Thread: Sherlock - triumphant return or disappointment? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026805
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Did anyone else watch the much awaited return of Sherlock? (UK, BBC1 New Year's Day)

I enjoyed the episode but I felt that they had overdone the characters a bit. It almost felt like Sherlock was a bit of a parody of himself, a bit over emphasised perhaps?

It was quite humorous but the serious crime solving seemed a bit of a side story. But maybe that was inevitable in an episode that had to deal with Sherlock appearing back from the dead after two years!

I need to watch it again as there are still some details about what happened in the last episode that I haven't got clear in my mind. Were John and the others really all in danger from Moriarty's henchmen or did Mycroft have that covered?

I suppose in retrospect it was inevitable that there had to have been others involved in Sherlock faking his death.

Mycorft and Sherlock's relationship seems a bit different this time around. Now it looks like they are in fact very alike but Mycroft has gone down the 'Establishment' route, whilst Sherlock is a maverick.

And why was John nearly burned alive?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
It was an episode very much into messing with your head. The bonfire incident - and the chap watching it at the end - are presumably lead ins to the next episode.

Interesting how lines from Conan Doyle's 'return' story were embedded, as in the scene with the tramp in the surgery, and in the 'bomb' train. I have to say, when I heard the name 'Sumatra' for the lost station, I was expecting a giant rat at some point.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
It was a very clever way of not telling anyone exactly how he survived. While putting out some fun theories.

I think the real storyline was "Sherlock returns", the terrorist incident just a reason for him to be back.
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
I really enjoyed it. It's very clever the quick asides updating the original stories, the step father posing as an on-line boyfriend for instance. Cross I didn't get the Sumatra reference, that's one of my favourite lines in literature.

[ 02. January 2014, 08:07: Message edited by: Gussie ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I really enjoyed it too, and will watch it again soon to get the bits I didn't hear the first time. Mycroft and Sherlock are very alike in the stories - if anything Mycroft is worse - can you imagine what they were like at school [Ultra confused] ?

And I cackled with glee not only at familiar references (like the tramp in the surgery) but also when Benedict's real parents turned up in 221B as Sherlock's parents [Smile] .

As Firenze said, I think Gatiss was just messing with your head, but a very enjoyable experience it was too!

[ 02. January 2014, 09:07: Message edited by: Pine Marten ]
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Sorry for double post but just to add that I thought Martin Freeman's performance exceptionally good, particularly when faced with Sherlock's smug and too-clever-by-half return. His churning emotions had me almost sniffing back a tear, and I cheered when he punched Sherlock's lights out. He is a brilliant Watson.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Hugely enjoyable. I thought Sherlock was a gentler and less abrasive character in this episode. However, I could see the "closed station" and explosives situation coming which was a bit of a disappointment as the previous episodes really had me mystified.

The reunion was great, beautifully understated. Freeman and Cumberbatch work really well together - the on-screen chemistry is there, and it's hard to envisage another actor in Watson's role. It's also very nice to see someone making something of that role instead of just being a plot device and a foil to Holmes' brilliance. Both actors are very good at what they do, too - another great and powerful performance from Martin Freeman.

Loved the explanations. Excellent solution to a problem, one that keeps the fans still intrigued.

[ 02. January 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
The whole bit with the train annoyed me somewhat. Even if there had been a station that was never opened between Westminster and St James Park there wouldn't have been a convenient siding on which to store a carriage for over a day without dozens of trains an hour crashing into it. And how would a staff service tunnel at Westminster station give access to said never-opened station anyway? Also: the District Line isn't as far underground as shown, it has a far larger tunnel diameter than the disused bit of the Piccadilly Line they actually filmed the scene in, and the external shots of the carriage in the tunnel were clearly of a different train than the internal ones.

Other than that, I enjoyed the episode a great deal. [Smile]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
seconded on the train front - my way of rationalising it was that there would also have to be some sort of spur branch from the disused station, but that still leaves quite a large signalling/points headache for the driver, to say nothing of whether such a spur's rails would necessarily be live....

To be honest, I had less of a problem with the service tunnels, given that to get from Westminster to a station under the Palace of Westminster is literally a matter of going under the road, and there are all sorts of 1940s escape routes/duplicate entrances across the network thanks to the intervention of Mr Hitler in Our Island Story (TM).

Of course, that does leave the question, distances being what they are, of *why* they built a station in the first place under Parliament (obviously, I know they didn't in real life) when even if we assume they put it at the far end under the Victoria Tower that's still at the most about 7-800 yards (if that) from the end of the platforms at Westminster...
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Firenze - there was a Giant Rat! The chap who didn't go to Parliament because he was involved in the bomb plot was described as such by Sherlock "working for the North Koreans since 1996".
It all went a bit Wicker Man in the middle, didn't it?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
I liked the fan who had written Sherlock / Moriarty slash. It's the kind of postmodern permission to write your own story that people are so dissatisfied with in Moffat's Doctor Who.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Funny to now discover that John Watson's girlfriend is played by Martin Freeman's real-life partner and that Sherlock's parents were played by Benedict Cumberbatch's parents!

I'll now have to go back and see if I can see the physical resemblance between parents and son!
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Of course, that does leave the question, distances being what they are, of *why* they built a station in the first place under Parliament (obviously, I know they didn't in real life) when even if we assume they put it at the far end under the Victoria Tower that's still at the most about 7-800 yards (if that) from the end of the platforms at Westminster...
But then, from Chancery Lane station, you can see Holborn, so there are sometimes stations far closer together than is strictly necessary. Also City Thameslink and Blackfriars are close. There are usually historical reasons for them.

It would make sense to have a station under The Palace before Westminster station was built, or if it was served by different lines. It makes possible sense.

However the problem of a station that you can go through and leave a carriage at doesn't work. If it was part of the main line, it would have been far too busy to leave a carriage there. If not, it would need the signaler to have changed the points and allowed one carriage off the main line - another person in on the plot. Never mind whoever added another carriage to the train, something that is nothing like as easy as indicated.

I was trying to work out where in London Sherlock was going between Baker Street and St James the Less. The timing was about right, but I am fairly sure they went around a whole lot of other places.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But then, from Chancery Lane station, you can see Holborn, so there are sometimes stations far closer together than is strictly necessary. Also City Thameslink and Blackfriars are close. There are usually historical reasons for them.
On the Deep Level lines (such as the Central) stations were usually built about half a mile apart to facilitate site access and extraction of spoil. Some have since closed (e.g. Down Street, South Kentish Town) and others have moved to facilitate interchange (e.g. British Museum, replaced by Holborn further east).

