|
|
Post by molly on Jan 12, 2017 0:39:03 GMT
I never pay attention to the titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Jan 12, 2017 2:48:12 GMT
I'm rewatching it now. I absolutely LOVE Gillies, both the character and the actor, so while I'm not happy that they brought him back, I'm going to love this episode because it was so good, if not realistic. My thoughts: The guy with the implant was great when he was speaking in Gillies' voice. So are we to believe that Gillies jumped, smashed his face, broke his back and still was able to find a man to take his place? A man who looked like him? And while in all that pain he was able to dress him in his own clothes, remove the bullet from his own body and implant it in the man's body? With all these horrific injuries, and while there was no such thing as social media, wouldn't a doctor rat on him to the police while he was in hospital? Wouldn't someone at the hospital do that if the doctor was paid off? Did Gillies kill Robert Perry? I can't remember that. Or was he hung by the noose (until he was dead!) So are we to believe this implant was done so perfectly and worked exactly as it should have? All in all, I am hoping for more episodes in the same vein. I really miss the mysteries and darkness. I would like to see fewer spoilers, though, I actually muted everyone on Twitter related to the show because I tend to watch the next day so I didn't know Gillies was going to come back. But without muting, I think I would have been annoyed at the prospect of his return. Gillies murdered Robert Perry by beheading him in the episode Murdoch in Toyland....that was the one Gillies left the dolls with messages for William. Perry was found in the church crypt......
Speaking of dolls, I wonder if the one Roland had was from Gillies and had a recorded message for William and Julia....perhaps a voice from the grave telling them where to find Roland's father's body? (That is, if he killed the poor guy.....which we don't know....)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pm on Jan 12, 2017 3:19:06 GMT
Those numbers are fantastic and after the PVR that comes later it will be our 2 or 3 rated show of the year
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 12, 2017 3:35:18 GMT
Those numbers are fantastic and after the PVR that comes later it will be our 2 or 3 rated show of the year They're less than previously and given before the first half of the season the numbers were constantly going up I'm not convinced. |
|
|
|
Post by meoldmucker on Jan 12, 2017 7:02:59 GMT
Numbers for Monday's episode, 1138k. It seems I was right that people wouldn't come back after the Christmas hiatus. Perhaps they'll give it another chance with the last episode getting so many positive comments despite it's subject. I've been patiently waiting for the break to be over Hodge, but I don't own a TV ,so I watch on my tablet....Which is why I ended up watching it 2 days late! Now, on to the episode... I honestly don't know what to think! Much like when I see Peter Stebbing's name in the opening credits, I almost always have a " Return of James Pendrick" moment. When I realized the was a Gillies story I was intrigued with how the plot would developer, but actually lost interest quickly. I'm glad the Gillies storyline is done finally. I've enjoyed the Gillies episodes, and think Michael Seater did a fantastic job, but this episode felt kinda rushed, if that makes any sense.... |
|
|
|
Post by On on Jan 12, 2017 14:32:04 GMT
It was actually our third highest "overnight" of the season so the rumour of our decline may be overstated
|
|
|
|
Post by murdochic on Jan 12, 2017 17:32:04 GMT
This has been the best episode of S10, so far. It's not in my personal top 10 of MM episodes, but it's one I think is high class.
