I'm almost an hour into the first episode, and it is magnificent! Luther was great, but it pales next to this. The movie was fun, but it wasn't even in the same category as this show.
There are going to be 3 90 minute eps this first time around. It's some of the best TV I've seen in a long time.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Looks good but it's going to be tough to top the old Jeremy Brett series.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It's written by Steven Moffat, the (best) Doctor Who writer, right? I'm certainly looking forward to it. I've heard that it's Doctor Who in a contemporary time, except with Sherlock Holmes as the Doctor.
It's three 90 minute episodes? Wikipedia says that it's three 30 minute eps. Fantastic if it's really that long. . .
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I like Russell Davies better than Moffat for Doctor Who, but... well, I guess it's a little Who-ish in a way, but not really. Imagine Holmes more annoying than House. Though Watson is every bit as much a main character here, and he's also amazing. Understated, but brilliant.
This first one (A Study in Pink) was definitely an hour and a half. And there was no drag... they used all that time.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
1st ep I loved, start to finish.
2nd was... OK. Several laugh-out-loud moments, some interesting wordplay between the characters, but not quite on the same level. Are they hoping to do more, or are the three episodes supposed to be a miniseries?
Because if "Sherlock" is to become a full season series this would fit in nicely, but as the second of only three it seems to be an unimpressive standalone and fails to move along any larger story arc.
Really like how Watson holds his own, though.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Outstanding. Brilliant. "Life on Mars" good.
It reminds me very much of "House". But it's more daring and funny.
Can't wait to see the second episode. Supposedly, the BBC wants to make more . . . they're just ironing out the details.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I agree that the second ep wasn't as good as the first one. But the bar was set pretty high, so I think I can forgive that. Can't wait to see the third one, and I hope hope hope they do more.
The guy who plays Watson was Arthur Dent in the Hitchhikers movie. He also did an odd little 4 episode series called Boy Meets Girl last year. The guy playing Holmes, though, I've never seen before. "I'm not a psychopath; I'm a high functioning sociopath. Get your diagnoses straight!" Hee.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The guy who plays Holmes was offered the role of The Doctor before Matt Smith but turned it down. I like Matt Smith, but I think I would prefer this guy.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: The guy who plays Holmes was offered the role of The Doctor before Matt Smith but turned it down. I like Matt Smith, but I think I would prefer this guy.
What's the source for this? All the accounts of Matt Smith's casting I've ever read have said that he was so good in the auditions that he was always the front runner.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Smith is a more Whovian name than Bandersnatch (or whatever it is) anyway.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Cumberbatch has been in stuff, but not much Americans are likely to have seen. I heard he played Stephen Hawking in a British biopic called "Hawking", for which he won their equivalent of an Emmy and was also nominated for a BAFTA. He also had a supporting role in Atonement, evidently. He's been around Brit TV for a while, and unlike many American TV actors, most Brit TV actors can act.
I agree that the second wasn't as chock full of awesome as the first, but I have high hopes.
Also, comparisons to House amuse me, because I've always said that "House" (and so many other shows based around the 'brilliant but unpleasant' character) is just an extrapolation of the Holmes archetype.
Jeremy Brett was the shizat. I'm a huge fan. But this new Sherlock? Blew me away.
Can't wait for more!
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Also, comparisons to House amuse me, because I've always said that "House" (and so many other shows based around the 'brilliant but unpleasant' character) is just an extrapolation of the Holmes archetype.
Jeremy Brett was the shizat. I'm a huge fan. But this new Sherlock? Blew me away.
Can't wait for more!
I have always said that house is just holmes as a doctor.
You really think this guy tops Jeremy Brett? I haven't seen it yet as it doesn't appear to be on in my area but that's a tall order. Now I really want to see it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I didn't say he was better than Brett. I said he blew me away.
Comparing this new Sherlock to Brett's is a fish-to-fowl comparison. Gone are the horse-drawn cabs and the pea soup fog. This is, basically, exceptional fanfiction. Someone very talented asked "What would Sherlock Holmes be like if he lived in Modern London?" and then tried to answer that question.
I could quibble on several points, but I think they got it close enough to make me happy. (I don't think Holmes from the books is a sociopath, for example. I'd put him as more of a... there is a particular type of narcissist who has somewhat limited empathy and tends to have a moral code that is peculiar to them, but by which they live very strictly. But they are definitely trying to play him as a sociopath as opposed to an extremely high-functioning Aspie or what have you. I can live with that, because most sociopaths (one in every 25 people, by latest estimates) are not scary killers. Salesmen, maybe. )
Much like Brett, though, this Sherlock twanged the same invisible chord in my heart that won me over. It's very different, though.
Some kind soul put both 90 minute eps up on YouTube, broken up into 10 minute segments, so if you have a couple hours to kill and won't get fired or anything, you can decide for yourself:
That's the first bit.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Sweet thanks. I'll check them out later.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This is, basically, exceptional fanfictionq
Between this, RTD's Doctor Who season four ender, and Lost in Austen, I'm beginning to think that the coolest BBC shows are exactly that.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Just finished watching them and I can't wait for the third to get posted. Fantastic show.
I see that the third was written and directed by the same people that did the first one (the second was a different crew) so hopefully they will bring the humor back.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*grin* I didn't lie, did I?
The first was definitely better, but I didn't realize the second had different folks at the helm.
I believe the next (and last, for now) will air Sunday in the UK. Meaning it should be up at The Box by Monday at the latest.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Katie - I'm taking notes - I'd never heard of Lost in Austen.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, it's fantastic. Pure Austen fan fiction Mary Sue crack. I can't believe it got produced and aired.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lost in Austen was pretty awesome. And everyone I showed it to loved it, including my husband (but he has had to endure through bbc pride and prejudice numerous times- and we have watched sense and sensibility about a million times. when my daughter was 2, that was her favorite movie and I did Regency dress as our Halloween contest. Those costumes were the first time I really felt like I could actually sew.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Cool! I can't sew at all. I shall seek out this Lost in Austen thing.
It will give me something to watch while I wait for the new Sherlock. *fangirl squee*
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGG!!!!!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
More! More! More! More!
Definitely as good, if not better, than the first one. But we need more!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I demand to be cryogenically frozen until there's more.
*wince*
It takes an evil, evil person to make a cliffhanger that... egregious. Especially on British TV, because they take forever to bring out a new season of anything.
Which is probably why they make such great shows. But still.
I'm grumpy.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Looks like the BBC shut down the guy that posted them. I hope he gets 3 up and I can watch it before they can it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Email me if you want to know where to get it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
But really, consider joining The Box.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Goodness, that was a wonderful mini-series. Episode 2 was not as high a standard as the other two, but the others were brilliant. But to go down the waterfall (metaphorically) and leave us all hanging is very unfair. I love it.
I do like Matt Smith in the part, but having seen this series, now I really wish that the guy playing Sherlock had been, or will one day be the Doctor on DW. He's weird as all get out, has a voice that sometimes reminds me slightly of Tom Baker and looks darn good in a coat (yes, I am that shallow). And he's funny. He would have been great. I hope they get him on there as a baddie, at least.
As for Watson, the actor was the one and only redeeming feature about the Hitch Hiker movie, so I'm glad he's back to being the voice of normality in something more worthwhile. I like how his character's military background comes out in how he deals with danger.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Jim would make a scary good Master.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yes, he really would. That voice is like fingernails scratching down a blackboard. It really puts your teeth on edge.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The websites associated with the series are interesting. Everything that is on them as referenced in teh episodes is on teh websites, plus some ciphers and things.
On the 'forum' on his website, they have this:
quote: I would kill every one of you for a cigarette. - SH
This struck me as really funny, for some reason.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I have had days during my attempts to quit when I said the exact same thing Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sounds more like Warren Ellis, actually.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I had a moment watching A Study in Pink - lovely title, by the way:) - where I literally 'Whoaaa!'-ed as though I were one of the Monarch's henchmen from Venture Brothers. It was the entire sequence between Holmes and the unfriendly coroner and sergeant, poking fun at their little tryst and his parting dig.
ETA: I do have to wonder, though: who on Earth would antagonize that guy? Heh
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hey, J4!
In my experience, there are people who will antagonize anyone, but that is particularly stupid of them, I think.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I had a moment watching A Study in Pink - lovely title, by the way:) - where I literally 'Whoaaa!'-ed as though I were one of the Monarch's henchmen from Venture Brothers. It was the entire sequence between Holmes and the unfriendly coroner and sergeant, poking fun at their little tryst and his parting dig.
ETA: I do have to wonder, though: who on Earth would antagonize that guy? Heh
It's interesting that he doesn't seem interested in taking any revenge on her for the constant "freak" comments. Maybe she's just beneath his notice.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Officially renewed. But only for three more 90min episodes. For next autumn.
Which is good news, but I wish there was more! More! And sooner.
From the statement, it sounds like a certain dog, American woman and waterfall may play a part next year.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Did anybody see the first installment on PBS this weekend?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did. Liked it very much (but got the giggles in the Princess Bride scene which kind of ruined the tension).
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I know! That bit annoyed me, too. Well, I say "annoyed." More like took me out of the story as if I had been shot out of a cannon.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. I imagine it would have been fine for people unfamiliar - but how many of them can there be?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I did. Liked it very much (but got the giggles in the Princess Bride scene which kind of ruined the tension).
Huh? What Princess Bride scene? Have you read any of the original Sherlock Holmes stories? The two poison pills was taken directly from there, a long, long time before William Goldman was even born.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Be that as it may, it is now a Princess Bride scene.
Being true to the original source is no excuse for bad storytelling.
