Whodunnit? (Summer Mystery/Reality Show)

Cafe Society
1

Okay. So we have 13 assorted strangers, many with some sort of investigative backgrounds, assembled in a very nice house with a butler and some maids (and presumably cook, grounds people, etc.) to play a nice little game of Murder.

Make that murderS since apparently one of the guests will slaughtered each week, and the rest must ‘investigate’ and decide who they think the killer is. Each gets questioned by the ‘murderer’ – identity somehow concealed during this – and whoever does the worst job of explaining how the crime was committed and who did it becomes the next victim.

Yes, it definitely feels like a descendant of “The Mole.”

The first killing had some nice twists in the story, and the contestants had to solve a few clues, and overall it was a pleasant way to kill an hour.

Anyone else watch?

2

I recorded it and plan on watching either tonight or tomorrow night. I love a decent mystery and this seems like it could be a lot of fun.

3

No, but this sounds like a lot more fun than most reality shows. I’ll give it a try. Thanks!

4

Dammit! I saw a commercial for it and wanted to record it and totally forgot. :frowning: Maybe I can find it online somewhere and then catch up. I’m about worn out on reality TV, but this is something I’d totally love.

5

The idea is great. The execution… bleh.

Production quality is kinda low for me. I do like the interactions between the characters and the idea that the killer is one of them.

What I don’t like is how fake the ‘killings’ are. Obviously, nobody is actually going to die. So the whole “I’m not just fighting for money, I’m fighting for my life” thing is ridiculous.

The means of death for the first victim was just stupid.

Come on, a slingshot to the neck? puh-leeze. Even if I believe there was enough force to kill someone from 30 feet away, I DO NOT believe anyone alive has aim that good

Some of the participants are interesting - the black guy who was a former investigator seems on top of things. Some of them are just idiotic, like the flight attendant. If the show was nothing but smart people, it might have been ok.

And the obviously fake “you can only go so many places” - yea, it’s a game, but they’re treading too hard on the “is it a game or is it real” line. Just be obvious it’s a game and go from there.

I do wonder how good of an ‘actor’ the other participants will be as they have to fake their deaths.

My last problem with the show is that there’s no way they’re going to find the killer before the last episode, and there’s already 12 episodes planned. So, even if all 11 of the participants figure out who it is on the next go, they’re not going to cut the season short. I would even believe it’s like a murder mystery dinner, where you don’t find you you’re the killer until the last episode.

I think it would have been better done with 4 participants, and the killer is revealed at the end of each episode (obviously with a smaller cash prize), than dragging it out the whole season.

6

I get the feeling that the winner (last one standing) is by default, ‘the killer’. No one is actually hiding the fact that they are the killer.

They should give up the ‘it’s real’ angle. Just play it like a game. I AM interested in how each different profession approaches the investigation, and how close they get.

Might give another one a try and see.

7

I liked it. It’s not sophisticated and I dislike that they had to accuse somebody, but it was enjoyable. I feel the accusations are unwarranted because there is very little motive other than I want to win a bunch of money, but presenting a case on how the murder was accomplished was pretty cool.

I would much prefer if one of them is a plant from the beginning. I noticed that nobody got questioned on their alibis, what they were doing when the cheerleader got killed–so it’s kind of inevitable that the “killer” doesn’t know they’re the killer, and that makes me angry.

However, my roommate has put her money on the flight attendant. :slight_smile:

8

Hmm. I was thinking that it was more like the Mole, so that there genuinely IS a killer who knows who s/he is. The killer is guaranteed to survive to the end since the one eliminated each week is the one who does the worst job at describing how the crime was done and naming the villain, which clearly shouldn’t ever be the killer.

I wonder if they’ll start adding in more observational type questions as they go along and the field narrows. You know, “What color shirt was the murderer wearing when s/he committed the crime?” that sort of thing.

BTW, I think I was paying attention, and there was ONE player who wasn’t shown revealing either a “safe” or “scared” card. Don’t know if that was for an editing/time reason OR if that’s a clue for the watcher…

9

I definitely wasn’t paying enough attention to who did what, because I wasn’t certain about how the game was going to be played. I never watched The Mole, but I’m really hoping you’re right and the killer knows from the beginning.