Even though it's quite unbelievable that Gillies was still alive, the rest of the script was so well done that I could suspend my disbelief. I've got to give praise to the actor who played Foley because he was brilliant in his scenes. Everyone's acting was top notch in this episode and they had me enthralled and on the edge of my seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Jan 13, 2017 4:17:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by molly on Jan 13, 2017 22:56:41 GMT
I find that quite often, the writing fails the characters. I absolutely love so many of the characters as well as the occasional recurrers (I made that word up) like Gillies, Eva Pearce, Pendrick, Myers and more. The actors are so good and the characters have such depth to them but the writing, you can punch so many holes into.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 13, 2017 23:31:12 GMT
I find that quite often, the writing fails the characters. I absolutely love so many of the characters as well as the occasional recurrers (I made that word up) like Gillies, Eva Pearce, Pendrick, Myers and more. The actors are so good and the characters have such depth to them but the writing, you can punch so many holes into. The writing in this show is as good if not better than most. |
|
|
|
Post by Terence's Top Hat on Jan 19, 2017 3:56:59 GMT
I'm rewatching it now. I absolutely LOVE Gillies, both the character and the actor. All in all, I am hoping for more episodes in the same vein. I really miss the mysteries and darkness. I would like to see fewer spoilers, though, I actually muted everyone on Twitter related to the show because I tend to watch the next day so I didn't know Gillies was going to come back. But without muting, I think I would have been annoyed at the prospect of his return. I also LOVE Gilles, the character and the actor. He is just sooo good in that role. Gilles is my favourite Murdoch villain. I don't bother with social media so I'm glad I never knew what was going to happen when the show started on Monday night. One minute this guy is possessed and when he started talking, I was like, "OMG, Gilles. Yes!" Loved how dark and intense this episode. I was quite sad when Gilles was hung. Boohoo. So far my fave episode of the season. Bravo to the actor. He always does a wonderful job. |
|
|
|
Post by coolbyrne on Feb 20, 2017 19:47:18 GMT
This is more of a comment about the season as a whole, but this episode is the centre of my thoughts, so I figured I’d put it here. Bear with me here- I do get to the point!
I was just talking to my wife the other day about why the James Bond film SPECTRE failed where Skyfall succeeded. Primarily, they’re pretty much the same movie; villain isn’t focussed on world domination but instead, focussed on revenge against Bond. Now, the thing with Bond is, you need a larger than life villain to compete with a larger than life hero. (Probably why Quantum of Solace didn’t quite work.) In order to make us believe his life is at stake, or there is something worth fighting for, the risks to the hero must equal the strength of the hero. If he’s too strong, there’s little emotional concern; if he’s too weak, it’s a frustrating disappointment.
As with any kind of fiction, we’re asked to suspend our disbelief in various degrees. This agreement to believe certain things are natural depends on the strength of the hero. If he’s a regular guy, you can believe he’ll be able to defuse a bomb under the tutelage of an expert over the phone, but if he removes the bomb with 10 seconds left and runs it up 20 flights of stairs to toss it off the roof without causing injury to anyone below, you start thinking, “Really?” Now, you take a character like Bond who is expected to be able to run up 20 flights of stairs, toss the bomb AND shag a gorgeous woman in 10 seconds, well, it’s not so hard to believe.
Skyfall asked us to believe the villain could line up certain events just right, so that they’d obstruct Bond at just the right moment. While the events strained credulity, they never broke the bonds (no pun), because the villain’s reach never extended past the hero’s ability to escape. SPECTRE failed because Blofeld’s reach was so enormous that it touched everything Bond touched, from the time he was a child to the present day. It was just too much. It failed the question, “How?”
Whenever I asked the question “How?” in regards to Eva Pearce and “Cometh the Archer”, I was able to answer that question, with a reasonable stretching of my suspension of disbelief. How did she know Julia would answer the door? How did Julia make it all that way in the state she was in? I found speculating on what those answers could be opened up some interesting ideas. I also found I didn’t ask it more than a few times. I didn’t feel that way about “The Devil Inside”. I felt it compelled me to ask “How” so many times without proper or even possible answers.
How did Gilles suffer so greatly, but still managed to drag himself out of the river and (I’m assuming) get help without anyone knowing?
How did he live for the passing years between his jump and this episode?
How did he wire the interview room without a single person knowing/seeing?
How exactly did he come to put that device in Foley’s body?
How did he kidnap Roland?
How did he manage to find 2 men who just happened to have the right street names to lead William to Veronica’s house?
How did he manage to drop a doll off at that house without raising suspicion? (Even if he had gotten a delivery man, wouldn’t a strange package make her parents wonder?)
And those are just the ones that immediately come to mind. “The Devil Inside” brought a lot of disbelief for one episode. I groaned at the revelation it was James Gilles. Again. And the flashbacks actually put a spotlight on the problem. In “Murdoch in Toyland”, Gilles reveals at the end why he returned. He didn’t want to be bested, and Murdoch had done that in “Big Murderer on Campus”. Fair enough. But William bested him again in “MiT”. But he comes back in “Crime and Punishment”/”The Murdoch Trap”. Gets bested again when William saves Julia. Comes back again in “Midnight Train to Kingston” to torment them (and escape) again. Comes back again in “The Devil Inside”. The reason I felt Julia’s visceral pleasure in removing his brain was because it meant that dead horse will no longer get beaten.
