|
|
Post by randomkiwibirds on Jan 10, 2017 2:29:52 GMT
Twenty years after a child was kidnapped, Murdoch investigates the identity of a man now claiming to be the wealthy heir. via CBC |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jan 15, 2017 0:19:58 GMT
I believe this is the episode written by Maureen Jennings.
|
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Jan 19, 2017 23:24:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 19, 2017 23:35:57 GMT
I'm beginning to think Miss Cherry trying to woo George is this season's arc.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Jan 20, 2017 7:26:14 GMT
I'm beginning to think Miss Cherry trying to woo George is this season's arc. I don't know Det. Watts' case will be the arc, but just a hunch. |
|
|
|
Post by lizmc on Jan 24, 2017 1:04:13 GMT
Just watched the Atlantic feed......really enjoyed it......lots of nice twists and turns, plus more of Rebecca's sense of justice and compassion......
(There was a preview of the next new episode, which won't be on for 2 weeks......looks like William makes a start on the new house and gets some nasty surprises......involving bodies.....)
|
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jan 24, 2017 2:14:37 GMT
Just watched the Atlantic feed......really enjoyed it......lots of nice twists and turns, plus more of Rebecca's sense of justice and compassion...... There has been some nice character development for Rebecca this season. I was thinking the same thing. This is the second time that Julia has been ready to leave the case 'as is' but Rebecca felt compelled to dig further. Well done. Did anyone else notice that the last death certificate Rebecca looked at in the book was for Wendell Merrick, a la Till Death Do Us Part, ep 105 which would have been in 1895. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jan 24, 2017 2:19:01 GMT
(There was a preview of the next new episode, which won't be on for 2 weeks......looks like William makes a start on the new house and gets some nasty surprises......involving bodies.....) Methinks the story arc is beginning to be revealed. I'm betting the bodies are related to Det. Watts case. It has to be something major to have had this much air time across 2 episodes without us really knowing anything more than several women have disappeared since 1900. |
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 24, 2017 2:39:39 GMT
Just watched the Atlantic feed......really enjoyed it......lots of nice twists and turns, plus more of Rebecca's sense of justice and compassion...... There has been some nice character development for Rebecca this season. I was thinking the same thing. This is the second time that Julia has been ready to leave the case 'as is' but Rebecca felt compelled to dig further. Well done. Did anyone else notice that the last death certificate Rebecca looked at in the book was for Wendell Merrick, a la Till Death Do Us Part, ep 105 which would have been in 1895. It seems Rebecca James is the champion of the dead. I like the way they're making more of her than Emily Grace, that was a mistake. I noticed that and wondered if it was significant but can't imagine why it would be, other than the year perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by lovemondays on Jan 24, 2017 2:42:13 GMT
I enjoyed this episode but I have some lingering questions:
1) There was a significant inconsistency about the relationship between Adam Gordon and Jonah Foster. They were referred to twice as being brothers and once as being step-brothers. How is that possible? Even if Jonah was the son of Mrs. Gordon's daughter, thus the last name Foster, that would make the boys cousins. It could be that Adam was the product of his mother's second marriage and Jonah was her first born son. That would make them half brothers, not step-brothers. It's all very confusing.
2) That leads me to my second problem. Can we really believe that a 15 year old boy had enough hatred AND the wherewithall to plan such a convoluted abduction? It required finding someone to kill Adam...Irving Moses, as well as writing the ransom note and having it delivered to the house AND having the money to buy off Mr. Moses. That's a bit of a stretch. I had less trouble buying into the sub-plot that Irving Moses went to the orphanage to claim the deceased Johnny Scott and bury him as if he was Adam Gordon. That also involves Edna Bergman taking the boy in and raising him as her own. Why didn't she get into any trouble because she would have to know the boy's real identity?
I was actually very distracted with these issues, particularly during my second viewing.
I did not have a problem with Mr. Slate, a confidence trickster by trade, getting enough of the story from a drunk Irving Moses on the train, deciding to insert himself in the con. It was an opportune situation and he jumped at it. Even Jonah Foster's objections made sense because he believed Adam to be dead.
The teaser for next week has me chomping at the bit...the plot thickens for sure but I'm wondering if it's too soon to be setting up William's 'departure'. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hodge on Jan 24, 2017 2:55:33 GMT
I enjoyed this episode but I have some lingering questions:
1) There was a significant inconsistency about the relationship between Adam Gordon and Jonah Foster. They were referred to twice as being brothers and once as being step-brothers. How is that possible? Even if Jonah was the son of Mrs. Gordon's daughter, thus the last name Foster, that would make the boys cousins. It could be that Adam was the product of his mother's second marriage and Jonah was her first born son. That would make them half brothers, not step-brothers. It's all very confusing.
2) That leads me to my second problem. Can we really believe that a 15 year old boy had enough hatred AND the wherewithall to plan such a convoluted abduction? It required finding someone to kill Adam...Irving Moses, as well as writing the ransom note and having it delivered to the house AND having the money to buy off Mr. Moses. That's a bit of a stretch. I had less trouble buying into the sub-plot that Irving Moses went to the orphanage to claim the deceased Johnny Scott and bury him as if he was Adam Gordon. That also involves Edna Bergman taking the boy in and raising him as her own. Why didn't she get into any trouble because she would have to know the boy's real identity?
I was actually very distracted with these issues, particularly during my second viewing.
I did not have a problem with Mr. Slate, a confidence trickster by trade, getting enough of the story from a drunk Irving Moses on the train, deciding to insert himself in the con. It was an opportune situation and he jumped at it. Even Jonah Foster's objections made sense because he believed Adam to be dead.
