People shouldn't watch this show because they heard it was great from a TV critic or "the in crowd" they should watch it because they choose to watch it. If you don't like what you are viewing, watch something else instead of coming on internet forums and social networking sites moaning about how disappointed you are. Get back to your Midsomer Murders or whatever it's called.
No one told me about Sherlock, no one twisted my arm to watch it, no one influenced me in any way. I stumbled across it and really enjoy the acting, the camera work and the storylines so I continued to watch it, I do not find it "boring."
Although reading through this topic, some people sound like they think they are bloody Sherlock
Did I say I wouldn't? No, I simply said they didn't mention Moriarty's incarceration and they really should have to increase the sense of an impending threat when he was shown being released.
Although, in the extended trail for next week's episode :-
It would imply that Moriarty isn't being released in that scene, that he is going to court for trial. With Sherlock called by the prosecution.
You're mean to be puzzled by the last minute of ep2, to make sure you make an appointment for ep3. Frustrating, maybe - but that's kinda the point!
While its a long way from being the worst TV I've ever seen; it was a long way from the "televisual" nirvana that some seem to believe it is.
Still there are worse ways to while away an hour or so on a sunday evening.
I also think a lot of people need to stop obsessing about minutia and perhaps simply enjoy it for what it is.... a TV programme.
I think both leads work very well together and Tovey was more than a bit irritating in this role.
I think Mark Gattiss is the best thing in this show , he's just great as Mycroft .
coulda done with a bit more of him last night to liven it up .
The new movie Prometheus will explain the Space Jockey in Alien.
And if you want to discuss things at least try to stand by your own argument.
So you are happy to have the appearance of an alien space ship in Alien without any form of explanation because it will be explained in a film released over thirty years later. A film you haven't even seen yet.
And yet the fact that you will have to wait one week for an explanation of Moriaty's incarceration is lazy writing and a "plot hole".
Something happening off screen is not a plot hole. A plot hole is an inconsistency in a storyline that goes against logic, or an impossible event, or an event happening for no apparent reason, or an events that contradicts something that has gone before. Moriaty being arrested off-screen is not an impossible event nor does it contradict anything previously seen.
It drove me mad trying to work out who Dr Stapleton was. It was only about halfway through I realised she was the woman in the Direct Line ad who drops her lucky crystal on the bloke's foot.
Did I say I wouldn't? No, I simply said they didn't mention Moriarty's incarceration and they really should have to increase the sense of an impending threat when he was shown being released. And that has been somehow has led to me being personally ridiculed for apparently high expectations and people slighting my intelligence for actually noticing a problem in the set up like they are Moffat's wife and I've called him a dirty great git, seeking personal issue rather than actually going "Oh, wait, you're right, they didn't mention him being locked up... wonder why? Hope next episode explains that for us!" because it's much easier to dogpile and try get cred by being a rude sarcastic grunt rather than adding to the actual conversation in a meaningful way rather than excusing bad writing and insulting anyone who dares notice.
And yet what you fail to grasp, or even contemplate, is that you have not noticed a problem in the set up, you have not highlighted a plot hole and you have not brought to our attention bad writing.
There was no law on the statute that says that everything has to be shown on screen. We saw the two of them leaving Baker Street in a cab, asking for Paddington Station, and then suddenly they were in a range rover at Baskerville. At no point did we see them get out of the cab and get on to a train or hire a range rover. We didn't even see them buy a ticket? Is this bad writing? Is this a plot hole? Is it lazy that the viewer has to imagine how they got from one vehicle to the other to the other?
Or perhaps we the viewer are allowed to assume that to get on to a train they have to get out of the taxi first, in the same way that we can assume that to be released from a cell Moriarty had to have previously been put in it.
There is nothing that the writers "really should have" done only what they "could have" done. And they chose not to. Such a decision cannot empirically said to be right or wrong, as it is a matter of personal opinion just like your view.
PS - I do hope that was mature enough for you, I would hate to do something childish like pointing out that as one person in a plane had been seen being arrested that invalidates a statement made about the other 50 odd. I mean that would make me look really petty and childish.
People assumed that the reference to "cell" in this week's episode was to pander to the US market. They were wrong too.
oooohhhh.. see what you did there.
Its quite interesting the way people picked up on the reference to a cell phone... very few seem to have thought it anything other than a financial decision (myself included) So I was quite pleasantly surprised that it was a plot device.. albiet a fairly ludicrous one.
Its quite interesting the way people picked up on the reference to a cell phone... very few seem to have thought it anything other than a financial decision (myself included) So I was quite pleasantly surprised that it was a plot device.. albiet a fairly ludicrous one.
Actually it's a very old and oft-used one, for example I seem to recall Poirot picking up on a woman's use of the word "attorney" instead of "solicitor" or "lawyer" as evidence that she had lived some time in America.
(It may have been in Murder on the Orient Express but I couldn't swear to it.)
Actually it's a very old and oft-used one, for example I seem to recall Poirot picking up on a woman's use of the word "attorney" instead of "solicitor" or "lawyer" as evidence that she had lived some time in America.
