DS Forums

 
 

Jonathan Creek


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 11:25
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,537
Perhaps the stalker saw the new address and thought it was way too far to walk carrying that big heavy knife?
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 11:40
thebantam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
I quite enjoyed it.

One thing with the stripy unicorn plot I found a bit amiss was how did they know exactly where her drink would be on the side table when the ball of poison fell into it? I thought the solution to that one would have been the old poison on the book pages so when she licked her finger to turn the page it killed her. Much more realistic
thebantam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 11:56
oldhag
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,151
First time I've ever watched.

Most certainly the last!
oldhag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:03
the_lostprophet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Surrey
Posts: 3,310
First time I've ever watched.

Most certainly the last!
Yeah I wouldn't recommend starting here as the show is very different to how it used to be. I wouldn't think it's not worth watching based on this - the early series was great and might still be on YouTube.
the_lostprophet is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:10
thebantam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Yeah I wouldn't recommend starting here as the show is very different to how it used to be. I wouldn't think it's not worth watching based on this - the early series was great and might still be on YouTube.
It's on Netflix and the early ones were superb. Loved the chemistry between JC and Caroline Quentin's character.
thebantam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:23
digitalspyfan1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
I quite enjoyed it.

One thing with the stripy unicorn plot I found a bit amiss was how did they know exactly where her drink would be on the side table when the ball of poison fell into it? I thought the solution to that one would have been the old poison on the book pages so when she licked her finger to turn the page it killed her. Much more realistic
The show's premise is based on the most wild of coincidences or deductions. Jonathan Creek must have the highest IQ of any person to figure out most of his cases. Heck, I couldn't even realize Stephen was the same guy we saw six years ago! I thought they were two different people.

The idea of a pill rolling along a shelf into a glass of water - a cool idea. Not that far fetched, I guess. Obviously the timing of the roll would be a bit hard to predict or guarantee.
digitalspyfan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:30
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
I quite enjoyed it.

One thing with the stripy unicorn plot I found a bit amiss was how did they know exactly where her drink would be on the side table when the ball of poison fell into it?
Didn't need to. It was a trick that could be done over and over until it fell right. If it missed and didn't simply bounce away out of sight it could be dismissed as a bit of dirt brought in on a shoe or something.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:38
Rorschach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 10,537
I often lay awake for weeks after a JC episode, ripping the plot to shreds, but this (BiB) did occur to me this morning. If the guy installing the cameras was Stephen's brother in law, how did Stephen not recognise him? Or had he never met him?
Indeed we have to assume they never met die to distance or the sister never having liked Stephen anyway. Not impossible, just unlikely.
Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:40
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
Among the other glaring plot holes already mentioned, why on earth did the man wanting to kill JC hide inside the magician's box (which none of the removal men noticed, of course - it didn't become heavier at all)? He looked at the paperwork, got JC's address, but didn't think to just go to the house.
I've only seen a couple of JC episodes in the past, and they've been as ridiculous as last night's which is why I won't be bothering again.
The men were returning to the lorry so he hid himself in the nearest available place, as you do! He was then knocked unconscious when they dropped the box onto the ramp so was unable to extricate himself until much later.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:41
Rorschach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 10,537
The show's premise is based on the most wild of coincidences or deductions. Jonathan Creek must have the highest IQ of any person to figure out most of his cases. Heck, I couldn't even realize Stephen was the same guy we saw six years ago! I thought they were two different people.
Rest assured, after the powers of observation you have displayed on this thread we will never call on you to solve a mystery.
Rorschach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:41
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
My quibble - would Stephen have brought his archive of research papers with him to the house?
Alison had inherited the house and they were starting to move in permanently. So yes!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:44
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
Indeed we have to assume they never met die to distance or the sister never having liked Stephen anyway. Not impossible, just unlikely.
Not even unlikely. I've been to at least two weddings from which one side of the family was completely absent.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 12:50
thebantam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Didn't need to. It was a trick that could be done over and over until it fell right. If it missed and didn't simply bounce away out of sight it could be dismissed as a bit of dirt brought in on a shoe or something.
Only if the killer had access to the bedroom over and over and not just once as was expected by JC once the husband has been freed.
thebantam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:03
spikewoman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
Didn't need to. It was a trick that could be done over and over until it fell right. If it missed and didn't simply bounce away out of sight it could be dismissed as a bit of dirt brought in on a shoe or something.
Yet the victim found a note in her book saying she would die that same night.

Although it flashbacked to the victim finding the note on the same night it could be that this was just a tale told by the murdering husband and in fact he didn't put the note there until the wife had died. Therefore the victim wouldn't have seen that note at all as it would have been planted after her death.

Also the husband could have adjusted the position of the glass so it was in the right spot and we weren't shown this.
spikewoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:07
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
Yet the victim found a note in her book saying she would die that same night.

Although it flashbacked to the victim finding the note on the same night it could be that this was just a tale told by the murdering husband and in fact he didn't put the note there until the wife had died. Therefore the victim wouldn't have seen that note at all as it would have been planted after her death.

