to happen!
Pity they couldn't bring Julia Sawalha and Ade Edmondson back.
Examples:
- Maddy enters a restaurant with a man, saying that she doesn't want to spend any more time in a tank of boiling ink. This leads to a joke about being served boiled octopus. It is a completely baffling joke, until you realise that their was originally a preceding scene of Maddy in a sort of new-age flotation tank, which was cut.
- Jonathan is in what appears to be a birdwatching hut with Adam Klaus's interfering older sister. The sister steps outside and presently witnesses a murder. There is no explanation of why they are suddenly in this hut and what they are doing in this place which happens to be near the scene of the episode's crime. It turns out, in the original version, that Jonathan is on one of his occasional badger watches, and Adam has made him take the sister along to get her out of his hair.
I'm now wondering what other points of confusion have been due to UK Drama's garden-shears approach to editing.
If you want to watch Dramas on there and they are fitted into an unreasonable time slot, so you basically know that edits will have been made, then it's best to try to catch them on original channels or buy the boxsets.
UKTV made me laugh when they titled some programmes as 'extended versions' which basically meant the original (except still with ad breaks).
On now.
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/cult/news/a785761/jonathan-creek-is-returning-to-bbc-one-for-a-new-special/
Summer special!
Will they expect us to be sad about it though? I certainly won't be.
UKTV editing of programmes is diabolical in general, there are some programmes that actually don't make sense anymore or appear badly written as they cut things that they feel are unimportant but in the grand scheme of things they are. Even old 30 min comedies from BBC they make them 40 mins and still cut the original 30 mins to bits.
As it's a cold wintry night I just re-watched Black Canary for the first time in years.
Without doubt, it's one of Renwick's finest pieces - the actors, characters, comedy, and mystery.