I gave up after 10 minutes, it's turning into the Archers the sitcom.
What a load of boring drivel, 2 half arsed comedy skits was quite enough.
Jonathan Creek Page 10
Phone numbers weren't that long in the 60s.
A few niggles like that, but on the whole it was far more like the early series. I enjoyed it.
Quote: Aaron @ 10th March 2014, 12:12 PM GMTPhone numbers weren't that long in the 60s.
Missed that bit. They would've had 7 digits.
Local phone numbers for landline phones still have seven digits. In the 70s a local number could be four or five digits. The area code increases a code by four or five digits. Hardly enough.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 11th March 2014, 8:46 AM GMTLocal phone numbers for landline phones still have seven digits. In the 70s a local number could be four or five digits. The area code increases a code by four or five digits. Hardly enough.
Well in the 70s ours had 7.
657315 was our number in '74. Funny thing is I've never even thought about it since then but now it's come to me just like that. Had no idea I still knew it. And previous number was 53120, which seems to confirm it being 4 or 5 digits long in the 60s and steadily grew.
Haven't caught up with this series yet, will have to record it, don't like iPlayer.
Quote: Chappers @ 11th March 2014, 9:11 PM GMTWell in the 70s ours had 7.
Mine was 644 3556 and yes I remember it well (like my Dad's first car number. URK 954).
But I'm not sure when it changed but the number had a prefix - ours was Fairlands which became 644 when they took letters off the dial.
I really wanted to like that... but it was just ridiculous. Like most people, I was a huge fan of the original series.
With the episode that's just been on there was no sense of satisfaction when it was all figured out and the acting just has no life in it anymore.
that was terribly dull and sadistic, Josie Lawrence was good but she's ace.
Will watch later on iPlayer, but I 've done a Google search and there are no reviews for this episode!
Felt like shaking the T.V shouting "I so want to like this!".
I was hugely disappointed with this series.
What used to be a show that took risks, both with plots and characters, has become very staid and boring. It's almost like the BBC don't want two off the wall, slightly complex crime dramas. Their baby/cash cow Sherlock is getting all of the attention so best not to rock the boat.
A great shame as Jonathan Creek was always one of the better things to watch on a Saturday night.
Oh well, back to the coma inducing Ant & Dec's Takeaway, after your retinas have been burned to a crisp with the bright lights and whiteness of the guest's teeth.
Oddly enough I thought this third episode was far better than the previous two.
But as usual the plot was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities.
It wa highly improbable that that object would lodge in Josie's hair (I bet the costume crew had to tie or glue it in for the recordings) and it was highly improbable that of all the possible meanings of the kidnappee's clues the ones Jonathan picked had any meaning.
The general consensus on here is that it used to be loads better, and that may well be true, but didn't it always have highly unlikely huge coincidences?
Well yes but tied into a rock solid story that underlied it all.
Once you had a good solid, mystery you could hang all sorts of stuff on it.
This one in fairness actually had a mystery that ran from beginning to end of the episode, but well it was a bit daft.