Did V for Vendetta have a similarly exploding houses of parliament? If they did, I wonder if Sherlock did their own mock up, or just used footage from the film.
V showed the house of parliament exploding at the end of the film, but i'm taking your comment as being slightly sarcastic as im sure Sherlock didn't just nick the footage! :D
Just a thought, if somebody posts that they enjoyed the episode, I don't think they need to be lectured on why they shouldn't have. Or vice versa. I think we're all capable of discussion without trying to change each-others opinions to suit our own agendas ;-)
Just a thought, if somebody posts that they enjoyed the episode, I don't think they need to be lectured on why they shouldn't have. Or vice versa. I think we're all capable of discussion without trying to change each-others opinions to suit our own agendas ;-)
or maybe just let people post what they want to as this is a free forum. If you don't like the post just read it then forget it!
V showed the house of parliament exploding at the end of the film, but i'm taking your comment as being slightly sarcastic as im sure Sherlock didn't just nick the footage! :D
I thought I'd remembered a similar explosion, but have only seen V for vendetta once, and wasn't really paying much attention to it.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It would seem to be a pretty sensible thing to do if they did, a bit like having a white jag in 60s and 70s TV action programmes (Saint etc), so they could use the stock footage of one going off a cliff and landing on its roof.
Edit: I don't know how difficult it is to simulate the Houses of Parliament blowing up in the way they did, but it is sure to be a big lump of money for what was only a 3 or 4 second sequence. I know the BBC are "good" at spending licence fee payers' money, but they could have saved a bit by buying in existing footage.
I thought I'd remembered a similar explosion, but have only seen V for vendetta once, and wasn't really paying much attention to it.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It would seem to be a pretty sensible thing to do if they did, a bit like having a white jag in 60s and 70s TV action programmes (Saint etc), so they could use the stock footage of one going off a cliff and landing on its roof.
Edit: I don't know how difficult it is to simulate the Houses of Parliament blowing up in the way they did, but it is sure to be a big lump of money for what was only a 3 or 4 second sequence. I know the BBC are "good" at spending licence fee payers' money, but they could have saved a bit by buying in existing footage.
ahh it just never occurred to me that tv shows would buy footage. I feel a bit cheated now thinking that they may do that!
(obviously im talking about shows such as Sherlock!, I realise news/documentary's etc buy it! :D)
I don't think it's hard or expensive to CGI/animate the Houses of Parliament sequence. I think most Foundation Degree students on a computing course could do it.
I thought I'd remembered a similar explosion, but have only seen V for vendetta once, and wasn't really paying much attention to it.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It would seem to be a pretty sensible thing to do if they did, a bit like having a white jag in 60s and 70s TV action programmes (Saint etc), so they could use the stock footage of one going off a cliff and landing on its roof.
Edit: I don't know how difficult it is to simulate the Houses of Parliament blowing up in the way they did, but it is sure to be a big lump of money for what was only a 3 or 4 second sequence. I know the BBC are "good" at spending licence fee payers' money, but they could have saved a bit by buying in existing footage.
V for Vendetta featured a plot to blow up Parliament using a booby trapped train that would go down an unused underground track that passed under the parliament. On November the 5th.
"Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside".
Completely agree with the above. Very complacent and a very shallow boring plot that was overrun with trying to appease the many fan theories on how Sherlock faked his death. Although top marks to Martin Freeman who stole the episode with some fine acting.
Hoping episode two is a big improvement.
Me I'm just waiting for Utopia and Line of Duty which both return in Feb!
Why are so many people under the impression this episode was written by Steven Moffat? It's not just some people here, I've seen many people over the web think this was Moffat-penned.
The story mimicked V for Vendetta in that both involved exploding a tube train under the Houses of Parliament.
The footage of the exploding HoP was completely different, in that in V it was much more expensively done, with close-ups, and the viewing side was the North side of the Thames, but with Sherlock it was from the South Bank (allowing not so detailed CGI/models to be used?)
The story mimicked V for Vendetta in that both involved exploding a tube train under the Houses of Parliament.
The footage of the exploding HoP was completely different, in that in V it was much more expensively done, with close-ups, and the viewing side was the North side of the Thames, but with Sherlock it was from the South Bank (allowing not so detailed CGI/models to be used?)
I loved it. It was intelligent and fun. I also thought it was similar to V for Vendetta with the train and the blowing up of Parliament.
I read on an American site that US viewers might be confused about Guy Fawkes but enough people should have seen that film and enough people around the world seem to have the masks to make sense of it.
Are you sure?
I got the feeling that Sherlock finally gave the real explanation, but Anderson(?) wasn't content, and being a fan wanted to stir up speculation again when the real explanation didn't satisfy him.
That conversation was all in Anderson's mind. Surely as it was shown that Sherlock was not there at all
"Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside".
Completely agree with the above. Very complacent and a very shallow boring plot that was overrun with trying to appease the many fan theories on how Sherlock faked his death. Although top marks to Martin Freeman who stole the episode with some fine acting.
Hoping episode two is a big improvement.
Me I'm just waiting for Utopia and Line of Duty which both return in Feb!
