Sherlock - New BBC Drama (Part 2)

SupportSupport Posts: 70,518
Administrator
zwixxx wrote: »
^commentaries ?! WHAT commentaries are those ? Who is doing them ????
    Admin Notice: This thread is a continuation of: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1304166
    «134567126

    Comments

    • Chocolate MonkeChocolate Monke Posts: 1,184
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      I thought I'd replied to this a few mins ago but maybe not! I've just popped the dvd in and thought I'd check who is doing the commentaries, before watching each one in turn. So:

      A Scandal in Belgravia - Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat, Sue Vertue (sp?), Benedict Cumberbatch and Lara Pulver
      The Hound of Baskerville - Russell Tovey, Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Sue Vertue

      No commentary for the Reichenbach Fall - disappointed!
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 63
      Forum Member
      Two thoughts:

      The mannequin hanging from the ceiling in Sherlock's flat at the beginning may mean that Sherlock was trying to work out then the best way he could fake a suicide. Perhaps it was his plan all along rather than Moriarty's.

      The three assassins are supposedly trained on the three people Sherlock cares about most: John, Mrs Hudson and LeStrade. John and Mrs Hudson, yes. But LeStrade? Really? And why not Mycroft?
    • zwixxxzwixxx Posts: 10,295
      Forum Member
      ✭✭
      ^none for No3, feels like a glaring/glarring omission. Hopefully the one(s) for the other two (and the rest of the dvd extras) are enough to make the purchase worthwhile.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 245
      Forum Member
      I've no idea what it means, or if indeed it means anything, maybe it was just a production mistake, but if you watch the whole sequence again it becomes obvious that there are two roofs involved. If you watch the edge of the parapet, whenever Moriarty or Sherlock's faces are in view, it's covered in asphalt but in the shot looking over the edge of the roof, we see a stone parapet underneath Sherlock's feet, one without an asphalt covering. Even if that isn't enough evidence of two buildings, because maybe you could argue it is asphalt we're seeing but it's just a bit out of focus, then there's the chimney. When Sherlock is standing on the roof looking down, there is a chimney just in front of him, a little to the left but when John is looking up at the building, there is no chimney. Plus there's a tree to the right of the building Sherlock is on and no tree anywhere near the building John is looking at. I can't take credit for noticing this. It was my OH who spotted it but once he had pointed it out to me, I can't believe I missed it, it is so obvious.As I say, I don't really know what this means. Maybe it was just that they used a different roof in the filming and the continuity editor didn't do him job properly...or....maybe not. Would Moffat make such a glaringly obvious mistake.
    • Chocolate MonkeChocolate Monke Posts: 1,184
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      I've no idea what it means, or if indeed it means anything, maybe it was just a production mistake, but if you watch the whole sequence again it becomes obvious that there are two roofs involved. If you watch the edge of the parapet, whenever Moriarty or Sherlock's faces are in view, it's covered in asphalt but in the shot looking over the edge of the roof, we see a stone parapet underneath Sherlock's feet, one without an asphalt covering. I can't take credit for noticing this. It was my OH who spotted it but once he had pointed it out to me, I can't believe I missed it, it is so obvious. As I say, I don't really know what this means. Maybe it was just that they used a different roof in the filming and the continuity editor didn't do him job properly...or....maybe not. Would Moffat make such a glaringly obvious mistake.

      I've just watched the Sherlock Uncovered extra on the dvd and Benedict Cumberbatch did indeed say that 2 roofs were used for the filming. I wasn't paying too close attention to the ins and outs here, but someone on the imdb boards has transcribed what BC said. It was related to the stunts furing filming though, so I don't think it's a clue as to how he did it.
    • iamianiamian Posts: 1,745
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i222/iamian16/other%20stuff/Barts.jpg

      The fall location Google Streetview. This is the real Bart's at the junction of West Smithfield with Giltspur Street EC1A and is the building on which the frieze has the "PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT ST BARTHOLOME'W'S HOSPITAL" lettering and from which we see Sherlock falling. The more observant will see however the two falls occur (the third floor is passed twice).

      This is not the same as the one on which the rooftop confrontation occurs. This Bart's building does not have a flat roof but there are nearby buildings in Giltspur St which do have flat roofs and which would share a very similar background skyline, such as St. Paul's.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
      Forum Member
      I've just watched the Sherlock Uncovered extra on the dvd and Benedict Cumberbatch did indeed say that 2 roofs were used for the filming. I wasn't paying too close attention to the ins and outs here, but someone on the imdb boards has transcribed what BC said. It was related to the stunts furing filming though, so I don't think it's a clue as to how he did it.

      Was that because they needed a London skyline, since the show is filmed in Cardiff?

      Also, from the Guardian interview:

      Sherlock will be back for a third series of three 90-minute episodes, hopefully before the year is out, he (Moffat)says.

