Fan Dividers - "The Crucible"

[Wezzo]

Are you thinking of "Hot Ticket" there, BN?

[Mayday Malone]

presently, my suggestion is Author, Author

[Mr Blue Sky]

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...

[Mr Blue Sky]

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...

[Wezzo]

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...

I just got confused as the episode in discussion was "Hot Pursuit".

"Hot Ticket" definitely rates in my top 50 or so.

[Mayday Malone]

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...

, well we can only wait and see

[Bee Gees Fan]

Very good, I think that will be next. I'm not sure if Cakey will be arsed to fight his lone corner...

I thought Cakey had changed his mind about the episode. A short while ago, he watched it and gave it a high rating.

[Cake for Brains]

Used to think it was OK. Now I'm really not keen, so HATE IT I s'pose.

[JT]

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."

[Mr Blue Sky]

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."

I didn't realise more people loved this ep than hated it! A real surprise.

I'll have to get some more of these polls going...

[White Rabbit]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Fourthly, this episode is no shallower or less funny than any other ones just because Niles throws a brick. Don't forget the episode title: 'The Crucible', without which a lot of the subtlety would be lost. Quoted from Wikipedia: 'The episode's title is taken from the 1953 play The Crucible by Arthur Miller. The play features a central moral dilemma concerning whether committing a sin in order to save one's life can be justified. The choice of title pokes fun at Frasier's more trivial moral dilemma over whether to break the gallery window.'

[CatNamedRudy]

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.

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!

[daniela76]

I'm not crazy for The Two Hundredth and Cheerful Goodbyes( even though I love Cheers), I like The Crucible :


Martin: You know, listen, Frasier. You're kind of upset about this,
maybe I should return it for you.
Frasier: Well, Dad, I appreciate the gesture but, really, what do you
know about the art world?
Martin: Apparently about as much as you do.


I hate only the moment with dott. Mary... , a good character, but not for Frasier.

[White Rabbit]

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 the brothers' 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.

[CatNamedRudy]

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.

I read it after I posted my response actually. It wasn't there when I responded originally.

Sorry, I just don't like it! I don't find it funny. It simply irritates me and there are very, very few moments in it that I find funny.

Certainly there are other episodes where completely unrealistic and irrational things happen and some of them are some of my favorite episodes. In fact, one of them, IS my favorite episode! The Adventures of Bad Boy and Dirty Girl! Certainly, in the real world, Frasier's ass (and the rest of him) would have been fired and his name dragged through the mud and certainly Kate would have been fired. But the episode cracks me the hell up! But The Crucible just makes me cringe and it's one of the few episodes that I will skip when it's on.

[White Rabbit]

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.

[CatNamedRudy]

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.

Actually, he didn't try the police! Martin told him not to! My beef there is with Martin!

Again, it's just one of those episodes that I can't get past some of the stuff I find ridiculous. And being in law enforcement, I find the whole window incident ridiculous! And I find the whole lack of reporting to the police ridiculous. I just can't get past it! It's just not amusing to me. Whereas High Crane Drifter is very amusing! In fact, Frasier can be quite a hot head sometimes so I don't even see his behavior in High Crane Drifter all that out of the norm. He had simply had enough! Had FRASIER actually broken the window, I would have been able to buy it. (and I know that's not the point, the point is that NILES did it and NOT Frasier)

[Moon-Crane]

In some ways it's pretty out of character, but then again, no more out of character than him being a neat freak yet having pets. It's a comic device, and so it doesn't bother me if a comedy deviates slightly to allow an amusing scene.

I like to look at it as Niles losing the plot so much that he does something so out of character, but realises the insanity of it and reverts very much back into character by chucking the money into the window afterwards.

I quite like being wound up by the infuriating situation. If you don't like it you don't like it though. It doesn't matter as there's 250-odd other episodes to enjoy (more or less after you remove your other duffers anyway)