City Thameslink and Blackfriars are on a main-line railway which links north and south London. Blackfriars was (and is) a station above street level, City Thameslink replaced Snow Hill or Holborn Viaduct (Low Level), which was underneath the terminus station of the same name. Until about 1990 the trains ran over Ludgate Hill on a bridge rather than underneath, as today.

Amazingly there was once another a station in between these two, called (surprise, surprise) Ludgate Hill - that was when trains were much shorter than today. The old London, Chatham & Dover couldn't seem to make up its mind!
 
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Sorry for double post but just to add that I thought Martin Freeman's performance exceptionally good, particularly when faced with Sherlock's smug and too-clever-by-half return. His churning emotions had me almost sniffing back a tear, and I cheered when he punched Sherlock's lights out. He is a brilliant Watson.
Agree. Thoroughly enjoyed the episode and thought the best bits were Cumberbatch and Freeman sparking off each other. Great stuff. I don't mind all the plot about a ridiculous underground station beneath Westminster ( what a massive security nightmare that would be). I just enjoyed the ride.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I had no idea until today that Sherlock's parents were played by his real life parents! I didn't realize he came from an acting family. There's a repeat on Friday night which I'll have to watch, if just for that.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I loved it. I didn't have a problem with the disused Underground station - there are stranger things down there. Look here, for instance. (The article on Aldwych station is interesting - the station is on a spur that runs off the Piccadilly line, very like the station in last night's Sherlock.

The cast were brilliant, as always, and I particularly liked Mary, John's girlfriend. I'm not quite so sure about the introduction of a series arc (the man watching the screens at the end), but the last season arc wasn't too obtrusive, so it may be okay.

One thing I wondered about "St James the Less" - which St James the Less? There are at least two, in Pimlico and Bethnal Green.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
(Putting on my anorak, and rechecking on iPlayer)

I must admit that the trains did annoy me. The CCTV footage was clearly of a tube train (the double doors which fold over the roof, and the height relative to the bad guy getting on). The disused station was also a tube station (probably Aldgate, it's used for a lot of that kind of thing), and the end of the carriage (sorry, car) into which they climbed there was also a tube train. However, once inside it was clearly an underground car, with single, flat sliding doors, and a higher roof line. So, a distinct lack of continuity. Inside, I think the map of the line was correctly a District Line map - I can make out the branching west of Turnham Green.

The District Line, like the Metropolitan line before it, were built by "cut and cover" - dig a trench for the tracks, and the build over it. So, on those sections - as through Westminster and St James' Park - the tracks are double, with platforms opposite each other (or multiple platforms, as at South Kensington). So, the CCTV footage was just not OK.

Also, the car which was left was an 'end' car, with a driver's compartment. They could hardly have left that behind without someone noticing.

Don't they know that this kind of sloppiness ruins things for some people? (Like having steam trains in the wrong livery for the location and period).
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
The 2 things I found mildly annoying (but might be down to my lack of insight, or in the second by future episodes)

They get to the station, find the train not there. Holmes then has a 'brilliant' bit of insight and runs further? down the track to find detonators (which if used to actually do the damage, why the train, and if as a trigger why the timer) and then the train. It (or I) seemed to be missing something.

Given the fuss about finding 'how he did it', getting (to slightly misquote schrodingers cat)
quote:

a very clever way of not telling anyone exactly how he survived. While putting out theories.
was a bit of a disappointment, especially when you realized that once you'd taken out the mock theories (I enjoyed them once on the joke) that didn't work you weren't left with as much evidence of Moffat's (advertised) planning as you thought*.

*even the theory left as viable, if Moriarty shooting himself really was a surprise, then it falls to pieces.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:

Don't they know that this kind of sloppiness ruins things for some people?
Ah, but the Some are few, and the Many don't notice.

I've been reading a wheen of urban fantasy novels recently (Gaiman, Aaronovitch) and I notice how often the Underground turns up as a Doorway to Darker Things. It has a high level of built-in creep.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I agree about the level of built-in creep. The Tube's often been the setting for some of my dreams and a few bad dreams. There's certainly an element of surreality about it even when awake, as the beast with glowing eyes roars out of the tunnel, engulfs a horde of people, and spews them out later somewhere else. And then there is the Gap, which you must always mind. Nobody ever says why, which leaves your imagination free to speculate...

[ 02. January 2014, 19:29: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You do get driver carriages in the middle of tube trains sometimes. I've seen quite a few in the last few months. It's worth paying attention because if the weather is hot you lose the ventilation from the end window and that carriage is ovenlike.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(The article on Aldwych station is interesting - the station is on a spur that runs off the Piccadilly line, very like the station in last night's Sherlock.
Exactly like, I'd have said [Biased]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
<snip> And then there is the Gap, which you must always mind. Nobody ever says why, which leaves your imagination free to speculate...
But if you don't mind the gap the results aren't good, having seen some of them. And then there are the mice
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
I do find the obsessive geekiness about the Underground a terrible bore. It's fiction - you're supposed to suspend disbelief, like you have to when reading the original adventures.

Are you just as irritated by the chronological sloppiness of Conan Doyle's writing?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I think there's "obsessive geekiness" which may be indulged in for effect - eg "why would there be two stations so close together?/look at the shape of the doors!" and then there's how in God's name do you park a single carriage on the Underground for 24 hours without either crippling the network or causing an almighty crash (much the same thing)?

That's not geekiness, that's an enormous plot-hole which should never have got past the storyboarding. If they couldn't think of a way of doing it, just have the train stopped briefly while they shove explosives in a vent shaft or something.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I agree with Lucia; this was a curate's egg of an episode. The reunion between Holmes and Watson was excellent (IMHO Freeman is the real star of the show, since he has a lot more acting to do than Cumerbach) but the terrorist threat and its solution remained out of focus. Don't get me wrong; this was the best thing that's been on TV for weeks(including the Who Christmas special). However last season was excellent, this was merely very good.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
I just downloaded it and watched it. Thought it was great! Mary is a great character, hope they don't kill her off.
 
