Agghhh some git on Twitter just revealed one of the big clues from last nights episode! Why do I even go on there. It just annoys me anyway.
Sherlock - New BBC Drama (Part 2)
115 of 127
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“Perhaps you missed it, but there was an attempted murder. I don't know if they've used that device in a soap. It's just a bit different from the bride's sister revealing she's having an affair with the groom, but it's still a hitch.”
“Perhaps you missed it, but there was an attempted murder. I don't know if they've used that device in a soap. It's just a bit different from the bride's sister revealing she's having an affair with the groom, but it's still a hitch.”
Of course I didn't miss it!
I've seen my share of soap weddings and I've never seen somebody solve a crime through a series of anecdotes and deductions during the course of the best man's speech
It's still not clear how this would be a hitch on a wedding that had already occurred, if his friend had died after the reception it would have been tragic but hardly a will they, won't they, secret affair soap cliché
I appreciate different tastes and I do think this season had altered the show a bit putting characters to the fore. But is there a little bit of classic British backlash going on? All of a sudden where it was cool to hop on the Sherlock bandwagon two years ago suddenly alot of hostility. That terribly worded poll in the Guardian and now a hatchet job on Moffat and Gatiss by Jim Shelley in the Mail that not only tears Sherlock to pieces but finds an excuse to stick the boot into Doctor Who (which according to the author has been ruined under Moffat because of Tennand and Smiths acting...ho hum).
Originally Posted by wildyounghearts:
“Of course I didn't miss it!
I've seen my share of soap weddings and I've never seen somebody solve a crime through a series of anecdotes and deductions during the course of the best man's speech
It's still not clear how this would be a hitch on a wedding that had already occurred, if his friend had died after the reception it would have been tragic but hardly a will they, won't they, secret affair soap cliché”
“Of course I didn't miss it!
I've seen my share of soap weddings and I've never seen somebody solve a crime through a series of anecdotes and deductions during the course of the best man's speech
It's still not clear how this would be a hitch on a wedding that had already occurred, if his friend had died after the reception it would have been tragic but hardly a will they, won't they, secret affair soap cliché”
Has there never been a soap wedding that has reached the reception stage before the dramatic interruption has occurred, then?
I don't know - I dislike soaps. And I like even less decent detective stories that descend into schmaltz.
Originally Posted by saladfingers81:
“I appreciate different tastes and I do think this season had altered the show a bit putting characters to the fore. But is there a little bit of classic British backlash going on? All of a sudden where it was cool to hop on the Sherlock bandwagon two years ago suddenly alot of hostility. That terribly worded poll in the Guardian and now a hatchet job on Moffat and Gatiss by Jim Shelley in the Mail that not only tears Sherlock to pieces but finds an excuse to stick the boot into Doctor Who (which according to the author has been ruined under Moffat because of Tennand and Smiths acting...ho hum).”
“I appreciate different tastes and I do think this season had altered the show a bit putting characters to the fore. But is there a little bit of classic British backlash going on? All of a sudden where it was cool to hop on the Sherlock bandwagon two years ago suddenly alot of hostility. That terribly worded poll in the Guardian and now a hatchet job on Moffat and Gatiss by Jim Shelley in the Mail that not only tears Sherlock to pieces but finds an excuse to stick the boot into Doctor Who (which according to the author has been ruined under Moffat because of Tennand and Smiths acting...ho hum).”
Well, who knows with the media - they're odd. But I think the fans on here who are slating the current series are, like me, just disappointed that one of the great shows has gone downhill, apparently. (Though we won't know for sure until we see the next episode).
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“Well, who knows with the media - they're odd. But I think the fans on here who are slating the current series are, like me, just disappointed that one of the great shows has gone downhill, apparently. (Though we won't know for sure until we see the next episode).”
“Well, who knows with the media - they're odd. But I think the fans on here who are slating the current series are, like me, just disappointed that one of the great shows has gone downhill, apparently. (Though we won't know for sure until we see the next episode).”
No I accept that. But I just don't think its that bad. It has changed I'll admit. Its just funny that the reaction seems so extreme in some quarters (not you I hasten to add).
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“But isn't it a bit hit and miss? they might wander round for ages, but surely they might also collapse to the ground screaming and bleeding profusely.
It seems a bit uncertain for a premeditated murder.
”
“But isn't it a bit hit and miss? they might wander round for ages, but surely they might also collapse to the ground screaming and bleeding profusely.
It seems a bit uncertain for a premeditated murder.