(It may have been in Murder on the Orient Express but I couldn't swear to it.)
I was tempted to add something along the lines of, how any number of people would now rock up and tell me how clever they were for spotting it....
The fact is I don't watch enough TV to be that aware of it and mostly TV goes through my eyes and then vanishes. I rarely pay enough attention to recall minor details 5 minutes after a shows ended.
Murder mystery, Poirot specifically and AC in general *really* don't float my boat, so I doubt I'd have come across it before.
Oh I wasn't claiming any superior sleuthing prowess, merely pointing out that the "ludicrous" plot device is actually quite common in detective fiction
One thing that took me by surprise - Sherlock driving!
This surprised me too. I thought it would be John in the driving seat. Not sure I'd want to be a passenger in a car that Sherlock is driving...
As for firearms in the UK, anything smaller than 30cm is banned, ie handguns. I'm pretty sure John should have turned his in when he came out of the army. But to be honest, if I thought I was being hunted by a giant 'hound' from hell, I'd try and pick up some illegal personal protection, no way Tovey's character would have got a licence for even a shotgun.
And yet what you fail to grasp, or even contemplate, is that you have not noticed a problem in the set up, you have not highlighted a plot hole and you have not brought to our attention bad writing.
There was no law on the statute that says that everything has to be shown on screen. We saw the two of them leaving Baker Street in a cab, asking for Paddington Station, and then suddenly they were in a range rover at Baskerville. At no point did we see them get out of the cab and get on to a train or hire a range rover. We didn't even see them buy a ticket? Is this bad writing? Is this a plot hole? Is it lazy that the viewer has to imagine how they got from one vehicle to the other to the other?
Or perhaps we the viewer are allowed to assume that to get on to a train they have to get out of the taxi first, in the same way that we can assume that to be released from a cell Moriarty had to have previously been put in it.
There is nothing that the writers "really should have" done only what they "could have" done. And they chose not to. Such a decision cannot empirically said to be right or wrong, as it is a matter of personal opinion just like your view.
PS - I do hope that was mature enough for you, I would hate to do something childish like pointing out that as one person in a plane had been seen being arrested that invalidates a statement made about the other 50 odd. I mean that would make me look really petty and childish.
:D:D Couldn't have put it better myself.
The extent to which some posters try to nitpick Sherlock demonstrates how good a show it is.
Well, there must be something wrong with us, 'cos we enjoyed last nights episode way better than last weeks which we found hard to follow.
Just goes to show you cant please everyone all the time.
Oh I wasn't claiming any superior sleuthing prowess, merely pointing out that the "ludicrous" plot device is actually quite common in detective fiction
In fairness, I didn't think it and of itself was particularly ludicrous... I felt it was part of a much bigger ludicrous plot device.
This surprised me too. I thought it would be John in the driving seat. Not sure I'd want to be a passenger in a car that Sherlock is driving...
As for firearms in the UK, anything smaller than 30cm is banned, ie handguns. I'm pretty sure John should have turned his in when he came out of the army. But to be honest, if I thought I was being hunted by a giant 'hound' from hell, I'd try and pick up some illegal personal protection, no way Tovey's character would have got a licence for even a shotgun.
Yes, it would have made more sense to have Watson driving but I suspect that they had to have Sherlock driving when they arrived at Baskerville as the guard would automatically approach the driver's side and ask for ID. Shelock reaching over from the passenger side would not have looked right.
The pistol is just a dramatic device. Henry Knight must have acquired his illegally - perfectly possible, given his paranoia and fear. Watson always had his service revolver in the Conan Doyle books but of course this Watson should have handed his pistol (Sig Sauer P226) back when he was discharged from the Army. However, he had returned from Afghanistan and the rules around weapons are more relaxed on operations so he could have smuggled it home.
Well I thought it was amazing! In fact, imo it was slightly better than last weeks. I'm not usually a fan of Gatiss' writing but this week was excellent, just the right amount of scare and cleverness.
As someone who has worked in a (perfectly normal) lab, I wasn't very impressed with the emphasis on mad scientists out to take over the world.
The last couple of minutes didn't really seem necessary to me, but it didn't make a big difference.
Personally I thought it was another triumph of writing and adaptation that contained some very nice little references to other parts of the Holmes canon without being overly self indulgent or "clever-clever." Admittedly, Tovey was a little too hammy for my liking, but it was all pretty much excellent TV again for me. I am liking the se-tup for next week- I don't care about the supposedly missing detail as to why where how and when Moriarty has ended up in a cell, as I have absolute faith all will be pretty much revealed next week.
The Baskerville one didn't quite work for me. It wasn't so much a 're-imagining' of the Sherlock Holmes tale as a new story about chemical weapons with the character and place names lifted from the old book.
Always going to be tricky to bring this one to life as everyone knows it, but the plot itself was a bit so-so. Last week's was much better as the original plotline was relevant enough for the modern day setting.