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
(Putting on my anorak, and rechecking on iPlayer)

Don't they know that this kind of sloppiness ruins things for some people? (Like having steam trains in the wrong livery for the location and period).
You're not the only one. [Biased]

I liked parts of the episode but the lack of a proper Mystery to solve weakened it. I'm hoping that it reverts to former brilliance next week.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
/Geek & Tangent alert/
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Don't they know that this kind of sloppiness ruins things for some people? (Like having steam trains in the wrong livery for the location and period).
Such as people in "Downton" getting onto a Metropolitan train in Yorkshire ... What line were they on? Eh?

/Ends/
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
It’s fiction, people. It’s set in an alternative universe where Conan Doyle never wrote "Sherlock Holmes" - if indeed Conan Doyle even exists in that world - and the character is alive and in the present day. Within the parameters of that alternative universe, the Underground as they know it is correct. You should expect some differences between their world and your own.

[ 03. January 2014, 10:58: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
In the 80's I was a railman on the underground. One of my duties was to inspect the disued and a out-of-service stations. There are loads of them, with sidings (many dug during the war). Plus old connecting walkways, bunkers and unused lift shafts. Back in the day it was good place for a drink and a smoke. Get on with a driver and get him to drop you off at the right place, then flag one down with a red light to get home again.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I watched it again this morning after Mr Marten went out [Smile] and enjoyed it just as much. I desperately hoped that Sherlock and Mary would get to the bonfire before John was burned to a crisp, even though I knew they would - bit like wondering if Ben Hur would win the chariot race - and I marvelled again at how good Martin Freeman is.

I don't have a problem with Underground geekiness, although being a Ricardian I admit I'm the same with medieval stuff - I shouted endlessly at the screen during The White Queen, so I do understand.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I shouted endlessly at the screen during The White Queen, so I do understand.
You mean they got the trains wrong in that as well?
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
They got pretty much everything wrong [Big Grin] !...

...apart from Richard being a human being instead of a demon king, that is [Smile]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Roseofsharon:
I do find the obsessive geekiness about the Underground a terrible bore. It's fiction - you're supposed to suspend disbelief, like you have to when reading the original adventures.

Are you just as irritated by the chronological sloppiness of Conan Doyle's writing?
It is far more akin to science fiction, where the events are expected to be possible, even if there is some logical discontinuity that is glossed over, given this, the rest should be consistent.

In Sherlock, the existence of Holmes himself is the discrepancy, but given that, everything else should fit into normal London living. Otherwise it becomes pure fantasy, and the appropriate solution is probably magic, not Sherlocks logic.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
They got pretty much everything wrong [Big Grin] !...

...apart from Richard being a human being instead of a demon king, that is [Smile]
Amen!
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I've just found the prequel 'Many Happy Returns' on YouTube [Yipee] - anyone else seen it?
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And then there is the Gap, which you must always mind. Nobody ever says why, which leaves your imagination free to speculate...
Read Neil Gaiman's 'Neverwhere' (or listen to the excellent Radio 4 adaptation from last year if you can find it) and that phrase will give you chills. I'm guessing Firenze has been reading this.

I must admit to some minor Tube-related annoyance, if only because I get the District Line to St James's Park every day. The inside of the car was definitely a District line, one of the newer ones. But the outside was the wrong shape - looked more like a Piccadilly Line train.

It wouldn't have bothered me, except that they made such a big thing of the distance between stations (which is more like 1 minute than 5, actually).

But then, I'm the person who can't watch 'Notting Hill' without mentally shouting 'but you can't get the 52 to Piccadilly!'

Unfortunate side-effect of 20 years in London.

[ 03. January 2014, 20:53: Message edited by: Gill H ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
I've just found the prequel 'Many Happy Returns' on YouTube [Yipee] - anyone else seen it?
Absolutely brilliant! I hope they include it on the DVD release. A little googling (I was looking for Sumatra Road) found another box of delights in this Daily Telegraph article. Unusually fannish for the Telegraph, I thought, but great fun.

[liturgical tangent]
When I was at theological college, the music director used "Mind the Gap" to time the pause in the middle of each chanted psalm verse. The phrase haunts my recitation of the psalms to this day.
[/liturgical tangent]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
And then there is the Gap, which you must always mind. Nobody ever says why, which leaves your imagination free to speculate...
Read Neil Gaiman's 'Neverwhere' (or listen to the excellent Radio 4 adaptation from last year if you can find it) and that phrase will give you chills.
Read that (and heard some of the R4 broadcast which was on last week). Great stuff.

Just watched the episode again. I'm amazed how restrained John was during the reunion. A really excellent portrayal of someone clearly struggling with a conflict of intense emotions.
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
I agree with Gill H. The outside view of the train was not a District Line but the inside was.
From Westminster to St James' Park is less than a five minutes journey. The station they filmed was not St James'. It is important because the series is about getting details right. I bet the 'Points of View' post bag was bulging.
I did enjoy the programme though.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I now want that Tube geek's model train layout! [Hot and Hormonal] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I think Moffat,Gatis et al made it pretty clear that they don't care that much about getting all the technical details 100% right. The various explanations of how Sherlock survived and in particular the way they portray those characters that really did care how he did it, which at the very least has to be seen as gentle mocking, I think speaks volumes.

Sherlock, being a show about a very clever detective, has to have a complex puzzle-crime to solve. And it has to have the figleaf of seeming like a very clever, watertight, only-possible-way-to-fit-the-facts solution. But in terms of the show, that's just the MacGuffin. What the show is really about is the relationship between Holmes and Watson. That's why it's Martin Freeman under the bonfire. That's why they're prepared to bend and stretch plausibility and tube layouts to get the two main characters in a life and death situation so they can talk about how they feel about each other.

That's also why the next episode is about what it's about. I'm aware not everyone will have seen the trailers so I won't give any details but if you have you'll know what I mean (and by tomorrow night you will anyway).
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Late Paul, for anyone who hasn't seen the trailer, it's available on youtube. I just watched it now.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I think Moffat,Gatis et al made it pretty clear that they don't care that much about getting all the technical details 100% right
The thing is, they don't need to explain everything - like how Sherlock survived. They need to provide some possibilities that make it conceivable.

But the technical details do matter, because Sherlocks method of solving problems is logic. If distances are all variable, then we cannot know whether Badboy Jenkins could have got from A to B in the time. If train tracks go through stations - so you can compare the CCTV from one to the other - then you cannot put a train car on the track. If you see pictures of a train car, then a different one appears in a siding, then you cannot pretend they are the same.

In Sherlock, unlike Who, these technical details do matter, because they are at the heart of the detective method. If they are not right, how can I have a hope of working it out before Sherlock?
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I think Moffat,Gatis et al made it pretty clear that they don't care that much about getting all the technical details 100% right
The thing is, they don't need to explain everything - like how Sherlock survived. They need to provide some possibilities that make it conceivable.