There’s been talk between some posters about this season missing something. I’ve binge-watched the entire series in about 2 months, so every season seems fresh to my eyes, and I can agree with those who say it’s lacking a certain arc or thread to tie it all together. But it’s also adding episodes like these that didn’t seem to be around as much in the earlier seasons. There’s always been an element of whimsy to this show- the inventions that William ‘discovers’ prior to their historical discovery, famous people (sometimes before they’re famous) who come in contact with the hero, plots that put both hero and heroine in danger, saved at the last second (the ticking bomb theory), etc. But they always seemed to be well-within the grasp of the hero. The suspension of disbelief was stretched but rarely pulled taut or broken. This season seems to be nudging its toe over that line, ever so slightly. We’ve gone from William and Pendrick being the first men to fly in a plane to William and Pendrick actually flying in a gliding suit. We’ve gone from Meyers being a highly intelligent Canadian spy to a bumbling buffoon who has sent himself into space. We’ve gone from The Kissing Bandit to The Lurker. Etc. This episode might not have had the fantastical element that makes me roll my eyes, but I think in each case, the reach of the stories have exceeded the boundaries of the hero and the character as we know him, and truthfully, the show as we know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Feb 21, 2017 14:15:07 GMT
This is more of a comment about the season as a whole, but this episode is the centre of my thoughts, so I figured I’d put it here. Bear with me here- I do get to the point! I was just talking to my wife the other day about why the James Bond film SPECTRE failed where Skyfall succeeded. Primarily, they’re pretty much the same movie; villain isn’t focussed on world domination but instead, focussed on revenge against Bond. Now, the thing with Bond is, you need a larger than life villain to compete with a larger than life hero. (Probably why Quantum of Solace didn’t quite work.) In order to make us believe his life is at stake, or there is something worth fighting for, the risks to the hero must equal the strength of the hero. If he’s too strong, there’s little emotional concern; if he’s too weak, it’s a frustrating disappointment. As with any kind of fiction, we’re asked to suspend our disbelief in various degrees. This agreement to believe certain things are natural depends on the strength of the hero. If he’s a regular guy, you can believe he’ll be able to defuse a bomb under the tutelage of an expert over the phone, but if he removes the bomb with 10 seconds left and runs it up 20 flights of stairs to toss it off the roof without causing injury to anyone below, you start thinking, “Really?” Now, you take a character like Bond who is expected to be able to run up 20 flights of stairs, toss the bomb AND shag a gorgeous woman in 10 seconds, well, it’s not so hard to believe. Skyfall asked us to believe the villain could line up certain events just right, so that they’d obstruct Bond at just the right moment. While the events strained credulity, they never broke the bonds (no pun), because the villain’s reach never extended past the hero’s ability to escape. SPECTRE failed because Blofeld’s reach was so enormous that it touched everything Bond touched, from the time he was a child to the present day. It was just too much. It failed the question, “How?” Whenever I asked the question “How?” in regards to Eva Pearce and “Cometh the Archer”, I was able to answer that question, with a reasonable stretching of my suspension of disbelief. How did she know Julia would answer the door? How did Julia make it all that way in the state she was in? I found speculating on what those answers could be opened up some interesting ideas. I also found I didn’t ask it more than a few times. I didn’t feel that way about “The Devil Inside”. I felt it compelled me to ask “How” so many times without proper or even possible answers. How did Gilles suffer so greatly, but still managed to drag himself out of the river and (I’m assuming) get help without anyone knowing? How did he live for the passing years between his jump and this episode? How did he wire the interview room without a single person knowing/seeing? How exactly did he come to put that device in Foley’s body? How did he kidnap Roland? How did he manage to find 2 men who just happened to have the right street names to lead William to Veronica’s house? How did he manage to drop a doll off at that house without raising suspicion? (Even if he had gotten a delivery man, wouldn’t a strange package make her parents wonder?) And those are just the ones that immediately come to mind. “The Devil Inside” brought a