CAM felt safe because nobody dare to kill him, in case their secret then became public. So he felt safe.
Still seems odd that his security team didn't even lightly frisk John and Sherlock as they entered the single most dangerous (well, metaphorically) and presumably well-guarded property on the planet...
Exactly. But I suppoes if the writing calls for it then the casting director has but two choices: scary actor or interesting camera work (the latter falls apart in scenes with more than one actor.)
No, a casting director has loads of choices, and camera work is nothing to do with it. This man was cast because he was able to have a commanding presence in a room without resorting to Pacino, De Niro or Andrew Scott levels of huffing and puffing, filling it with an eery silence or archly cryptic verbal sparring.
The camera work layered on top is merely another tool in the arsenal of a director and his team to embellish a mood, paint a scene, set a tone. When you get to this level of work they aren't going to cast someone inappropriate and hope to hide the mistake with camera work. The acting and the camera work complement each other, work in tandem.
One thing that stands out to me is Sherlock saying Mary carefully calculated the shot so as not to kill him, but, the thing is, he did die. It was his need to protect his best friend that brought him back and unless Mary is unbelievably clever, like, Sherlock clever, there's no way she could have banked on him using John to stay alive; "Oh, it'll all be fine. He'll just go into his mind palace, work out the best possible way to limit the amount of damage done to him by my gunshot and then he'll think of John to revive himself."
They probably should have put it down to pure luck, but that would mean Mary didn't intend for him to live, thus making her irredeemable (more so than she already is in the eyes of some fans!). Perhaps she shouldn't have even shot him at all, which I don't really understand why she did to be honest...
It might work on paper and conveniently fit the plot as things are skipping along, but you're right in that Mary was extremely lucky that Sherlock survived.
It's a stretch to think she calculated that he definitely would survive when the odds were so far against him surviving.
It might work on paper and conveniently fit the plot as things are skipping along, but you're right in that Mary was extremely lucky that Sherlock survived.
It's a stretch to think she calculated that he definitely would survive when the odds were so far against him surviving.
why didn't she just knock out CAM and then negotiate with Sherlock ?
it was obviously done for shock value , but then the explanation was so absurd and convoluted .
One problem is that some people know a handful of Holmes stories, or have a favourite Holmes series or film and they set it in their mind that this is the one true Holmes template.
The same happened with the Robert Downey Jnr film when many people were wailing about how Sherlock Holmes isn't about bare knuckle boxing when in fact this is lifted straight from the ACD books (as is Holmes fencing, shooting, knowing Martial Arts, bending a poker with his bare hands and so on).
Similar claims are now being made about how Holmes wouldn't become engaged or commit a crime when he in fact did just that in the books.
Moriarty is part of the Holmes Template and most adaptations have him in, but he only appeared in a handful of ACD tales. Holmes deducing that someone spent fifteen years in India, drank gin with elderflower and enjoyed being whipped with celery just by watching him open a door is also part of the Holmes template but whilst the books of course have this in it's certainly not universal (ACD seems to have either gotten bored of doing it or found it too difficult or time consuming in later works).
I don't think many people are saying what Sherlock would or wouldn't do based on the books. I think most people are saying what they believe Sherlock or anyone else would or wouldn't do based on the context given in these TV stories.
Some people are saying "Ah, but he did do something like that in one of the books" or "That is similar to what Sherlock did in that other story from the books", but these are bits from stories within the books.
This series is based on the books of ACD. The contexts are different.
People in general are basing their criticisms of what they are presented with in this series.
It's mainly the defenders who are using ACD's books to justify what characters are doing.
As I say, the critics are on the whole criticising elements of the stories in the context of the world Moffat and Gatiss have presented to us.
One thing that stands out to me is Sherlock saying Mary carefully calculated the shot so as not to kill him, but, the thing is, he did die. It was his need to protect his best friend that brought him back and unless Mary is unbelievably clever, like, Sherlock clever, there's no way she could have banked on him using John to stay alive; "Oh, it'll all be fine. He'll just go into his mind palace, work out the best possible way to limit the amount of damage done to him by my gunshot and then he'll think of John to revive himself."
They probably should have put it down to pure luck, but that would mean Mary didn't intend for him to live, thus making her irredeemable (more so than she already is in the eyes of some fans!). Perhaps she shouldn't have even shot him at all, which I don't really understand why she did to be honest...
