|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 30, 2005 14:25:24 GMT -5
And I must say, I am enjoying this lively discussion!
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 30, 2005 14:34:56 GMT -5
Nicolemarie summed it up well when she made the distinction between graphic creepy and just creepy. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Mar 30, 2005 15:47:46 GMT -5
He did not really figure out the problem with the son. Once, they found the old murders in the archives, then Goren knew. The only reason Goren and Eames went looking for a murder from 1977 was because Goren already had a suspicion that Keith's problem stemmed back to something Keith might've seen (i.e. a polaroid, which is what Frank used in his job as an insurance claims adjuster) in Frank's car. Goren then suspected that Frank's murders may have begun long before he dubbed himself the "Body By Jake" killer. That, in turn, led Goren and Eames to start looking back at murders from New Rochelle (where Frank and Keith lived in 1977) to see if any of them matched Jake's M.O. And that, in turn, led to Goren figuring out and unravelling Keith's problem. It's not as though Goren and Eames just happened upon the old murder from New Rochelle and THEN -- bingo -- Goren knew. It was much more of a process, with Goren testing and refining his theory as he investigated.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Mar 30, 2005 16:09:22 GMT -5
I think one of the things I liked about this episode is that it demonstrated that Goren's abilities are not just his intellect, but also his capacity for hard work--and this true of Eames as well. It was research and grunt work that led them back to the other murders, and it was (as other posters have noted) Goren's insights that led to the subway connection and the psychological makeup of the killer. The episode did have all of the elements of a great LOCI--support from all the players, great Goren/Eames interaction, and demonstrations of Goren's intelligence and his ability to play people. And it ended very satifyingly, with the son having a chance to finally free himself from that monstrous creature, and the monstrous creature at bay.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 30, 2005 16:19:07 GMT -5
Ok - am I sensitized to something?
what in this episode was soooo graphic? More graphic than bullets fake-oozing through a wound in CSI?
I just don't see that this episode was really creepy graphic at all; or am I forgetting a scene? Like I said, I think we were exposed to more flashes of the pictures and a longer scene in the ME's office; but more creepy than other glimpses we get? Where?
|
|
|
Post by det1stgrade on Mar 30, 2005 16:29:38 GMT -5
I think people are referring to this episode being VERBALLYgraphic (i.e., Bobby's fact stating of: masturbated to orgasm, ejaculate, etc.) I suppose some might have found the photo images of the victims disturbing, but (to me) they weren't terribly revealing.
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Mar 30, 2005 16:54:41 GMT -5
I guess I must be desensitized too. I found it neither visually or verbally graphic.
You see and hear worse stuff that on the news.
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Mar 30, 2005 16:56:52 GMT -5
yah, I say the total of "after 9:00" stuff is pretty high in this episode; but each thing is just par for the course.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Mar 30, 2005 17:09:42 GMT -5
I think people are referring to this episode being VERBALLYgraphic (i.e., Bobby's fact stating of: masturbated to orgasm, ejaculate, etc.) I suppose some might have found the photo images of the victims disturbing, but (to me) they weren't terribly revealing. Nope, the dialogue didn't bother me. The visual and descriptions of the torture and death of the woman tied up, as I mentioned, bothered me. I am not desensitised by similar stuff on CNN. Not yet anyway!