Also they keep using Moriarty or flashing his face up - he very rarely appeared or was mentioned in the original books. Its getting like the Daleks in Dr Who - familiarity breeds contempt I think.
Comments
No one told me about Sherlock, no one twisted my arm to watch it, no one influenced me in any way. I stumbled across it and really enjoy the acting, the camera work and the storylines so I continued to watch it, I do not find it "boring."
Although reading through this topic, some people sound like they think they are bloody Sherlock
Although, in the extended trail for next week's episode :-
You're mean to be puzzled by the last minute of ep2, to make sure you make an appointment for ep3. Frustrating, maybe - but that's kinda the point!
I think Mark Gattiss is the best thing in this show , he's just great as Mycroft .
coulda done with a bit more of him last night to liven it up .
So you are happy to have the appearance of an alien space ship in Alien without any form of explanation because it will be explained in a film released over thirty years later. A film you haven't even seen yet.
And yet the fact that you will have to wait one week for an explanation of Moriaty's incarceration is lazy writing and a "plot hole".
Something happening off screen is not a plot hole. A plot hole is an inconsistency in a storyline that goes against logic, or an impossible event, or an event happening for no apparent reason, or an events that contradicts something that has gone before. Moriaty being arrested off-screen is not an impossible event nor does it contradict anything previously seen.
You're assuming they won't
You're assuming he was being released.
People assumed that the reference to "cell" in this week's episode was to pander to the US market. They were wrong too.
It drove me mad trying to work out who Dr Stapleton was. It was only about halfway through I realised she was the woman in the Direct Line ad who drops her lucky crystal on the bloke's foot.
There was no law on the statute that says that everything has to be shown on screen. We saw the two of them leaving Baker Street in a cab, asking for Paddington Station, and then suddenly they were in a range rover at Baskerville. At no point did we see them get out of the cab and get on to a train or hire a range rover. We didn't even see them buy a ticket? Is this bad writing? Is this a plot hole? Is it lazy that the viewer has to imagine how they got from one vehicle to the other to the other?
Or perhaps we the viewer are allowed to assume that to get on to a train they have to get out of the taxi first, in the same way that we can assume that to be released from a cell Moriarty had to have previously been put in it.
There is nothing that the writers "really should have" done only what they "could have" done. And they chose not to. Such a decision cannot empirically said to be right or wrong, as it is a matter of personal opinion just like your view.
PS - I do hope that was mature enough for you, I would hate to do something childish like pointing out that as one person in a plane had been seen being arrested that invalidates a statement made about the other 50 odd. I mean that would make me look really petty and childish.
Its quite interesting the way people picked up on the reference to a cell phone... very few seem to have thought it anything other than a financial decision (myself included) So I was quite pleasantly surprised that it was a plot device.. albiet a fairly ludicrous one.
(It may have been in Murder on the Orient Express but I couldn't swear to it.)
The fact is I don't watch enough TV to be that aware of it and mostly TV goes through my eyes and then vanishes. I rarely pay enough attention to recall minor details 5 minutes after a shows ended.
Murder mystery, Poirot specifically and AC in general *really* don't float my boat, so I doubt I'd have come across it before.
This surprised me too. I thought it would be John in the driving seat. Not sure I'd want to be a passenger in a car that Sherlock is driving...
As for firearms in the UK, anything smaller than 30cm is banned, ie handguns. I'm pretty sure John should have turned his in when he came out of the army. But to be honest, if I thought I was being hunted by a giant 'hound' from hell, I'd try and pick up some illegal personal protection, no way Tovey's character would have got a licence for even a shotgun.
I fear for the Highway Code
The extent to which some posters try to nitpick Sherlock demonstrates how good a show it is.
Just goes to show you cant please everyone all the time.
Yes, it would have made more sense to have Watson driving but I suspect that they had to have Sherlock driving when they arrived at Baskerville as the guard would automatically approach the driver's side and ask for ID. Shelock reaching over from the passenger side would not have looked right.
The pistol is just a dramatic device. Henry Knight must have acquired his illegally - perfectly possible, given his paranoia and fear. Watson always had his service revolver in the Conan Doyle books but of course this Watson should have handed his pistol (Sig Sauer P226) back when he was discharged from the Army. However, he had returned from Afghanistan and the rules around weapons are more relaxed on operations so he could have smuggled it home.
Pure genius.
It’s 1 hour 11 minutes in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019h2f9/Sherlock_Series_2_The_Hounds_of_Baskerville/
Who is/was Pob?
Probably been beaten to it, but this is Pob
As someone who has worked in a (perfectly normal) lab, I wasn't very impressed with the emphasis on mad scientists out to take over the world.
The last couple of minutes didn't really seem necessary to me, but it didn't make a big difference.
Always going to be tricky to bring this one to life as everyone knows it, but the plot itself was a bit so-so. Last week's was much better as the original plotline was relevant enough for the modern day setting.
Also they keep using Moriarty or flashing his face up - he very rarely appeared or was mentioned in the original books. Its getting like the Daleks in Dr Who - familiarity breeds contempt I think.