      :eek:
    • brangdonbrangdon Posts: 14,092
      Forum Member
      ✭✭
      zydecocat wrote: »
      The three assassins are supposedly trained on the three people Sherlock cares about most: John, Mrs Hudson and LeStrade. John and Mrs Hudson, yes. But LeStrade? Really? And why not Mycroft?
      I imagine Mycroft would have been much harder to get to, given his position. Also, he didn't get on with Sherlock, and Sherlock would probably have felt he was able to look after himself.

      I don't know why LeStrade.
    • iamianiamian Posts: 1,745
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i222/iamian16/other%20stuff/Barts2.jpg

      Watson's initial perspective. You can neither see the ground where he would land nor a laundry truck.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,171
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      DeeMarie wrote: »
      Sherlock will be back for a third series of three 90-minute episodes, hopefully before the year is out, he (Moffat)says.

      :eek:

      Sue Vertue (Producer/Moff Wife) has tweeted that thats not what Steven meant. Am guessing he meant he hoped to shoot them this year.
    • SuperbeastSuperbeast Posts: 1,119
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      iamian wrote: »
      http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i222/iamian16/other%20stuff/Barts2.jpg

      Watson's initial perspective. You can neither see the ground where he would land nor a laundry truck.

      It's obvious the truck's placement was not intended to be in Watson's eyeline. That is why Sherlock asks him to walk back to the exact spot where he got out of the cab. It's clear the whole thing was worked out precisely so Watson would see the fall but not the landing, be too attentive to the body to care about the truck pulling away, be disoriented enough to mistake the body for Sherlock after the bike hit him (surely intentional as there was space for the cyclist to swerve around him) and bundled away before he could make a proper proclamation of Sherlock's death.

      A doctor checks his neck for a pulse, when Watson goes to check Sherlock's almost as soon as he does another woman starts pulling his grip loose and putting her hand between Watson's palm and Sherlock's wrist. Then two paramedics along with the doctor and another guy in a suit who just appeared conveniently bundle him not into the ambulance but down a little dark side street.

      Whether Sherlock landed in the truck bed and rolled out having chomped on a tranquiliser and squeezed a blood pack on the side of his head to appear dead or whether he landed in the truck bed and the body was a cadaver Molly supplied and Watson hallucinated was Sherlock are really the only options on the table as far as I am concerned.
    • SuperbeastSuperbeast Posts: 1,119
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      grimshaw wrote: »
      Sue Vertue (Producer/Moff Wife) has tweeted that thats not what Steven meant. Am guessing he meant he hoped to shoot them this year.

      Given the shooting schedules I imagine they'll try do the lot in July to October assuming the Star Trek shoot doesn't overrun so they can both co-promote both Sherlock and The Hobbit together since both are involved in both projects.

      I think Star Trek is meant to start shooting in March but as the villain and not the main star he may only have to film a few scenes even if he has to do all the pre-production training for a month or so before.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 50
      Forum Member
      Can anyone tell me what song is played before the court case starts in The Reichenbach Fall? I've heard it before, but can't remember what it's called. Any help appreciated.

      Thanks
    • ntscuserntscuser Posts: 8,220
      Forum Member
      iamian wrote: »
      http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i222/iamian16/other%20stuff/Barts.jpg

      The fall location Google Streetview. This is the real Bart's at the junction of West Smithfield with Giltspur Street EC1A and is the building on which the frieze has the "PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT ST BARTHOLOME'W'S HOSPITAL" lettering and from which we see Sherlock falling.

      I'ts a bit odd that this is the department where Molly works and yet there is no sign of her?

      Also odd that Lestrade was targetted by a sniper but not Molly or Mycroft who I would have thought would be much closer to Sherlock?
    • SuperbeastSuperbeast Posts: 1,119
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      Molly "didn't matter", remember? Not until Sherlock told her she ACTUALLY did. Do you not recall Moriarty's comments about her? She was just a tool he used to get close to Sherlock. He dated her not because he cared, but because she was capable of getting him close. She wasn't targeted because she "didn't matter".

      Mycroft is established as one of the top men in charge of British security. As such, I'd imagine trying to kill him would be a waste of resources when Watson, Lestrade and Mrs Hudson are much easier to access.
    • AbrielAbriel Posts: 8,525
      Forum Member
      ntscuser wrote: »
      I'ts a bit odd that this is the department where Molly works and yet there is no sign of her?

      Also odd that Lestrade was targetted by a sniper but not Molly or Mycroft who I would have thought would be much closer to Sherlock?

      well surely the whole premise is based on the facts that
      a) no one knows SH cares about Molly and B) he doesn't "care" about Mycroft
    • Chocolate MonkeChocolate Monke Posts: 1,184
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      brangdon wrote: »
      I imagine Mycroft would have been much harder to get to, given his position. Also, he didn't get on with Sherlock, and Sherlock would probably have felt he was able to look after himself.

      I don't know why LeStrade.