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 30, 2005 17:23:02 GMT -5
The only reason Goren and Eames went looking for a murder from 1977 was because Goren already had a suspicion that Keith's problem stemmed back to something Keith might've seen (i.e. a polaroid, which is what Frank used in his job as an insurance claims adjuster) in Frank's car. Goren then suspected that Frank's murders may have begun long before he dubbed himself the "Body By Jake" killer. That, in turn, led Goren and Eames to start looking back at murders from New Rochelle (where Frank and Keith lived in 1977) to see if any of them matched Jake's M.O. And that, in turn, led to Goren figuring out and unravelling Keith's problem. It's not as though Goren and Eames just happened upon the old murder from New Rochelle and THEN -- bingo -- Goren knew. It was much more of a process, with Goren testing and refining his theory as he investigated. In my view, this was standard police work. Goren simply followed the 1+2+3+4 method. And it was painfully obvious the son was not the killer. I'm not knocking Goren, I'm just saying Goren didn't investigate CI like, he did it SVU like. He followed the evidence trail, he didn't really profile to get to his conclusuion. Kinda like what Patcat said, he did more "grunt" work. Nice to see Goren bust his butt but, annoying at the same time. LOL! (Oh, that sounded contradictory, didn't it? LOL!) I guess this is another point we will have to agree to disagree on! Maybe I should not have give Shibboleth an "F" after all! Though this show was not (in my view) very "CI-like" in its story, it was a great one only because it keeps us talking and seeing it from a milllion different angles! ;D
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Mar 30, 2005 18:37:21 GMT -5
Patcat, you make a very good point. Goren and Eames did rely on research and grunt-work for part of this investigation. (Which I don't find all that unusual for Goren. He's always looking things up and digging into old case files. Not to mention making use of his trusty library card.) And Goren also relied on his profiling ability with respect to Jake (i.e. the way in which he goaded him into communicating with the cops, the way he interpretted Jake's reason for reviving his victim so the 911 operator could hear her, the significance of the fact that he masturbated at the crime scene, etc...). And again relied on his profiling ability and knowledge of psychology with respect to Keith (i.e. noting inconsistencies in Keith's behavior when testifying at the grand jury with the profile he had created for Jake, recognizing -- and explaining -- the concept of psychological "imprinting" and how that had been accomplished with Keith both visually and conceptually, identifying Keith's definition of himself as a carbon copy of his dad, recognizing Keith's regressed self-image, etc...). I agree that one style of investigation didn't preclude use of another. It's something I notice Goren doing in many episodes. Perhaps more people noticed because it was more integrated in this episode. NicoleMarie, In my earlier post I was taking issue with your statement that Goren "did not really figure out the problem with the son. Once, they found the old murders in the archives, then Goren knew." Which I don't think is the same thing as describing the manner in which he figured it out as" standard police work." I also disagree with your view that he relied exclusively on "standard police work" btw , but already explained why. And, even with repeated explanations, I also fail to see how this episode was so graphic, creepy or creepygraphic that it stands out from other television shows or the more graphic, creepy or creepygraphic episodes of this series.
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Mar 30, 2005 22:21:05 GMT -5
...And, even with repeated explanations, I also fail to see how this episode was so graphic, creepy or creepygraphic that it stands out from other television shows or the more graphic, creepy or creepygraphic episodes of this series. Oh, good, something you didn’t explain! You know, Goreneames, I agree with so much of what you say, and you explain it so well, I may just sit back and read while *you* catch all the flack for analyzing the episodes! LOL!! Anyway, since “creepy” just popped up with these two episodes, and is also being used to describe SVU, my take is that it’s a code word for “sexually-based crime.” “Graphic” seems to mean explicit descriptions/images of those sexually-based crimes, especially descriptions that involve the woman struggling (which *is* a kind of description that can easily become titillating, ala CSI) – as opposed to, say, a close-up of Goren poking around in a wound, which might be graphic in the general sense, but doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing they’re talking about here. So, since Criminal Intent doesn’t usually deal with sexually-based crimes, these two episodes would be much ‘creepier’ than most; and, since pictures and descriptions of the sexually-based crimes were used, Shibboleth would also be much more ‘graphic.’<br> That’s my best guess from the way they’re being used. Personally, for me, creepy seems like an odd word to use for sexually-based crimes; but that’s a matter of personal reactions to words, not meant as a criticism.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 30, 2005 23:38:39 GMT -5
NicoleMarie, In my earlier post I was taking issue with your statement that Goren "did not really figure out the problem with the son. Once, they found the old murders in the archives, then Goren knew." Which I don't think is the same thing as describing the manner in which he figured it out as" standard police work." I also disagree with your view that he relied exclusively on "standard police work" btw , but already explained why. I do think the manner, the method, the whatever, that Goren used is the same thing, the same style: SVU style, not LOCI style or method. Like I said, it's a point we will have to agree to disagree because we are now just repeating ourselves. I like how LOCIfan put it better: "There is no meeting of the minds".
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Mar 30, 2005 23:42:28 GMT -5
And Obervser, thank you for your post about creepiness! That sums it up perfectly!
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Mar 31, 2005 2:41:27 GMT -5
Ahhh, NicoleMarie. I think get it now. Took me long enough, I know. When you said Goren didn't figure it out, you meant he figured it out, but only by using standard police work. Yep, agree to disagree! ;D Observer, thanks for explaining the creepiness factor! I've been trying all day to understand it, and you cleared it up right quick. And, noooooo, please don't sit back and read! I always learn from your posts. PLUS, I don't want to take the flack for analyzing all by myself! Seriously though, this episode really sparked my analyzing motor, and I enjoyed the discussion.
|
|