|
||||||||
Jonathan Creek |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#151 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
One other point -
if the black guy had just murdered Stephen and dumped him in a field miles away from the house, and not drugged, kidnapped Alison - Creek and wife wouldn't have investigated the graveyard. It's the classic plot device where the villain over-complicates his evil scheme. Had the black guy killed Stephen and left Alison alone - and not created the pit of horror routine - no-one would have made any connection! See, you can be too smart and it backfires on you. ![]() I agree with a lot of the other criticisms of the show. One other thing that bothered me is that no-one tried to talk to the old guy. He could signal with his eyes, so they could have found some way to communicate. He must have been disturbed by the black guy putting up cameras around his home without permission, and would have wanted to expose that. Nobody thought the old guy was evil or anything. And when he does signal, it is to indicate a letter 'Y' that no-one can see except him. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#152 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,409
|
Quote:
I agree with a lot of the other criticisms of the show. One other thing that bothered me is that no-one tried to talk to the old guy. He could signal with his eyes, so they could have found some way to communicate. He must have been disturbed by the black guy putting up cameras around his home without permission, and would have wanted to expose that. Nobody thought the old guy was evil or anything.
And when he does signal, it is to indicate a letter 'Y' that no-one can see except him. |
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 795
|
The biggest saving grace of the episode was Warwick Davis. He was the best thing in the plot and was a welcome addition. The rest was watchable, but not in the league of JC in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bristol
Posts: 2,913
|
Quote:
Jonathan knew it was the same man but had slipped up.
Spoiler
Not really sure why they introduced a murdery character from Jonathan's past just to kill him in fire. Seemed like a bit of filler to try to create drama where it was lacking. |
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,559
|
Who was the man with the knife?
I can't remember ever seeing him in an episode. |
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 293
|
The lad who played young Jonathan looked remarkably like Alan Davies would have been at that age I think. Does anyone know if he was played by Alan's own son?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,364
|
I did not enjoy it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 644
|
I enjoyed it - not as much as the original first series but a lot better than the last.
I was almost convinced at the beginning that the man was Vincent Price then realised it couldn't be! I thought Jonathan was not so much on the ball this time. I like others got Antimony straight away but didn't connect it to the husband just the poison. I also got the missing pages straight away. I was still pretty convinced that the housekeeper had something to do with it until the missing pages were found then I thought it was the security camera guy. The comedy was good and Warwick Davis fitted right in but I would have preferred to see more of Jonathan than him as he seemed to take over. Loved the bit about "go and pick some cotton " and Jonathan's reaction. Also the vodka ice cubes were good. I thought his wife was fine in it and don't really understand the criticism of her. The only thing that was off was the burning alive of the guy in the pit. Rather too offhand I thought as it is a terrible death. |
|
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 4,837
|
Quote:
Who was the man with the knife?
I can't remember ever seeing him in an episode.
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
. I thought his wife was fine in it and don't really understand the criticism of her.
. Why did she marry him if she dislikes him and his lifestyle so much? And she constantly makes stupid and unhelpful remarks when he's on a case. Also they have zero chemistry, she has zero personality, and I can't imagine them ever being attracted to one another. (Why did the writer not give him a nicer wife?) |
|
|
|
|
|
#161 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 644
|
However she did go with him to the creepy house and did stay even after getting into bed with the dead man, not rushing off to the nearest hotel. She tries to work out the clues and does take an interest. She even crawled on her hands and knees to find the cellar entrance and went down! I don't think I would do that. She was also sympathetic about his brother.
BTW have we heard about his brother before and what happened to him. I must admit I did not get the significance of the globe falling open showing the pixie notes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#162 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,559
|
[quote=cris182;84995100]He never appeared in the episode where he was the killer
Oh, right, thank you...what was the episode and how do you know? Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
|
|
#163 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,847
|
Quote:
She deleted a telephone message meant for JC, deflected her friend when she was about to tell JC about the case, moaned about him bringing his belongings from the windmill to their house (as if it was only her house), moaned constantly in fact about him getting involved in weird situations. As he's been doing forever.
Why did she marry him if she dislikes him and his lifestyle so much? And she constantly makes stupid and unhelpful remarks when he's on a case. Also they have zero chemistry, she has zero personality, and I can't imagine them ever being attracted to one another. (Why did the writer not give him a nicer wife?) Exactly this . As you said, in an earlier post, she prevents Jonathan from being Jonathan, which is surely the whole purpose of the series. I read an interview with Alan Davies re this episode and he mentioned that he and the actress who plays Polly have known each other for years...sadly though they don't seem able to transfer this friendship/contact to the screen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#164 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,847
|
The only good thing I can say about last nights episode is that it was marginally better than the awful mini series of a few years ago
Jonathan looked more like the person from earlier episodes, casual clothing rather than the awful suit...and a country house setting, not him in a London office. Apart from that, Polly began to irritate me from her first appearance and nothing improved thru the episode. Sadly, I don't suppose they are going to change the set up now. If they do make any more I will watch them....but more in hope than expectation..... And, today, I got out my box sets and indulged, just to remind myself how good this programme used to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#165 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
Exactly this
. As you said, in an earlier post, she prevents Jonathan from being Jonathan, which is surely the whole purpose of the series. I read an interview with Alan Davies re this episode and he mentioned that he and the actress who plays Polly have known each other for years...sadly though they don't seem able to transfer this friendship/contact to the screen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#166 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 13,864
|
I'm surprised by the negative reaction to be honest.
