I didn't see any posts on this one - was it that bad!

I have to say, it was definitely low on my list.

I don't mind the plot device here of Monk being directly involved with the
crime (by near proxy) because Trudi's mysterious death has been an integral
part of the plot since the show's inception.

But, the chances of Natalie just coming across "Trudi" and the other guy in
the Diner - a little odds against.

We all knew it wasn't really going to be Trudi, right? It's not like this is
Nowhere Man or anything. So that was a little predictable, but Monk's
discoveries during the investigation, and Natalie and Stot trying to hide it
was pretty interesting.

The whole Randy thinking he was "the Man" was the best part to me (the
murder/plot was almost incidental in that regard). I can believe him
mistaking it for him, and then becoming overzealous in his attempts to live
up to it - although it went a little over the top by the end, it still
wasn't totally, unbelievably dumb Randy.

Not a bad episode IMO, but not a really good one either.

Steve

In article <A55Ne.10570$Xw5.9761@trnddc02>, Steve Latham
<llatham@verizon.net> wrote:

> I didn't see any posts on this one - was it that bad!
>
> I have to say, it was definitely low on my list.
>
> I don't mind the plot device here of Monk being directly involved with the
> crime (by near proxy) because Trudi's mysterious death has been an integral
> part of the plot since the show's inception.
>
> But, the chances of Natalie just coming across "Trudi" and the other guy in
> the Diner - a little odds against.
>
> We all knew it wasn't really going to be Trudi, right? It's not like this is
> Nowhere Man or anything. So that was a little predictable, but Monk's
> discoveries during the investigation, and Natalie and Stot trying to hide it
> was pretty interesting.
>
> The whole Randy thinking he was "the Man" was the best part to me (the
> murder/plot was almost incidental in that regard). I can believe him
> mistaking it for him, and then becoming overzealous in his attempts to live
> up to it - although it went a little over the top by the end, it still
> wasn't totally, unbelievably dumb Randy.
>
> Not a bad episode IMO, but not a really good one either.


I think I liked it better than you did, but you're right about the
Incredible Coincidence. I thought Natalie was being set up so that
she'd head home and tell Monk all about it.

The tip in this one came early, and it may have been for the audience
only: During the first sequence in the diner, Fake Trudy stirs her
coffee with a cinnamon stick and tells the old man that it was a habit
she'd picked up while hiding out in Spain. A little later, Monk says
that Trudy had always used a cinnamon stick with her coffee. I don't
remember if this was said within Natalie's hearing, but if so, she
missed the clue.

The last scene, where Monk holds the dying Fake Trudy, was not as
moving as it might have been. I dunno. It just missed.

I thought the stuff between Disher and the captain about "The Man" was
all right; it was at least a cut above the usual Gilligan-Skipper
routine they do.

A lesser episode, though. Not bad, but it should have been better.

Oh, and I use cinnamon in my coffee sometimes, too. Makes it sort of
Christmassy.

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

} In article <A55Ne.10570$Xw5.9761@trnddc02>, Steve Latham
} <llatham@verizon.net> wrote:

} > But, the chances of Natalie just coming across "Trudi" and the other guy in
} > the Diner - a little odds against.

[...]

} I think I liked it better than you did, but you're right about the
} Incredible Coincidence. I thought Natalie was being set up so that
} she'd head home and tell Monk all about it.

Actually, I think I'm starting to get a bit annoyed by this "plot device"
-- it must be intentional on the part of the writers, but it is bothering
me more and more: that a (or 'the') part of driving the plot forward are
_unbelievable_ coincidences, and it isn't just recently [recall the
'vacation' one where Sharona's son just happens to see the critical five
seconds of the murder, or Ambrose, or the lottery one or Natalie just
happens to get the key photocopier or ... it goes on and on. It is as if
San Francisco only has 100 people living there and they constantly bump
into one another....

I really wish they'd find some less unreasonable way to get Monk involved
in these cases...

