Ironically it often takes less time to tell you the teased news than all that teasing leading up to it.
@Owain Taggart you mentioned Murdoch Mysteries upthread. Station House 4 apparently doubles as a think tank. Just how many modern ideas have Murdoch and his friends anticipated already?
Good question. The show is currently up to season 17, and has felt more like sci-fi at times, and they don't always land very well in terms of execution. In season 16, they had a very cringey episode titled 'Murdoch at the End of the World' where they very clearly use a modern computer complete with passwords (though that might have been also featured in an earlier episode, I don't remember). And they also had an episode that same season where they pretty much piloted a drone. Well, it was a balloon with a camera attached, but it served the same purpose.
I suppose it's an opportunity for the writers to flex their scientific creativity, but sometimes when the characters muse about invention what ifs, it gets a little too on the nose. Combined with others' comments of "that's ridiculous" or "I doubt that" or "who'd ever want to (do something which is commonplace in the 2000s)?" I wonder what else they or their friends will invent? Spoiler: My thoughts I'm guessing generative AI or cryptocurrency How about when a show contrives all manner of reasons to bring back a character for the umpteenth time? MM's horror episode this year is set to do that, if you've read the synopsis already. I'd actually thought of a different way they could bring back the actor whose character they chose to reprise.
I hate it when a character is injured and they ask euthanasia because living with a disability so terrible . Yes, I'm looking a you million dollar baby *glares* I also hate it when a character with a disability doesn't have a disability anymore because living with a disability is so terrible . Yes, I'm looking at you James's Cameron Avatar *glares* Signed, A person with a disability.
I often feel like the show is trying too hard to bridge those scientific discoveries. It ends up often feeling disingenuous. Like the Halley's Comet episode from Season 16, instead of feeling like a good way to explore why people might have felt hysteria back then, it of course has to be an episode where they use fairly 'modern' technology to save the day, and I count it among the worst that season. I find it frustrating as the show has been leaning more and more on that as of late. I think the show is at its best when it's simply a straight-laced mystery. Heh, you mean like Pendrick or Higgin's brother-in-law. Good god, I find those characters annoying. I personally feel like the show is getting rather long in the tooth. It often feels like they don't really have an idea of where to take the characters, and seeing as the characters have been around so long, some of them seem to have made repeated job changes only to end up back at some of their other jobs, like Julia at the pyschiatric hospital, back to the morgue and then the clinic, back to the morgue and then the clinic. And now it seems the clinic job won't go anywhere unless they get funding. I personally miss Emily. I wish they'd bring her back, even if just for a guest-starring role in a future episode.
Glad you agree with me, heh. It wasn't so bad when they used to it only from time-to-time, and it conveyed more of a Jules Vernes type of experimentation, but I feel they've leaned too far into it, and it's almost as if it created a trope of purposefully being anachronistic for laughs. I should maybe check out Frankie Drake Mysteries. Have you seen it? I checked out the first few episodes when it originally started to air, but I bailed as I had too much on my plate to devote to it.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but whenever a character of group of characters are able to park directly in front of their intended destination. Every. Single. Time. That never happens in real life, especially in a city.
The worst one of all is "If you kill the villain, you'll be just as bad as they are!". What kind of infantile morality is that?
I imagine it's particularly if your motive for or method of killing them is the same as they would have chosen. So, if you kill the hater villain to sate your own hatred, as opposed to because it's the only way to save others, for instance, or subject the villain to the same torture device he used on innocent civilians.
Not infantile at all. It's trying to become more moral by not stooping to common methods, which killing is considered. Killing is considered base and feeding in to humanity's lesser nature, while not killing them is "taking the higher road." And it's a trope repeated throughout Star Trek so it's one that definitely I see around here a lot. Do I agree with it? No. Sometimes ending the threat is the best possible path. Sometimes revenge works out for the person doing so. It's not infantile. Infantile is very much "eye for eye." Watch youngers and see how they deal with being wronged. Kid pushes one and takes the toy and the wronged person immediately gets up and goes to fight them. Seen it multiple times working with child clients and youth. I don't think it's wrong to want revenge. I just think that sometimes it's not the best way. I should add that the character of Teal'c in Stargate gets a similar arc. Frank Moses in RED gets this as well. Travolta's character in "Face Off" gets this. I think it happens more than we realize. Just not quite as iconic as Princess Bride, for a number of reasons.
"If I kill [serial killer/genocidal dictator/whatever] I'll be just as bad!" makes no sense; nothing you could possibly do to just one individual could outweigh what they have done. I'd go as far as saying such an attitude amounts to shitting on their victims' graves.
Interesting. It depends on how you view morality. Does one bad act make you a bad person? This is the origin of more pacifist and active resistance movements in real life. "Shitting on their graves" is an interesting turn of phrase. So, you're saying the victims are demanding the death of the killer? Eye for an eye then. By the way, I'm not saying you're wrong. I am far more fascinated by your point of view on this one than anything.
Sometimes getting revenge and justice is the same thing. For example, a person killed multiple innocent people, many of them children. The father of one of those murdered children goes after that person, and kills that person. Is that justice or revenge? It just so happens to be both, and I don't see a problem with that. The two aren't always mutually exclusive. Having said that, I do agree there are times where the revenge is unjustified. Like with so many things, there are degrees.
Agreed, and it comes down to one's values. Saying that I might be as bad as the person who killed my children by killing them is as much about my values as it is providing justice. If there are no other options and that is the only way then I'm all in. But, rarely are things so black and white.