Unironically a great show, and much better than other detective shows like Poirot which have extremely contrived and farcical plots
Only complaint is they milk the "Oh, just one more thing" line way too much, several times an episode.
Unironically a great show, and much better than other detective shows like Poirot which have extremely contrived and farcical plots
You could argue it's Columbo doing it on purpose to mess with the heads of the suspects. Most of his persona is an act to portray himself as a bumbling fool, so that people let down their guard around him.
I love almost every episode except for this asspull ending which makes no sense: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iGMT7scTpTY
Thinking that someone who behaves in a blind manner is blind is not enough to arrest someone, let alone prosecute.
In the early seasons of Columbo, he was definitely putting on an act. There's even episodes where he drops the act completely and starts a screaming match with the bad guy
The problem is that as the show went on for years and years, and eventually went on for decades, it fell into the hands of writers who didn't understand the Columbo character. So he really WAS an absent minded goofball, and he really was silly. And hey, let's give him a random dog, why not?
Yeah the later seasons unfortunately aren't up to par. It's a shame because there was really good potential. I'll add though that I think he started to get dementia around the time of the later seasons which was probably impacting his performance.
>it fell into the hands of writers who didn't understand the Columbo character.
It was actually Falk assuming more and more creative control, and going on to completely self-flanderize the character. Like many actors, he didn't really get what made Columbo special.
Original Columbo
>Puts on an act to disarm suspects
>Gets pissed and mad at murderers when they try to high-hand their way out
>Wife doesn't exist, uses made up stories about "her" to steer the conversation where he needs
>Almost never acknowledged by other police officers, to the point of appearing as a unsanctioned vigilante or a vengeful ghost
>Intended by creators to be a "mysterious figure" in their own words
Falk's Columbo
>Idiosyncratic old man act is his actual personality, rarely gets tilted
>Wife actually exists, making him less sophisticated at mind games
>Has a cult status among other police officers, while inexplicably remaining an Lt. for 5 decades and past retirement age
>Le wacky car troubles :^)
>Completely self-flanderized by Falk
never acknowledged by other police officers, to the point of appearing as a unsanctioned vigilante or a vengeful ghost
kino
>>Wife actually exists, making him less sophisticated at mind games
I'm three seasons in and I don't think I've seen his wife yet.
You never see her during the show, but other characters start acknowledging her after the ocean cruise episode.
she shouldn't exist, i always assumed he was lying about having a wife and they kept it very vague until they made a whole ''columbo's wife'' show
Good summary. Many such cases, unfortunately.
never acknowledged by other police officers, to the point of appearing as a unsanctioned vigilante or a vengeful ghost
In the first episode he finds the murdered man's wife out in the hallway away from the other detectives, very briefly flashes his badge, and invites himself into her home. Wasn't even seen with the other policemen. Made me think it was deliberate and he was some kind of vigilante
So when should I stop watching?
When it stops being kino
How could anyone misunderstand Columbo's act as anything other than an act? It's basically spelled out directly to the audience through the murderer in the very first episode of the show.
this, in the literal pilot episode the therapist murderer calls him out for his act
From having watched a few episodes I got the impression that you find out who the killer is sort of midway through the episode and then you get to wait 30 minutes for Columbo's bullshit asspull gotcha moment. I love most things from the era and especially Magnum PI, but this one just doesn't feel very satisfying.
Holy shit how stupid are you? Aside from like a handful of episodes where they change the formula, you literally see the killer plan and carry out the murder step by step. It's not a whodunnit, it's a cat and mouse between the killer and columbo. I'll admit a few of the moments are asspulls, but it's generally columbo nagging the suspect and acting like a fool until they give up some key piece of info or get scared they will get caught. I'd watch the Johnny Cash episode if you want a good taste of what the show is like. The killers are usually relatively sympathetic as well, it's not about action or anything like that. I would liken it more to a chess game than a car chase.
>The killers are usually relatively sympathetic as well
This is what I like about the show. Their motivations are clear and make sense from their perspective. Like murdering to avoid a fraud investigation, as in the Jack LaLanne guy episode.
Whereas in Poirot, the murderers have unknowable and convoluted motivations, like executing a planned revenge murder over the course of 30 years.
Poirot is all about the ending where he unravels it all, but 95% of episodes the viewers do not have an ability to follow Poirot's thinking, which is unsatisfying compared to knowing beforehand and watching Columbo piece it together.
>Whereas in Poirot, the murderers have unknowable and convoluted motivations, like executing a planned revenge murder over the course of 30 years.
>Poirot is all about the ending where he unravels it all, but 95% of episodes the viewers do not have an ability to follow Poirot's thinking, which is unsatisfying compared to knowing beforehand and watching Columbo piece it together.