      Lestrade goes to him, listens to him, has respect for him and helps to sort out and clear up some of the mess which Sherlock leaves in his wake without ramifications for Sherlock. This includes seemingly turning a blind eye when Sherlock fires the gun into the air and throws the American out of the window (both crimes) in A Scandal in Belgravia. Lestrade may have to follow the police line in RF, but he appears to be reluctant and even warns John and Sherlock that the police are on their way (a big no no for a police officer about to arrest someone). He always relatively friendly with him, isn't easily offended by him and keeps coming back. Lestrade also believes in Sherlock's eventual humanity (though perhaps not without doubts along the way). Ultimately, Sherlock appears to have quite a bit of respect for Lestrade because of all this.

      For Sherlock, Lestrade is one of the very few people to do all this and so, in Sherlock's world, this might just be enough to count him as his friend.

      John also comments in HoB that he thinks Sherlock is secretly pleased to see Lestrade.

      Two questions might be:
      When does Sherlock start to see Lestrade as a friend? (seemingly not in HoB)
      Does Lestrade count Sherlock as one of his friends?


      Also, on another point, the commentary for A Scandal in Belgravia points out the the headline of the newspaper which Sherlock is reading (about 38mins in) is headlined 'Refit for Historical Hospital'. BC asks if he can talk about this, and Moffat and Gatiss say that the idea was for some building work and scaffolding to be taking place at St. Bart's, and this 'seeding' the climax at the top of St. Bart's in the finale, but this never happened. So it seems they cut something out of ASiB which refers to St. Bart's, but I can't see how building work at St. Bart's would set up episode three. St. Bart's already appears in ASiB anyway.

      A clue perhaps, or I'm scrutinising too much...
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,151
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      Interesting tweet from Mr Gatiss to consider :
      http://twitter.com/Markgatiss

      randallwrites
      @Markgatiss On second viewing, I think if Moriarity'd really shot off a gun inside his mouth more of his head would be missing. #Sherlock

      Markgatiss
      @randallwrites You're forgetting something important.
    • Chocolate MonkeChocolate Monke Posts: 1,184
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      HandsomeBB wrote: »
      Interesting tweet from Mr Gatiss to consider :
      http://twitter.com/Markgatiss

      randallwrites
      @Markgatiss On second viewing, I think if Moriarity'd really shot off a gun inside his mouth more of his head would be missing. #Sherlock

      Markgatiss
      @randallwrites You're forgetting something important.

      Hmmm cryptic.

      Something unrelated (or maybe not so much):

      The commentaries also mention Arthur Conan Doyle's mistake of giving Moriarty AND Moriarty's brother the same Christian name of James. They mention that they use all ACD's inconsistencies as in-jokes, and are keeping this one in mind for series 3, although this sounds more of a throwaway comment/joke by them. Interesting still.
    • SuperbeastSuperbeast Posts: 1,119
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      HandsomeBB wrote: »
      Interesting tweet from Mr Gatiss to consider :
      http://twitter.com/Markgatiss

      randallwrites
      @Markgatiss On second viewing, I think if Moriarity'd really shot off a gun inside his mouth more of his head would be missing. #Sherlock

      Markgatiss
      @randallwrites You're forgetting something important.

      I don't see what there is to forget. Unless we are to assume he fell back with a blood pack under his shirt so it looked like he was bleeding from the back of his head when he isn't and the gun itself was just a prop. After all, he had access to Molly's lab as well.
    • iamianiamian Posts: 1,745
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      Take a look here:

      http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i222/iamian16/other%20stuff/Barts3.jpg

      At 1.21.16 he's falling past the 3rd floor window but at 1.21.17, after we catch a glimpse of Watson he's now higher and about to pass the same window.

      Just wondered.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,248
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      Perhaps Holmes dosed Moriarty with HOUND gas at Baker Street while making him tea, and the whole thing is a fantasy inside Jim's head - a horror unfolding where he realises he can beat Holmes yet feel hollow and empty after Sherlock's death.

      Makes no sense, but hey, let's throw it out there anyway.
    • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
      Forum Member
      HandsomeBB wrote: »
      Interesting tweet from Mr Gatiss to consider :
      http://twitter.com/Markgatiss

      randallwrites
      @Markgatiss On second viewing, I think if Moriarity'd really shot off a gun inside his mouth more of his head would be missing. #Sherlock

      Markgatiss
      @randallwrites You're forgetting something important.

      I think the important part might be we don't get to see the back of his head.
    • iamianiamian Posts: 1,745
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      DeeMarie wrote: »
      I think the important part might be we don't get to see the back of his head.

      Though we do see the "body" just before Holmes jumps.
      Even so if Moriarty faked his suicide (firing a blank into one's mouth is likely to be fatal in any case!) to what end here?

      To me the biggest unanswered question is not how Holmes faked his death but why the young girl screamed.
    • DJW13DJW13 Posts: 4,274
      Forum Member
      ✭✭✭
      DeeMarie wrote: »
      I think the important part might be we don't get to see the back of his head.

      I don't think that TV usually shows in graphic detail what happens when someone is shot.

      REMINDER

      BBC3 is showing the last episode again tonight at 20.00.
    This discussion has been closed.