My point is not whether they need to or not, and certainly not whether I think they need to or not, it's that I think they don't care, and have demonstrated, and communicated clearly, that they don't care. Or at least that the care about other things far far more.

quote:
In Sherlock, unlike Who, these technical details do matter, because they are at the heart of the detective method. If they are not right, how can I have a hope of working it out before Sherlock?
I could be wrong but I don't think they signed on to that deal.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In Sherlock, unlike Who, these technical details do matter, because they are at the heart of the detective method. If they are not right, how can I have a hope of working it out before Sherlock?
Well, I did manage to guess the "closed stations" and the carriage of explosives before the great detective arrived at that conclusion. It's the only time I've ever got there before him, but it can be done.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I look back on the last episode of Blake's Seven, which I thought showed contempt for the audience, with some forgiveness - the successive possible, but ruled out answers here do look like laughing at fans, and Philip rubbed it in.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
OTOH, Gatiss and Moffat have to be well in the obsessive Holmsesian nerd class to have created the series. I think they are quite well aware of how close they are to the fan-fic huddles - except they have got a budget from the BBC.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Laughing at fans, or in fact, cruelty to the audience is a venerable tradition, in any case. No sentimentality in our art, you see!
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
So….. the bit towards the beginning where Sherlock is being interrogated. Did anyone else find that scene sexy/hot? Was it just me? Trying to work out if I'm a (statistical) pervert.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I was too busy trying to decide if the Christ imagery - shirtless man, head bowed, long hair, arms outstretched - was deliberate.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
OTOH, Gatiss and Moffat have to be well in the obsessive Holmsesian nerd class to have created the series. I think they are quite well aware of how close they are to the fan-fic huddles - except they have got a budget from the BBC.
Having watched Gatiss' series about British horror films, that seems spot on. They are professional fan-boys! I saw that various explanations more as a nod and a wink to the audience than contempt / mockery.

Looking forward to this evening.

Tubbs
 
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I was too busy trying to decide if the Christ imagery - shirtless man, head bowed, long hair, arms outstretched - was deliberate.
That has *got* to be deliberate! Surely - it's too obvious not to be.

Also, it doesn't seem like a very good position to interrogate someone in. Arms together above the head would be better. Ahem.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Sherlock, being a show about a very clever detective, has to have a complex puzzle-crime to solve. And it has to have the figleaf of seeming like a very clever, watertight, only-possible-way-to-fit-the-facts solution. But in terms of the show, that's just the MacGuffin. What the show is really about is the relationship between Holmes and Watson.
We could say the same about the original stories. It has been pointed out (I think in an introduction to an edition of the complete stories I once read) that Holmes rarely solves a case by using his "methods". He might make a deduction or two, but often the resolution will come about by setting a trap for the crook, or a stroke of luck, or by some revolver-toting bravado on the part of Holmes and Watson.

More than that, Holmes's "deductions" are really nearly always inferences. He works on balances of probabilities rather than watertight deductions. You'll rarely read one of his episodes of showing-off without being able to go back, look critically at it, and think, "Yes, but that observation could also mean ...".

I like the way that, at least, the current series has sidelined some of the dodgy "science" of the originals. Last week's deductions from the hat are a case in point. In the original version (in The Blue Carbuncle, one of my favourites), much is made of the size of the hat owner's head. In the modern version, Mycroft merely sneers, "Women can have big heads too." Loved it!

Just off to settle into the sofa for this evening's treat ...
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I want to clarify that I don't think Gatiss/Moffat are mocking the fans contemptuously or cruelly, I think it's more of a gentle teasing, and I agree they too are fan-boys. However I stand by my reading that they've made it clear where their priorities lie. They want to entertain. If a few plot-holes slip through... oh well.


quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I was too busy trying to decide if the Christ imagery - shirtless man, head bowed, long hair, arms outstretched - was deliberate.
That has *got* to be deliberate! Surely - it's too obvious not to be.


I agree it's obvious but I spent a few minutes wondering what that means if anything. Also wondered if we're too secular in general to get the allusion. I guess we are but the imagery's still iconic and potent.

quote:
Also, it doesn't seem like a very good position to interrogate someone in. Arms together above the head would be better. Ahem.
I bow to your superior knowledge. [Biased]
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
More than that, Holmes's "deductions" are really nearly always inferences. He works on balances of probabilities rather than watertight deductions. You'll rarely read one of his episodes of showing-off without being able to go back, look critically at it, and think, "Yes, but that observation could also mean ..."
Indeed and it's why I probably wouldn't be watching if it were a more rigorous attempt to follow the "method". There's a favourite SciFi book of mine that does a similar thing - there's a whole plot that not only relies on the main character making a certain chain of reasoning about the causes and effects of events on a cosmic scale (spatially and temporally) but that the characters he interacts with thinking the same way and therefore he's able to predict their behaviour. It's always slightly irked me although I still love the book.

So maybe I would still watch after all [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
The "method" surely was always inductive? Whatever Conan Doyle called it...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think there's "obsessive geekiness" which may be indulged in for effect - eg "why would there be two stations so close together?/look at the shape of the doors!" and then there's how in God's name do you park a single carriage on the Underground for 24 hours without either crippling the network or causing an almighty crash (much the same thing)?

That's not geekiness, that's an enormous plot-hole which should never have got past the storyboarding. If they couldn't think of a way of doing it, just have the train stopped briefly while they shove explosives in a vent shaft or something.
As a sort of train geek (only sort of because I have met the real thing!) I can cope with trains in the wrong livery or anachronisms in historic dramas. But what almost ruined this episode for me - it didn't because the overall thing was so good - was the confusion between the sub-surface District line and the deep-level tubes like the Jubilee and Piccadilly. It seems to me it makes all the difference. The idea of using a train parked in a siding only a few feet below to blow up the Houses of Parliament seems feasible: using one a hundred or so metres deep in a tube tunnel such as those used for WW2 air raid shelters, doesn't seem a very good idea. Of course that would cause massive destruction but I can't see it doing much more than loosen the foundations.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I like that it is funny [Smile]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Awesome.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
How does Cumberbatch do that twirl when taking the overcoat off/putting the overcoat on. It's very distinctive. Is the coat weighted at the hem?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
OK, not great. Overlong and bitty. No real plot, and more about relationships than actual cases, with plot pretty much sidelined. I'd been looking forward to this episode, but having sat through an hour and a half of it, feel I've had an overdose of the clever Mr Holmes for the time being.