lot of disbelief for one episode. I groaned at the revelation it was James Gilles. Again. And the flashbacks actually put a spotlight on the problem. In “Murdoch in Toyland”, Gilles reveals at the end why he returned. He didn’t want to be bested, and Murdoch had done that in “Big Murderer on Campus”. Fair enough. But William bested him again in “MiT”. But he comes back in “Crime and Punishment”/”The Murdoch Trap”. Gets bested again when William saves Julia. Comes back again in “Midnight Train to Kingston” to torment them (and escape) again. Comes back again in “The Devil Inside”. The reason I felt Julia’s visceral pleasure in removing his brain was because it meant that dead horse will no longer get beaten. There’s been talk between some posters about this season missing something. I’ve binge-watched the entire series in about 2 months, so every season seems fresh to my eyes, and I can agree with those who say it’s lacking a certain arc or thread to tie it all together. But it’s also adding episodes like these that didn’t seem to be around as much in the earlier seasons. There’s always been an element of whimsy to this show- the inventions that William ‘discovers’ prior to their historical discovery, famous people (sometimes before they’re famous) who come in contact with the hero, plots that put both hero and heroine in danger, saved at the last second (the ticking bomb theory), etc. But they always seemed to be well-within the grasp of the hero. The suspension of disbelief was stretched but rarely pulled taut or broken. This season seems to be nudging its toe over that line, ever so slightly. We’ve gone from William and Pendrick being the first men to fly in a plane to William and Pendrick actually flying in a gliding suit. We’ve gone from Meyers being a highly intelligent Canadian spy to a bumbling buffoon who has sent himself into space. We’ve gone from The Kissing Bandit to The Lurker. Etc. This episode might not have had the fantastical element that makes me roll my eyes, but I think in each case, the reach of the stories have exceeded the boundaries of the hero and the character as we know him, and truthfully, the show as we know it. What an excellent post...I think your theory of "how" is a good one. I myself didn't have problems with Cometh the Archer...though I was asked to suspend my disbelief, it didn't demand that I do so to a ridiculous extent and I can accept it for what it is. Devil Inside however, did demand such a disbelief. You've raised the same questions I have, and I think this is why the episode annoyed me so much. I know one long time viewer (since the beginning) who hasn't seen a single episode since Cometh the Archer-that was the dealbreaker for her. But I digress. I've eventually come to appreciate the episode for what it is, but it took me a while, and while I can admit there are parts of it that are great, it also annoys the crap out of me. To me, James Gillies died in season 7 and you presented evidence that convinced me. By bringing him back, the show is telling me that it cannot be trusted and now there's a part of me that feels that he will play a part in the season finale. That's ridiculous you say? Julia dissected his brain? Well, the show has now told me that it cannot be trusted and who's to say that Gillies hasn't managed to clone himself somehow. Is that really any more farfetched than overcoming all those questions you've raised? That said, I've come to enjoy the episode, but I do remain annoyed by it. I'm curious to see what others think about your theory because I think you have a point about the stories exceeding the limits of the characters. I also agree with your comments about Pendrick and Meyers, and I would add one about William-he seems to have gone from a highly astute complex man to a clueless space cadet at times. I think you make excellent points about the show perhaps being in need to dial back the fantastical a bit and replace it with some interconnectedness. Some is fun, but too much is stretching the credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by bookworm1225 on Mar 23, 2017 10:30:22 GMT
Finally got to watch this on Acorn.tv recently. Although I had, unfortunately, been somewhat spoiled beforehand, I still found it quite intense. A few reactions:
1. I knew it! I knew Gillies wasn't dead! He was a good, old-fashioned Villain. Never consider a Villain dead until you see his body for yourself! (Also, as a Villain, I give him a lot of suspension of disbelief. Villains always find a way. *grin*)
2. Toward the end there, I half-expected Gillies to start quoting Khan from 'Star Trek II.'
I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you.
3. And then, of course, at the very end, Dr. Ogden could have started singing...
As coroner, and with much vim,
I thoroughly examined him.