I thought that the three guys were very smart agreeing to each visit one location and then share information. It’s too bad it all fell apart almost immediately. I can’t believe nobody else was smart enough to group up like that and instead just hoped they could get more information out of anybody who went to the other locations.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if they have “bodies” for all the players pre-made for examination in the morgue. :slight_smile: I think the cheerleader (Sheri? Can’t remember) must have been an actress there to kick off the first murder, but I’m interested to see how the rest of them die, especially if they’re going to continue to die on-camera.

10

Sorry, just like J. D. Salinger, they lost me with a single instance of crummy spelling.

It’s Whodunit. Only one “n.”

11

I actually think that’s totally fair. If it were a book, I wouldn’t even have picked it up. :slight_smile:

12

I’m going to play as if it’s been pre-determined who is the killer and therefore that actor has been informed ahead of time and is working with the producers. (a la The Mole) Therefore, my working theory is that the killer is:Don, the ex-detective who is telling everyone he’s a high school football coach. Adrianna, the crime reporter is too obvious. Don’s story seems pre-fabricated with the intention of having any of his evasive or suspicious behavior being explained away as trying to hide his identity with his coach cover story. He’s also way too bumbling for a detective. He tells us he isn’t good with puzzles as an added misdirection. And he was slow to arrive just prior to Dontae’s murder, meaning they could show that footage later when they show him busy murdering Dontae.Oh, and I do like the gender-neutral full body disguise they use for the killer. Can’t see an inch of skin. Reminds me of the Greendale Human Being mascot costume.

13

Well, another episode down. Unboxed spoilers ahead.

I still think they need to tone down the “OMG I’m gonna DIE!” aspect - we know it’s fake, guys, and you do too. I do think this one had better crimesolving.

I’m still liking Kam for the overall winner, but I worry that getting to be too much of a frontrunner and getting too cocky will make people turn on him. I wonder if the producers offed Adrianna because so many of the other contestants had pegged her as the killer.

I like the Kam/Ulysses/Lindsay group that formed - everyone wants in because they know that group has it down. As stated in the show, the other groups are a hot mess.

My wife pointed out something that may get me to keep watching - the most annoying characters aren’t going to get any info because nobody will want to share with them, and the dumbest ones won’t put the pieces together, so this may be the rare show where the likable, intelligent contestants are the ones that stick around to the end.

And of course, I liked Dontae’s bit at the end. Will be interesting to see what the contestants have to say as they’re offed.

14

Instead of “killing off” the worst detective, the killer should get to pick off the one who is closing in him/her. Who gets killed should be a clue to the who the killer is.

Plus the killer should have to “kill” them. Meaning that the killing may not be the best planned thing and leave a lot of clues. The killer should get desperate.

Make the game that the killer gets more more for the more people he successfully kills. If they catch him quick, the detectives get more money.

15

I think the problem with that would be that there’s a perverse incentive to do poorly. While your scenario is more realistic, it’s also bad television.

I do like the money idea, but the network would never go for something without a set number of episodes.

16

I’ve seen Clue: The Movie too many times to think the killer is anybody but Giles the host/butler.

17

I think maybe I’m throwing in on the flight attendant. Because the laundry thing seemed like a real leap.

It seemed more like actual crime-solving this week, so that was fun.

18

Laundry was the first thing I thought of. Until I saw the ‘Cycles’ next to the grill. But I went back to the laundry idea when they did.

I have a theory that the number of ‘killer’ guesses a person gets is somehow factored in to the actual ‘killing’. It seems like voting like most reality shows. So maybe the 2 worst detectives are ‘scared’ and the one with the most ‘killer’ votes gets killed. (or least…)

19

Maybe I missed something in the riddle because I was kind of far away from the TV when it was read–funnily enough, I was putting clothes in the washer. :slight_smile:

20

Except he was only the killer in one ending.

This show is the best and worst show of all time at the same time. The deaths are hilarious.
OK, so is the killer actively trying to throw them off the track during investigations? I get that evidence indicates how the crime was done, but does any evidence lead to who the killer is? If not, this is pointless. They can only solve how, not who. Am I right?