The detective only knows as much as the audience. Most of the clues visually or spoken are only acquired as soon as the scene is played and no sooner. The more the detective pulls out things that are off-screen, including superhuman abilities like the ability taste semen and infer who it came from (like the Benedict Cucumbatch show) makes it worse.
For Columbo for example, a lot of clues are shown as the crime is carried out. The criminal attempts to construct a perfect alibi, but there are always mistakes and the viewer gets a shot to play detective as the first 15 minutes play out.
If too much of it involves technology/forensics, it becomes a cop show instead of a detective show.
>>213362604 >The detective only knows as much as the audience
The Watson, not the detective. The detective is always one step ahead. The Watson is the one the audience finds relatable.
>>213362360 (OP)
asks questions, unshakable work ethic, brooding, perfectionist. maladies abound in those factors so it makes for potentially good writing.
There should be at least one fascinating lead character, the killer should usually have some humanity, with an interesting and credible reason for why they snapped, there should be some creative twist to finding the killer in every episode. We should get to see all different types of people, their personal lives, and how they live their lives - rich people, poor people, gangsters, gamblers, posh people, etc., so much of it is about just viewing people's world. Maybe the real psycho killer was the friends we made along the way! That's the blueprint, but it's a lot harder said than done.
>>213362360 (OP)
All I know is Columbo is the best by far. I love his baffoon act, but he actually knows everything. From the moment he meets someone, he knows instantly it's them, he just needs to piece it together and prove it. Only Peter Falk could pull it off though, that man had a great, dare I say it, aura.