If she had intended to kill him she would have - as proven by the whole Annie Oakley type scene where she shot through a 50p piece. Surely the point was that she had to shoot him in a way that looked like she was trying to kill him, but actually giving him a chance to survive, which he ultimately did. Obviously its far fetched, but it would never work as an adventure if it wasn't.
Exactly. But I suppoes if the writing calls for it then the casting director has but two choices: scary actor or interesting camera work (the latter falls apart in scenes with more than one actor.)
That's not true. It's not a case of two simple choices, one or the other. The director or cinemaphotographer is always going to consider lighting and camera work whatever the actor looks like.
CAM felt safe because nobody dare to kill him, in case their secret then became public. So he felt safe.
So what was Mary actually doing?
If she killed him then her secrets become public.
If she's just trying to scare him then it doesn't resolve the problem. If it was that simple anyone could just scare him.
No, a casting director has loads of choices, and camera work is nothing to do with it. This man was cast because he was able to have a commanding presence in a room without resorting to Pacino, De Niro or Andrew Scott levels of huffing and puffing, filling it with an eery silence or archly cryptic verbal sparring.
The camera work layered on top is merely another tool in the arsenal of a director and his team to embellish a mood, paint a scene, set a tone. When you get to this level of work they aren't going to cast someone inappropriate and hope to hide the mistake with camera work. The acting and the camera work complement each other, work in tandem.
In my opinion.
You're right. They aren't going to just hire a 'scary' looking actor and say "Perfect. We don't have to bother with camerawork and lighting now. Job done".
why didn't she just knock out CAM and then negotiate with Sherlock ?
it was obviously done for shock value , but then the explanation was so absurd and convoluted .
I'm not sure. I am going to watch it again as I guess that I might have missed something.
Lots of dialogue skipping along at a very fast rate, I know that I'm bound to miss something.
Sometimes I can't even think fast enough to keep up with the speed dialogue is being delivered. At least not have the time to digest and think about what has just been said.
The house looked impressive, but I wouldn't want to live in it. The name made me think of the company Apple being futuristic etc, not sure if it means anything or there is some deeper meaning to the name.
I really thought after it was revealed that everything was in Magnussen's head, if Sherlock really beleived it, it would be game over. 'Print all you want, i'm sueing. And after it's revealed in court you have no proof, all your other victims will know'
Of course, until the other victims know he has no proof, they're not willing to risk public knowledge. But had i been one of them, when confronted by Magnussen, i would have said :'you say you have the letters! Show me'
I can't believe he operated all these years without even one person asking to see if he really had proofs.
Having said that, blackmailers can do a lot of damage. They need pressure points. Magnussen's pressure points on Sherlock:
it looked like a lot of text in the pressure point category but it was the following in a loop:
Irene Adler (see file)
Jim Moriarty (see file)
Redbeard (see file)
Hounds of the Baskerville
Opium
John Watson
The one i don't understand is Baskerville. How is that a pressure point?
I really thought after it was revealed that everything was in Magnussen's head, if Sherlock really beleived it, it would be game over. 'Print all you want, i'm sueing. And after it's revealed in court you have no proof, all your other victims will know'
Of course, until the other victims know he has no proof, they're not willing to risk public knowledge. But had i been one of them, when confronted by Magnussen, i would have said :'you say you have the letters! Show me'
I can't believe he operated all these years without even one person asking to see if he really had proofs.
Having said that, blackmailers can do a lot of damage. They need pressure points. Magnussen's pressure points on Sherlock:
it looked like a lot of text in the pressure point category but it was the following in a loop:
Irene Adler (see file)
Jim Moriarty (see file)
Redbeard (see file)
Hounds of the Baskerville
Opium
John Watson
The one i don't understand is Baskerville. How is that a pressure point?
'Publish and be damned' might work for some, but the publicity might still scare them as they are true.
And with Mary, Magnusson said that he knew who she had killed, people who hated her and would get to her - he knew where they lived, their phone numbers etc. It was THAT leverage that allowed him to 'flick' John's face - and to discount, for Sherlock, any idea that simply exposing Magnusson would be a possibility.
