QUOTE (reversechapter @ Aug 13 2007, 11:54 PM)

I know everyone gets protective and acts like I'm attacking a best friend when I am critical, but I have great respect for what the writers have done up until last season. In fact I would rank their work until last year among the best in television history. I just contend that they either need to do something new or quit (I say "quit"). Do you think they could have had the killer in the last episode do something other than toss the evidence into the ocean after being chased by Monk, just like in the marathon runner episode? If you are a fan you are sitting there thinking "Wait, this is a new episode, right? I've seen this." Do you think they knew they were essentially repeating the same scene and just said "Ah, screw it, let's do it again."? I doubt it. If so, why on earth would they do that?
I wasn't being protective, I genuinely did want to know if you, or a person who hasn't been writing the show for the last six years could come up with ideas that would work for an episode that the writers hadn't done in some form before. If you could, it might have been sign that the writers maybe need to bring in some fresh blood to get some new ideas. I will admit that I didn't think it likely that you could because there are only like eight truly original and unique stories in the world, and all of the others are basically derived from those or are combinations of them told in a different style with different settings and characters. I would have been extremely impressed with you if you had come up with even one entirely unique story. The Monk writers are in the same boat as everyone else; they can just take those few really original stories and retell them with enough variation in style, characters, elements, timing and so on to 'make them their own'. The trick is to be original in the telling.
And I think, (though not positive) that some of the times where they seem to repeat things are done intentionally, for what I think of as 'Monk, The Home Game'. See, the show is about a guy who can't ignore the details and who makes all sorts of connections, notices when little things are changed, and can see the very tiny differences in things. Well, a lot of the shows have little, small things that show up more than once, like the same poster on the wall in Trudy's room that was on the wall in Adrian's childhood room, the guy that played 'Fraidy Cop' in Billionaire Mugger showing up again as the cop who initially found Tommy in the park in The Kid, having the same actress who played Beth Landau in Back to School playing the phys ed teacher with a drinking problem in Bad Girlfriend, and having Gail O'Grady, who played Miranda St. Claire in the pilot come back and play the Lovely Rita in this last episode. The Lovely Rita wasn't really vital to the resolution of the case, she was more for comedic affect or maybe a red herring, possibly, but the show could easily have been done without her, or if she had been played by someone else. The point I am making is that maybe they are dropping these things in there for the viewers who want to play at home and see what tiny little details they can pick up on. It's like playing those hidden picture games in Highlights for Children. And then there are also the similarities in episodes or scenes, that I think are maybe intended so that we can try and figure out what they remind us of, what other episode. Like the ending of Birds and Bees reminded me of Marathon Man and Carnival. I like it when they do things like this because I enjoy making the connections and comparing the episodes, the mysteries and the contexts and seeing how they are alike and how they are different. The reason I think this may be intentional is because some of these things don't make a lot of sense otherwise. Like in Vegas when Monk and Natalie are knocking on the hotel room door and they show a shot of a table by the white chaise that Randy is asleep on, in one take there's a tennis shoe on that table. The angle of the camera changes, and when it flashes back again, there is a very different looking shoe there. If for some reason the shoe was moved or couldn't be used for the next shot (which seems unlikely) why put another shoe that is so obviously different there? Why not just leave it out all together since the absense of the shoe would be less noticable and easily explained. The different shoes on the table had absolutely nothing to do withy the plot, so they didn't have to be there at all. Like the Lovely Rita really didn't need to be there. So I'm thinking that things like that and the similarities between episodes are there for a reason, so that those of us who want to can play the home game. I could be wrong, but I don't really care since I will still enjoy playing the home game whether it's intentional or not.

QUOTE
Hey, after five minutes I thought of an alternate ending to replace the "Birds and Bees" ending that would have only required an addition of one quick scene. If Monk and Natalie had briefly visited the photo stand at the carnival earlier in the show, and Monk had messed around with a few things (the way Monk does) without letting the viewers know exactly what he was rearranging. Then, at the end the killer could have grabbed the archived CD and destroyed it irretrievably after a great deal of running and difficulty, apparently getting away with murder. Except, of course, for the fact that Monk had earlier arranged the CD's by color (or something else) and he could have strolled over and grabbed the incriminating CD from the photo stand. The killer could be shown covered in dirt and ripped clothes, angry and completely baffled by why the archived CD's were out of order. I still admit I couldn't work everything into a complete show. Or even a five minute show.
Of course, that idea has probably been done in some other episode and I just don't remember it right now.
I don't think it's been done before but the reason that the guy grabbed all of the CDs is because it would be pretty difficult to know which one the specific picture he wanted was on. There are a lot of variables that come into it, like did the photographer close out each CD at the end of the day and start a new one for the next day? That might be very wasteful and kind of impractical because on a Monday he might only take ten pictures, which would be a very small part of the space on a CD, but on a Saturday, he might take so many photos that he'd need to start a second disc. More likely he just put them on the CD till the CD was full and then started a new one, marking each CD with the date that he started it and the date that he closed it out. The result would be that there could be three or four CDs that covered the date that Julie and Time were there, if the photographer was very very busy and his camera saved images in super huge files, or the date they were there could be on a CD with four or five other days. A lot could rely on the Camera he used, the editing software, the CD burning software, whether he burned back up discs like I tend to do, if he had some sort of code or dating system to mark his CDs that isn't readily obvious to someone else...so he probably figured it was safest just to grab all the CDs and get rid of them. The best way to do that would be to break them, but since the photographer yelled and called attention to them, and he knew Adrian was after him, he really didn't have a chance to stop and start breaking CDs, he probably paniced and went with the first thing that came to mind, which was tossing them into the water. He probably didn't even know if they would sink or float or if the salt water would have some damaging affect on them, but was hoping that they would sink or be ruined by the salt. The same way the guy in Marathon Man didn't think about the hide a key box might be waterproof and would float, and Adrian even mentioned it to him. But CDs in cases do float and are not damaged by the salt water. I know because I tried it. It really is harder than you might think to irretrievably destroy a CD, there are people now who can retrieve data from damaged CDs or even stuff that's been erased from CDRWs I think. Your best bet is to smash it into as many pieces as you can.
But I liked the way it was done because of fact that it reminded me of earlier episodes. I didn't see it as the writers being lax, I saw it as a connection game.
It would have been funny though if the photographer had shouted something like, "Stop him! He's got my Metallica mix! And my Van Halen!" and it turned out that the photographer did have back ups of all those CDs and the pictures he'd taken for the last few months on his computer hard drive.