On the plus side, some genuinely very funny bits in it, but not really enough to swing it to being a great episode.

[ 05. January 2014, 21:06: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on :
 
The verdict of the jury at chez SyNoddy was a solid 4 stars.
We loved the comedy of the stag night, the humour of Mary "running" both of the boys at the same time and even enjoyed the plot to kill the victim at the wedding. Didn't guess the method but had spotted the assassin.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Wasn't the reception venue (the inside, anyway), the same one used in Dr Who for Rory and Amy's wedding - or do they all look the same?

[ 05. January 2014, 21:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
I guessed the weapon wrong. I thought that for the guardsman in the shower a sharpened icicle would have worked. It would have melted in the hot water. How the killer then got out of the shower after that I didn't work out.

As usual I was wrong.

But why does it have to be about murder or potential murder? Not many of the original stories were about murders, there is a much wider range of crimes in the original stories. This is supposed to be based on Conan Doyle not Agatha Christie.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
I guessed the weapon wrong. I thought that for the guardsman in the shower a sharpened icicle would have worked.
But then you need the thermos flask.

The dead man walking has its parallel in the assassination of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria (which John Dickson Carr* brings into one of his novels as support for the MO of the plot).

*whom I first discovered as the co-author, with Adrian Conan Doyle, of some further Holmes stories.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought it was a tour de force. The cross-cutting was handled with great elan throughout, especially during the best man's speech.

Difficult to summarize really, a kind of heightened effect of fantasy, or a sort of delirium of TV technique. Remarkable.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
I thought it was amusing enough, enjoyable enough - but it felt like a parody of itself.

And are we always going to get lots of gooey emotion now? Why does everything have to be gooey emotion these days?

M.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Good points: I like the fact that they are trying to make some good drama out of the interaction between the characters, not just in the crime solving. I don't know if it works completely, but I like the idea. There is more to them - well, Watson at least - than a detectives sidekick.

Meh points: Sherlock telling a story of a crime he failed to solve?

Problem points: Two experienced soldiers are stabbed with a very sharp weapon, and don't notice a thing? No pain at all? Nothing they would check out?

The first soldier is stabbed through his clothing, and yet Sherlock does not even examine it to check? It would have been clear, surely, if he had?

So I am rather ambivalent about the episode. Maybe because I expected more.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I thought it was supposed to have gone through an aperture in the belt buckle?

We are never told Watson's middle name in Doyle: 'Hamish' is from the Holmesiana canon as well - from a 'biography' - can't remember the author, but I borrowed it from Belfast Central Library sometime in the mid sixties, so published a while ago.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Wasn't the reception venue (the inside, anyway), the same one used in Dr Who for Rory and Amy's wedding - or do they all look the same?
And for Gwen and Rhys in Torchwood, I thought ... Other wedding venues probably exist in Cardiff but this may be the most TV friendly.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Wasn't the reception venue (the inside, anyway), the same one used in Dr Who for Rory and Amy's wedding - or do they all look the same?
And for Gwen and Rhys in Torchwood, I thought ... Other wedding venues probably exist in Cardiff but this may be the most TV friendly.
Or they have an arrangement with Moffatt and Gatiss which will benefit both sets of parties. Fans wanting Who/Torchwood/Sherlock themed do's?

[ 06. January 2014, 10:37: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Or they have an arrangement with Moffatt and Gatiss which will benefit both sets of parties. Fans wanting Who/Torchwood/Sherlock themed do's?
I think that is both improbable and in certain lights, a tad libellous.

Scouting locations is a function of programme researchers. Any contract or remuneration would be between the proprietors and the BBC.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Not intended that way.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The dead man walking has its parallel in the assassination of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria (which John Dickson Carr* brings into one of his novels as support for the MO of the plot).
Georgette Heyer does the same thing in Envious Casca.

Moo
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I thought it was amusing enough, enjoyable enough - but it felt like a parody of itself.
This. If you were going to do this, it was probably a fairly good way to do it, but I wish they hadn't. I got completely bored halfway through when we got onto yet another "OMG Sherlock doing something he's really bad at!!1! LOL" moment. There were some good moments, but it was generally disappointing. In both style and content, it looks closer to fanfiction than the brilliance of the previous series.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
So….. the bit towards the beginning where Sherlock is being interrogated. Did anyone else find that scene sexy/hot? Was it just me? Trying to work out if I'm a (statistical) pervert.
No, you're not the only one [Hot and Hormonal] .

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
We are never told Watson's middle name in Doyle: 'Hamish' is from the Holmesiana canon as well - from a 'biography' - can't remember the author, but I borrowed it from Belfast Central Library sometime in the mid sixties, so published a while ago.
Yes, I think either Mary or the second Mrs Watson calls him James in one story, and it is glossed as a Scottish version of the name. I've got the book somewhere.

I got rather bored with the speech and with the stag night, which went on far too long, and they appeared to be drunk for too long. I liked the cutting between scenes/flashbacks and laughed several times, but it wasn't up to the high standard of the episodes so far. I recorded it and watched it after we got back from our Epiphany do but I found myself looking at the clock now and again [Frown] .

Actually I thought the weapon might be an icicle, too.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I mostly enjoyed it - the earlier part rather than the later. Lots of funny moments.

I have my own "would that really happen?" question about the crime though. Not the technical details of it but the character motivation. Someone prepared to kill an unrelated person merely as a rehearsal is a different kind of killer than someone who kills to revenge a family tragedy. Could be both but I felt it needed some character development to explain that, something we (necessarily perhaps) didn't get.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I liked it very much. It was an interesting step away from the Conan Doyle canon, and gave Mary Morestan something like the attention she deserved.

The attempted murders themselves were riddled with holes (much as the victims were), and I agree with those who've questioned whether an aggrieved relative would have committed a "rehearsal" murder. But it was lovely, the way the plot elements slowly drew together. The scripts for Sherlock are consistently clever and tightly written - there's barely a wasted element. Everything turns out to be either a Chekhov's Gun or a proper red herring, designed to mislead us. (With the mention of "ginger", "Redbeard", and the bank robberies, did anyone else think we were going to get a version of "The Red-headed League"?)