And something that accidentally takes you out of the story, as it did for me and others, is bad storytelling.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Feh. I didn't have a problem with it in The Princess Bride just because it was ripped off from Sherlock Holmes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have read all the original Sherlock Holmes stories and Porter is correct. It is now a Princess Bride scene. I called it that so as not to spoil it for people who hadn't seen it yet it was easily identified by those who had. Despite your pretend confusion, you clearly knew which scene I meant. Since you have identified it with the pills, I imagine there were very few watching that did not at least fleetingly wonder if the murderer had built up an immunity to iocane powder.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's fine. Not everybody reacts the same way to any story.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It would have been brilliant IMO, if (given that this Sherlock is set in the present) Sherlock had made some snotty reference to The Princess Bride. I think that acknowledgment (even a comment that it was a common literary convention) would have been better than ignoring it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have read all the original Sherlock Holmes stories and Porter is correct. It is now a Princess Bride scene. I called it that so as not to spoil it for people who hadn't seen it yet it was easily identified by those who had. Despite your pretend confusion, you clearly knew which scene I meant. Since you have identified it with the pills, I imagine there were very few watching that did not at least fleetingly wonder if the murderer had built up an immunity to iocane powder.
Actually, no. I had no idea. I Googled "Sherlock AND Princess Bride". Don't sprain your ankle jumping to conclusions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed. (Responding to Boots.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Googled or not, you still knew what I meant when you posted. Given the what came up when I googled it, my reaction was not all that uncommon.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It wasn't the rip-off idea,for me. It was that the motives of each character seemed really weak/not fully explained at the time. By the end of the series, Sherlock's tendency toward deep despondency is a little more developed, so in retrospect it makes more sense.
I also disagree with the decision to cast Sherlock as a sociopath. I always thought of him as a highly intelligent moral narcissist. (Not moral narcissism in the way it has come to be used politically, but a psychological type which lacks usual levels of empathy but has a very strong moral code which might seem to involve some empathy.)
But really, that is hardly a quibble. This was so much better better than I expected it to be! The premise could have gone HORRIBLY awry. I really expected it to blow from the previews and things I had seen, but it was actually quite acceptable to this long-time Sherlock Holmes fan.
Edited for stutter-finger typos
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree. I liked it more than I thought I would. I am not really a Holmes purist, though. I like the Mary Russell books. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another complaint about the Princess Bride scene -- if Sherlock wanted to know so badly whether he chose right or not, why didn't he just have the pills tested afterward?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another complaint about the Princess Bride scene -- if Sherlock wanted to know so badly whether he chose right or not, why didn't he just have the pills tested afterward?
I think that would be an affront to his ego. The whole idea was to out think his opponent, to figure out how he did it (stayed alive so many times).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He was willing to risk his life to find out if he was correct. When the guy was dying, he was asking him if he was correct. Afterward, when they guy's dead, why doesn't he just get the pills tested?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
The same thought occured to me.
But I'm sure the pills would be needed as police evidence. Eventually the police would test them, but he was a bit impatient for the answer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But I'm sure the pills would be needed as police evidence.
Yeah, and Sherlock showed such diligence in turning over the pink suitcase to police evidence earlier in the episode. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, once it was no longer a life or death question, the urgency was gone. The challenge was whether he would bet his life on being right, not just being right.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm bumping this because the series is now available for Netflix streaming.
Also, the original pilot (only one hour long and generally inferior to the 90 minute incarnation) deals much more interestingly with the one scene that seems to have annoyed people most.
The context of the pill challenge is significantly different in the pilot, and a few minor details of it are the only the only things I liked better.
In any case, it is worth a look, my lovelies.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Gatiss and Moffat are writing the first two episodes. The only bad news I can see in this is that Stephen Thompson is writing the last episode. He wrote the middle episode of the last season and the recent pirate episode of Doctor Who.
So the last episode will, most likely, suck.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ugh. That is bad news. He wrote "The Blind Banker" AND "The Curse of the Black Spot"? He should stick his quill back in his goose and be done with it. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Gatiss and Moffat are writing the first two episodes. The only bad news I can see in this is that Stephen Thompson is writing the last episode. He wrote the middle episode of the last season and the recent pirate episode of Doctor Who.
So the last episode will, most likely, suck.
I don't know why they're allowing it. Surely they must have heard from viewers that the second episode sucked.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Ugh. That is bad news. He wrote "The Blind Banker" AND "The Curse of the Black Spot"? He should stick his quill back in his goose and be done with it.
Or stick it somewhere else...
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The first episode was mind-blowing. After I finished watching it, I thought of the possibility that both pills were poison and the cab driver had taken some medicine so that it wouldn't affect him. I came to this thread to post that theory and read about how this scene was similar to a Princess Bride scene. I've never seen that movie, but I read about the scene and saw that my theory had already been done. I'm disappointed, I thought I was clever to come up with it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I re-watched "The Blind Banker" and decided I was too harsh. Yes, it was the weakest of the three, but it didn't entirely suck. Other than relatively small details that represented plot holes large enough to drive a truck through for any person with a fully-functional brain, it was pretty good.
That didn't come out the way it sounded in my head...
Seriously, though. I think it felt worse than it was because there were only three of them and the other two were such standouts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I finally got my brother in the same room as me and watched the first episode, we are both hooked. I'm sad to hear I shouldn't get my hopes up for episode two, and that there aren't more episodes yet. ----
What I don't understand is that when Watson was looking for Holmes at the end, and finally sees Holmes through a window holding up a pill about to ingest it, he just guns down the other guy. For all he knew the taxi driver wasn't the murderer, and it certainly looked like Holmes was eating the pill voluntarily, the driver didn't have his fake gun out anymore.
He didn't have any sort of conclusory evidence that the taxi driver was the culprit, in fact he completely missed the conversation where Holmes realizes he was staring at the passenger when he should have been staring at the driver while they were eating at the restaurant.
Seems strange Watson was so trigger happy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Two is not as good as one, but it isn't bad. And there is still three and more to come after that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, two isn't bad. I just got frustrated by the end, but I won't spoil it.
It's entirely possible that the first one would have been my favorite if I hadn't known the plot, more or less, from A Study in Scarlet. That knowledge made me antsy that it took Holmes so long to grok the culprit's profession.
I also don't think John was trigger happy -- I think he's just a really smart guy, saw what was happening and intuited the circumstances. He's a smart enough man (a doctor, after all) and trained to make quick life-and-death decisions.
That said, he's a total BAMF, despite his "regular guy" camouflage. And despite his kidnapped/not kidnapped ratio, which is a little puzzling.
The third is my favorite, even though it has a bit of kitchen sink plot. I love that John calls Sherlock on his detachment, and that Sherlock behaves a bit stupidly (again) in his rush to prove himself clever. I think I cursed for a full minute when the credits rolled, but I still loved it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Just popping by to remind any UK Hatrackers that Sherlock repeats begin this week.
It is repeating here in Chicago, too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Awesome series so far. Why do all the awesome shows suffer so much crap just to get on air?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't know. I suspect that in this case it might be because the BBC has had some budget cuts (not that they have huge budgets to begin with) and one or two writers who are awesome (and they must sleep at some point.) Even if they pay the actors in beer and construct all their sets with gaffer tape, cameras aren't cheap.
(I'm only joking. I know that isn't the case at all. But it is frustrating that US TV throws millions at mediocre shows, and... Well, lets just say it's a miracle that anything halfway decent and non-moronic ever gets on television.) The fact that more of the shows I like seem to come from the UK probably has a lot more to do with how actors are trained there (and the fact that there is less of a theater/film/television caste system than in the US) than anything else.
Oh, and most US TV shows are written by twelve year olds. It's a cumulative effect of the market-driven entertainment model.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh, lots of UK TV is awful (and not for budgetary reasons), just like everywhere. I don't think anyone anywhere is ever really aware that their TV is almost always simultaneously wonderful and terrible. Everyone in Spain says that their TV is craptacular, but I've watched some really great, seriously entertaining dramas here. And there are so many wonderful US shows.
And, of course, there are total gems like 'Sherlock'. I can't wait for the next season - a year and a half is far too long.
I might catch the last episode again, as I'll be in the UK in August - so thanks for the info!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I haven't noticed a particularly higher quality among British television overall than US television. Most of British television is *serious* clunkers, that don't even have the higher production values of US shows (though that's changing a bit), and are every bit as bad in other ways.
And that's before we talk about all those shows that are basically variants of "call in and receive a chance to win X. (calls cost X pounds)".
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
This is true. Anybody catch Outcasts? It was so amazingly awful, we watched just to heckle.
I think my preference may be genre-based, at least partly. I love mysteries, and the BBC does them very well. Also, several of my favorite American shows feature foreign actors doing American accents, which is probably more of an odd coincidence than cause and effect.
[ July 22, 2011, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm almost an hour into the first episode, and it is magnificent! Luther was great, but it pales next to this. The movie was fun, but it wasn't even in the same category as this show.
When you say it starts do you mean it's being broadcast in the UK?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We love the series, and I heard about it here on Hatrack. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ah, Jan 1st is when it's being broadcast in the UK. :\
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
It will be on PBS in May, I think. Also, the DVDs will be available shortly after it airs in the UK, if you have a region 2 DVD player or equivalent.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Outstanding. Brilliant. "Life on Mars" good.
It reminds me very much of "House". But it's more daring and funny.
House is based off of the original character.
Show is alright.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Aaaarrrrrrgh!
I'm dying to know what you guys thought of it. Anybody see it?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I enjoyed it. It was funny and clever - and a few of the breakthroughs will probably make you groan at how obvious they are, especially if you *didn't* guess.
Though you probably wouldn't want to watch it with kids as you might have to explain a few things to them!
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Hmmm. I was hating the episode for the last 30 minutes, but after the last thirty seconds, I don't know what I think.
I still hate the interpretation of Holmes as a sociopath (though they perhaps have deliberately developed him away from that), and the misogynistic elements of the show still bother me. Watson was too much missing (perhaps scheduling issues? Perhaps because of the nature of the episode?), but I'm hoping that the next episode, based on Hound of the Baskervilles, which has Watson front and center for 70 percent of the story, will rectify that.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I think they had him self-identify as a sociopath, but are carefully undercutting that as they go.
I also missed Watson hugely. He's a bundle of awesome in natty sweaters.
I was a bit annoyed by the treatment of Adler, honestly. Not the sex stuff. I actually rather loved her until they implied that every clever thing she'd done was mostly because Moriarty was doing her homework for her.
