Wezzo wrote:Are you thinking of "Hot Ticket" there, BN?
Mayday Malone wrote:presently, my suggestion is Author, Author
Beer Necessity wrote:Wezzo wrote:Are you thinking of "Hot Ticket" there, BN?
Yes, it is!
I know it's not your favourite ep either Wes, I just said that to get a reaction...
Beer Necessity wrote:Mayday Malone wrote:presently, my suggestion is Author, Author
Very good, I think that will be next. I'm not sure if Cakey will be arsed to fight his lone corner...
Beer Necessity wrote:Very good, I think that will be next. I'm not sure if Cakey will be arsed to fight his lone corner...
JT wrote:It's great! believe it or not, one of my top 5.
".... the way you accentuate the pallet without leaning on it. It's truly the zietgiest of our time."
Beer Necessity wrote:I suppose some leeway should be given as this was only the 6th episode of the show and it was obviously still finding it's feet but honestly, can anyone imagine Niles throwing a brick through a window in a million years?
White Rabbit wrote:Beer Necessity wrote:I suppose some leeway should be given as this was only the 6th episode of the show and it was obviously still finding it's feet but honestly, can anyone imagine Niles throwing a brick through a window in a million years?
'Some leeway'? People share different views on the character of Niles, but I think this must be tolerated 100%. Hindsight is 20-20. You have to completely forget about every episode after the sixth one when taking into account Nile's brick throwing. The character was barely developed. You can't say he was out of character, because he hadn't even begun to be in character.
There are also other ways to argue for my case. Realizing that he was labelled 'peachfuzz' must've been the breaking point for Niles. He had already recalled the most embarrassing moment in his life: hanging naked from a goal post in front of his peers and coach (cue field goal arm wave). In a bout of uncontrolled rage, he threw the brick, and did his own version of the arm wave to finally put his haunting past to rest.
CatNamedRudy wrote:
Sorry, I give it NO LEEWAY!
It's FAR and AWAY my least favorite S1 episode and no matter what the argument, I think Niles throwing the brick was ridiculous. On top of the fact that there is no way in hell they would ever get away with such an act of vandalism and add to that the fact that there is no way in hell Frasier, being the nitpicky, obsessive freak that he is would have just given up when told by the gallery owner he wouldn't take the painting back. AND, a true crime was comitted for which that gallery could have been very rightly prosecuted. It's called FORGERY and it's pretty illegal!
Ok, rant over!
You may all now return to either loving or hating The Crucible!
White Rabbit wrote:CatNamedRudy wrote:
Sorry, I give it NO LEEWAY!
It's FAR and AWAY my least favorite S1 episode and no matter what the argument, I think Niles throwing the brick was ridiculous. On top of the fact that there is no way in hell they would ever get away with such an act of vandalism and add to that the fact that there is no way in hell Frasier, being the nitpicky, obsessive freak that he is would have just given up when told by the gallery owner he wouldn't take the painting back. AND, a true crime was comitted for which that gallery could have been very rightly prosecuted. It's called FORGERY and it's pretty illegal!
Ok, rant over!
You may all now return to either loving or hating The Crucible!
Firstly, we don't know whether they got away with it. If they didn't, we didn't see it.
Secondly, Frasier did not give up. He did say that he would not leave (and after he left, he considered several courses of actions). And don't forget it was his idea in the first place to throw the brick. That's a pretty dogged determination for revenge, if you ask me, as is Niles' eventual brick throwing, which was spawned by the return of old demons.
Thirdly, Frasier did want to take it to court. There is NOTHING in the episode about the gallery being immune to prosecution (and remember that the gallery only refused to give Frasier his money back - it is implied that they did not know it was a forgery). He didn't sue because the price of a lawyer would be many times greater than the painting.
You can see how you're being unreasonable.
CatNamedRudy wrote:Nah, you're just trying to rationalize!
They got away with it!
Frasier did give up on any rational way of resolving the issue. Instead, he resorted to wonton violence!
I still don't think Niles would have ever done anything like that. Although, him throwing the money in the window was very Niles-like! That did make me laugh!
The gallery DID KNOW it was a forgery! They knew damn well they sold Frasier a painting that wasn't a Paxton. The gallery owner was a crook.
It's just one of those episodes that I will never like. The whole thing just irritates me to no end! Much like Hot Ticket, Enemy at the Gate and Motor Skills!
White Rabbit wrote:CatNamedRudy wrote:Nah, you're just trying to rationalize!
They got away with it!
Frasier did give up on any rational way of resolving the issue. Instead, he resorted to wonton violence!
I still don't think Niles would have ever done anything like that. Although, him throwing the money in the window was very Niles-like! That did make me laugh!
The gallery DID KNOW it was a forgery! They knew damn well they sold Frasier a painting that wasn't a Paxton. The gallery owner was a crook.
It's just one of those episodes that I will never like. The whole thing just irritates me to no end! Much like Hot Ticket, Enemy at the Gate and Motor Skills!
I'm rationalizing? Shouldn't I be?
I hate to refer to the literary mechanics of the episode, but I guess it's necessary: the writers WANTED to exhaust all so-called 'rational' resolutions. That's why Frasier intended to smash the gallery window. There were no more viable options. Have you ever noticed that Frasier and Niles are softies? They don't know how to deal with these kind of situations, where the opposing party simply won't play within the rules of etiquette and ethics (this theme is re-visited in High Crane Drifters). That's what makes it so funny (and what takes us back to the episode title), and, most importantly, the writers, aware of their priggish nature, INTENTIONALLY carried each character to the borders of their normal behaviour. Told you this episode is just as deep as any other Frasier episode.
By the way, take care to read my post before this one. I edited it as soon as I posted it, but you only quoted the original version.
White Rabbit wrote:I don't really mind your not liking it, but I was trying to get to the root of why you 'cringe'. I tried to explain why one shouldn't see The Crucible as unrealistic or uncharacteristic, given both the early stages of the series and the writers' intentions.
Whether Niles would get away with the vandalism is not relevant because Niles was supposed to be doing the right thing, smashing that window (you were on poor Peachfuzz's side, weren't you?) Whether the gallery owner was a crook is obliquely relevant; it's quite clear he is, but the point is, Frasier was quite powerless to do anything about it (he tried the police, a lawyer, and using his radio show). The humour is seeing 'softies' like Frasier and Niles attempt to enforce their own brand of vigilante justice.
Return to Frasier Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |