I found Sherlock's disappearing act with John on the bench interesting. John turned to Sherlock but he was gone and before that Sherlock came back to John so it seemed as if it was in the wrong order.
What about Mycroft, Lestrade and Molly?
They would be expecting a body.
If it didn't actually happen and Moriarty didn't die on the roof then that leaves a lot more questions as to why Moriary just disappeared and non of them mentioned him again, especially when Sherlock returned.
Who said they didn't find a body? If Sherlock can produce a dead body out of thin air to fake his own death why can't Moriarty? There's quite a nice bit of Sherlock-like humour to the idea of them both simultaneously faking their deaths so neither one notices the other is doing it (at the time at least).
Who said they didn't find a body? If Sherlock can produce a dead body out of thin air to fake his own death why can't Moriarty? There's quite a nice bit of Sherlock-like humour to the idea of them both simultaneously faking their deaths so neither one notices the other is doing it (at the time at least).
In that recreation it was to fool one person and that person had already been disorientated and saw the body for a matter of seconds.
Molly would have had full access. Mycroft probably would have had some details on him also that could be used to prove authenticity.
I've always loved Martin Freeman's acting - he can portray so much emotion in such an understated way ( I know he's not to everyone's taste, though).
Benedict took a while to grow on me - probably because he's such a different Sherlock to those that've gone before, plus when Sherlock started, I'd not seen him in anything else.
But yes, I think he's great and his performance in this episode was excellent..I think it must be quite a challenging role because he often has quite a range of characteristics and emotions to portray; I've come to really like his acting.
But yes, I think he's great and his performance in this episode was excellent..I think it must be quite a challenging role because he often has quite a range of characteristics and emotions to portray; I've come to really like his acting.
It can be his quiet moments when he sits in his chair and thinks, simple as that but difficult to do for some, though Mrs Hudson's tea must help sometimes.:D
It can be his quiet moments when he sits in his chair and thinks, simple as that but difficult to do for some, though Mrs Hudson's tea must help sometimes.:D
actually I think Una Stubbs is a joy in this, too:)
She never really seems to age much, either.
Janine is a tough cookie, if anything it looked like she was fooling Sherlock and Sherlock was fooling Janine.:D At the wedding she even said he would be useful.
Janine was Sherlock's way in and Sherlock was Janine's way out
I'm just after watching The Hounds of Baskerville on RTE. Looking at the way Henry Knight's character behaved, (especially the way he nearly ate his gun), I wonder if Moriarty was a victim of whatever drug was in that fog. It would explain the unhinged behaviour and the suicidal tendencies.
About the key.
There was only two versions of it. The one in the fire is the only one different then the others.
If they had to redo the scene and the original prop was burned, the logical response would have been 'we simply won't do a close-up because people will spot that'.
Possibly what gomezz suggested that it was the other side of the stick; if it's an enormous prop mistake, that's probably the excuse they're gonna use.
IMO there's only three options:
-it's an enormous and imbecile prop mistake
-it's the other side of the stick in the fire
-Watson switched and it's going to have repercussions later
I'm just after watching The Hounds of Baskerville on RTE. Looking at the way Henry Knight's character behaved, (especially the way he nearly ate his gun), I wonder if Moriarty was a victim of whatever drug was in that fog. It would explain the unhinged behaviour and the suicidal tendencies.
I intend to rewatch it too.
Still don't understand why Magnussen had 'Hounds of Baskerville' as a pressure point for Sherlock.
I'm just after watching The Hounds of Baskerville on RTE. Looking at the way Henry Knight's character behaved, (especially the way he nearly ate his gun), I wonder if Moriarty was a victim of whatever drug was in that fog. It would explain the unhinged behaviour and the suicidal tendencies.
Surely Andrew Scott's Moriarty has been completely unhinged right from the start?
He's been the best Moriarty I've ever seen btw - it takes some fine-tuned acting skills to portray him being that unhinged without turning the character into a complete parody.
Much has been said on these threads about the outstanding acting in this whole series, and I comprehensively include Scott in that list.
Ah come on let's have Moriarty back. He is after all Holmes's ultimate nemesis, and he's just such great fun
PS not sure about the sudden suicidal tendencies - again, that doesn't really add up, does it?
I do like the idea that Sherlock was responsible for the video of Moriaty so he could stay behind.
Another theory is that Moriarty knew he would die on the roof that day.
So he arranged to commit one last crime from beyond the grave - and he filmed himself for it in advance.
He had Moriarty as a pressure point too, even though Moriarty was supposed to be dead at that stage.
Also he had Redbeard as a pressure point. It can't be just his old dog. As i said, Sherlock must have done something to it in his youth for Mycroft to taunt him with that. And when, at the end of HLV, Mycroft said 'Sherlock what have you done' and we saw Sherlock as a little boy, it hinted at a clue i think.
Perhaps Redbeard will turn out not to be very important but we don't know the full story yet IMO
I intend to rewatch it too.
Still don't understand why Magnussen had 'Hounds of Baskerville' as a pressure point for Sherlock.
Drugs/drug addiction? One of his weaknesses? Sorry, that's just a wild guess, I still haven't had a chance to watch the last episode again and I must have missed loads of clues.
Surely Andrew Scott's Moriarty has been completely unhinged right from the start?
He's been the best Moriarty I've ever seen btw - it takes some fine-tuned acting skills to portray him being that unhinged without turning the character into a complete parody.
Much has been said on the thread about the outstanding acting in this whole series, and I comprehensively include Scott in that list.
Ah come on let's have Moriarty back. He is after all Holmes's ultimate nemesis, and he's just such great fun
PS not sure about the sudden suicidal tendencies - again, that doesn't really add up, does it?
Re the bit in bold - the HOUND thing started back in the 1980s so Moriarty could have been a victim of it right from the start. There's just something about the way that episode ended, with Mycroft saying let him go, and the cell full of Sherlock written all over the walls, that makes me think hmmmm.
Henry Knight was about to eat his gun before Sherlock and Watson stopped him, then in the very next episode Moriarty does eat his gun. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this.
Re the bit in bold - the HOUND thing started back in the 1980s so Moriarty could have been a victim of it right from the start. There's just something about the way that episode ended, with Mycroft saying let him go, and the cell full of Sherlock written all over the walls, that makes me think hmmmm.
Henry Knight was about to eat his gun before Sherlock and Watson stopped him, then in the very next episode Moriarty does eat his gun. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this.
Toward the fun of scratching our heads over details
Toward the fun of scratching our heads over details
I think I may be on to something here though. There's really no need for that scene at the end of Hounds of Baskerville at all, its comletely superfluous because we never even saw Moriarty being arrested. Last time we saw him he was wandering round in front of Big Ben merrily taunting Mycroft by text message. So why the need to show us Moriarty being released from a cell at the end of an episode about government mind control experiments which drive people mad?
I think I may be on to something here though. There's really no need for that scene at the end of Hounds of Baskerville at all, its comletely superfluous because we never even saw Moriarty being arrested. Last time we saw him he was wandering round in front of Big Ben merrily taunting Mycroft by text message. So why the need to show us Moriarty being released from a cell at the end of an episode about government mind control experiments which drive people mad?
BIB - that just made me laugh - I'd forgotten all about that! Merrily indeed
Damn you all on this thread. I just want to watch the whole series again now.
Comments
Molly would have had full access. Mycroft probably would have had some details on him also that could be used to prove authenticity.
Agreed
No, you are not the only one.:)
She never really seems to age much, either.
Una Stubbs is a lovely actress and she brings such humour to the character of Mrs Hudson.
I wonder what Sherlock and Watson would do if she brought home a boyfriend.:o
Janine was Sherlock's way in and Sherlock was Janine's way out
She was accompanied at he wedding. Was that the manager of the store below the apt?
Brilliant!
There was only two versions of it. The one in the fire is the only one different then the others.
If they had to redo the scene and the original prop was burned, the logical response would have been 'we simply won't do a close-up because people will spot that'.
Possibly what gomezz suggested that it was the other side of the stick; if it's an enormous prop mistake, that's probably the excuse they're gonna use.
IMO there's only three options:
-it's an enormous and imbecile prop mistake
-it's the other side of the stick in the fire
-Watson switched and it's going to have repercussions later
I intend to rewatch it too.
Still don't understand why Magnussen had 'Hounds of Baskerville' as a pressure point for Sherlock.
He had Moriarty as a pressure point too, even though Moriarty was supposed to be dead at that stage.
Surely Andrew Scott's Moriarty has been completely unhinged right from the start?
He's been the best Moriarty I've ever seen btw - it takes some fine-tuned acting skills to portray him being that unhinged without turning the character into a complete parody.
Much has been said on these threads about the outstanding acting in this whole series, and I comprehensively include Scott in that list.
Ah come on let's have Moriarty back. He is after all Holmes's ultimate nemesis, and he's just such great fun
PS not sure about the sudden suicidal tendencies - again, that doesn't really add up, does it?
Another theory is that Moriarty knew he would die on the roof that day.
So he arranged to commit one last crime from beyond the grave - and he filmed himself for it in advance.
Also he had Redbeard as a pressure point. It can't be just his old dog. As i said, Sherlock must have done something to it in his youth for Mycroft to taunt him with that. And when, at the end of HLV, Mycroft said 'Sherlock what have you done' and we saw Sherlock as a little boy, it hinted at a clue i think.
Perhaps Redbeard will turn out not to be very important but we don't know the full story yet IMO
Drugs/drug addiction? One of his weaknesses? Sorry, that's just a wild guess, I still haven't had a chance to watch the last episode again and I must have missed loads of clues.
Re the bit in bold - the HOUND thing started back in the 1980s so Moriarty could have been a victim of it right from the start. There's just something about the way that episode ended, with Mycroft saying let him go, and the cell full of Sherlock written all over the walls, that makes me think hmmmm.
Henry Knight was about to eat his gun before Sherlock and Watson stopped him, then in the very next episode Moriarty does eat his gun. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this.
Toward the fun of scratching our heads over details
I think I may be on to something here though. There's really no need for that scene at the end of Hounds of Baskerville at all, its comletely superfluous because we never even saw Moriarty being arrested. Last time we saw him he was wandering round in front of Big Ben merrily taunting Mycroft by text message. So why the need to show us Moriarty being released from a cell at the end of an episode about government mind control experiments which drive people mad?
BIB - that just made me laugh - I'd forgotten all about that! Merrily indeed
Damn you all on this thread. I just want to watch the whole series again now.