Also the husband could have adjusted the position of the glass so it was in the right spot and we weren't shown this.
By George, I think she's got it!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:13
spikewoman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
By George, I think she's got it!
Or perhaps the glass was on a coaster and the husband made sure the coaster was in the right spot? Several variants.
spikewoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:34
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
Or perhaps the glass was on a coaster and the husband made sure the coaster was in the right spot? Several variants.
Actually I've just rewatched the first flashback and the husband does indeed fill the water glasses and place hers in exactly the right spot before she enters the room and takes the book so that clearly is a true account just minus the vital detail. Mystery solved.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:35
solare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,040
I quite enjoyed it. Not as good as the early classics but better than the specials over the last few years.

It's somewhat implausible that Jonathan would have missed the antimony / Anti-Money / research scientist connection 6 years ago. Surely forensic examination and post-mortem would have detected antimony as the poison?

I agree that Warwick Davis was the star of the show. They could replace Jonathan and Polly with him. An eccentric vicar with a enthusiastic passion for 'locked room' mysteries would make a refreshing change from a somewhat disinterested Creek and a reluctant Polly.
solare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:40
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,848
I quite enjoyed the episode but have to agree with the comments that the show isn't what it once was.

In the original series there was usually one main mystery, introduced early on, that the rest of the story hinged on - something that seemed completely impossible but was actually fairly simple. The fun of the episode was trying to put all the clues together before Jonathan did (which I think I only did once).

So what was the main mystery in this episode?

The death of Alison's mother and sisters? Well no, because it wasn't a mystery to anyone other than Alison and it didn't really impact the plot (beyond the fact that Stephen didn't want her to know she potentially had a fatal genetic disorder)

How the man is 'thrown' across the room to his fiery death? Again, no because we assume at the start that it's just a movie special effect or a illusionist trick. Until Stephen is killed none of us know that it's real.

The murder of Stephen's first wife? No, because it's obviously a 'side' mystery.

It's funny because they kind of highlight this issue in the show by calling all his previous cases by a simple name - the mystery of the stripped unicorn etc. What is this one going to be called? "The case of the girl who's family died of a genetic disorder but wasn't told about it who then met a man who killed his wife in a complex way but then realized she didn't have as much money as he thought so then met the aforementioned woman and was hoping to inherit her wealth but didn't realize that the wife he killed bother in law was secretly tracking him down and waiting for some random way to kill him, and then found a secret murder room designed to scare women".
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 13:46
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
I quite enjoyed it. Not as good as the early classics but better than the specials over the last few years.

It's somewhat implausible that Jonathan would have missed the antimony / Anti-Money / research scientist connection 6 years ago. Surely forensic examination and post-mortem would have detected antimony as the poison?
Who said the poison was antimony? Nobody, that's who. Of course he would have seen it if it had been so evidently it was not. Anti-money was a deliberate taunt linking poison and the initials SB. Only an idiot would have actually used antimony as the poison as well!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:00
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
It's funny because they kind of highlight this issue in the show by calling all his previous cases by a simple name - the mystery of the stripped unicorn etc. What is this one going to be called? "The case of the girl who's family died of a genetic disorder but wasn't told about it who then met a man who killed his wife in a complex way but then realized she didn't have as much money as he thought so then met the aforementioned woman and was hoping to inherit her wealth but didn't realize that the wife he killed bother in law was secretly tracking him down and waiting for some random way to kill him, and then found a secret murder room designed to scare women".
BIB: that sounds like an entirely different kind of show to me!

I'm not saying this is the daftest criticism I've read (would that it were!) but it's up there in contention. The way that all the puzzles were interwoven into the one story (let's just call it "the mysteries of Daemons' Roost" - nice and simple) was nothing short of brilliant. What does it matter if it's not the same formula as episodes from 1997? If it had been there's have been complaints that Renwick hadn't had an original idea in 20 years and the the whole thing was stale and predictable. I really don't know why writers bother anymore. Whatever they do will be wrong.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:02
sw2963
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,239
Rest assured, after the powers of observation you have displayed on this thread we will never call on you to solve a mystery.
sw2963 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:21
MR. Macavity
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,424
BIB: that sounds like an entirely different kind of show to me!

I'm not saying this is the daftest criticism I've read (would that it were!) but it's up there in contention. The way that all the puzzles were interwoven into the one story (let's just call it "the mysteries of Daemons' Roost" - nice and simple) was nothing short of brilliant. What does it matter if it's not the same formula as episodes from 1997? If it had been there's have been complaints that Renwick hadn't had an original idea in 20 years and the the whole thing was stale and predictable. I really don't know why writers bother anymore. Whatever they do will be wrong.
Yes, for a writer who is well into his sixties with a fine body of work to his name, its fantastic that he is still able to come up with a 90 minute special that was by most peoples' standards high quality.

Of course its never going to quite reach the heights of the initial Maddie / Carla / Windmill series again - Warwick Davis's joke with the cafetiere and Devils' Chimney early on was an amusing tip of the hat to the 'not as good as it used to be' brigade.
MR. Macavity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 14:31
Woodbine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,409
I really don't know why writers bother anymore. Whatever they do will be wrong.
Getting rid of Polly would be doing something right.

She just drags the show down for me, I want to see someone encouraging Jonathan to take these cases on like before, not trying to stop him.
Woodbine is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 15:09
Tourista
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dagenham Essex UK
Posts: 9,714
Poor, thats all I can say.

The moment the words "Anti-Mony" came up, it was obvious the guy had killed his wife. And the idea that Creek wouldnt have twigged is just silly.

Hope this is the last, because frankly it cant get much worse.
Tourista is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04.