And the last 30 seconds? Pure textbook feel-good writer manipulation. A chance to make Sherlock a BFH (Big Freakin' Hero), hitting all the classic emotional buttons. It's a ploy right up there with killing off a small child in the Emotional Manipulation Playbook. I'm miffed that Moffat took the most independent female character ACD wrote in the Sherlock Holmes stories (the cleverest, too, and with the most agency) and made her a damsel in distress -- much less thematically challenging than the original was 1891. Makes me wonder if Moffat has ever met a woman.
But that bit *still* got me. It's frustrating to be manipulated when you *know* you're being manipulated, but the technique is undeniably effective. *shakes fist*
. . . . . .. . . . . . . .
But I still love this show.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Is Holmes a sociopath? A HealthGuidance article suggests he has many of the qualities, but his friendship with Watson breaks the stereotype.
Reading down their list of symptoms, though, I have to say it does sound like Holmes. TV and the stories. The Holmes in the books was, in fact, more interested in the puzzles than the people and tolerated human interaction only as necessary. Boredom nearly destroyed him. He was at times vain -- note his quiet delight in upstaging Scotland Yard, and his regular mention of Watson's "stories." But Doyle's Holmes was also more openly affectionate of Watson, always commending him on his strengths and never condescending.
I think I'd still peg him on the sociopath side more than the Asperger's, though. I doubt that sociopathy is an either-or thing, anyway. Maybe the possibility of emotional connection is what makes him high-functioning?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Someone said he had Asperger's in the last episode--I think it was Lestrade.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I've always viewed Holmes as a very troubled person who probably would have lost his humanity at some point (thereby becoming a psychotic murderer like the people he catches) had it not been for Watson. Watson keeps him in check, gives him a human connection by way of friendship, and isn't afraid to tell him that he's being stupid (or whatever kind of insult the situation demands).
It's just like in House (another TV character based on Sherlock Holmes), whose narcasistic genius is often only offset by the only relationship he can hold on to---Wilson.
It's a great dynamic, in my opinion, and I love watching the two characters interact, no matter the show/film/interpretation. The two are always fantastic together.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Also, in the first episode, and it could have been in jest, Sherlock says in response to being called a Psychopath, that he is a high functioning sociopath.
It could have been a joke, but it could also have been true! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I think I'd still peg him on the sociopath side more than the Asperger's, though. I doubt that sociopathy is an either-or thing, anyway. Maybe the possibility of emotional connection is what makes him high-functioning?
There's no way he's got aspbergers. Aspies are functionally blind to such a profound quantity of things that are fairly blatantly necessary to the persona, quantity, and assumed capacities of, well, being sherlock m. f. holmes
sociopathy is kind of a stretch but ... I guess you could pull it off?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I wonder if there could be a scale of sociopathy like there is the autism/aspbergers spectrum. There's obviously a middle ground between the Gandhis and the Gaddafis of the world.
I'm okay with them modeling this modern Sherlock after sociopathic tendencies. Its especially interesting considering that the friendship between Sherlock and Watson is still sort of ambiguous. There's still a sense that Sherlock only views Watson as a tool and even small acts of kindness or respect are mostly just Sherlock manipulating others for his own uses. Watching that relationship evolve will be very interesting. The chemistry between Cumberbatch and Freeman is really why I watch the show. The adaptations are fun but they'd be less engaging if I wasn't becoming so attached to the characters.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
A nice person in the UK has uploaded the videos from The Blog of Dr. John H. Watson to You Tube, so those of us who could not see them due to area restrictions, now can.
Moriarty in 221B while they are away. Kind of creepy, really, especially the obvious cuts, so that you wonder what he might have been up to when the camera was off. Nice touch, that.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Just saw "Hounds," and thought it was quite good until the last thirty minutes, when the plot went all collapsy under its own weight. However, there was a lot more interaction between Sherlock and John , which gave Martin Freeman more to do, which made me happy.
Now we have the guy who wrote "The Blind Banker" writing the finale...and I'm terrified that they're going to fridge Molly...
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ugh. Do not have high hopes for that one. Molly's not important enough to fridge - no woman on that show is. But, considering the name, I bet people are going to expect a real confrontation with Moriarty.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Hes extraordinary. During auditions, the minute he stepped into the room I said to the producers, I dont know if you want my opinion, but I want to work with him, because he makes my game better. I honestly felt myself get better as an actor playing scenes opposite him he has brilliant level of humanity."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Martin Freeman is the shizzle.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh gosh. Of all the things to start a new page. *headdesk*
Another funny clip proving that Freeman always has a quick and funny response to an implied insult. The whole interview is great but at the 3:30 mark they start talking about the Hobbit and how he and Cumberbatch are both in the film, and whether one of them got the other cast. "The idea that he got me in the Hobbit makes me wanna kill everyone in this room."
He's so darn sweet and I love when he flips on people like that. Always so funny.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Oh! If you've ever seen him on Nevermind the Buzzcocks (he's been on it twice, I think) he was really funny on that, too. Just seems like the sort of fellow who is very quick on his feet.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Well, I thought that was pretty good. I am sometimes not the most critical person when it comes to things I've already decided I'm going to enjoy, but regardless, I enjoyed it. I definitely hope it comes back (any news on plans for a third series?), if for no other reason than that I'm curious about how he pulled it all off in the end. He certainly couldn't have predicted everything, but I guess it was just contingency upon contingency. But I'll say no more so I don't spoil it for those who didn't get to watch it tonight.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Martin Freeman just broke my heart.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yeah. I cried. For like the entire final ten minutes.
I thought the episode was amazing but I'm also incredibly biased as I'm pretty sure I'm in love with this show.
Its interesting to note that the unaired pilot features another moment with John looking up at Sherlock on a roof. I remember seeing it and thinking it was funny to have him on the roof with his coat blowing like some sort of superhero but its a cool bookend visually.
I can't believe we have to wait for another series. My plan is to work my way through the entire Sherlock Holmes collection before then, as a way to keep occupied. Besides seeing how he pulled it all off, I'm more interested in how he makes his return.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
This series was much better than the last but the end of the final scene was obviously gonna happen. I'd rather they'd saved it for next series.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I knew they couldn't resist the final shot, but really, they had to know their fans knew it was coming.
Still, it was Martin Freeman that made it work for me, certainly.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
With the guy who is playing Sherlock getting so many major roles, do you guys think the show is going to fade away? It seems like he's going to be too busy to keep making a television show soon at the rate he's going.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
No, I think both main actors are extremely committed, at least to one more series. Now, if you're talking about making series four-ten, then perhaps. But I hope they at least decide to make the ending a good ending (though the original stories didn't...just sort of fading away with the really mediocre "The Retired Colourman" being the last)
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
The show is getting excellent attention from critics and awards ceremonies, and the ratings are incredible. The BBC signed on for Series 2 and 3 at the same time so I would hope that they'll continue to try and get as many of these future contracts signed as possible. Scheduling-wise, its not just about Freeman and Cumberbatch (the Star Trek casting being the biggest hurdle right now) but most of the creators, writers, and directors are also keeping busy with Doctor Who and other tv shows and movies.
Moffat has expressed a strong interest in adapting some of the stories that have never been filmed before and he has plenty of material to choose from. Everyone seems eager but its incredibly likely that we'll only get a new series every other year rather than regularly.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: [...]Besides seeing how he pulled it all off[...]
S P O I L E R S
Moriarty has completely forgotten about Molly when mentioning Sherlock's friends. My guess is, like Sherlock, he hadn't realized how important she was to him. Anyway, this leads me to believe she helped him, maybe by injecting something to make him seem to have no pulse when Watson checked. Did you notice how quickly the ambulance arrived after the jump?
Also remember that it was Sherlock who chose the rooftop meeting, so he might have expected something like this. Also, we see part of the fall, then we see him on the ground. Watson's view seems to have been similarly obscured for the last part of the fall, and Sherlock insisted he kept his eyes on him instead of going near the "landing" place. And while Watson is hit by the biker we see a truck drive away.
My bet is there was some air mattress or something similar in that truck, Sherlock fell on it, was quickly injected with something by Molly to slow his pulse, got some fake blood on him, and was dumped from the truck onto the ground.
Of course I might be over-thinking this or there might be a completely different explanation, but this kinda fits.
---
There were some things that weren't solved: why did the girl scream when she saw Sherlock (did Moriarty wear a mask when kidnapping them?); what would have happened if more assassins would have died before the final showdown, who among his friends would have been spared; why did Mycroft not claim Sherlock's body at the morgue.
I think that's it, but I might be forgetting something.
Anyway, I'm very happy that the whole "few programming lines that give access to everything" was a fake. It would have been pretty dumb for it to be presented as true. Sherlock and Mycroft were simply misled by Moriarty.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
C U T
F O R
S P O I L E R S
I agree with the Molly and truck theory. Sherlock chose the St. Barts roof so it wouldn't have been hard to put everything into place. And his homeless network would have been perfect for fake doctors in the scrubs Molly provided.
And there are other clues left by the show. The episode with Janus cars would have inspired a blood bag of his own blood to leave at the scene. The ball he was bouncing earlier in the episode could have been him thinking through his jump.
From the final shot of Mycroft, I'm still unsure whether he thinks Sherlock is alive or dead. Sherlock is always so against going to his brother for help but this seems like the one time he would. There was also a video posted to John's blog which included a news story about Sherlock's fall but there was never a mention of Moriarty's body being found on the roof. Between Molly and Mycroft, it would have been easy to bury Moriary in Sherlock's place.
As for the girl, they did point out that mercury poisoning affects the mind. Maybe the kidnapper wore a Sherlock mask or his same clothes.
And I think as long as one assassin remained and he target had been John, Sherlock still would have jumped.
I'm alittle curious as to whether Sherlock's behavior on the roof was an act or not. And whether or not he anticipated Moriarty's suicide. It all seemed genuine but its possible that Sherlock had a longer game in mind and he's great at faking when he needs to.
I'm also annoyed that Mycroft and Sherlock fell for the "super key" (or did they? haha.) But I guess if you're brilliant, you can be led to believe some extraordinary things.