Interesting as I think Utopia and Line of Duty are crap. Each to his own. I have never seen V and I do not care how the BBC did the exploding House of Parliament Scene. Also BC has a great backside!
A confusion for me in this show was the actress playing Mary (MF's real life partner), as I'd got her confused with the actress who played the journalist in the last series - the one who was supporting Moriarty's alter-ego. They look a little similar, and I thought they were the same person. :D
All the possible explanations for Holmes' death revolved around fooling Watson into thinking he was dead whereas the actual reason for Holmes jumping was to make Moriaty's henchmen think he was dead. All the proposed scenarios would have allowed unknown observers who could have been anywhere to see exactly what was going on.
2) Who played the major part in stopping the bomb?
It was the rail enthusiast. Had it not been for him Holmes would have had no idea.
3) Absurdities with the underground
If you detach the 'rear' carriage from an underground train, someone will notice it very, very, quickly. At the very latest when someone tries to drive the train in the other direction.
Also did the rail enthusiast explain how he knew that the villain was not on the train and not just out of view?
The whole episode seemed incredibly badly thought out, to me.
That conversation was all in Anderson's mind. Surely as it was shown that Sherlock was not there at all
I'd thought that, buuuuuuuuuut, it was then odd to do it as a cut away in the middle of the underground bomb scene. You'd expect a cut-away to be what Sherlock was thinking, not the confused ideas of someone else.
Edit: Of course, though, by doing it in the middle of the bomb scene, it just (successfully) adds to the confusion of the viewer.
Comments
V showed the house of parliament exploding at the end of the film, but i'm taking your comment as being slightly sarcastic as im sure Sherlock didn't just nick the footage!
Ha Ha Ha!!!!!
Don't like it then move on to something you do like. Leave the rest of us who do enjoy it to continue.
This.
or maybe just let people post what they want to as this is a free forum. If you don't like the post just read it then forget it!
I thought I'd remembered a similar explosion, but have only seen V for vendetta once, and wasn't really paying much attention to it.
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It would seem to be a pretty sensible thing to do if they did, a bit like having a white jag in 60s and 70s TV action programmes (Saint etc), so they could use the stock footage of one going off a cliff and landing on its roof.
Edit: I don't know how difficult it is to simulate the Houses of Parliament blowing up in the way they did, but it is sure to be a big lump of money for what was only a 3 or 4 second sequence. I know the BBC are "good" at spending licence fee payers' money, but they could have saved a bit by buying in existing footage.
What? You mean hugely successful with a devoted worldwide fan base and highly profitable?
What a horrible thing to happen!
ahh it just never occurred to me that tv shows would buy footage. I feel a bit cheated now thinking that they may do that!
(obviously im talking about shows such as Sherlock!, I realise news/documentary's etc buy it!
No dear that's Downton Abbey..... DOWNTON ABBEY, I said.
Sad isn't it, when they get confused. Also when they're too proud to use thier hearing aids
V for Vendetta featured a plot to blow up Parliament using a booby trapped train that would go down an unused underground track that passed under the parliament. On November the 5th.
It pulled in 10 million viewers. Like it or not, it's still popular. Like Moffat's Who as well.
Completely agree with the above. Very complacent and a very shallow boring plot that was overrun with trying to appease the many fan theories on how Sherlock faked his death. Although top marks to Martin Freeman who stole the episode with some fine acting.
Hoping episode two is a big improvement.
Me I'm just waiting for Utopia and Line of Duty which both return in Feb!
The footage of the exploding HoP was completely different, in that in V it was much more expensively done, with close-ups, and the viewing side was the North side of the Thames, but with Sherlock it was from the South Bank (allowing not so detailed CGI/models to be used?)
Thanks .
I read on an American site that US viewers might be confused about Guy Fawkes but enough people should have seen that film and enough people around the world seem to have the masks to make sense of it.
That conversation was all in Anderson's mind. Surely as it was shown that Sherlock was not there at all
Interesting as I think Utopia and Line of Duty are crap. Each to his own. I have never seen V and I do not care how the BBC did the exploding House of Parliament Scene. Also BC has a great backside!
1) Holmes' 'death'
All the possible explanations for Holmes' death revolved around fooling Watson into thinking he was dead whereas the actual reason for Holmes jumping was to make Moriaty's henchmen think he was dead. All the proposed scenarios would have allowed unknown observers who could have been anywhere to see exactly what was going on.
2) Who played the major part in stopping the bomb?
It was the rail enthusiast. Had it not been for him Holmes would have had no idea.
3) Absurdities with the underground
If you detach the 'rear' carriage from an underground train, someone will notice it very, very, quickly. At the very latest when someone tries to drive the train in the other direction.
Also did the rail enthusiast explain how he knew that the villain was not on the train and not just out of view?
The whole episode seemed incredibly badly thought out, to me.
I'd thought that, buuuuuuuuuut, it was then odd to do it as a cut away in the middle of the underground bomb scene. You'd expect a cut-away to be what Sherlock was thinking, not the confused ideas of someone else.
Edit: Of course, though, by doing it in the middle of the bomb scene, it just (successfully) adds to the confusion of the viewer.
Strange. This post is almost the same as post 1485-perhaps the author is stuck in a time loop?