I think that the idea of JC's wife not understanding his sleuthing world works fine. But that's only if there is a Sheridan smith character there spurring his love of a good mystery on.

We're all watching the show because we want to go on that journey with jonathan, and the minute somebody starts preventing that from happening, we as an audience are automatically going to take a disliking to that character. When she is then thrown into the mix as the main assistant, it's going to make it hard to warm to the partnership.

I agree 100% with this. Let's hope Warwick's character is drafted in to be the 'sidekick' in future episodes and Sarah can be sidelined

If Polly was written with comedic intent, in that her efforts to prevent JC sleuthing were actually funny, it might work. But for that you'd need a more devious character - someone like Maddy in reverse, in fact.

Imo she just comes over as a whinging, controlling wife who wants a bland, boring husband, and I don't see how that contributes anything positive to the show at all.

His wife shouldn't be the one holding him back, She should be almost impartial. For the tension to work he can't be married to the person who holds him back because as she is his wife there cannot be enough tension there

We know he isn't going to divorce her just because of it whereas he could cut someone else out of his life if they push him

Keeping her as just a girlfriend may have worked better

The police seemed to bring Stephen Belkin's body out from the dungeon at the end but not the angry ex-con stalker's body. So Jonathan & his wife just murdered someone and nobody's going to mention that? Seems odd to me

Killing someone who is trying to kill you is not murder.

Of course, in reality, they would have been taken in for questioning - either voluntarily, or under arrest if they would not cooperate. There would then have been a normal investigation and the CPS would make a decision based on the evidence available.

That would have rather spoiled the flow of the story, though. JC is not supposed to be realistic.

Well, I enjoyed it.

Although I agree that Polly didn't immediately fit in as well as Sheridan Smith's character did, I now accept her (and she was great in The Worst Week of My Life). Since you know that, as hard as she tries, she won't keep Jonathan away from the mystery, her attempts at doing so are all part of the humour.

Of course there are plot holes, but then there always have been in the JC episodes, but if you suspend your disbelief, they hardly matter.

Was the Windmill scene faked? I thought the whole point of Jonathan leaving it was because they could no longer secure the rights to film there. Unless of course they were very naughty and simply filmed in the lane outside?

I just wish we could have a complete new series though, instead of these very occasional specials.

I think close examination will reveal that it is a similar but not identical windmill of which there are many in this green and pleasant land.

In the show the wife said something about how Creek had not bothered mentioning the ex-con to the police. Presumably they would still be able to tell he had died recently but I am more bemused by their attitudes. They had killed the guy in a horrific manner but were not even slightly bothered about it.

I am also surprised there are not more comments about this on here. I was totally shocked (especially given how grisly it was and the lack of any attempt to avoid the guy being killed). The guy was on fire but rather than look for a fire extinguisher or water they closed the lid trapping him. It made them seem as cold-blooded as any villain on the show. Bizarre!


ETA:


BIB I am not sure that really fits here though. If e.g. they were on the roof and had to push him off as he was swinging a knife at them that would be one thing. Closing the lid over him while on fire?! That's not self-defence. Also it is not just the legal side. Is it not weird that they were so nonplussed after killing someone in one of the supposedly most painful ways and certainly horrible ways?

Nope. She said "He knew you were holding something back." To which Jonathan replied "About who's behind all this, yes." Nowt to do with the ex-con.

Closing the lid would, of course, be the most effective way of extinguishing the flame so not quite sure where you're going with this. That's why Belkin's body was still identifiable. Once the oxygen in that small space is exhausted there is no fire.

OK fair enough although that still means he didn't mention the ex-con surely.

That whole bit seemed weird overall. I had thought maybe the guy would turn out to be intending to either thank Creek for helping turn his life around or scare him. With the audience and characters just made to think he was planning to kill Creek. That soon faded though halfway through.

It does raise major plot issues though. Belkin (?) could still be recognized so it seems reasonable that they would spot another recently burned body. As an ex-con his details would be on file so surely they would eventually know it was him. The guy they knew was out for Creek! Who was recently burned to death in the place where Creek had just been! That whole sub-plot is a bit of a mess frankly.


Are you saying they closed the lid to try to save him? Was it sufficiently air-tight? Surely the best option would be to turn the gas off and try to put the fire out. The guy is hardly much of a threat anymore at that point.

I think there is a danger of overanalysing this.

From what we saw, it was quite clear that the stalker would not survive long, even if they did manage to get him out and extinguished. Severe skin burns and his lungs would have been completely shot.

They knew that there was no water and no fire extinguishers.

Admittedly, shutting the cover and just leavingt did seem a bit odd.


I don't think they were in the least nonplussed. Their lack of any concern at all, as mentioned, was what seemed weird.

Yes I am overanalyzing given it is a whimsical show but DS can do that.

I am not sure they knew there were no extinguishers or water nearby but yes he was unlikely to be saved. Ensuring he is not saved is still different though.

I was using the word "nonplussed" in the American sense (i.e. unconcerned) which has perhaps caused confusion as the standard English meaning is the opposite.

What gas? It was oil. Presumably closing the doors automatically stopped further supplies and extinguished the fire otherwise what was the point of them being there at all? What else were they going to put it out with ... their bare hands? It must have been them that called the police so it's not like they just walked away and left it like nothing had happened.

Probably best when talking to a mainly British audience not to use words to mean the exact opposite to what they think it means.

You might also note that that your use is not the standard, accepted, meaning, even in the US.

How about if Mrs. C runs off with the vicar? That could work.

I was shocked - I think it was a mistake on the part of the writer to include this scene, compounded by the Creeks' nonchalance about it. I think your idea that the ex-con was actually going to thank JC would have been better, and would have added to the comedy.

In reality the couple would be traumatised, probably for years.

But it is Jonathan Creek, which has only a tenuous connection to reality, so I didn't let it bother me overmuch.

Terrible plot line.

Terrible writing.

Anachronistic production.

Warwick decent.

This should be the last one ever unless they get a new writer to bring it into this century properly.

Don't understand the comments about his "horrible wife".

I do understand comments about how on earth would Jonathan ever have married her.

She clearly deserves a very good seeing to on a regular basis and hints in this episode again that Jonathan may struggle to get it up.

The poor casting only really relates to the fact that if you were married to Sarah Alexander, you would be far too busy shagging your ridiculously sexy wife to spend time solving ridiculous mysteries. 😀

Maybe Jonathan is too intimidated by her nagging to perform adequately. She probably goes on about him being a failure even when they are having sex.

There's more to being sexy than just looking good - a bit of warmth and enthusiasm is desirable.

I think you may be right. I didn't actually realize. I knew there were two opposing meanings but always assumed "unconcerned" was the main one until checking following your post. Now you tell me it is not even standard in the US! Now I am nonplussed by my own confusion!

This is a problem that you see, even in serious drama.

People who, in reality, would be, at least temporarily, deeply upset, if not technically traumatised.

People who have had a friend/workmate/relative murdered appearing completely emotionally detached seconds after being told.

Presumably it would just make the dramatic flow impossibly messy if you had people behaving even slightly more realistically.

I don't know why they didn't just leave him there and close the lid without setting him alight.

No fire. And no life either. Because, no oxygen.

I stop reading now. Not watched it yet. So may give it a go tonight