Sherlock / Doctor Who crossover trivia: Alfred Enoch, who played Bainbridge the Bloody Guardsman, is the son of William Russell, who played companion Ian in Doctor Who.
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
I was disappointed, thought it was too self-indulgent and went on far too long. There were good bits, and the basic plot was clever, but my least favourite episode so far. I did get the idea of having already been stabbed, but I thought it was something embedded in their belts.
On another note, is anyone else irritated by Sherlock's attitude towards religion? In the original books Sherlock seemed to have quite a lot of faith in divine justice, in this series he seems to have signed up to the New Atheist agenda.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
I don't know; if you mean his comments regarding the clergy in the speech, I didn't think he was any ruder than he was towards anyone else, which took some doing... Was there anything else?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Firenze:
quote:
The dead man walking has its parallel in the assassination of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria (which John Dickson Carr* brings into one of his novels as support for the MO of the plot).
I remembered Agatha Christie had done it and someone else, but I'd forgotten the someone else was John Dickson Carr...

I got the method but not the murderer. And am I the only one who thought it was a bit implausible that the soldiers didn't think of the 'dead man walking' idea? Surely they, of all people, must know what a badly wounded man is capable of doing?

Agree with Ariel's assessment - some funny bits and good ideas, but too long and overly concerned with the relationships. And I kept expecting the Hyaenodons to turn up - oh wait, that happened in Primeval...
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
On another note, is anyone else irritated by Sherlock's attitude towards religion? In the original books Sherlock seemed to have quite a lot of faith in divine justice, in this series he seems to have signed up to the New Atheist agenda.
To be fair, the point at which he dismissed God as a fantasy was part of that lovely arc in which he was first sentimental, then massively offensive (more to the bridesmaids than the vicar, I thought), but then turned his offensiveness to self accusation. How did it go? - "Dismissive of the virtuous, blind to beauty..."

The one thing I did notice, particularly in this episode, is that present-day Sherlock is a very different personality from Conan Doyle's Holmes. Holmes, while sometimes odd and remote, seemed always to know how to behave in social situations, whereas modern Sherlock doesn't. Holmes was almost always well mannered and polite (unless he was riled), but modern Sherlock wouldn't know good manners if they bit him on the backside. It seems like modern Sherlock is the unnatural offspring of Conan Doyle's Holmes and The Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper.
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I'm always thinking of Sheldon when I see Sherlock.

But not vice versa.
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
Adeodatus said:
quote:
The one thing I did notice, particularly in this episode, is that present-day Sherlock is a very different personality from Conan Doyle's Holmes. Holmes, while sometimes odd and remote, seemed always to know how to behave in social situations, whereas modern Sherlock doesn't.
I think this is one of the reasons I didn't like the best man's speech bit. The tone varied qildly from the mawkishly sentimental to the downright rude - it semed a complete caricature of Holmes' character in the Conan Doyle stories. I think the writers have been too influenced by House and Hugh Lawrie's character in that. House was always being very acerbic about any signs of religios faith in his patients.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Yes, I've just realised that this (and its length) is why I didn't like it either. Conan Doyle's Holmes enjoys the theatre, concerts, dining out. He can be sociable and expansive when he wants to be. Sherlock is not like this, and the episode did seem to be a bit of a caricature.
 
Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :
 
Great fun. I'm looking forward to seeing how Sherlock and Mary get on. They could have a great fight if they really disagree on something.

Cattyish, not a Londoner.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Were we ever told exactly what the murder weapon was? The idea of the injury only becoming fatal when the belt was taken off was excellent (in my humble o) but I can't see how a blade long enough to be fatal could have been used on either victim.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
If you know exactly where to stab, you wouldn't need a very long knife. But I agree, it's odd that nobody else saw it - the blade must have been three or four inches long at least.

(NB information on stab wounds gained from reading detective stories, not personal experience!)
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Watched episode 2 last night courtesy of iPlayer!
I enjoyed it but I can't shake the feeling that in this series it has evolved into a slightly different programme. This episode seemed to have been written more as a comedy. There were always amusing things in Sherlock before but it was more subtle and incidental to the story. Or maybe I'm imagining that? I think I'm going to have to go back and watch the previous series again for comparison!
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
Oh and another question, can anyone shed any light on Mycroft's comment about Redbeard to Sherlock when he phones him from the wedding reception. Sherlock replies that he is not a child any more. So what's all that about?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Redbeard the pirate? There's a well-known series of French comic books about him... (well-known in French, anyway; they haven't been translated)
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
On another note, is anyone else irritated by Sherlock's attitude towards religion? In the original books Sherlock seemed to have quite a lot of faith in divine justice, in this series he seems to have signed up to the New Atheist agenda.
To be fair, the point at which he dismissed God as a fantasy was part of that lovely arc in which he was first sentimental, then massively offensive (more to the bridesmaids than the vicar, I thought), but then turned his offensiveness to self accusation. How did it go? - "Dismissive of the virtuous, blind to beauty..."
Also, Conan Doyle's Holmes didn't use nicotine patches, or own a smartphone. I think a certain amount of dismissive rudeness about religion is entirely in keeping with the character as reimagined for the 21st century.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Watched episode 2 last night courtesy of iPlayer!
I enjoyed it but I can't shake the feeling that in this series it has evolved into a slightly different programme. This episode seemed to have been written more as a comedy. There were always amusing things in Sherlock before but it was more subtle and incidental to the story. Or maybe I'm imagining that? I think I'm going to have to go back and watch the previous series again for comparison!
Have to say for me humour's always been pretty high in the mix. I re-watched A Study in Pink just before Christmas so it's fairly fresh in my mind, and the initial scene with the text messages at the press conference was (and for me still is) very funny.
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Oh and another question, can anyone shed any light on Mycroft's comment about Redbeard to Sherlock when he phones him from the wedding reception. Sherlock replies that he is not a child any more. So what's all that about?
I assumed some childhood trauma that gives Mycroft a hold over Sherlock - the kind of thing that is more of a joke if it's left to the imagination. A bone thrown to the fanfic writers; maybe significant later on, maybe not.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
I very much enjoyed the ride this week. Fantastic.
 
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
Loved the latest episode. Some really great moments - looking forward to what's next...
 