One thing that stands out to me is Sherlock saying Mary carefully calculated the shot so as not to kill him, but, the thing is, he did die. It was his need to protect his best friend that brought him back and unless Mary is unbelievably clever, like, Sherlock clever, there's no way she could have banked on him using John to stay alive; "Oh, it'll all be fine. He'll just go into his mind palace, work out the best possible way to limit the amount of damage done to him by my gunshot and then he'll think of John to revive himself."
They probably should have put it down to pure luck, but that would mean Mary didn't intend for him to live, thus making her irredeemable (more so than she already is in the eyes of some fans!). Perhaps she shouldn't have even shot him at all, which I don't really understand why she did to be honest...
Mary couldn't shoot Sherlock in the foot as he would have remained conscious ,she wanted more time to convince Sherlock to keep quiet about her. Sherlock called her bluff and ignored her warning by moving forward to disarm her,
That justified her actions but it doesn't really matter, it's entertainment, twists and surprises are all part of the enjoyment, shooting Sherlock in the big toe would loose a bit of the impact i think.:D
'Publish and be damned' might work for some, but the publicity might still scare them as they are true.
And with Mary, Magnusson said that he knew who she had killed, people who hated her and would get to her - he knew where they lived, their phone numbers etc. It was THAT leverage that allowed him to 'flick' John's face - and to discount, for Sherlock, any idea that simply exposing Magnusson would be a possibility.
I understand people react in different ways and i did say 'had i been one of them' I'm a bit hot tempered when menaced and the person doing it is in front of me. A guy starts flicking his finger in my face and says he has proof...well show me your proof before i let you do that. I just thought in all the years, he must have come across someone like me, i'm not special.
And i agree, the print all you want, would work only for Sherlock in that precise circomstance. Still don't get why he killed him. Perhaps another explaination for later...
I understand people react in different ways and i did say 'had i been one of them' I'm a bit hot tempered when menaced and the person doing it is in front of me. A guy starts flicking his finger in my face and says he has proof...well show me your proof before i let you do that. I just thought in all the years, he must have come across someone like me, i'm not special.
And i agree, the print all you want, would work only for Sherlock in that precise circomstance. Still don't get why he killed him. Perhaps another explaination for later...
Its already been explained why he killed him - to protect Mary's life. Magnusson was threatening to expose her new identity and whereabouts to people who wanted her dead, calling his bluff and saying publish and be damned wouldn't have worked, nor would having him arrested because there was no evidence, and Mary presumably couldn't expose her current identity to the police anyway.
I understand people react in different ways and i did say 'had i been one of them' I'm a bit hot tempered when menaced and the person doing it is in front of me. A guy starts flicking his finger in my face and says he has proof...well show me your proof before i let you do that. I just thought in all the years, he must have come across someone like me, i'm not special.
And i agree, the print all you want, would work only for Sherlock in that precise circomstance. Still don't get why he killed him. Perhaps another explaination for later...
Its already been explained why he killed him - to protect Mary's life. Magnusson was threatening to expose her new identity and whereabouts to people who wanted her dead, calling his bluff and saying publish and be damned wouldn't have worked, nor would having him arrested because there was no evidence, and Mary presumably couldn't expose her current identity to the police anyway.
Comments
Still seems odd that his security team didn't even lightly frisk John and Sherlock as they entered the single most dangerous (well, metaphorically) and presumably well-guarded property on the planet...
No, a casting director has loads of choices, and camera work is nothing to do with it. This man was cast because he was able to have a commanding presence in a room without resorting to Pacino, De Niro or Andrew Scott levels of huffing and puffing, filling it with an eery silence or archly cryptic verbal sparring.
The camera work layered on top is merely another tool in the arsenal of a director and his team to embellish a mood, paint a scene, set a tone. When you get to this level of work they aren't going to cast someone inappropriate and hope to hide the mistake with camera work. The acting and the camera work complement each other, work in tandem.
In my opinion.
It might work on paper and conveniently fit the plot as things are skipping along, but you're right in that Mary was extremely lucky that Sherlock survived.
It's a stretch to think she calculated that he definitely would survive when the odds were so far against him surviving.
why didn't she just knock out CAM and then negotiate with Sherlock ?
it was obviously done for shock value , but then the explanation was so absurd and convoluted .
I don't think many people are saying what Sherlock would or wouldn't do based on the books. I think most people are saying what they believe Sherlock or anyone else would or wouldn't do based on the context given in these TV stories.