[ January 17, 2012, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Shanna ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*S* *P* *O* *I* *L* *E* *R* *S* * * * * * *
There was definitely a vehicle there when Sherlock jumped, and not there by the time John got there, so I think that is key.
As to paramedics getting there quickly... It *was* a hospital he jumped off. I'm just sayin'
As to the girl screaming... what if there was a double? I cringe to even suggest it, but Irene Adler had one -- one that fooled Sherlock, albeit with not-the-face. Possibly two, since there were no details given about how Sherlock fooled Mycroft about her "demise." So, there is precedent in the series. The double is useful to Moriarty for traumatizing the children, but then he's not, so maybe the double was killed. Or maybe Sherlock used Molly to find the double or some suitable corpse. Moriarty was going on and on about The Final Problem, which we were meant to take as a call back to the story in which Sherlock Holmes went over the falls with Moriarty, but in context has to do with Moriarty's boredom and, let's face it, desire to die. (I believe he wanted to die from the start, but since he's not the type to give up, he wanted Sherlock to beat him, to kill him or make it so that he had to die to "win." Which explains his gratitude just before he topped himself.)
Assuming Sherlock had some inkling of this, whatever contingency he had in place would only work if he kept control of the location. There had to be some coordination with his homeless network, but Molly could have helped with that, too.
SH was most definitely playing the angles when he positioned John.
So, whether the truck broke his fall and he had something to stop his pulse or happened to find the corpse of a double to drop out of the truck after breaking his fall (I admit, the latter makes me cringe), it was a plan he had in place, anticipating that Moriarty wanted him dead as well as disgraced.
That said, what a thing to do to John. Logically, his grief would have to be convincing, because presumably the hit would still be on all Sherlock's friends if he showed up alive again, but still. That's why this makes me kind of happy:
I am anxious to see how it plays out, though I might as well get used to disappointment. My kid will be in college before there is a season 3, I bet.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Not reading, not reading, not reading...
Just came here to admit that I was too weak to stand by my general anti-piracy principles. We torrented it yesterday, and will get started watching probably by this weekend if not sooner. Damn you, BBC, I would happily pay you to let me watch it streaming, but you won't let me because I live in the US. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
So I'm certainly in no way endorsing this, especially since I haven't used it at all (I'm in the UK right now, so I got to watch it live. And yes, that was me rubbing it in). But... I've heard from some people that if you can get a UK ip assigned then BBC iPlayer will work. The site I've heard recommended for this is something like Expat Shield or something along those lines. I only mention it in case it might be a slightly more moral option than torrent. Don't quote me on this though.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'll just make myself feel better by buying three or four copies of it when it comes out on DVD here and giving the extras to people I love.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Olivet, that makes me happy as well! Oh how I love the modern Sherlock and John dynamic.
C U T
F O R
S P O I L E R S
The whole double thing is silly though the episode with Irene does set a precedent, and Moffat and company sure do love dropping hints. Apparently, they were conversing on twitter about A) something referenced in the very first episode is important in this final episode and B) they've seen all the online theories and the fans are stilling missing one key piece. Cue an entire fandom freaking out and watching the episode another ten times.
ANYWAY...double-ganger would also explain the little girl freaking out. And it could make a good body replacement. But I wonder when Sherlock would have had a chance to track him down (assuming Moriarty had him executed when the kidnapping was done or something.) And its one thing for Irene to use a double for herself cause the face was bashed in. Sherlock was still pretty recognizable. And yet, maybe we're seeing the scene with Sherlock on the pavement through John's eyes. So maybe it'll only looks like Sherlock because John's head just hit the pavement and he's disoriented from that and the shock.
The camera does show the body landing face down but when the crowd gathers, the body is on its side. So if Sherlock bounced or jumped from the truck, he may have consciously decided to roll. Perhaps pining the one arm under himself would cut off the circulation and hide his pulse?
As for Moriarty, I'd read a post somewhere talking about the overwhelming theme of "identity" in Reichenbach Falls. How John is concerned with preserving Sherlock's reputation, how John will dictate Sherlock's reactions (two halves of one whole), how many of the characters appear in disguise, and most importantly how strongly Moriarty identifies with Sherlock (another example of two halves equally one whole.) It seems like Moriarty is just going to walk off into the devilish sunset after Sherlock kills himself, disappointed that Sherlock didn't live up to his expectations. But when Sherlock turns on him and says "I am you," then its like something changes. Moriarty is certainly sick of living so maybe once he gets what he wants which he thinks means finding his equal in intelligence and with their own heart burned out as well, he is ready to end his own life. He'll die, Sherlock will die, its probably a very lovely idea to Moriarty. Or maybe, if he thinks he's really destroyed Sherlock's heart then Sherlock will let his friends die and will live on as this sort of new Moriarty.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I love crazy!Moriarty but it makes his motivations difficult to dissect.
E N D
S P O I L E R S
I'm treating this show more as a book so that the long wait stresses me out less. If I can survive all the years I spent waiting for the Harry Potter books, then this should be easy. I'll do the geeky thing and bury myself in fandom.
EDIT: In other SHERLOCK related news, the world has gone crazy and "I Believe in Sherlock" guerilla art is popping up everywhere. The moron who vandalized St. Barts is a jerk but the other stuff is pretty cool.
[ January 19, 2012, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Shanna ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
From what I heard, someone wrote "I believe in Sherlock" in very tiny writing at the base of one wall of St. Barts, so even that was apparently pretty benign (unless there are photos that prove otherwise).
Seriously, I taste bile.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I thought I'd heard about a stencil but it may have been chalk and already washed off. Or someone was mistakenly reporting the wall as St. Barts.
The CBS think makes me wanna cry. Way to capitalize on the creativity of others, CBS.
S P O I L E R
New theory I heard floating around. One of the chemicals found on the kidnappers shoes (i think it was the vegetation) can be used to create a slower heartbeat. Watery eyes are another side-effect. Moffat said the one big clue everyone was missing was related to something very out-of-character for Sherlock. Personally, I like to believe Sherlock is capable of having emotions (like fear in Baskervilles) but isn't fond of them. But it may be the clue everyone was overlooking while bawling their own eyes out.
/ S P O I L E R S
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
S P O I L E R S * *
The tears were OOC for Sherlock, though he proved in the past that he could turn them on whenever it suited him. But I guess the distance between him and John would have made them unnecessary to sell the suicide bit. * * *S P O I L E R
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I have to say, I am weak - I will probably watch the CBS thing and the third Sherlock Holmes film with Downey and Law (despite wanting to scream in fury and boredom after only ten minutes) because I'm a sucker for Holmes.
That being said, I will probably hate both.
I personally have no real theories - the way they resolved the standoff from the first series was nowhere near my own predictions, so I'm just going to say "I'm happy with where they left it for now, and will come back and find out the hows and whys in a year or so."
I will watch it, too, miller. I won't be able NOT to. But, yeah.
GREAT link, too. "Sherlock only comes together when it's told from John's point of view, when his normal, ordinary perspective is allowed to mediate Sherlock's extraordinary one. But the show is too in love with Sherlock to ever let that happen."
That's it, in a nutshell.
Posted by reflion (Member # 12754) on :
Just made an account to say that there's conflicting information on Season Three as of right now:
Since the latter was posted as a correction, I think we're in for a bit of a wait. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
They've cast Johnny Lee Miller In Elementary. They picked one of just a few people that Benedict Cumberbatch fans wouldn't automatically burn in effigy. Not personally a fan, mind you, but he might not suck.
Its kinda funny that they shared roles in Frankenstein together. I heard he was on Dexter which is probably the only thing I've seen him in, and he didn't make an impression because I have no idea what part he played (IMDB reports it was "Jordan Chase." Yeah, still no impression.)
Personally, he looks more like the Lestrade type. But props for hiring a British actor to play Sherlock Holmes.
However, now I'm wondering what former co-star of Martin Freeman they will approach with the part of John Watson.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: props for hiring a British actor to play Sherlock Holmes.
I hope he's actually playing American, though. If he's being British, they'll have to really ramp up the New York setting to make a bigger difference. The BBC team are already talking about suing - so they should try to make the differences obvious.
If I remember correctly, he was originally cast as Aragorn, before they decided he was too young. I always thought that must have sucked, so it's nice that he's getting work.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yeah, I assume he'll play it with an American accent. I thought it was nice in keeping with the tradition (like having Hugh Laurie for House.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Plus, now with House ending this year, there might be more of an opening for an American Holmes.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Johnny Lee Miller was spectacular in Frankenstein (though Cumberbatch was better). I doubt he'd be hurting for work even if he hadn't been cast for the American Sherlock.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
S P O I L E R S
In a recent Mentalist episode Jane uses a ball put under the armpit of a guy to cut the blood flow to his wrist. If I remember correctly Sherlock was playing with such a ball earlier, and John checked his wrist for pulse. So there was probably no injection, just that rubber ball.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Apparently I HAVE to watch this. Amber says.
I guess I'm glad that for whatever inconceivable reason I decided to actually not read much if any of you guys' spoilers. I don't even know how or why I did that. I just usually devour spoilers indiscriminately just because they're text wherever I happen to be treading.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I actually think that might work. It's certainly... well, different. Also gives the Moffat/Gatiss crew less room to whine about being ripped off.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yeah, I think I've decided that I'm not happy about the Watson casting. It would have been interesting to gender-swap the entire cast but doing just Watson doesn't make me happy.
However, then they released this tidbit of information:
Breaking with adaptation tradition of using Lestrade and going back to the canon for this character does make me very happy. It gives me hope that there are real ACD fans involved in the creation process. My concern with 'Elementary' is that is will be just as close to Sherlock Holmes as any other show featuring a rude but genius anti-hero. I don't like the idea of yet another show taking the bare minimum from the Holmes mythology and cashing in on the name. While the BBC's Sherlock isn't an exact adaptation, its full of so many references to the ACD canon that it truly feels like a modern update.
I'd be really bored if 'Elementary' was just another cops show where the characters coincidentally have names like Holmes and Watson. There's no mention yet of Joan Watson having any war-time experience or having any aspirations for writing, so I can't say I'm seeing any similarities besides just the surname and medical training.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Where is the American Sherlock Holmes I was hoping for? It's so boring to transplant him to America but make him British. What's the point? I wanted to see what a real New Yorker Holmes would be like.
There doesn't seem to be much chemistry on display between Holmes and Watson, but it's a very short clipshow. Oh, and she's emotional and he doesn't play well with humans, and she has to keep him off the drugs? We know that. We've seen this exact relationship with these exact characters twice already this year. And why is she female? How does that shake things up? Show me. I'm not getting a Starbuck vibe from this.
As for the other detective - ya, the whole 'OMG he just licked the evidence' schtick, while cute, got old years ago. It's a knock off. I've seen it done better.
The only interesting thing is that Watson's working for Holmes' father, who maybe could have ulterior motives to spy on his son? That's totally my imagination running wild, by the way. But since the idea of Holmes Sr. in a Cancerman-type-conspiracy-ringleader role is actually interesting, I bet that was just a throwaway line.
Darn.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Meh.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Eh, I'll watch it. I'm kind of over Cuthbert Bandersnatch, anyway. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I watched both seasons last week, for the first time. The series is AMAZING. I particularly loved the updated Holmes/Watson dynamic. Brilliant actors with perfect chemistry, blessed with wonderful writing. It's one of the best on-screen character relationships I've ever seen.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Is the second series available in the US yet? My wife still hasn't seen it (I watched it back in January in the UK), and it is absolutely killing me to not be able to talk to her about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: Eh, I'll watch it. I'm kind of over Cuthbert Bandersnatch, anyway.
I'll cuthbert HER bandersnatch
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the only mild complaints I would have would be that they overdid Moriarty a bit-he smacked distinctly of Joker, actually, from Dark Knight, in his style of crazy and genius; the other would be the ending with Irene Adler. To my viewing, at least, I wasn't really sure if it was fantasy (or whose, for that matter), but if it were meant to be what actually happened, then it was pretty ridiculous.
The music, the acting, the writing, the mysteries, the relationships, though, man. All are over-the-top excellent. It's especially enjoyable to me and many, I think, for the many many many nods and wordplays on the source material, but even for a Holmes newb I would recommend it to just about anyone.
----
I will almost certainly watch the pilot of the Americanized Holmes (haven't watched the trailer). I figure I owe it to him after watching Game of Shadows, heh. And while it's a bit irritating to have such a thorough knock-off and, it sounds like, a dumbed-down sitcom-ized knockoff, I don't think that's new for American treatment of British television. And Liu is fun.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DrS, it's on Netflix right now, both seasons, and the last episode of the second three airs this weekend on Masterpiece Theater, I believe.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: DrS, it's on Netflix right now, both seasons, and the last episode of the second three airs this weekend on Masterpiece Theater, I believe.
Really? Streaming or DVD's? I just checked streaming and still only saw the first series.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I checked streaming as well and didn't see it either.
I did pre-order the blu-ray which is coming out May 22nd, but I did get an email notification earlier this afternoon saying it had already shipped. And I think my library already has a waitlist going and that's something they don't usually start until they actually have the discs to put on lend.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
PBS usually streams their versions after they air. So the second season should be here:
The first two eps are up now, and the third maybe sometime tomorrow. I'm a Sherlock pusher.
The DVDs will be better, though, because they won't be cut and will have extras.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Awesome, it looks like those will work for us! Of course, my wife is headed to Rome for the week later today, so we'll have to wait until she gets back. But finally I'll be able to not hold back my speculations and observations!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
A Scandal in Belgravia was great. I just finished watching the Hounds of Baskerville, and I wasn't so impressed.
SPOILERS FOR HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE * * * I still don't understand why Sherlock took the case just because the guy used the word hound when describing the dog. Did he somehow instantly connect the H.O.U.N.D project with the gigantic dog, realize that the guy had been drugged, and connect that he said hound just because he saw it on the guy who drugged him's shirt? What am I missing? Also, I'm still a little confused why the guy killed the kid's dad in the first place. The dad found the guy playing with the drug in the middle of nowhere? Or the guy had already been experimenting on the dad with it?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Yeah, I wasn't the biggest fan of that episode either. Part of the problem for me was that I called the "twist" and the ending really quickly, and it's disappointing when I get to the solution a lot quicker than Sherlock.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
The last episode is awesome, though. It has some great bits, like this:
Excellent use of "Sinnerman" by Nina Simone, I thought.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: A Scandal in Belgravia was great. I just finished watching the Hounds of Baskerville, and I wasn't so impressed.
SPOILERS FOR HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE * * * I still don't understand why Sherlock took the case just because the guy used the word hound when describing the dog. Did he somehow instantly connect the H.O.U.N.D project with the gigantic dog, realize that the guy had been drugged, and connect that he said hound just because he saw it on the guy who drugged him's shirt? What am I missing? Also, I'm still a little confused why the guy killed the kid's dad in the first place. The dad found the guy playing with the drug in the middle of nowhere? Or the guy had already been experimenting on the dad with it?
I think it was explained that Sherlock was intrigued by Henry's particular use of the word "hound" despite it being rather archaic. Why not say "it was the footprints of a giant dog?" Its just typical Sherlock, bored by the silly legends that intrigue others but fascinated by one unusual word choice.
As for the dad, I believe the two men were friends. Henry's dad didn't approve of the work at Baskervilles but it was something they just avoided discussing. I think at one point Henry even refers to the man as "an uncle" so the scientist must have been a very close family friend. The scientist was messing with the old experiment, Henry's dad found out about it and there was a confrontation at Dewer's Hollow that ended in his accidental death. (Why Henry was al the Hallow that night? That I'm not sure of.) Henry's young mind was so traumatized that he believed a creature had killed his father. Henry mentioned that he and his father used to take walks in the Hallow all the time so the fog probably didn't begin until after the death of his father. Henry was likely drawn back to the site of the incident again and again and so this was when the scientist buried the pressure plates and began messing with his mind in an effort to protect himself from a young man who was working through his trauma and beginning to remember the truth of that night.
Hound is my least favorite of series 2. The middle episode of the first series was also my least favorite of that bunch, and my least favorite of them all.
On a slightly random sidenote, the website Qwertee.com will be selling a black and white version of the H.O.U.N.D t-shirt on their website on Friday.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS * * * * * * This show is frustrating. 99% of the third episode was so good, but there are just so many plot holes for a show that pays so much attention to details. Did Sherlock really expect John to believe that he was a fraud? Honestly, it would have taken someone with supernatural powers in addition to being a genius to plan all the crimes that Sherlock solved, plant the clues, and then solve them, all without John noticing any of the first two parts. And John is supposed to believe Sherlock created Moriarty? So Mycroft was in on it too when he told John how Moriarty got all of Sherlock's personal info from him? And Sherlock was actually the one that planned the first three crimes at the beginning? None of that makes any sense to me. I just watched the scene where Sherlock jumps, they showed his body hitting the floor, there's no way he faked the fall. He's dead. He couldn't even have known that Moriarty was going to kill himself so how could he have set up such an intricate plan to fake a suicide if he thought Moriarty would be standing right next to him and he couldn't plan for timing.
Also, nothing about why Moriarty kills himself or why Sherlock only has to say "I am you" to convince him of his equality in intelligence adds up. I guess you can just chalk that up to Moriarty being a psycho, but that's a cop out in my book.
Other than all that, the episode was great.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
As for John and Sherlock, the only way to protect John is for him to fully believe that Sherlock was dead. It was the only way to save him from Moriary's network. It would work best if Sherlock could convince John that his suicide was genuine, convince John not to go looking for a trick. Does Sherlock really think that John would believe him if he said he was a fraud? Based on the scene in the flat where Sherlock seems convinced that John's faith in him in wavering, its apparent that Sherlock doesn't quite grasp the depth of their friendship. We, as the audience, know that John's faith in Sherlock is unwavering, but Sherlock doesn't seem to know that.
Of course, its all speculation and some have argued that Sherlock's use of the phrase "magic trick" during the phone call may have been him laying the clues out with hope that John would put them together.
As for Mycroft, he's one of my two big questions marks. For a man nearly as intelligent as Sherlock, revealing so much to Moriarty seems incredibly stupid. But maybe he was trying to force Moriarty back into Sherlock's path knowing that only his brother could have any chance of bringing him down.
As for the double suicide, it seems to be part of the whole Moriarty-Sherlock dynamic. There's all these weird clues and statements: "I will burn the heart out of you" or "I did tell you, but did you listen" or "I think he wants to be distracted." There's something inherently self-destructive about Sherlock and Moriarty and then there's the latter's ironic ring tone "Stayin' Alive." I personally don't have a problem with Moriarty being insane as I'm rather curious about his motivations, no matter how crazy they may be. My personal headcanon is that Moriarty was incredibly suicidal and that he also identified very strongly with Sherlock. I think he liked the idea of bringing Sherlock down to his level, exposing him as a psychopath like himself.
How Sherlock planned to manipulate Moriarty, its all speculation until the new series. There's always been an element of the unbelievable when it comes to Sherlock's deductions so I'm willing to suspend a bit of disbelief in regards to Sherlock's abilities to manipulate and plan such a ridiculously long game.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Spoilers for the end ** * * * * *
I'm with Shanna. I think Sherlock wanted to convince John of his suicide, but I don't think John really bought the fraud thing. During the phone call, Sherlock urges him to "Tell everybody" and then specifically says "Tell Molly." Molly knows something, because he needed her help, so I think that was him trying to get John to figure it out, later.
I think Moriarty was always suicidal, but not of a temperament to give up. I think he wanted to be bested, and believed Sherlock could do it. That's why he was so cool when he came back at the pool and it looked like Sherlock was about to blow them all up. He didn't really care if he died, as long as it wasn't boring. As long as it was part of the game. He could have had the snipers shoot them without him walking back in with Sherlock, who was still armed.
Suicidal may not be the right word. He was ready to die, but he wanted to be beaten. He knew Sherlock was the one who could do it, and that was why he was so disappointed when it seemed that he had beaten Sherlock, and why he said "Thank you" when Sherlock apparently convinced him that the only way to "win" was to remove himself from the board. Especially once Sherlock had convinced him that they were alike after all. (I think he believed it because he wanted to believe. People do.) But I also totally agree that their final confrontation skirted over time constraints. I'm fairly certain Sherlock could not have tortured him enough to get the information he was after in the time that he had. Even if torture worked, which Moriarty had already proven himself remarkably resistant to it. So that is definitely a plot hole, from where I sit.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Spoilers too! * * * * * * * I found the climactic scene to be incredibly good and it didn't seem inconsistent or plot holish at all. For John, I think he's in a position where he doesn't know what to believe. But that does not for a second mean that he believes Sherlock was a fraud.
As far as the actual suicide goes, there are plenty of theories about that. I can't remember all of them, but the two big ones I seem to recall are that he actually fell in to a truck or something but Watson's view was blocked (hence the "Stay right there!" type comments) and then he moved to the ground with fake blood and cut his circulation off somehow. Or something like that. The other interesting theory I've heard which could dovetail in with that one of stand on its own is that Sherlock has a doppleganger. Irene Adler did (iirc), so why not Sherlock? I think that would be hokey and I would be disappointed if that was the case, since Benedict Cumberbatch seems prrreetty unique looking. But Watson was also dazed from being hit by the bycile, so who knows.
As for Mycroft, Moriarty beat him. Mycroft probably didn't realize until it all hit the fan, but Moriarty put himself in the exact position he wanted, and Mycroft took the best choice that was available. Ultimately it turned out to be a not very good choice (at least not for Sherlock), but that's what playing a game is all about - putting your opponent(s) in a position where the only or best move available to them is one that benefits your more and ideally fits perfectly in to your plan.
Which leads me to the fact that maybe it's just me, but I completely understand Moriarty's decision to kill himself (assuming that wasn't faked as well, which I hope it wasn't/doubt it was). The whole entire thing was a game to him. He had all of his pieces in place and was moving in for the checkmate, but he forgot the backdoor (or hoped Sherlock wouldn't find it) of his being able to call the guys off. Sherlock saw that, and before he could exploit it, Moriarty closed it, completely and utterly. Winning the game dead was better than losing the game and living. And I think that even if Moriarty had done the rational thing and said "Well, true, I could call them off, but I won't", there still would have been that little bit inside him that knew that given enough time, Sherlock would have or could have won, and that would mean not just that Moriarty had a hollow victory, but worse, that he had lost. I dunno, maybe it's just me but I think it makes perfect sense.
Incidentally, I was having a discussion with my wife about that very concept - the games we play in life, and treating life as a game - and I came within a half a second of launching in to that scene as an example of my point, forgetting that she hadn't seen it yet. That would've been bad.
To sum up: Does it all require a bit of suspension of disbelief? Sure. But for me it's significantly less than the vast majority of TV shows.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: As for John and Sherlock, the only way to protect John is for him to fully believe that Sherlock was dead. It was the only way to save him from Moriary's network. It would work best if Sherlock could convince John that his suicide was genuine, convince John not to go looking for a trick. Does Sherlock really think that John would believe him if he said he was a fraud? Based on the scene in the flat where Sherlock seems convinced that John's faith in him in wavering, its apparent that Sherlock doesn't quite grasp the depth of their friendship. We, as the audience, know that John's faith in Sherlock is unwavering, but Sherlock doesn't seem to know that.
Why would John have to fully believe Sherlock is a fraud for him to be safe? Moriarty is dead and his network would be pretty much over, nobody would bother killing John for a dead man. And John wouldn't have to believe Sherlock was a fraud for him to believe he actually is dead.
I don't think John's faith in Sherlock has anything to do with it either. John would have to be an idiot to believe that Sherlock was a fraud all this time after what John has seen him do, and Sherlock obviously knows John isn't an idiot.
And I still don't see how the suicide could have possibly been a trick. No amount of suspension of disbelief is enough that Sherlock could have figured out a way to jump off that building and find a way to survive it and still make it seem like he died. The camera clearly showed him jumping and clearly showed his body hitting the ground. Unless he has superpowers and could survive that fall and stop his pulse.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Based off of the canon, Sherlock fans know that Moriarty had a second-in-command. Either Moriarty's web collapses and his former employees seek revenge over the loss of the employment that they enjoyed, or my guess is that these sort of elaborate organizations don't crumble when a leader dies, but rather there will be some sort of inheritance or fight which results in someone else taking control. Moffat and Gatiss have already gone on record saying that the first episode of series 3 will come from "The Adventure of the Empty House" so Moran will certainly play some sort of role. I'm holding off reading that particular story until we get closer to the new series premiere otherwise I'll make myself crazy.
Sherlock can't just come back while there are assassins out there either looking for revenge or wanting him out of the way again. If there's a hint that his death was faked, people would be after him and if those people thought any of Sherlock's friends knew his whereabouts, they'd probably come after them. I really don't see John as the kind of person who would have been able to pull of the act if Sherlock had called him and been "Hey, I know this looks bad but I'm not really going to die. I'm just going to disappear for a bit and make sure that cutting off the head of Moriary's network doesn't result in a hydra situation or something." I honestly can't imagine John being like, "Yeah, sure, I won't come along to help. I'll just chill here and pretend to be really depressed until you get back."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Edit: I posted this before reading the above. While you may be right, I think I like my explanation better
After thinking about it, contrary to Sherlock telling John he's a fraud to fully convince him that it's really a suicide, maybe he said it specifically to put doubts in John's head that the suicide was real. He knew John would realize that Sherlock was not a fraud, for reasons I outlined above, and it would lead John to think that something was suspicious about the random false confession and subsequent suicide, giving John hope that the suicide was false as well. And such a plan worked as shown when John spoke to Sherlock's grave.
"I honestly can't imagine John being like, "Yeah, sure, I won't come along to help. I'll just chill here and pretend to be really depressed until you get back." "
I could. If Sherlock explained it's necessary to keep everyone important safe.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I've seriously seen excellent arguments for both sides so I would be happy to see either play out in the new series.
For instance, the "Tell Molly" line. Either John believes that Sherlock is a fraud, tells Molly who then reports to Sherlock that John bought the lie...or John talks to Molly and she, as someone who is likely horrible at keeping secrets, spills the truth to John. That line really struck me and I don't know what Sherlock's motivation was for including Molly in his line-up, but I feel like its significant to the plan whichever way it goes.
Gatiss has said things about what he imagines would be their Watson's reaction to Sherlock's return and it suggests that he will be completely shocked to find out that his best friend wasn't dead. But since the creators are a pair of trolls, we can't rely on anything they say.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Molly is a morgue attendant. If anyone could help fake a death, Molly could. Or do we think that Sherlock was just feeling sentimental when he was nice to her.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Molly is key. I think Sherlock counted on Moriarty overlooking her, which he apparently did. The likelihood that she would be complete crap at lying to John should he speak to her is probably also key, though I suppose she could turn out to be a mistress of deception. I do not expect that to be the case.
Spoilers * * * * * * * I will be disappointed if they use the body double or mind altering gas options. I will not be miffed if they use some form of deus ex Mycroft, blue ball pulse stopper or some arcane poison options. They DO have to explain Sherlock crying. It seems unlikely that it could have anything to do with sentiment, just from the way they have written him to date, and it would be unnecessary for him to cry to "sell" his suicide to John because he was too far away to see them anyway.
If it turns out that Moriarty's body was pushed off the roof in a Sherlock mask/clothes, I will be honor bound to kick any of the writers in the crotch on sight. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Get ready to kick away. I'd bet that is what happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, the thing is, Holmes is capable of sentiment after a fashion-repeatedly in the original, and at least twice in the current incarnation, when he was actually seriously angry at Mycroft for what was (for the Holmes brothers, anyway) a totally acceptable level of rudeness towards Mrs. Hudson, and then towards her attacker. That almost certainly came from sentiment.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Sentiment, yes. Weepiness, no. There is no reason for him to cry, and even when we have seen him cry, it's been a complete, open-eyed manipulation. Besides, Moffat himself remarked that no one was taking into account Sherlock's "out-of-character" behavior near the end.
Nope, I'm almost positive there will be a pharmaceutical explanation of the tears. And Moriarty thrown off the roof in Sherlock's stead would mean that what we were shown in camera was a lie, which is not something that group have done before. To do so now would have devoted fans burning them in effigy. (They KNOW the fans of Sherlock (and Doctor Who) are the sort that won't let them get away with that. It's also the kind of writing that makes other writers pants you in the proverbial cafeteria. They have enjoyed too much praise from that quarter to throw it away.)
I think the newspaper article in Scandal in Belgravia about the Hospital re-fit is a clue.Some scaffolding or other mechanism to break the fall. Besides, Sherlock knew he was going to need to die, and he engineered the meeting on the roof. He was prepared ahead of time. So he could not have counted on there being a handy dead body up there with him. (Though I can totally see Moriarty being buried in Sherlock's grave/substituted after the fact.)
As an aside, I just looked it up and I'm as tall as Moriarty (Andrew Scott) and taller than Martin Freeman. O_o
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
The newspaper article about the hospital refit WAS at one point going to be a clue, but I think they went on record (maybe an interview but I believe it was the dvd commentary) that it didn't pan out.
I'm will Olivet regarding the use of fear gas or body double. I do hope that the ball theory is true and that the blood on the pavement is in fact Sherlock's as a nice tie-back to the Janus cars trick in The Great Game.
What do y'all think of the possibility that Sherlock was recording his conversation with Moriarty on this phone? I've seen it suggested that Sherlock's "out of character" moment was playing dumb in order to coax Moriarty into revealing his plan (how very cliched) so that he can clear his name when he makes his famous return.
Personally, I really hope the tears were real. I think Sherlock's relationship with John, like his relationship with Mrs. Hudson, really brings out his softer, human side. I think he likes to think of himself as a sociopath when he really not. I'm actually hoping we'll get to see The Adventure of the Three Garridebs at some point. I'd love to see this Sherlock lose it upon seeing his best friend shot.
In other news, Benedict Cumberbatch was denied another Best Actor BAFTA for his role in Sherlock. Martin Freeman won last year for Best Supporting Actor but this year that honor went to Andrew Scott for his role as Moriarty.
Its been confirmed that Mark Gatiss will be writing the first episode of series three.
And Benedict Cumberbatch will be in my city at the end of the month to film "Twelve Years A Slave" and if there is a just and loving god, I will find out exactly when and where they are filming and I will get to meet him or atleast stare adoringly at him from a distance.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I just don't think Moffat would write him having real tears in that situation. He's too in love with Sherlock as a cold, thinking machine (with just a bit of well-submerged sentiment here and there). Sherlock's obviously not happy, but historically when people he cares about are threatened, he goes cold and sharp. Once you know he wasn't actually going to die, and knew he wasn't actually going to die, the tears don't make sense. He was, what? Crying because John is going to think badly of him for a period of time? Because he was about to hurt John's feelings by deceiving him and pretending to die? He totally cold-bloodedly poisoned him and deliberately terrified him without a twinge because he knew it wouldn't be permanent. I just think he's too pragmatic to cry. Or Moffat is too in love with Sherlock as BF hero.
He was obviously, in retrospect, playing dumb with Moriarty, so I don't think that can count as OOC. He had to play dumb at first to sell the story he knew Moriarty wanted to believe. I thought you were going to say it was OOC for him to throw his phone down/away before jumping. That I would buy as OOC. LOL
I'm glad Andrew Scott was honored, though I must say Martin Freeman's performance this series was completely mesmerizing/gut-wrenching. He totally carries that show. Without his homey/ordinary yet completely sympathetic Watson, BC/Moffat's Sherlock would be less tolerable than he is. Watson keeps Sherlock from being that jerk you want to see suffer. That's my take on it, anyway.
I'm so glad BC and MF are getting so much awesome work! Now I get to see them in other great things. Hope you get to stalk him. If you do, you must share the story. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Were trying to schedule everything around everything. Obviously, Sherlock Holmes is off battling Captain Kirk, and Dr Watson is helping Gandalf, and Im in the TARDIS.
Quote from Steven Moffat on the subject of the Series 3 wait.
I'm so torn between "YAY! Recognition and work for Martin and Benedict" and "OH NO! What if they get too big to do Sherlock?!"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The bicycle running into Watson to either delay him or ? also must have been part of it.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I think so, yes.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: As for the double suicide, it seems to be part of the whole Moriarty-Sherlock dynamic. There's all these weird clues and statements: "I will burn the heart out of you" or "I did tell you, but did you listen" or "I think he wants to be distracted." There's something inherently self-destructive about Sherlock and Moriarty and then there's the latter's ironic ring tone "Stayin' Alive." I personally don't have a problem with Moriarty being insane as I'm rather curious about his motivations, no matter how crazy they may be. My personal headcanon is that Moriarty was incredibly suicidal and that he also identified very strongly with Sherlock. I think he liked the idea of bringing Sherlock down to his level, exposing him as a psychopath like himself.
That's how I saw it, more or less.
Despite all of his games, Moriarty is still incredibly bored of life, because generally speaking, nobody can match him. That's why Sherlock is so much fun to him, and that's why he doesn't kill Sherlock, even when he has a chance to. He wants to beat Sherlock by "fair" rules, by winning the game.
It's also alluded several times that Moriarty feels he is utterly alone in his brilliance. There is nobody like him, and he can't connect with the world. But Moriarty can connect with Sherlock, and he secretly wishes that Sherlock is like him - He wouldn't be alone in the world anymore.
The important difference between Sherlock and Moriarty is that Sherlock has humanizing elements in his life - Most importantly Watson. So Moriarty threatens to destroy those elements, the only "weakness" that Sherlock has. That's how he can beat Sherlock in the game.
In the climax, Sherlock beats Moriarty in the game, somewhat, leading to a stalemate situation, which allows Moriarty only one more move to make (Assuming he wants to win at that moment, he could also just call the game off).
But more importantly Sherlock also makes Moriarty believe that he is just like him - Not merely a brilliant sociopath, but a brilliant *psychopath*.
I think there is a good reason to believe that Moriarty always wanted to die due to his boredom and loneliness. He always wanted to find someone who could beat him, and he wanted to find someone who was just like him. The realization that Sherlock is not one of the angels, despite working on their side, is a big wish-fullfillment for him.
So all of his dreams come true just before he pulls the trigger.
[ June 04, 2012, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I think so, too. I think the internal consistency of the episode holds up really well, for all the reasons you listed.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
The one thing I will say about "the tear" is that while Moffat certainly has a good rein on things, he shares his showrunner title with Gatiss, the episode itself was written by Thompson, and it was Cumberbatch who was playing Sherlock. It could have been an character choice by any one of them.
For instance, there was some speculation over the fact that right before Sherlock falls, John rips the phone away from his ear and you can see that he is wearing an earpiece. It seems to have been an acting choice that Freeman made and either no one caught the problem with that particular shot or it was so well done that they just sort of hoped no one would notice. John's "you machine" speech at St. Barts was also something that Freeman improvised, which I found rather surprising because it almost felt like an intentional tie-back to John's hilarious row with the chip and pin machine ("It sat there and I shouted abuse at it.")
Shanna's theory: Homeless network decked out in uniforms provided by Molly. The biker, another of Sherlock's "irregulars," was there to delay John and disorient him. You'll notice one of the doctors keeps his fingers on Sherlock's neck so when John goes to do his classic check-for-a-pulse maneuver that Sherlock has seen him do before, he has to use the wrist. Squash ball works as a great trick to hide the pulse in the arm. Blood on the ground was Sherlock's own, drawn prior to the fall. I'm also really leaning in the direction that Molly along with Mycroft were responsible for fudging all the paperwork. A news report posted to John's blog never mentions Moriarty's/Brook's body being found on the roof so I'm actually hoping he's buried in Sherlock's grave.
Still can't figure out how he actually survived the fall without causing himself serious bodily harm.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I can agree with your theory. The fall itself is not that big a mystery. There was the lorry parked right near where he fell, hidden by the other building. It drove away after he fell, which is an odd thing to do. It was visible but not prominent in the video of the scene, so it wouldn't be cheating. That kind of fall would likely have caused him harm, even if the thing was stuffed with cushy things, but it's still plausible.There may also be something to do with the re-fit going on when it's explained, but those are quibbles.
The tears were dripping off his chin. It was hardly 'a single, manly tear.' LOL. Moffat is way too in love with Sherlock as cool and unemotional to let that pass, I think. I'm willing to bet it wasn't because poor widdle Sherlock was sho shaaad. I'd even say the Moriarty-in-a-Sherlock-mask is more plausible than that.
But I could be wrong.
The only thing I know for certain is that I'm as anxious to find out as I was when I said Harry was a Horcrux, Dumbledore was really dead and Snape was really a good guy. I'll probably have to wait about as long to find out.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
My problem with the truck is that its parked at the curb and the angle of the fall makes it hard for me to believe that he fell far enough away from the building to land on the truck. It could very well be the way he did it, but it would mean fudging the physics.
Oh, agreed. I just think that, if there is one thing Moffat/Gatiss and co. are prepared to do in service of their art, it's fudge the physics. (At least, according to every episode of Doctor Who, ever.) <--hyperbole, but you take my meaning. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The original Holmes stories aren't at all scientifically accurate. Why should we expect that the resolution of this one will be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm trying to think what you might be referring to, Rabbit. Science came into the original stories sometimes, but it was usually of the artsy style 'perform this nameless, undescribed experiment to reach conclusion'.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Well for example, in the story "The Speckled Band", a woman is killed by a "swamp Adder", which Holmes says is the deadliest snake in India. There is no such thing as a "swamp Adder". In the story, this snake climbs a rope, drinks milk, responds to a whistle and climbs a rope -- all things that snakes can not do.
But on a more basic level, the very idea of Sherlock Holmes isn't scientific. It simply isn't possible to accurately deduce everything Sherlock deduces from the simple facts he observes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, snakes can climb ropes. It's been studied-I believe there's a U of Cincinnati bit of research floating around the Net somewhere. As for swamp adders, they do exist, but that's only a common name for them-and if I remember right, they're not Indian snakes but...African or Australian? And as for milk, supposedly sometimes they will-but only ever as a means of moisture or cooling when other stuff ain't available, but not as nourishment.
As for his deductions, well to the extent he does, I would have to agree-or rather, to the extent he does and is right. In the stories he admits himself that quite a lot of his deductions are actually the result of process of elimination, based on past observations. Even for a genius who does almost nothing else with his time, sometimes he would deduce the wrong occupation from a necktie, even if it were a neighboring one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I imagine that much of what is clearly goofy and implausible to us might have been plausible to Doyle's audience. Psychic phenomena, the potential of certain drugs, the behaviour of exotic animals are more well explored now. Such things were hot when Sherlock roamed the streets.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I think that's most likely true, particularly with respect to animals. We hadn't even (quite) mapped the surface of the Earth yet back then.
I also think part of the plausibility would simply have been because there were fewer occupations back then. Not as many kinds of jobs. You didn't have, for example, hundreds of different kinds of jobs in a given region that would all have the same general sort of attire, but rather scores or even less. People too were less likely to have come from far away, and were less clean and laundered their clothes less effectively and less often. Nor did they travel in vehicles that were secure from their environment.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Rakeesh, There is a snake found in East Africa that is sometimes called a swamp Adder. It does not match the description of the snake in "The Speckled Band" in any detail. It is not found in India, it is not speckled and it's not deadly.
Tree Boas can climb all kinds of things. Adders are a different story.
It's likely that those kinds of details would have seemed plausible to most readers at the time the books were written but they wouldn't have stood up to any kind of rigorous analysis.
I think most viewers would find Sherlock landing in the truck to be plausible. Even looking at the rigorous analysis of the physics, it's seems somewhat plausible. I don't think that's what happened I'm just saying you can't rule it out based on the "physics".
