This episode was like they had two poor ideas and thought that
combining two weak ideas would make one strong one. They were wrong.
It was more like a joke or self-parody. The bathtub murder was so
simplistic it must have been a rejected idea from earlier.

Why did the Chinese restaurant have a Hindu statue??

Natalie wasn't very funny but the real problem was the writing.

On 5 Feb 2005 09:12:10 -0800, "Richard Fangnail"
<richardfangnail@excite.com> wrote:

>This episode was like they had two poor ideas and thought that
>combining two weak ideas would make one strong one. They were wrong.
>It was more like a joke or self-parody. The bathtub murder was so
>simplistic it must have been a rejected idea from earlier.

The cases themselves are always lame. At least yesterday's episode
didn't pretend to be a detective show and was instead about Monk. This
is what the show ought to be.

The Time Has Come, David said
To Talk Of Many Things...

>The cases themselves are always lame. At least yesterday's episode
>didn't pretend to be a detective show and was instead about Monk. This
>is what the show ought to be.

The show ought to be crap? I think I have to disagree with you there.


**
Captain Infinity
..."Once you get used to the druggings, this isn't a bad place."
--Marge Simpson

Richard Fangnail wrote:
> This episode was like they had two poor ideas and thought that
> combining two weak ideas would make one strong one. They were wrong.
> It was more like a joke or self-parody. The bathtub murder was so
> simplistic it must have been a rejected idea from earlier.
>
> Why did the Chinese restaurant have a Hindu statue??
>
> Natalie wasn't very funny but the real problem was the writing.
>

The presentation was MUCH improved. The dual reveal with Monk and Randy
was done quite well. This episode was more character driven than story
driven, which is a good thing. I like that they are expanding the show
away from it's traditional format. I'd prefer this doesn't turn into
another Murder She Wrote.

I'm sorry but I thought Natalie's bit about Monk being the prince of
darkness was pretty damn hilarious.

"Stop saying I'm the prince of darkness, that's how rumors get started!"

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:16:42 -0500, Captain Infinity
<Infinity@world.std.com> wrote:

>The Time Has Come, David said
>To Talk Of Many Things...
>
>>The cases themselves are always lame. At least yesterday's episode
>>didn't pretend to be a detective show and was instead about Monk. This
>>is what the show ought to be.
>
>The show ought to be crap? I think I have to disagree with you there.

The show should be about Monk and the people around him trying to live
with his illness, with the detective work in the background. The way
the show is now the cases usually aren't that interesting and if you
haven't figured them out after 15 minutes you're probably not paying
enough attention. That means the next 45 minutes are a wash aside from
the few scenes that deal with Monk's eccentrities.

I thought yesterday's episode was good. It had some funny lines, a few
character-defining moments, and it held my attention more than the
case-driven episodes. It wasn't perfect but had the right general idea
for what the show ought to be.

I thought this was one of the dullest "Monk" episodes I've seen. Two
simple murders, and neither one was a "whodunnit?" We just saw the
crimes as they happened. The "dual reveal" was an interesting
experiment, however.

In article <42050401.1358883@news.individual.net>,
dimlan17@yahoo.com (David) said:

> The cases themselves are always lame. At least yesterday's
> episode didn't pretend to be a detective show and was instead
> about Monk. This is what the show ought to be.

Ummmmmmmmmm, no.

"Cabin Fever" had two good things going for it (1) all the small
moments when it actually became "The Ted Levine Show" and (2) the
goofiness of the simultaneous explanation-and-flashback routines,
both running while everyone else was paying much more attention to
the fact that they were pinned down by assassins with rifles.

The rest of the episode, not so good.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>

Worst. Episode. Ever. Alarming decline in quality.

One idiocy: the fisherman couple are shown as being close by (and Monk
HEARS the murder), yet later it seems to be miles away.

The "character stuff" wasn't too wonderful either. The Sierra Springs
"joke" fell flat...Monk seemed to be acting the part of a neurotic
imbecile, as opposed to the neurotic genius he's supposed to be.