And he's not only merely dead,
He's really most sincerely dead!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Mar 24, 2017 0:22:57 GMT
This is more of a comment about the season as a whole, but this episode is the centre of my thoughts, so I figured I’d put it here. Bear with me here- I do get to the point! I was just talking to my wife the other day about why the James Bond film SPECTRE failed where Skyfall succeeded. Primarily, they’re pretty much the same movie; villain isn’t focussed on world domination but instead, focussed on revenge against Bond. Now, the thing with Bond is, you need a larger than life villain to compete with a larger than life hero. (Probably why Quantum of Solace didn’t quite work.) In order to make us believe his life is at stake, or there is something worth fighting for, the risks to the hero must equal the strength of the hero. If he’s too strong, there’s little emotional concern; if he’s too weak, it’s a frustrating disappointment. As with any kind of fiction, we’re asked to suspend our disbelief in various degrees. This agreement to believe certain things are natural depends on the strength of the hero. If he’s a regular guy, you can believe he’ll be able to defuse a bomb under the tutelage of an expert over the phone, but if he removes the bomb with 10 seconds left and runs it up 20 flights of stairs to toss it off the roof without causing injury to anyone below, you start thinking, “Really?” Now, you take a character like Bond who is expected to be able to run up 20 flights of stairs, toss the bomb AND shag a gorgeous woman in 10 seconds, well, it’s not so hard to believe. Skyfall asked us to believe the villain could line up certain events just right, so that they’d obstruct Bond at just the right moment. While the events strained credulity, they never broke the bonds (no pun), because the villain’s reach never extended past the hero’s ability to escape. SPECTRE failed because Blofeld’s reach was so enormous that it touched everything Bond touched, from the time he was a child to the present day. It was just too much. It failed the question, “How?” Whenever I asked the question “How?” in regards to Eva Pearce and “Cometh the Archer”, I was able to answer that question, with a reasonable stretching of my suspension of disbelief. How did she know Julia would answer the door? How did Julia make it all that way in the state she was in? I found speculating on what those answers could be opened up some interesting ideas. I also found I didn’t ask it more than a few times. I didn’t feel that way about “The Devil Inside”. I felt it compelled me to ask “How” so many times without proper or even possible answers. How did Gilles suffer so greatly, but still managed to drag himself out of the river and (I’m assuming) get help without anyone knowing? How did he live for the passing years between his jump and this episode? How did he wire the interview room without a single person knowing/seeing? How exactly did he come to put that device in Foley’s body? How did he kidnap Roland? How did he manage to find 2 men who just happened to have the right street names to lead William to Veronica’s house? How did he manage to drop a doll off at that house without raising suspicion? (Even if he had gotten a delivery man, wouldn’t a strange package make her parents wonder?) And those are just the ones that immediately come to mind. “The Devil Inside” brought a lot of disbelief for one episode. I groaned at the revelation it was James Gilles. Again. And the flashbacks actually put a spotlight on the problem. In “Murdoch in Toyland”, Gilles reveals at the end why he returned. He didn’t want to be bested, and Murdoch had done that in “Big Murderer on Campus”. Fair enough. But William bested him again in “MiT”. But he comes back in “Crime and Punishment”/”The Murdoch Trap”. Gets bested again when William saves Julia. Comes back again in “Midnight Train to Kingston” to torment them (and escape) again. Comes back again in “The Devil Inside”. The reason I felt Julia’s visceral pleasure in removing his brain was because it meant that dead horse will no longer get beaten. There’s been talk between some posters about this season missing something. I’ve binge-watched the entire series in about 2 months, so every season seems fresh to my eyes, and I can agree with those who say it’s lacking a certain arc or thread to tie it all together. But it’s also adding episodes like these that didn’t seem to be around as much in the earlier seasons. There’s always been an element of whimsy to this show- the inventions that William ‘discovers’ prior to their historical discovery, famous people (sometimes before they’re famous) who come in contact with the hero, plots that put both hero and heroine in danger, saved at the last second (the ticking bomb theory), etc. But they always seemed to be well-within the grasp of the hero. The suspension of disbelief was stretched but rarely pulled taut or broken. This season seems to be nudging its toe over that line, ever so slightly. We’ve gone from William and Pendrick being the first men to fly in a plane to William and Pendrick actually flying in a gliding suit. We’ve gone from Meyers being a highly intelligent Canadian spy to a bumbling buffoon who has sent himself into space. We’ve gone from The Kissing Bandit to The Lurker. Etc. This episode might not have had the fantastical element that makes me roll my eyes, but I think in each case, the reach of the stories have exceeded the boundaries of the hero and the character as we know him, and truthfully, the show as we know it. Due to this thread coming to the fore again I've reread some of the posts and I mostly agree with yours. However, I do have one question - when did Meyers become a highly intelligent spy? I've always considered him a somewhat bumbling idiot that always seemed to make it through in the end, with Murdoch's help of course! |
|
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT