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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:“We’re trying to schedule everything around everything. Obviously, Sherlock Holmes is off battling Captain Kirk, and Dr Watson is helping Gandalf, and I’m 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?!"
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I think so, too. I think the internal consistency of the episode holds up really well, for all the reasons you listed.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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. Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The original Holmes stories aren't at all scientifically accurate. Why should we expect that the resolution of this one will be.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 )
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hope you get to stalk him. If you do, you must share the story. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But I could be wrong. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