Posted by Hugal (# 2734) on :
 
I quite enjoyed the episode. It was complicated yes, and it had a lot of humour yes, but you can't have Sherlock be Watson's best man and not explore it thoroughly.
I too thought the practice murder was an icicle.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Is the series turning into "The Holmes and Watson Show"? Light hearted banter between two funny men, in the style of Morecombe and Wise? Tonight will tell, but that's the feeling I'm getting about this season.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
I noticed that this evening's ep is written by Steven Moffat - I hope it'll be alright.... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Looking good so far, I'd say. [Smile]

ETA: And there's a Q&A with Messrs Moffat and Gatiss live here, from 10.00 to 10.30pm GMT, just after the ep. They warn of spoilers, though.

[ 12. January 2014, 20:18: Message edited by: Wesley J ]
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
Can't get into it at all. And fed up that Sherlock, like Doctor Who, has got all "soap opera-ey". Maybe a second watching will help.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
You're right. The series is like Jesus: we're hoping for the second coming, to clarify stuff. Thus I'll have to watch again, too.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
Bwaaaahaaahaaahaaaaah!
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Well I enjoyed that - still not very puzzley though.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Looked at the wiki on the original story, which I vaguely remembered, and have to say it wasn't that puzzley either !
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
So they never checked, with him being on the top of Molly's building and all, that he was actually dead? (I had written off the obvious lack of pink blobby bits and skull fragments as being tasteful.) It does rule out the using his body for Sherlock, doesn't it? Maybe they'll deign to let us know the whole truth about that episode next time, when the third episode of the Hobbit has been done. (Apropos of which, I'm expecting three full length episodes of "Farmer Giles of Ham" from that stable.)
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Just because someone broadcasts a film of Moriarty doesn't mean he is alive.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
I found that much more gripping to watch than the first two episodes in this series! So Mary has a 'past'. I had wondered why the word liar appeared in the words around her of Sherlock's observations in the first episode.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Looked at the wiki on the original story, which I vaguely remembered, and have to say it wasn't that puzzley either !
It was based on two separate stories, with bits of others thrown in. Add to that the complete re-writing of Mary Watson and it's hardly surprising it was complicated. But I liked it.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
(Apropos of which, I'm expecting three full length episodes of "Farmer Giles of Ham" from that stable.)
What!!!! You need that just for the fight with the giant.

Enjoyed Sherlock tonight. Half predicted the curious incident twist mid-episode, whereas at the earlier twist-point had just remembered the blackmail story plot and didn't look at the time.

I also kind of enjoyed last weeks if it'd been the filler between two 'normal'* episodes, and the first on a similar basis except for the fact they had made promises.

Am finding the use of both flashbacks and mental images and thought experiments confusing.

*yes I know there aren't really enough episodes for a normal to be defined.
 
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on :
 
Well, I really enjoyed that - much more than the wedding last week, though I agree that the flashbacks/mental images etc. are quite confusing. Still, it means you can watch it again...and again... [Smile]

Anyone see the programme on BBC4 straight afterwards chronicling Holmes on stage and screen?
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I remember the Douglas Wilmer. The best pre-Cumberbatch realisation IMO.

Not entirely sure about tonight's - all this cutting out to scenes (such as childhood) outwith The Canon weakens it I think.
 
Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just because someone broadcasts a film of Moriarty doesn't mean he is alive.
Glad it wasn't just me thinking that, Doublethink! The surest way of getting that plane turned around and Sherlock back in Blighty would be to use Moriarty as bait... (Not that I know why someone might want Sherlock back, but presumably that's what we find out in the next series...)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Enjoyed it a lot, and the later programme on Holmes films and plays showed how Gatiss/Moffat are using elements from them at times; for example, 'I'm not gay', seems to be taken from one film which suggested that.

Something delirious about it, which I love. Before that, I was besotted with Jeremy Brett's version, which is highly mannered.
 
Posted by Roseofsharon (# 9657) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

Not entirely sure about tonight's - all this cutting out to scenes (such as childhood) outwith The Canon weakens it I think.
Is there a "Canon"?
Conan Doyle didn't go much on either chronology nor continuity in his `Sherlock Holmes stories, so I don't see that any adding, subtracting or switching elements from one episode to another as much of a crime in the current re-imagining.
It's not as if they are supposed to be actual Holmes adventures as originally written.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Is it Moriarty's brother who is called James or his brother? It all depends on which story you are reading. Conan Doyle did not have a canon, each story was complete in itself.

What I do like about Sherlock is that Greg Lestrade is a composite character of two of the policemen in the original, Lestrade (whose first name is never mentioned) and Gregson.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, that was entertaining, if surreal. I did wonder for a while whether this was going to turn out to be Sherlock's dream. An overlong episode but an interesting one.

The bit I didn't care much for was Mary turning out to be someone with a Hidden Past. It would have been nicer if they'd kept her as a normal character; now there are three strong main characters plus Mycroft plus Moriarty when he comes back, which is a bit too much really.
 
Posted by Sparrow (# 2458) on :
 
I enjoyed seeing Sherlock's parents again, and him and Mycroft at home for Christmas!

[Yipee] [Yipee]
 
Posted by Gussie (# 12271) on :
 
I enjoyed it much more than last weeks, even thoiugh there seemed to be some rather large holes in the plot. I was hoping that Smallwood was going to turn up at the last moment to wreak revenge on Magnusson in the same way the character Kitty does on the original story its based on.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I liked the explanation of Mary's past, as in the likelihood of her being a dangerous person - you chose her John ...

I had thought she might turn out to be a catspaw for Mycroft, so relieved she wasn't.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
What I do like about Sherlock is that Greg Lestrade is a composite character of two of the policemen in the original, Lestrade (whose first name is never mentioned) and Gregson.
As posted by me:

What I do like about Sherlock is that Greg Lestrade. He doesn't appear often enough.

(I was going to say, give him a bigger part, but I realize that could be open to misinterpretation.)
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Apropos of which, I'm expecting three full length episodes of "Farmer Giles of Ham" from that stable.
And at least that for "Tree and Leaf"

Actually, I enjoyed this episode. It was odd, confusing, with a proper puzzle. But it was also well done, well devised I think.

The reappearance of Moriarty was interesting, at least as a teaser for next time - he will clearly be involved again, even if it is post-mortem.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
quote:
Am finding the use of both flashbacks and mental images and thought experiments confusing.
I found it irritating; it seemed like Moffat was being clever for the sake of it. (Look, here's another flashback - isn't it shiny? This might have happened - but then again, it might not. Here's Moriarty - now you see him, now you don't!)

SPOILER:


I couldn't help wondering - if Magnusson was so clever, why didn't he take the gun off Watson when they arrived? Did he really not consider the fact that he was painting them into a corner where the only solution to their problem was to kill him?