Some people are saying "Ah, but he did do something like that in one of the books" or "That is similar to what Sherlock did in that other story from the books", but these are bits from stories within the books.
This series is based on the books of ACD. The contexts are different.
People in general are basing their criticisms of what they are presented with in this series.
It's mainly the defenders who are using ACD's books to justify what characters are doing.
As I say, the critics are on the whole criticising elements of the stories in the context of the world Moffat and Gatiss have presented to us.
Yes, that is the problem.
If she had intended to kill him she would have - as proven by the whole Annie Oakley type scene where she shot through a 50p piece. Surely the point was that she had to shoot him in a way that looked like she was trying to kill him, but actually giving him a chance to survive, which he ultimately did. Obviously its far fetched, but it would never work as an adventure if it wasn't.
That's not true. It's not a case of two simple choices, one or the other. The director or cinemaphotographer is always going to consider lighting and camera work whatever the actor looks like.
So what was Mary actually doing?
If she killed him then her secrets become public.
If she's just trying to scare him then it doesn't resolve the problem. If it was that simple anyone could just scare him.
You're right. They aren't going to just hire a 'scary' looking actor and say "Perfect. We don't have to bother with camerawork and lighting now. Job done".
I'm not sure. I am going to watch it again as I guess that I might have missed something.
Lots of dialogue skipping along at a very fast rate, I know that I'm bound to miss something.
Sometimes I can't even think fast enough to keep up with the speed dialogue is being delivered. At least not have the time to digest and think about what has just been said.
Of course, until the other victims know he has no proof, they're not willing to risk public knowledge. But had i been one of them, when confronted by Magnussen, i would have said :'you say you have the letters! Show me'
I can't believe he operated all these years without even one person asking to see if he really had proofs.
Having said that, blackmailers can do a lot of damage. They need pressure points. Magnussen's pressure points on Sherlock:
it looked like a lot of text in the pressure point category but it was the following in a loop:
Irene Adler (see file)
Jim Moriarty (see file)
Redbeard (see file)
Hounds of the Baskerville
Opium
John Watson
The one i don't understand is Baskerville. How is that a pressure point?
Thinking about this, having recently rewatched series 2, that was the only time he'd ever really experienced fear, maybe something to do with that?
'Publish and be damned' might work for some, but the publicity might still scare them as they are true.
And with Mary, Magnusson said that he knew who she had killed, people who hated her and would get to her - he knew where they lived, their phone numbers etc. It was THAT leverage that allowed him to 'flick' John's face - and to discount, for Sherlock, any idea that simply exposing Magnusson would be a possibility.
Good call - not being able to trust his perceptions freaked Sherlock out.
That justified her actions but it doesn't really matter, it's entertainment, twists and surprises are all part of the enjoyment, shooting Sherlock in the big toe would loose a bit of the impact i think.:D
That wouldn't work because John could walk in at any moment. Her whole motivation is to keep the truth from John.
I understand people react in different ways and i did say 'had i been one of them' I'm a bit hot tempered when menaced and the person doing it is in front of me. A guy starts flicking his finger in my face and says he has proof...well show me your proof before i let you do that. I just thought in all the years, he must have come across someone like me, i'm not special.
And i agree, the print all you want, would work only for Sherlock in that precise circomstance. Still don't get why he killed him. Perhaps another explaination for later...
Have you seen the new team?
http://imgur.com/KcJ8xVE
Its already been explained why he killed him - to protect Mary's life. Magnusson was threatening to expose her new identity and whereabouts to people who wanted her dead, calling his bluff and saying publish and be damned wouldn't have worked, nor would having him arrested because there was no evidence, and Mary presumably couldn't expose her current identity to the police anyway.
Killing him was the only option left.
Sherlock killed Magnusson because he was threatening Mary and John, saying that he could essentially get Mary killed.
Mary is John's pressure point, John is Sherlock's and Sherlock is Mycroft's.
He would own all of them, because he could always get to Mary.
He was killed also because he couldn't be stopped from using leverage on ANYONE, as he owned media and what he knew was true.
He was killed also, because Sherlock hated him for what he was, and knew it was the only way to stop him.
Watching him work on John decided him finally, I think, and helped him to 'do the job'.
Yes this.