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah-I understood you to mean snakes generally, not the commonly named swamp adder in particular.
As for standing up to analysis, well, by 21st century herpetological standards, certainly not. No arguments there. But for the late 19th century standards? Well, perhaps-I really don't know how much was known of snakes, though, back then or who knew it or how widely it was spread. Heck, even the word zoology if I'm not mistaken was a pretty recent invention, mid-19th century, much less the study itself.
I'm with you on the truck, though. Seems too convenient. Another possibility is that the portion of the sidewalk that seemed to be outlined was actually an elevator of some sort, carefully disguised.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
It is possible to tell a lot about a person just by looking/watching them closely. Like this:
Part of what he's doing is looking at clothes and such, but part of it, especially with the last guy, is him watching his face and body language (he actually touches him, so he can feel the changes in his tension as he speaks) for reactions while he makes broad and then less broad statements. Of course, all that Derren Brown does is working the probabilities along with some focused effort, probably over a long period of time, put in to learning what to look for and and what psychological buttons to push. He's very clear that it's not at all supernatural. (And of course they probably don't show you the misses, though they do show some every now and then, depending on what he's doing.) AND he gets to pick his marks. One assumes that Sherlock wouldn't.
Though I do totally agree that what Sherlock does and the way it is presented is very improbable, there are some people who do similar things, people who study micro expressions and such (though the need videotape a way to slow playback).
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
Okay, so go watch Sherlock Series 2 on Netflix streaming, and let's talk about it.
I'll wait Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet 2.0: Okay, so go watch Sherlock Series 2 on Netflix streaming, and let's talk about it.
A couple quick thoughts:
None of the episodes were as bad as season 1, episode 2 (not that that was "bad," just the worst episode so far). But I'd rank them all below season 1, episodes 1 and 3. As much as I love Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson, Andrew Scott's Moriarty kinda ruins it for me. He's a little too over-the-top. Like Steven Moffat's recent run on Dr. Who, he's telling a story of a man who needs to kill himself off - who's gotten too egotistical and important (although in both cases, not undeserved) not to take himself out of the picture in some way to continue his work. He's too much of a lightening rod for enemies to be able to be a free agent. I got that over the last two Dr. Who series. I would have appreciated something less parallel in the shows.
That said, not a disappointment and still by far my favorite modern telling of Sherlock Holmes.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
From best to worst, I would probably rate them (totally arbitrarily) as follows:
1. Series 2 episode 3 2. Series 1 episode 3 3. Series 1 episode 1 4. Series 2 episode 1 5. Series 2 episode 2 6. Series 1 episode 2
I could also reverse the order of 3 and 4 above without any argument. (I started out kind of not liking series 2 ep 1 because Adler was such a completely untenable character, but have since decided that it might just be personal prejudice.)
Have you seen the pilot of Elementary? It's been ... around fr a bit. It wasn't awful. Lucy Liu was easily the best part of it, aside from Johnny Lee Miller with his shirt off. (I like Johnny Lee Miller, but I like him better with his shirt off. Darn my pervasive heterosexuality!) But it was really not horrible. American shows can take a while to find their stride, so I think I might give it a go.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Its interesting that most peoples' favorite and least favorite episode were written by the same person (Steve Thompson.)
2.3 - The Reichenbach Fall 1.1 - Study in Pink 1.3 - The Great Game 2.1 - A Scandal In Belgravia (more for directing than writing) 2.2 - The Hound of Baskerville 1.2 - The Blind Banker
As for Elementary, I think Liu and Miller are quite enjoyable but the script is such a dud. It will probably do well because its such a paint-by-numbers crime procedural and those types of shows always attract a large enough audience. But I found it completely unimaginative and as endearing as Miller is as Holmes, the writers really don't seem to be up to the task of writing such an intelligent character. And I'm still upset by the fact that this Watson isn't even a doctor anymore.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Sad to report that Sherlock didn't win any of its categories at the Emmys.
Did have a lovely moment of panic when Lucy Liu stepped out onstage to present the writing award that Moffat was nominated for. Sadly, we didn't get to see that epic awkwardness come to fruition.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
While I agree that Elementary did not blow up my skirt, particularly from a writing standpoint, American shows can improve, especially if the actors are good.
I don't see it rising above the level of, say, The Mentalist (which is based around a Sherlock type by way of Derren Brown). The only reason that show doesn't suck is because Simon Baker is really awesome. The writing is sometimes above average, too, but mostly not.
I didn't expect it to win any Emmys. I think it might have had a better chance for an acting win if they had submitted The Reichenback Fall, but it would have made less sense as a stand alone "movie" which was how it was submitted. Anyway, the average age of Emmy voters is ... Retired, I think. They tend to honor the same folks over and over, and to go with what is most popular. I wasn't expecting much.
Posted by calvin mark (Member # 12902) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. Deductive reasoning resulted in my concluding this post to be spam.)
[ September 28, 2012, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Spam is starting to get really post-modern. It's really its own art form these days.
Hobbes Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
My hypothesis on the Season 2 Finale:
(Spoilers)
OK. I just got around to seeing all of season 2. It just arrived on Netflix, then my wife wanted to see them all in order to see what I was excited about, and finally, hey, I do have a life.
The situation is elementary.
Sherlock has Molly contact 2 groups prior to the meeting--his homeless irregulars and his friends. (Friends? He lists to his enemy only three friends--Watson, Mrs. Hudson, LaStrod. But we've seen he has many other friends--those he's helped with his cases such as the Restaurant Owner in the 1st episode. Some of the "extras" in the crowd seemed familiar to me.) The irregulars, and a blast text from Sherlock (a skill demonstrated in the beginning of the 1st episode) gets them their.
Sherlock does not have a clear plan of what he is going to do, but is gathering help to do something. He limits possibilities by meeting on the roof--almost insisting that Moriarity uses the height for suicide.
Now for the fun. Moriarity shoots himself. Holmes has to figure what to do to save the lives of all his friends. He calls Molly or one of his other friends up to the roof. They were waiting close by. He removes his coat and scarf and puts them on the corpse of Moriarity. Then the friends stand him up on the ledge and prop him up using a broom or anything. He looks, from several stories away, like Holmes now.
Holmes rushes downstairs, perhaps talking to Watson as he goes, stopping at landings on the steps to confirm John hasn't moved. That is when the scenes of him talking on the phone or taken. He gets to the bottom and signals/texts his friends. The corpse of Moriarity is dropped from the wall, still fresh enough not to have rigor make it too stiff.
Bang, it hits. Molly and allies throw it on a dolly and off to the morgue. Sherlock first takes back his coat and blue scarf, then lies down in the bloody spot where the body landed, grabbing a hand full of blood to add to his disguise. (the Coat and Scarf are already covered in it.)
The rest, his irregulars clip Watson as planned, then take him off to be counted dead. He then moves in with Molly and then his homeless friends while working on removing the rest of Moriarity's crew.
Does he have Mycroft's help? Doubtful, or more likely yes he does, but doesn't realize it as Mycroft sees through the situation.
Does he and Molly connect? Not for long. She finds living with him less romantic than pining for him.
Does he have LsStrod's help? Possible. That's a scene that would be as interesting as his reunion with Watson.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am pretty sure we pretty clearly saw sherlock falling, not a sussed up moriarty corpse
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am pretty sure we pretty clearly saw sherlock falling, not a sussed up moriarty corpse
A sussed up Moriarty corpse with a broom up his -- Okay, I'll be nice. Let's just say, if that is how they did it, I will personally pants Mr. Moffat and Mr. Gatiss, given the opportunity.
(I already have a long list of politicians and public figures on my Must Kick in the Junk on Sight list, so a pantsing or two is fairly minor.)
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I don't know why I continue to be disappointed when I see his opinion on ANYTHING fall in the complete opposite direction of my own feelings. I mean, I expect to disagree on things like politics but even in regards to entertainment, he's on the complete other end of the spectrum.
I agree that a larger season would be wonderful, but I don't think the majority of Holmes stories lend themselves to the 44-minute format. Elementary's weakest link has been its cases. The Holmes-Watson scenes are always a pleasure but then they spend 20 minutes trying to cram in a case for Holmes to solve. Yeah, people love the characters but I think its a terrible disservice to Conan Doyle to act as if that's all that should be celebrated. He created Holmes and Watson, but he also wrote all those mysteries. What would Sherlock Holmes be without the Hound of the Baskervilles or A Study in Scarlet?
Atleast its universally recognized that Martin Freeman is amazing.
And I can't see the appeal of Aidan Quinn as Gregson. There seems to be no canonical basis there and Quinn's scenes always sound to me like its the first time he's reading the lines and he's doing it while half-asleep.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I see the BBC Sherlock Holmes to be aspirational. Everybody wants to me that guy -- smart ans sharply-dressed, so clever that he can get away with being an ass to people.
I see the Elementary Sherlock Holmes as being more relatable. he's emotional and deeply flawed. The writing is not the worst in the crime/mystery genre on US TV, and Sherlock himself is... more colorful with his shirt off.
It's kind of fun. I think I like it. Not so much that it would inspire me to feats of latte art, though :(https://twitter.com/mayo_to/status/298412378427621376/photo/1 )
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I definitely wouldn't aspire to be the BBC sherlock. And, in sum, Elementary's sherlock is much more relatable, and the relationship between holmes and watson is much more satisfying and real.
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
I wouldn't want to be the BBC Sherlock, either, but I am absolutely positive that the writers DO. Moffat couldn't *really* let him lose to woman, for example. He's a big squashy glob of geek wish fulfillment, kind of like Doctor Who, but with a mean, ruthless streak. He's more or less a superhero, and I think a lot of his appeal is aspirational in that way. Not in a very mature way, but still.
I wouldn't want to be around him, partly because they are pushing the 'sociopath' thing so hard. I believe caring *is* and advantage.
The Elementary Sherlock is an example of how caring what happens to people can be motivating, and although I don't think he'd be super easy to be around, either, if I needed help, He'd be the one I'd ask (mediocre writing aside).
I still enjoy watching Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, though. I could eat their faces.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But I could be wrong.