[ 14. January 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Replying to above posted by Jane R (which in turn quotes me):
The one that got me was the hospital canteen scene, after a moment of confusion I came to the 'realisation' it was Sherlock vision for Magnus at the Holmes (akin to the trial last week). Then I thought it was a metaphor for an internet conversation. Finally I realised it was a flashback. I think that's where I'll stop.
I didn't mind the one (and in fact given I liked the show and would only swap it for Dirk-Gentley, I clearly didn't mind them all) but at the same time to have all the different types with no cues felt ugly.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I was pretty much convinced at one point that the whole thing was going to turn out to be Sherlock off his trolley and in a drug-induced hallucination, what with all the surreal stuff with Magnusson and the flashbacks. That was probably intentional on the part of the scriptwriters, though.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Am I the only one that just found it tedious, then?

M.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
I loved it, but of course as a long standing Whovian I totally get Steven Moffat's tropes.

Mary Watson and River Song come from the same place, kick-ass heroines with a dodgy past. I frankly love them as characters and both Amanda Abbington and Alex Kingston have done a brilliant job bringing them to life.
 
Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :
 
M, I'm with you.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Thanks, Smudgie! Ronald Binge, I'm a long term Whovian as well (since November 1963), so I don't think it's that.

I thought Magnusson was a hugely creepy villain. But I got very bored during all the bits when Sherlock was shot - that just went on for ever, in lieu of plot, I think. The ending was a cop out. I don't think the whole Mary thing worked (it's all right, dear, I don't mind that you're a serial killer). A shame, I liked the character before then. Same with Mrs Hudson, just unnecessary and silly.

I don't like Mycroft getting sentimental - why suddenly all this stuff about relationships? Can't we just have a good plot-driven mystery?

M.
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
This was my least favourite of the recent 3. It wasn't as engaging. I was happy with Mrs Watson, though, and the villain was good. I was surprised that the solution was Holmes just shooting him.
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I don't think the whole Mary thing worked (it's all right, dear, I don't mind that you're a serial killer).
It wasn't as simple as that, though, was it? There was the whole thing that Sherlock pointed out to Watson about the way he - Watson - was attracted to psychopaths as companions so he arguably had a certain level of responsibility for and in the situation.

I think the way Martin Freeman plays Watson is remarkable, all that complex emotion. Give that hobbit an Oscar, someone.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I don't like Mycroft getting sentimental - why suddenly all this stuff about relationships? Can't we just have a good plot-driven mystery?
It'd be nice but it is written by the people who did Doctor Who...

(You can just see it now, can't you - Sherlock Holmes meets the Daleks, Mycroft meets Captain Jack, and John dumps Mary for River Song...)
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Talking of SF tropes, am I the only one who thought of Max Headroom when the Moriarty images appeared?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
... Mycroft meets Captain Jack ...
In Mycroft's dreams!

I really liked this week's episode. I thought it was remarkably faithful to The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, which was refreshing. It's a strange story, showing Holmes's strong moral sense as being sometimes opposed to the letter of the law - a theme that was very obviously carried over into Sherlock.

The shock ending had me bouncing on the sofa - I'd really expected Sherlock to be sent off on that dangerous mission, leaving it open as to whether there'd be another series or now.

(And no, Honest Ron, you weren't the only one to think of Max Headroom. It must be something about tv addicts of a Certain Age ... [Biased] )
 
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
There was the whole thing that Sherlock pointed out to Watson about the way he - Watson - was attracted to psychopaths as companions so he arguably had a certain level of responsibility for and in the situation.
Not psychopaths - "high functioning sociopaths" [Biased]
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
There was the whole thing that Sherlock pointed out to Watson about the way he - Watson - was attracted to psychopaths as companions so he arguably had a certain level of responsibility for and in the situation.
Not psychopaths - "high functioning sociopaths" [Biased]
You're right! [Smile] Thank you!
 
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :
 
I wonder how Sherlock would get on against HMR&C if he fails to file his tax return.
 
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
There was the whole thing that Sherlock pointed out to Watson about the way he - Watson - was attracted to psychopaths as companions so he arguably had a certain level of responsibility for and in the situation.
Not psychopaths - "high functioning sociopaths" [Biased]
Or maybe not... Perhaps on this point the mighty deduction of Sherlock Holmes is somewhat astray according to this psychologist! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
There was the whole thing that Sherlock pointed out to Watson about the way he - Watson - was attracted to psychopaths as companions so he arguably had a certain level of responsibility for and in the situation.
Not psychopaths - "high functioning sociopaths" [Biased]
Or maybe not... Perhaps on this point the mighty deduction of Sherlock Holmes is somewhat astray according to this psychologist! [Big Grin]
I can't comment on the technical accuracy of the terminology. All I will say is that one of my favourite lines in the wedding episode was Benedict Cumberbatch delivering this line to one of the guests who called him a psychopath:
"No a high functioning sociopath - who knows your address" followed by a deliciously disconcerting smile....
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
Just finished watching it (not sure why I waited a week, I just did). Quite fun, quite silly, clever in places. Even I was poking at the massive plot holes.

Was it just me or does "The East Wind" sound a lot like "The Oncoming Storm"?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Is anybody else watching the Bridge? (Scandinavian/ Danish, BBC4)
Does anybody else want to see a Sherlock / Saga Noren crossover?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I've seen the east wind mentioned recently in a more original context. Probably in the history of representations of Holmes programme, and thus deliberately picked out. I can't remember quite how far back it appeared, whether it was pre-WWI and thus Riddle in the Sands stuff, pre-WWII or a reference to the oncoming Cold War. It's definitely pre-Gatiss.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I've seen the east wind mentioned recently in a more original context. Probably in the history of representations of Holmes programme, and thus deliberately picked out. I can't remember quite how far back it appeared, whether it was pre-WWI and thus Riddle in the Sands stuff, pre-WWII or a reference to the oncoming Cold War. It's definitely pre-Gatiss.
The reference is to the Conan Doyle story His Last Bow, which was published in 1917 but refers back to the summer of 1914, just before the First World War. Holmes has come out of retirement and with Watson is tracking down German spies. The story concludes with a patroitic speech from Holmes that begins "There's an east wind coming, Watson..." The speech was repeated in the movie The Voice of Terror, transposed to World War Two.

His Last Vow changed the context of course - here it's Sherlock who's the east wind. And in that respect linking it to the Oncoming Storm is irresistible.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0