It's not quite that. The murderers in Poirot have VERY clear motivations. And the reason Agatha Christie is the supreme mystery writer is that she feeds you the necessary information slowly that allows you to work out who did it in a systematic fashion before the end (once Poirot announces he is ready to reveal the murderer is when all the necessary evidence has been presented), like including maps that show where everyone is berthed in Orient Express, or where everyone is seated in Death in the Clouds, what happened and when etc. Poirot mysteries (from the novels) are like a sudoku or logic puzzle that is based purely on following a step by step logical process.
I think what you're describing is the lack of passion and emotion, which happens to also be why I like Agatha Christie's mysteries. Very rarely are there crimes of passion, and she keeps it entirely clinical when it comes to describing human emotions. All the crimes are premeditated and done with careful planning as to obfuscate the perpetrator, a necessity in order for it to be a puzzle in the first place. You can call it convoluted, but that's also the point because it's meant to be a puzzle for the reader/audience to figure out (the Jonathan Creek).
Christie was a chemist, which explains the rigorous logic and the clinical approach to human emotion.
Obviously when you're talking about the show Poirot, they dramatize a lot of it and cut out a lot of the logical steps.
>It's not quite that. The murderers in Poirot have VERY clear motivations.
Yes, ONCE they've been revealed by Poirot at the end. For example, Murder in Mesopotamia. How is the audience supposed to divine that the murderer was the wife's former husband presumed dead for decades? You can't, the evidence isn't there. Maybe in the novels, but not in the show. I've got a 130 IQ tested by the public school system, and only a few Poirot episodes was I able to guess the murderer and his motivations, like the one about the flat in Whitehaven Mansions.
As I said, the TV shows are dramatized and cut out a lot of it. I suggest you read the books instead. No TV show, unless the crimes are really simple, will let you divine the murderer in an hour or an hour and a half.
As for how you are supposed to know, the very fact that the husband is mentioned should be a major clue. When it comes to murder, many times it's someone the victim knew, and in cases of premeditated murder it's a given. You solve the puzzle by determining the means, motive, and opportunity. A spouse usually being the number one suspect in terms of motive and opportunity. Through disentangling relationships, catching lies, etc it can be worked out.
>The killers are usually relatively sympathetic as well
>That kino episode where Columbo drinks wine with Donald Pleasence, and actually feels bad he's going to have to arrest him, because the man he killed was a piece of shit going to ruin a multi-generation family business.
>mfw he would rather turn himself in than be forced to marry his spinster secretary
>the waiters tasting the wine after Pleasance makes a scene
That was such a comfy episode, Pleasance is such an underrated actor as well.
Short Fuse is a good example of excellent writing
Only saw the first episode from the 80s or 70s but how did the manlet do it. Obviously mates with tom cruise
I've been binging Columbo and Midsomer Murders.
No regrets.
Boring little incel OP starts this thread with a premise that doesn't even exist. It's not really doubted that Columbo is a good show.
>not really doubted
>no one remembers the show, never referenced in modern pop culture
You're referencing Chekhov's gun I believe. But the TV show throws red herrings at the viewer all the time. Even if you (by luck alone) guessed that the husband's death was not red herring but the key to the mystery, you have no basis with which to determine who among the male suspects could be the husband, who miraculously survived a train crash and created a decade-long false identity and career. As I said, extremely convoluted, and only clear in hindsight.
Red herrings exist in the book as well. But even the red herrings can usually be figured out as red herrings by other evidence that is presented.
Also the identity of the murderer as her husband is merely a feature of the motive ("why"). You can make the deduction through elimination with just means and opportunity alone.
Also if you think that's convoluted you're going to have a bad time with British literature in general. Unless someone has been explicitly proven as dead they're not dead. Arthur Conan Doyle does the same thing multiple times, and you see it every in stories like The Man Who Would Be King. It's not really as convoluted as you think either, it was a common occurrence in my parents' generation, let alone my grandparents' generation for people to just vanish and assume a new identity elsewhere (my uncle's brothers etc are all estranged from their families), or in times of great unrest and turmoil for people to be displaced, disappear, lose contact forever. It was a different world before internet or even telephone lines.
No one is talking about the book but you.
If you're mentioning Poirot at all you can't ignore the books.
I thought your IQ was 130.
>which have extremely contrived and farcical plots
Columbo IS contrived and farcical. Every single criminal makes the EXACT same mistakes, all so Columbo can solve the case.
Is it true he's a midget and smells like dung. Columbo is awesome
>you gotta admit i had you going for a while though, didn't i?
>*columbo nods* yes you did
KINO
funny how the egotistical murderer admits it was the only good idea he ever had at the end. he has a profound moment of self reflection. sort of like Raskolnikov