Sam

"Richard Fangnail" <richardfangnail@excite.com> wrote:

>This episode was like they had two poor ideas and thought that
>combining two weak ideas would make one strong one. They were wrong.
>It was more like a joke or self-parody. The bathtub murder was so
>simplistic it must have been a rejected idea from earlier.
>
>Why did the Chinese restaurant have a Hindu statue??
>
>Natalie wasn't very funny but the real problem was the writing.


Horrible
Ken (Brooklyn)

In article <1107654623.367818.81840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
Samuel Barber <opendtv@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Worst. Episode. Ever. Alarming decline in quality.
>
> One idiocy: the fisherman couple are shown as being close by (and Monk
> HEARS the murder), yet later it seems to be miles away.
>
> The "character stuff" wasn't too wonderful either. The Sierra Springs
> "joke" fell flat...Monk seemed to be acting the part of a neurotic
> imbecile, as opposed to the neurotic genius he's supposed to be.


Ah. I think you've nailed it. Monk is supposed to be a neurotic
genius. He's become a moron -- and it's not *funny*, which makes it
even worse. It's just lame and pathetic.

The nerdy lieutenant (who looks like Ken Jennings' bastard
half-brother) did something so stupid that he needed to be fired or at
least transferred. Instead, it's just laughed off.

There was a flash of worthiness at the end, with the double reveal.
Unfortunately, it reminded me that the series used to be that clever
all the time.

I'll give them the thing about the lake, though. They had to drive
around the shore to get to the other cabin, even thoug it's just across
the lake, and that could have been a miles-long trip.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:53:42 -0500, Millard Fillmore
<bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

>In article <1107654623.367818.81840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
>Samuel Barber <opendtv@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Worst. Episode. Ever. Alarming decline in quality.
>>
>> One idiocy: the fisherman couple are shown as being close by (and Monk
>> HEARS the murder), yet later it seems to be miles away.
>>
>> The "character stuff" wasn't too wonderful either. The Sierra Springs
>> "joke" fell flat...Monk seemed to be acting the part of a neurotic
>> imbecile, as opposed to the neurotic genius he's supposed to be.
>
>
>Ah. I think you've nailed it. Monk is supposed to be a neurotic
>genius. He's become a moron -- and it's not *funny*, which makes it
>even worse. It's just lame and pathetic.

I don't think that's anything new. Monk was always a genius, a dolt,
knowledgeable about pop culture or completely in the dark depending on
what the situation warranted.

In article <4205a993.13279519@news.individual.net>, David
<dimlan17@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:53:42 -0500, Millard Fillmore
> <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <1107654623.367818.81840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
> >Samuel Barber <opendtv@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Worst. Episode. Ever. Alarming decline in quality.
> >>
> >> One idiocy: the fisherman couple are shown as being close by (and Monk
> >> HEARS the murder), yet later it seems to be miles away.
> >>
> >> The "character stuff" wasn't too wonderful either. The Sierra Springs
> >> "joke" fell flat...Monk seemed to be acting the part of a neurotic
> >> imbecile, as opposed to the neurotic genius he's supposed to be.
> >
> >
> >Ah. I think you've nailed it. Monk is supposed to be a neurotic
> >genius. He's become a moron -- and it's not *funny*, which makes it
> >even worse. It's just lame and pathetic.
>
> I don't think that's anything new. Monk was always a genius, a dolt,
> knowledgeable about pop culture or completely in the dark depending on
> what the situation warranted.

i think what's new here is Monk's increasingly destructive behavior,
which has (for me) ceased to be amusing. His eccentricities have
become big problems for everybody around him, and they have gotten in
the way of his work. Solving the mysteries on this show hasn't
required a genius lately, unless you consider that *I'm* a genius,
because I've solved the last two of them by :15 into the show.

There's nothing special about this show anymore. Everybody's acting
stupidly just to keep the plots going, even as we careen from one
pathetic Monkism to another every three or four minutes. I'm beginning
not to like this person very much because he's become a self-indulgent
pain in the ***. He has become arrogant about his disability. The
Monk from the first couple of years was very sympathetic, but that was
before somebody told the Monk people to make the show "funnier" by
turning Monk into a clown.

Millard Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

>In article <4205a993.13279519@news.individual.net>, David
><dimlan17@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 23:53:42 -0500, Millard Fillmore
>> <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1107654623.367818.81840@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.c om>,
>> >Samuel Barber <opendtv@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Worst. Episode. Ever. Alarming decline in quality.
>> >>
>> >> One idiocy: the fisherman couple are shown as being close by (and Monk
>> >> HEARS the murder), yet later it seems to be miles away.
>> >>
>> >> The "character stuff" wasn't too wonderful either. The Sierra Springs
>> >> "joke" fell flat...Monk seemed to be acting the part of a neurotic
>> >> imbecile, as opposed to the neurotic genius he's supposed to be.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ah. I think you've nailed it. Monk is supposed to be a neurotic
>> >genius. He's become a moron -- and it's not *funny*, which makes it
>> >even worse. It's just lame and pathetic.
>>
>> I don't think that's anything new. Monk was always a genius, a dolt,
>> knowledgeable about pop culture or completely in the dark depending on
>> what the situation warranted.
>
>i think what's new here is Monk's increasingly destructive behavior,
>which has (for me) ceased to be amusing. His eccentricities have
>become big problems for everybody around him, and they have gotten in
>the way of his work. Solving the mysteries on this show hasn't
>required a genius lately, unless you consider that *I'm* a genius,
>because I've solved the last two of them by :15 into the show.
>
>There's nothing special about this show anymore. Everybody's acting
>stupidly just to keep the plots going, even as we careen from one
>pathetic Monkism to another every three or four minutes. I'm beginning
>not to like this person very much because he's become a self-indulgent
>pain in the ***. He has become arrogant about his disability. The
>Monk from the first couple of years was very sympathetic, but that was
>before somebody told the Monk people to make the show "funnier" by
>turning Monk into a clown.


I have to say it without snipping - great post. Dead on.


Ken (Brooklyn)

Millard Fillmore wrote:
> In article <4205a993.13279519@news.individual.net>, David
> <dimlan17@yahoo.com> wrote:
> snip <
> Monk from the first couple of years was very sympathetic, but that
was
> before somebody told the Monk people to make the show "funnier" by
> turning Monk into a clown.

*******
Agreed. What started as a funny but smart murder mystery show has
degenerated into a slapstick showcase for Shaloub. Its become
something like ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET LAW AND ORDER with Shaloub as
Costello and Ted Levine as Abbott.

In article <060220050654021227%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> Solving the mysteries on this show hasn't
> required a genius lately, unless you consider that *I'm* a genius,
> because I've solved the last two of them by :15 into the show.

I think what the geniuses are missing is that in the last episode you
weren't SUPPOSED to solve anything. We *saw* the murder take place, and
the Disher's situation, well, I don't think the writer's expected
anyone to think the fortune cookies were real. This just wan't a
mystery episode.

This third episode of the season wasn't like the previous two lame shows.
It was worse.



"Richard Fangnail" <richardfangnail@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1107623530.797840.22140@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
> This episode was like they had two poor ideas and thought that
> combining two weak ideas would make one strong one. They were wrong.
> It was more like a joke or self-parody. The bathtub murder was so
> simplistic it must have been a rejected idea from earlier.
>
> Why did the Chinese restaurant have a Hindu statue??
>
> Natalie wasn't very funny but the real problem was the writing.
>

In article <060220050806459936%nospam@nospam.com>, Quiet Desperation
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <060220050654021227%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
> Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Solving the mysteries on this show hasn't
> > required a genius lately, unless you consider that *I'm* a genius,
> > because I've solved the last two of them by :15 into the show.
>
> I think what the geniuses are missing is that in the last episode you
> weren't SUPPOSED to solve anything. We *saw* the murder take place, and
> the Disher's situation, well, I don't think the writer's expected
> anyone to think the fortune cookies were real. This just wan't a
> mystery episode.

The "mystery" was that the girlfriend was a phony and the cookie thing
was a plot to fool Ken Jennings Boy. This show's on the rocks because
they didn't write it with their brains engaged. It would have been a
much better show if Disher had twigged to the plot early and led the
assassins off in some other direction, or made the bust himself. At
the end he fills in the captain on the details.

"You figured it all out and led them away?"

"Well, of course I did. What do you think I am, an idiot?"

You don't think the writers meant the viewers to think the cookie
warnings were genuine? Wow. That's an apologist approach if ever I
saw one.

In article <060220051744500119%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> You don't think the writers meant the viewers to think the cookie
> warnings were genuine? Wow. That's an apologist approach if ever I
> saw one.

Apologist? Good Lord, you'd think we were discussing matter of state
here.

No. I don't think the viewers were at any point suppossed to feel there
was any real mystery surrounding Disher's GF. People were complaining
it was too easy to "solve" when there was nothing to solve.

Millard Fillmore wrote:

>
> There was a flash of worthiness at the end, with the double reveal.
> Unfortunately, it reminded me that the series used to be that clever
> all the time.

Has this show changed writers or something (in addition to losing
Schram)? This ep. was the first of this season's I've caught, and it
seemed really off.

C.
**

deering24@mindspring.com wrote:
> Millard Fillmore wrote:
>
> >
> > There was a flash of worthiness at the end, with the double reveal.
> > Unfortunately, it reminded me that the series used to be that
clever
> > all the time.
>
> Has this show changed writers or something (in addition to losing
> Schram)? This ep. was the first of this season's I've caught, and it
> seemed really off.
>
> C.
> **

Good question. The cleverness of seasons one and two haven't shown up
lately. My favorite old standards would be the one where Monk goes to
Mexico to solve the mystery of someone drowning in midair.

Monk used to come off as a genius who noticed details nobody else did.
My favorite parts would be when he would detect someone was lying based
on some arcane knowledge about something that contradicted what they
were saying. Someone else said it best--he was a neurotic genius. He
simply lacked common sense. The slapstick self-destructive aspect of
the character seems to have been given the spotlight this season rather
than simply being a show about seemingly impossible murders being
solved by someone who is neurotic enough to figure them out, which is
how it used to be. I think the show depends on plausibility more than
perhaps the director and writers realize. The worst episodes have been
the silly, implausible ones (for instance, attempting to make Sharona
appear crazy...it was ridiculous).

I was thinking by now that Monk would be dealing with the increased
fame of solving high-profile crimes; meanwhile, trying to cope with the
fact that all he does in his life is solve murder mysteries and track
down psychos. For someone so neurotic, it would be interesting to get
some reflection on what HIS perspective is about his life, rather than
him just playing slapstic victim to it all the time by making a big
deal about how he has to throw dirt away.

Also, what happened to his desire to become a cop again? That was an
interesting bit of tension between him and the police guy in the early
seasons.

P.S. I cringe whenever Natalie says "Mr. Monk." :) I don't know why;
it's the way she says it. She's so whiny and pushy for some reason.
It doesn't feel right for someone whose just met her employer two
episodes ago. The Sharona character earned the right to be irritated
after two and a half seasons, and all she had to do was just stare at
him with a menacing look then walk away. Not hit him with a "death
pillow" while whining about her kid. I think they pushed the Natalie
character into the "irritated Sharona" role way too quickly. I would
have liked to witness her gradual irritation through each episode.

In article <060220051512426185%nospam@nospam.com>, Quiet Desperation
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <060220051744500119%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
> Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > You don't think the writers meant the viewers to think the cookie
> > warnings were genuine? Wow. That's an apologist approach if ever I
> > saw one.
>
> Apologist? Good Lord, you'd think we were discussing matter of state
> here.

I think we know that we're not.

> No. I don't think the viewers were at any point suppossed to feel there
> was any real mystery surrounding Disher's GF. People were complaining
> it was too easy to "solve" when there was nothing to solve.