The teaser for next week has me chomping at the bit...the plot thickens for sure but I'm wondering if it's too soon to be setting up William's 'departure'. We'll see.
I too was wondering about the step-brother comment but decided to put it aside as unimportant. I guess if he was only a step-brother though he could have been extremely jealous of the 'full' son and a 15 year old with money and some brains could do almost anything he wanted. I suspected Mr. Slate was a con artist from the start, he knew just how far to go to suggest some doubt. I also thought the brother may be the kidnapper, he was so confident of the boys death. Did anyone notice the father in the painting had a look of the real grandson? |
|
|
|
Post by Murdork on Jan 24, 2017 4:21:26 GMT
So happy with tonight's episode. You have said pretty much everything I would have said. I liked Watt's more tonight. Maureen brought more depth to the character. I liked seeing his more vulnerable side, as opposed to the the traits we have seen so far. I think some of his quirkiness could become endearing if there were not so much focus on them. This was a good start to fleshing out his character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Jan 24, 2017 11:35:17 GMT
So happy with tonight's episode. You have said pretty much everything I would have said. I liked Watt's more tonight. Maureen brought more depth to the character. I liked seeing his more vulnerable side, as opposed to the the traits we have seen so far. I think some of his quirkiness could become endearing if there were not so much focus on them. This was a good start to fleshing out his character. I agree, this was a good episode, I didn't mind Watts this episode either, he was simply too annoying and manic for me to really get into him earlier, but tonight was different-there was some substance to go with the flightiness. With a bit of backstory on Jackson, I quite liked that arc, and I agree, there was some nice depth added to both of their characters. Jackson isn't quite the oaf that we sometimes believe him to be, and Watts isn't so flaky. There's no doubt in my mind that the missing women are definitely going to feature prominently for the remainder of the season. Somehow, they're going to take William "down". I really enjoyed Rebecca tonight as well, she's really turning into an excellent pathologist, perhaps one more passionate for the dead than Julia is, but perhaps that's unfair to Julia, as she's been at it a bit longer than Rebecca. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Jan 24, 2017 11:39:41 GMT
Just watched the Atlantic feed......really enjoyed it......lots of nice twists and turns, plus more of Rebecca's sense of justice and compassion...... There has been some nice character development for Rebecca this season. I was thinking the same thing. This is the second time that Julia has been ready to leave the case 'as is' but Rebecca felt compelled to dig further. Well done. Did anyone else notice that the last death certificate Rebecca looked at in the book was for Wendell Merrick, a la Till Death Do Us Part, ep 105 which would have been in 1895. I love what they're doing with Rebecca this season. I understand they had to bring her in last season and establish her, and I love that they're giving her more time and great stories! No, I didn't notice that, but I think they slip those easter eggs in or more likely, reuse props (which totally makes sense). At the end of The Artful Detective when William and Emily open George's desk drawer to find the gun, there's a copy of a coroner's report from 1899 signed by Julia. I thought it might be significant, but it turned to be nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Fallenbelle on Jan 24, 2017 11:51:52 GMT
I enjoyed this episode but I have some lingering questions:
1) There was a significant inconsistency about the relationship between Adam Gordon and Jonah Foster. They were referred to twice as being brothers and once as being step-brothers. How is that possible? Even if Jonah was the son of Mrs. Gordon's daughter, thus the last name Foster, that would make the boys cousins. It could be that Adam was the product of his mother's second marriage and Jonah was her first born son. That would make them half brothers, not step-brothers. It's all very confusing.
2) That leads me to my second problem. Can we really believe that a 15 year old boy had enough hatred AND the wherewithall to plan such a convoluted abduction? It required finding someone to kill Adam...Irving Moses, as well as writing the ransom note and having it delivered to the house AND having the money to buy off Mr. Moses. That's a bit of a stretch. I had less trouble buying into the sub-plot that Irving Moses went to the orphanage to claim the deceased Johnny Scott and bury him as if he was Adam Gordon. That also involves Edna Bergman taking the boy in and raising him as her own. Why didn't she get into any trouble because she would have to know the boy's real identity?
I was actually very distracted with these issues, particularly during my second viewing.
I did not have a problem with Mr. Slate, a confidence trickster by trade, getting enough of the story from a drunk Irving Moses on the train, deciding to insert himself in the con. It was an opportune situation and he jumped at it. Even Jonah Foster's objections made sense because he believed Adam to be dead.
The teaser for next week has me chomping at the bit...the plot thickens for sure but I'm wondering if it's too soon to be setting up William's 'departure'. We'll see.
1.) This was confusing to me as well. I got the distinct impression that Jonah was not hers biologically, but I don't have much to go on. Maybe that's why he was so insecure about Adam... 2.) This story reminded me of Joseph from the Bible, to be honest, where his jealous brothers sell him off to a passing man who is supposed to kill him/sell him into slavery, but this man is unable to do that...so he takes him to his sister who will "save him from a dire situation", aka his brother trying to kill him. Perhaps she never knew the true identity of the boy other than he was someone her brother brought by who needed saving. The whole time, I knew that Jonah was involved, but I thought that he had killed Adam (that's why he knew Adam was dead). I appreciated the twists and I was not at all surprised when Jonah "accidentally" shot Adam/Slate while hunting. I did not expect Adam to be living with Moses' sister and therefore still alive however; I just knew that Jonah was involved and I was still trying to figure out how when the ending came up on me. Mr. Slate was indeed an excellent con-man, and was very perceptive and patient. I didn't have a problem with that one either. |
|
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT
Jan 30, 2013 21:44:55 GMT