/Bernie\

--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

"Millard Fillmore" <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:180820051708368827%bathtub@whig.org.invalid.. .
> In article <A55Ne.10570$Xw5.9761@trnddc02>, Steve Latham
> <llatham@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I didn't see any posts on this one - was it that bad!
>>
>> I have to say, it was definitely low on my list.
>>
>> I don't mind the plot device here of Monk being directly involved with
>> the
>> crime (by near proxy) because Trudi's mysterious death has been an
>> integral
>> part of the plot since the show's inception.
>>
>> But, the chances of Natalie just coming across "Trudi" and the other guy
>> in
>> the Diner - a little odds against.
>>
>> We all knew it wasn't really going to be Trudi, right? It's not like this
>> is
>> Nowhere Man or anything. So that was a little predictable, but Monk's
>> discoveries during the investigation, and Natalie and Stot trying to hide
>> it
>> was pretty interesting.
>>
>> The whole Randy thinking he was "the Man" was the best part to me (the
>> murder/plot was almost incidental in that regard). I can believe him
>> mistaking it for him, and then becoming overzealous in his attempts to
>> live
>> up to it - although it went a little over the top by the end, it still
>> wasn't totally, unbelievably dumb Randy.
>>
>> Not a bad episode IMO, but not a really good one either.
>
>
> I think I liked it better than you did, but you're right about the
> Incredible Coincidence. I thought Natalie was being set up so that
> she'd head home and tell Monk all about it.

I thought it was a set up too, at first.

>
> The tip in this one came early, and it may have been for the audience
> only: During the first sequence in the diner, Fake Trudy stirs her
> coffee with a cinnamon stick and tells the old man that it was a habit
> she'd picked up while hiding out in Spain. A little later, Monk says
> that Trudy had always used a cinnamon stick with her coffee. I don't
> remember if this was said within Natalie's hearing, but if so, she
> missed the clue.

I can't remember now - she was writing notes on the napkin but I'm pretty
sure that wasn't one of them, so it mus have been for our benefit.

>
> The last scene, where Monk holds the dying Fake Trudy, was not as
> moving as it might have been. I dunno. It just missed.

I think the whole plot line missed - this could have been an integral
art - a tie in - of what happened to Trudy in the first place - maybe if
Dale the Whale's leads didn't come through, here's a new chance at some
solution - the writers don't seem to be thinking ahead very well.

>
> I thought the stuff between Disher and the captain about "The Man" was
> all right; it was at least a cut above the usual Gilligan-Skipper
> routine they do.

Yes, a cut above.

Steve

"Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote in message
news:56fbg159v01ambbsisrsvh8a2lsdfb1m3b@library.ai rnews.net...
> Millard Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> } In article <A55Ne.10570$Xw5.9761@trnddc02>, Steve Latham
> } <llatham@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> } > But, the chances of Natalie just coming across "Trudi" and the other
> guy in
> } > the Diner - a little odds against.
>
> [...]
>
> } I think I liked it better than you did, but you're right about the
> } Incredible Coincidence. I thought Natalie was being set up so that
> } she'd head home and tell Monk all about it.
>
> Actually, I think I'm starting to get a bit annoyed by this "plot device"
> -- it must be intentional on the part of the writers, but it is bothering
> me more and more: that a (or 'the') part of driving the plot forward are
> _unbelievable_ coincidences, and it isn't just recently [recall the
> 'vacation' one where Sharona's son just happens to see the critical five
> seconds of the murder, or Ambrose, or the lottery one or Natalie just
> happens to get the key photocopier or ... it goes on and on. It is as if
> San Francisco only has 100 people living there and they constantly bump
> into one another....

Yes, I've been mentioning this repeatedly here as one of my pet peeves (and
for other shows that use this too). It just simply shows a lack of ingenuity
on writer's parts. I don't think it's really "intentional", it's just that
they aren't creative enough to come up with anything else. It's like the
"Deus ex Machina" solutions that also plague a lot of these shows.

>
> I really wish they'd find some less unreasonable way to get Monk involved
> in these cases...

Like have him called in as a consultant to a murder that's happened!

Where is Pearisburg? I'm near Virginia Beach and have been around VA a bit,
but haven't been through Pearisburg that I recall.

Steve

What a crazy idea! It might just work! ;-)


Steve Latham wrote:
> "Bernie Cosell" <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> wrote in message
> news:56fbg159v01ambbsisrsvh8a2lsdfb1m3b@library.ai rnews.net...
> > Millard Fillmore <bathtub@whig.org.invalid> wrote:

> > I really wish they'd find some less unreasonable way to get Monk involved
> > in these cases...
>
> Like have him called in as a consultant to a murder that's happened!