I respectfully disagree. I think if that had been the case, they would
have tipped it to the viewers even earlier than they did. However,
even if you call it a "surprise" insead of a "mystery," it was still
too obvious, and they missed a chance to do something special with
Disher.

Also, if you're right and the thing with the girlfriend was intended to
be as transparent as it seemed to be, then there was *no* mystery in
this episode at all. It was just a police procedural, and not a very
good one at that. This is not a good thing.

In article <1107746343.768837.180770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
<bonch@stupid.com> wrote:

> P.S. I cringe whenever Natalie says "Mr. Monk." :) I don't know why;
> it's the way she says it. She's so whiny and pushy for some reason.
> It doesn't feel right for someone whose just met her employer two
> episodes ago. The Sharona character earned the right to be irritated
> after two and a half seasons, and all she had to do was just stare at
> him with a menacing look then walk away. Not hit him with a "death
> pillow" while whining about her kid. I think they pushed the Natalie
> character into the "irritated Sharona" role way too quickly. I would
> have liked to witness her gradual irritation through each episode.

Some people have shorter tempers. Nothing you can do about it. You
forget that Sharona was irritated even in the first episode. She was
Monk's nurse as well as his assistant, so she would have been a little
more patient, knowing all about his condition. If you think Natalie is
quick to anger, what about the fill-in nurse from one episode last
season? I like Natalie. She looks and acts like a real woman, not
heavily made-up and dressed like a hooker the way Sharona was.

bonch@stupid.com wrote in news:1107746343.768837.180770
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> P.S. I cringe whenever Natalie says "Mr. Monk." :) I don't know why;
> it's the way she says it. She's so whiny and pushy for some reason.
> It doesn't feel right for someone whose just met her employer two
> episodes ago. The Sharona character earned the right to be irritated
> after two and a half seasons, and all she had to do was just stare at
> him with a menacing look then walk away. Not hit him with a "death
> pillow" while whining about her kid. I think they pushed the Natalie
> character into the "irritated Sharona" role way too quickly. I would
> have liked to witness her gradual irritation through each episode.
>

It's a question of where the show is going. In Sharona's case, there was
never any hint of romance between her and Monk. Therefor, it was easy for
her to progress to, or remain at, annoyed. If Natalie is supposed to
become a romantic interest, there needs to be a progression from annoyed
and upset to appreciation and respect. That was shown at the end of this
episode, when Natalie decided that murders happening around Monk were a
good thing so he could catch the murderers. The fact that it's starting
to happen already may mean the show won't be lasting much longer.

In article <Xns95F66EDE3A0C1xunknown@129.250.170.83>,
Wayne Barber <wbarber@tidewater.xspam.net> wrote:

> That was shown at the end of this
> episode, when Natalie decided that murders happening around Monk were a
> good thing so he could catch the murderers.

That was mostly an in-joke, echoing the time on Murder, She Wrote when
somebody complained about so many people getting killed in Cabot Cove.

In article <060220052322295435%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> I think we know that we're not.

I know, but "apologist" was too funny. :-)

In article <070220051910067784%nospam@nospam.com>, Quiet Desperation
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <060220052322295435%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
> Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I think we know that we're not.
>
> I know, but "apologist" was too funny. :-)\

Well, if you want to obsess over a word, I guess this is the group for
it.

In article <070220052259195846%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> Well, if you want to obsess over a word, I guess this is the group for
> it.

Am I not putting enough smileys? :-)

Geez, the Usenet gets less jolly every year. :-(

In article <070220052148269989%nospam@nospam.com>, Quiet Desperation
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <070220052259195846%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
> Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Well, if you want to obsess over a word, I guess this is the group for
> > it.
>
> Am I not putting enough smileys? :-)
>
> Geez, the Usenet gets less jolly every year. :-(


It was a joke, son.

I don't do smileys. They're lame.

In article <080220050846547291%bathtub@whig.org.invalid>, Millard
Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> I don't do smileys. They're lame.

Smite your tongue! They are the foundation of emotional transmission in
this global digital age!






;-)