Jonathan Creek : I have questions/ a rant
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
3. It wasn't full of blood, it knocked over Warwick Davis wine glass.
There's a massive problem With stevens murder scene too, that the womans hair was laying flat on the bench she was tied to, which wouldn't have happened if she was vertical.
There's a massive problem With stevens murder scene too, that the womans hair was laying flat on the bench she was tied to, which wouldn't have happened if she was vertical.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
There's a massive problem With stevens murder scene too, that the womans hair was laying flat on the bench she was tied to, which wouldn't have happened if she was vertical.
Did we actually see the murder, or just what she remembered about it? She was probably too doped up to remember what her hair was doing.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
As someone who is fascinated by how memory works, I'd find it cool if that was the case. I doubt it, but I'll check if I can see any confirmation that that's the case, but I doubt it.
Did we actually see the murder, or just what she remembered about it? She was probably too doped up to remember what her hair was doing.
Incidentally when I saw the episode, I thought that it was going to turn out to be a nightmare she'd had while she'd been unconscious, due her memory of either the movie or the fact she'd heard/read about the real version or something.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
Did we actually see the murder, or just what she remembered about it? She was probably too doped up to remember what her hair was doing.
We saw the murder and something as simple as an actress with short hair would have solved the whole issue.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
Because whenever David Renwick, or most other writers give us a "remembering flashback" scene we get the characters voice over the top of it telling another character about it.
Here we are seeing the murder then we see her wake up.
Here we are seeing the murder then we see her wake up.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
Really? Given that neither of the two explanations shown was actually the real one?
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
yes, Jonathan was explaining it to his wife, both times.
which is how we, the viewer, know it might not be true (See above where i explain this device)
The levitation murder however was seen as it happened, it wasn't a memory or theory or anything like that.
which is how we, the viewer, know it might not be true (See above where i explain this device)
The levitation murder however was seen as it happened, it wasn't a memory or theory or anything like that.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
It wouldn't exactly be the first oversight in JC history. You could probably pick a logistical hole in most of the episode puzzles.
I'm often reminded of the Grinning Man, where a slit throat leaves a mere drop of blood on the floor.
I'm often reminded of the Grinning Man, where a slit throat leaves a mere drop of blood on the floor.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
1. If Steven was married to the killers sister how did he not recognise him? They must have met at, I dunno, a family event.
Fair point, but there's numerous possibilities including:
a) killer deliberately kept victim away from her family, which is a common trait of abusers
b) husband married sister after the victim was murdered
3. Why did the JC scarecrow a) exist [bit weird no?] and b) have blood in it?
There was no blood. Some red wine was spilled during the attack/aftermath.
I think the writer (David Renwick) has used this plot device before in both Jonathan Creek and One Foot in the Grave.
Yes, it is a weird thing for the character to do, but that's part of the joke; likewise the cop's reaction is part of the joke.
5. Surely the old man would have told the girls foster parents that there were hereditary issues that should probably get checked out. After all she could die (again, more a rant than a question).
I think the claim was that the condition was incurable, and so, according to the old man's logic, there was nothing to be gained from letting her know that she could suddenly die.
I'm not saying I agree with him; just that that was the explanation for his actions.
this has really fallen flat
I liked this episode much better than the last two.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
3. Why did the JC scarecrow a) exist
Wasn't the vicar Jonathan's number 1 fan?
Sir Guy Grand-I like school of Rembrandt
Youngman Grand-St.Rembrandt's high
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
Jonathan mentions that the painting of the zebra (painted by their niece) "suggested a family connection overseas" -although that in itself is a pretty big leap. Therefore I think the idea is that the security camera guy was living in Africa and came (back?) to the UK after his sister-in-law's murder. So he didn't recognise him as they had never actually met before.
1. If Steven was married to the killers sister how did he not recognise him? They must have met at, I dunno, a family event.
This wasn't explained very clearly though, and I had to rewatch the confession scene a couple of times to understand it.
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
1. If Steven was married to the killers sister how did he not recognise him? They must have met at, I dunno, a family event.
Its mentioned the guy lived abroad, and that Steven killed his wife as soon as he realised he wouldn't get as much money as he thought he would out of her. Its not impossible to believe they never met.
2. What happened to JCs brother? Literally no mention of him before this episode.
From the way he talked about him, I think its safe to say he died young.
3. Why did the JC scarecrow a) exist [bit weird no?] and b) have blood in it?
The vicar was a Jonathan Creek fanboy, and there wasn't it. It was the Vicar's glass of wine that got knocked over.
4. Why did they make up Haverley, when there are villages surrounding Horsham where the mill lives (more of a rant than a question).
To avoid offending the locals?
5. Surely the old man would have told the girls foster parents that there were hereditary issues that should probably get checked out. After all she could die (again, more a rant than a question).
He might have, if he did then clearly they never told her.
From the way its presented though it seems he didn't deal with the tragedy that well, got rid of her as fast as he could and figured it would be better if she didn't know she could drop down dead at any moment (she was what six at the time).
Re: I have questions/ a rant
Reply |
2. What happened to JCs brother? Literally no mention of him before this episode.
Maybe there are plans to continue the series if Alan Davies drops out.
So Jonathan has a brother with similar abilities but different back story.
I have questions/ a rant
2. What happened to JCs brother? Literally no mention of him before this episode.
3. Why did the JC scarecrow a) exist [bit weird no?] and b) have blood in it?
4. Why did they make up Haverley, when there are villages surrounding Horsham where the mill lives (more of a rant than a question).
5. Surely the old man would have told the girls foster parents that there were hereditary issues that should probably get checked out. After all she could die (again, more a rant than a question).
I'm a JC uber fan but this has really fallen flat. Considering the writers around these days, who make up incredible stories, they should have been brought in to fix this mess.