Am I the only one here watching this show? Further, am I the only one actually enjoying this show?
This is the first reality show I’ve decided to watch, and I’ll admit to being hooked.
I watched the first episode last Tuesday, butI thought it was pretty bad overall. The actors in the town do a good job portraying real people, but I can’t figure out if the people trying to solve the “crime” actually think it was real. The killer’s video was entertaining, but overall, the whole thing just looks really set up.
I can’t immagine for a second that the players think the “crime” was real. They’d have to believe that Fox would allow a bunch of amateurs to wander all over a crime scene and get in the way of a professional investigation. Furthermore, considering that at the end of each episode one of the “investigators” goes out to meet the killer - and doesn’t come back, they’d have to believe that Fox is allowing them to be killed. Fox may be sleasy, but they ain’t that bad.
I love the show but hate the contestants. This is the first “reality” show I’ve ever watched more than one episode of, and I think it’s because of the premise: this is the first such show that I think I would actually enjoy participating in. The idea of playing forensic investigator and poking around a mock crime scene just sounds like a lot of fun. It’s a shame the contestants all seem so petty…
I agree with Trion: there’s no way the contestants wouldn’t know it’s fake. But it’s pretty clear the producers and editors have gone to great lengths not to show any evidence that the contestants know it’s fake. I’m guessing that the contestants are coached before the little interviews to talk about it as if it were real, and if they slip up it’s cut during the editing phase.
I’m definitely going to keep watching…except for the annoying contestants it’s like watching Twin Peaks, which I also liked. And since there’ll be fewer of the contestants every episode, how can I lose? 
Well, I don’t hate all the contestants. Not yet anyway. Although I’d sure like to see Kristen left alone in the middle of town for a good long period of time.
Actually, that may not be a bad strategy. If you can’t vote out someone you don’t like, just get paired up with them on a mission, then when their back is turned high-tail it back to base. Of course, you’re putting yourself at risk too…
I have been peeking in from time to time on “Big Brother II,” which is even more unbearable than “Big Brother I” was. But this thread gave me a great idea: I’d watch every episode with glee if, instead of “voting each other out of the Big Brother house,” they voted to have one of their number killed each week. Onscreen. Hell, I’d TAPE that!
I have mixed feelings about “Murder in Small Town X.” It’s sometimes interesting, sometimes boring. I think 15 suspects is too many. I’m having trouble keeping track of them all.
What I found bizarre was when last week’s “murder victim” said to her kids, “Remember, if I don’t come back, Mommy loves you.” At that point I did wonder if that particular contestant thought it was real.
I watched the first episode. I was really looking foward to this series. I have always wanted to play one of those “How to Host a Murder” games but my circle of friends is not large enough with people who would be good at it. I have also always wanted to use the phrase ‘The games afoot and we haven’t a moment to lose!’ but alas there is hardly any use for that phrase in my real life. So a show about ordinary people investigating a murder could be great!
Could be being the operative phrase.
I agree that the towns people are interesting but after watching ‘The Killers Game’ portion of the show I was totally disapointed and came to the following conclusion.
The contestants are all actors.
The the two women were actually afraid they were going to die? Really die and not just be kicked off the game? Give me a break! The other woman who was chosen to go out did the only real detective work in the show when she got the bed linens answere correct and in retrospect that whole sequence seemed scripted. They way all of them jumped to the conclusion of ‘shower curtain’ and then at the last second she pipes up with stop and lets look at the tape again she see the linens in the killers tape but not when they investigated the crime scene.
I was really disapointed in the whole thing.
I was hoping that the contestants would be given the chance to actually investigate on their own. It would be their sole responsibility to find and examine evidence. Instead, the cop/MC leads them by the nose. HE points out things in the tape. HE tells them to go examine the clock. Less like Host A Murder and more like a teacher trying to explain the symbolism of Moby Dick or Macbeth. Instead of a conestant saying ‘We should look into this for clues.’, the MC says ‘Go unprotected to the scene and examine these two things.’
I admit that at this point, I turned off the show. But I have some questions:
Why didn’t the cops just arrest all 15 suspects? They have probable cause.
How does the Killer eliminate contestants? Is it just a matter of catching them alone, or is their a paint ball gun or rubber knife required?
Lastly, can the contestants arm themselves? Can they carry paintball guns etc and kill the Killer if they see him? If not, why not? I used to belong to a medieval combat group, and "you're dead because the Killer caught you alone." is not an acceptable answer to me. Pretending to retreat and then "fatally" stabbing the Killer with a toy knife is.I think the biggest plot hole is this: At the end of each show, the killer gives two locations. One contains a clue, one has the killer. Why the hell would you not send a SWAT team to each frickin’ location?!? I think they should have arranged the elimination of contestants to be done differently, i.e., vote someone off secretly, then arrange for their “death” in the course of the investigation.