While it was far from being the strongest episode, I thought it was so much better than most of the recent episodes - the miniseries was admittedly dire. As regards the plot holes - Jonathan Creek has never been the most logical programme on the telly, it's always had an element of escapism. Yes, it does take coincidence for a lot of the mysteries to work. Yes, it is illogical that the killers go to all the trouble of coming up with an overblown 'cunning plan' to do away with their victim or cover up the crime, but that's always been the case. The show relies on the fun of the mystery, it's never been massively concerned with establishing the reason to go to all the effort or to explain away the potential failure ratio .I agree that Polly isn't the best companion (though she was much better this time around) and I still don't think the show is as strong as the early series, but I did genuinely feel it was a move in the right direction. |
|
|
|
|
|
#167 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,964
|
Quote:
I'm surprised by the negative reaction to be honest.
While it was far from being the strongest episode, I thought it was so much better than most of the recent episodes - the miniseries was admittedly dire. As regards the plot holes - Jonathan Creek has never been the most logical programme on the telly, it's always had an element of escapism. Yes, it does take coincidence for a lot of the mysteries to work. Yes, it is illogical that the killers go to all the trouble of coming up with an overblown 'cunning plan' to do away with their victim or cover up the crime, but that's always been the case. The show relies on the fun of the mystery, it's never been massively concerned with establishing the reason to go to all the effort or to explain away the potential failure ratio .I agree that Polly isn't the best companion (though she was much better this time around) and I still don't think the show is as strong as the early series, but I did genuinely feel it was a move in the right direction. ![]() For me, the show is about trying to pick up the clues and come up with possible solutions - however far-fetched they might be I loved the humour in this episode, Nina picking cotton, Warwick Davies dialing the helpline for the exorcism, the buttons Not as good as the early ones, but better than the more recent ones, and an enjoyable hour and a half's TV |
|
|
|
|
|
#168 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 191
|
sorry not read all the threads, but I was expecting it to be poor as have been his recent one offs (for me nothing beats the C Quentin series). But I did think that this was clearly the last JC and if anything maybe Warwick would be the spin off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#169 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 88
|
Quote:
What was the plot twist with the taxi driver,being the hubby of the scarecrow lady..
The man seeking revenge discovered their location by asking the neighbour who knew where they were because of her taxi driver husband. |
|
|
|
|
|
#170 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 766
|
[quote=gemini666;84995849] Quote:
He never appeared in the episode where he was the killer
Oh, right, thank you...what was the episode and how do you know? Did I miss something? |
|
|
|
|
|
#171 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chez Newda
Posts: 3,948
|
I thought it was one of the better specials, all of them could be pulled apart at the seems if you tried, even the early ones.
I did like all the past references, closing the door on the windmill, bringing up past cases and even giving Warwick an old Volvo estate to drive. The worst one without doubt being the Judas Tree a good number of years ago now that I can only remember some carp about injecting a tree and a woman falling out a window trick. |
|
|
|
|
|
#172 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford
Posts: 1,564
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
|
I agree that Polly is a bit annoying in the fact that she's actively trying to keep Jonathan from going near these puzzles, when we as an audience desperately want him to solve the mysteries.
But rewatching the first couple of episodes, I can't understand the undying love fans seem to have of Caroline Quentin's character. Yes, she pushes Jonathan into the cases, but aside from that she's annoying, loud, constantly eating and speaking at the same time and entirely unsympathetic. I think it's an unpopular opinion, but I think Sheridan Smith was the best companion. Lot of spunk and character. |
|
|
|
|
|
#174 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,084
|
Quote:
Correct, also the husband didn't actually have to set up poisoned ball to fall into his wives drink at all, he could have poured her the drink and slipped the poison in. He only had to set up the scene where by it could have happened, so that JC would spot it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#175 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 339
|
I'm in the "not quite vintage but a lot better than many recent episodes" camp.
My thoughts: Mr and Mrs Creek need to "consciously uncouple". The wife is just too bland and she doesn't really work as a foil. Jonathan needs to live somewhere a bit more atmospheric. Perhaps not back to the windmill but possibly he could live in a watermill or a gothic church conversion. (found for him by the Warwick Davies character). Warwick Davies's character is great and needs to return. I agree about the surfeit of vicar detectives but he could be popping in and out. My suggestion is that he helps Creek get over his divorce/separation by introducing Creek to his niece (who turns out in a reverse cliché expectation to be a gorgeous 6ft ex-model) and she becomes Creek's new accomplice. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16.






