MovieChat Forums > Hawaii Five-O (1968) Discussion > Major flaw in "3000 crooked miles to Hon...

Major flaw in "3000 crooked miles to Honolulu" ?


In one of my favourite episodes, starring Buddy Ebsen as a well intentioned but criminally involved professor, it is not at all made clear how Five-0 put together the pieces of the American Express travel cheque scam.

Yes, one shopkeeper did spot two suspicious looking cheques, but we are not told how those bills are linked to Prof Pierce's travel group! McGarrett almost immediately makes the connection. How?

What they would have to do is trace those cheques to the original buyer, and then match them to the names of people in Pierce's group. This was not done at all. Is the lay viewer simply expected to assume this action?

If possible, please show where the direct linkage to Pierce's organisation is determined, either by the suspicious AE travellers' cheques, or by the murdered girl employee of the air travel agency run by {character played by Tommy Fujiwara}.

reply

I just watched the episode again, from start to finish, listening carefully to every line, looking for every clue.

Not a single scene where a connection is made between the suspicious travellers' cheques spotted by the shopkeeper, and Prof Pierce's( aka Buddy Ebsen) group!


Please, someone, enlighten on this score!

reply

You should find a way to get out more often...

You can't go wrong drowning politicians Henry. The Black Swan (1942)

reply

'You should find a way to get out more often... '

Bad answer, ScotchRox. Very bad. This is a Hawaii Five-0 forum, in case it missed your attention. So questions about the series, specific episodes, characters, producers, directors et al, are legitimate.

I'm not asking about something silly or trivial. "3000 Crooked Miles to Honolulu" is, by most accounts, a pretty major and remarkable episode. I found a serious flaw in the narrative, something that won't stand up to scrutiny. Not in the way it is presented. It would only work, if something else is already assumed, and that something simply wasn't there.

I would agree that not all queries/comments are equally legit. I draw the line personally, at things like what hair-gel did Jack Lord use, or who tailored Kono's suit. Even then, if someone really wanted to know that, I would be aghast, but wouldn't deny them their right to ask.

reply

This is a typical example of TV script logic which assumes that people don't pay too much attention to certain plot devices, especially those involving technology.

Recently I am watching and anal-yzing episodes of Kojak (see http://www.kojak.tv) and there are a couple of things like this:

In one episode the cops find car keys at a suspect's apartment which have numbers on them. Using these numbers, they are able to track down the serial and engine numbers of the cars. According to a friend of mine who used to be in the used car business, this is far-fetched. These days when you buy a car which has those keys with buttons you push to open and lock the car, you will usually get another key which is the "master key" with a little metal plate attached that has a number on it. If you need to make another key, if you take this master key to the dealer, they can make up another key (which usually costs a fortune), but they cannot use this number to track down the car, it's strictly related to the locks in the car.

In another Kojak episode, the cops are filming in a funeral parlor with a hidden camera. They are outside in a truck watching what is going on on a monitor. When some shooting takes place at the funeral, they have a video record of what happened. They watch this scene later and it appears on a typical TV of the time with relatively mediocre resolution. But they somehow manage to take the picture from the monitor and make a super clear blowup (like you would get from a 35mm camera) so they can see the pinky ring on the finger of one of the people at the funeral and use it to track him down. According to another friend of mine who has dealt with this kind of equipment for years, this is also far-fetched, and that there was no equipment available at the time (mid 70's) which could have produced such a high-quality photo.

A similar example of technological mumbo-jumbo in Five-O takes place in the seventh season episode A Woman's Work is With a Gun. Che Fong "computer enhances" some pictures of the women crooks which an elderly tourist snaps. But when Che says "pictures are made up of a composition of small spots or dots called 'reseau marks'," this is totally bogus. This does not apply to pictures taken by a camera. The only kind of pictures made up of "dots" are those which are screened for use in a newspaper. Using some equally unorthodox procedure, Che also manages to blow up a picture of foliage and enhance it so that one of the robbers can be seen in the background as the driver of the getaway car.

reply