The show “Murder in Small Town X” is not very convincing. If I were one of the contestants at a daily “case briefing”, here are a few questions I would ask Sergeant Fredo, but which none of those ninnies seems to have thought of / cared about:
1) "Excuse me Sergeant...how did we ever get a Search Warrant for the scary veteran guy's house, based on what we saw when we broke in illegally? I mean, you can't use illegally obtained evidence for probable cause, can you? Oh, wait......is that how your colleagues do things in L.A.? Sorry."
2) "Uh, Sergeant....why don't we just eliminate the scary veteran guy as a suspect right now, since he was arrested today and he'll presumably be sitting in jail when the 'killer' bumps off one of us tonight?"
3) Hi, Whoever.
4) "Sergeant......don't mean to bug you again, but the killer seems to be doing video surveillance of us in our headquarters. What else can he do? Do you think we should sweep this place for bugs? How's the security in this building?"
AND THE KICKER.....
5) "Sarge....I know we're supposed to play the killer's game by sending two of us, alone and unarmed, to the rendez-vous points.....but, uh, how's the killer going to know if we covertly follow our man and surround the place? I mean, there's enough of us here to do it. Then when the killer makes his move, we can swoop down and swarm him. Oh.....yeah, I know this is just a game and we have to eliminate one person per week, but shouldn't it at least look realistic?"
But don't get me wrong, I love the show! :)Just gonna chime in and say “I think it’s alright.” That’s it.
Well, at leas I know I’m not alone in enjoying the show. Most of the complaints so far seem to be centered on the show not being realistic. That’s OK with me. I suppose if I was really paying attention to the Mystery I might be annoyed by plot holes and stuff. As it is I’m having too much fun watching them dig up graves and perform illegal searches. And hoping the investigators I hate will wind up “on hiatus”.
I only saw the first half of the first episode so perhaps I missed something, but why on earth do they send a person to investigate both locations suggeted by the killer? They know that there’s a clue waiting at one spot, and (duhn duhn DUHN!) CERTAIN DEATH waiting at the other. So why go to both places? Why not just pick one of the locations and have one person go check it out? If the clue is there then no one has to “die”. If the killer is there, well, that player’s out of the game, but the team can send another person to get the clue from the second location. I realize that the show is more exciting if someone “dies” each week, but it seems ludicrous for the players to intentionally adopt a method that always results in a “fatality” when they could easily reduce the odds of someone “dying” by half.
Why would you want to reduce the odds of someone leaving the game? The more people voted out (or killed off - or whatever method your reality show/game uses) the better your odds of winning the “reward money”.
Remember, it’s just a game. These are the rules. Granted, the game has role-playing aspects and Murder Mystery aspects. If taken too seriously, it falls apart.
To take an example: In the one episode of Survivor I saw (first series) it had the contestants trying to get the most mud from point A to point B. If someone can explain what that had to do with Surviving life on a deserted island, they’re a better person than I. And why vote anyone out? Wouldn’t a larger group have a better chance of surviving?
Well, if I were a player I would realize that by reducing the odds of anyone having to leave the game I would also be reducing my odds of having to leave the game.
I know they’re the rules, it’s just that they’re stupid rules. The “Survivor”-esque pitting of players against each other doesn’t even make sense in the context of a murder mystery. The players should want to work together and help each other to solve the mystery instead of focusing on petty in-group squabbles. I can understand the producers wanting to eliminate some players to keep things exciting, but they could have come up with a method that made sense. For instance, players could be “arrested” for gross violations of proper procedure, or “killed” by the murderer or even other townsfolk for doing something stupid (like snooping around other people’s property at night without permission). I think it would make for a much better show if the players were genuinely surprised and upset when one of their number was lost, instead of it being something that they actually help to happen.
Actually, my point was that that - to paraphrase - the “Survivor”-esque pitting of players against each other doesn’t even make sense in the context of surviving life on a deserted island. The players should want to work together to help each other survive instead of focusing on petty in-group squabbles.
Unfortunately Survivor is the pattern that most of these shows use. Could the rules have been “translated” into a Murder Mystery context better? Probably. Personally I think they were going for a greater “dramatic impact”. I don’t have a problem with it.
If the stupidity of it is too much for you, that’s fine. I realize that it’s not Hamlet. I know that it’s just a dumb show with contestants who may not be too bright and a plot that may not make sense. It’s empty calories for the mind, but I’m still enjoying it.
I feel like I’m defending a candy bar.