”
I agree, but no more flaky than a lot of Agatha Christie murders.
Ok, i've been reading some posts about this stabbing plotline. Granted, I was doing something else while this was happening, but I thought he knew he had been stabbed, but was so commited to the whole stoic Royal Guard job, that he just didn't move when it happened. Am I giving Royal Guards too much credit here? lol.
Originally Posted by rammie96:
“Whether you liked the episode or not I don't think anyone can deny that the show has changed significantly in this third series - comedy and characters have become more important than plot or detective work.
Not sure why that shift has been made, and I doubt it will affect the ratings at all but it's bound to annoy those who think that the show is now less "clever", and the humour less subtle and a bit too broad.”
“Whether you liked the episode or not I don't think anyone can deny that the show has changed significantly in this third series - comedy and characters have become more important than plot or detective work.
Not sure why that shift has been made, and I doubt it will affect the ratings at all but it's bound to annoy those who think that the show is now less "clever", and the humour less subtle and a bit too broad.”
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“In my opinion, the writers have allowed themselves to get caught up in the overtly-quirky, zaniness and have indulged themselves too much.
God I miss how tight the show was when it started out...it seems to have lost its focus now. Still some entertaining stuff here and there, but I'm a little bit sad at the way the show's developed if I'm being honest.”
“In my opinion, the writers have allowed themselves to get caught up in the overtly-quirky, zaniness and have indulged themselves too much.
God I miss how tight the show was when it started out...it seems to have lost its focus now. Still some entertaining stuff here and there, but I'm a little bit sad at the way the show's developed if I'm being honest.”
Originally Posted by sn_22:
“I hope so too. The plotting weirdness certainly would be vindicated if it was all wrapped together with the big bad next week.
However, I think they've lost grip on the tone of the show slightly. And that can't really be excused by a better third episode. I could bear with the nods and winks to the fandom last week, considering the resolution of such a talked about cliffhanger. But it did feel tonight like they were going out of their way to create scenes that serve as better GIFs than they do as TV.
I don't want to come down too hard on it - I'm not a robot, and like some displays of emotion from Sherlock (I loved the deduction of Mary's pregnancy and Sherlocks early exit, for instance), but I can't shake the sense it's become too self-reverential and a tiny bit smug. Which rather sapped the tension and drama out of what could have been a good murder mystery.”
“I hope so too. The plotting weirdness certainly would be vindicated if it was all wrapped together with the big bad next week.
However, I think they've lost grip on the tone of the show slightly. And that can't really be excused by a better third episode. I could bear with the nods and winks to the fandom last week, considering the resolution of such a talked about cliffhanger. But it did feel tonight like they were going out of their way to create scenes that serve as better GIFs than they do as TV.
I don't want to come down too hard on it - I'm not a robot, and like some displays of emotion from Sherlock (I loved the deduction of Mary's pregnancy and Sherlocks early exit, for instance), but I can't shake the sense it's become too self-reverential and a tiny bit smug. Which rather sapped the tension and drama out of what could have been a good murder mystery.”
Originally Posted by glyn9799:
“I loved the episode on the whole but when you realise it's episode 2 of just 3 I can't help thinking that not enough happened and they are wasting time! We only have 1 left...”
“I loved the episode on the whole but when you realise it's episode 2 of just 3 I can't help thinking that not enough happened and they are wasting time! We only have 1 left...”
Originally Posted by Eira:
“The stag night bit and drunk John and Sherlock was one of the funniest things I've watched in a while. I thought Benedict Cumberbatch played totally smashed brilliantly. I loved that bit.
However, I'm not that impressed by the rest.
I can't tell if the frantic Doctor Who like Sherlock (who seems to be unspooling - he was all over the place more than usual during that speech and when deducing the guests)is just the writers turning him into Doctor Who or whether it's supposed to be Sherlock actually unspooling and heading towards a breakdown or something - he's slower at solving things than he was before The Reichenbach Fall, his character has changed and he's noticeably lonley.
I enjoyed it as entertainment - but it's nothing on the previous series'. And considering we only get three episodes I feel too much is being wasted on fluffy stuff.”
“The stag night bit and drunk John and Sherlock was one of the funniest things I've watched in a while. I thought Benedict Cumberbatch played totally smashed brilliantly. I loved that bit.
However, I'm not that impressed by the rest.
I can't tell if the frantic Doctor Who like Sherlock (who seems to be unspooling - he was all over the place more than usual during that speech and when deducing the guests)is just the writers turning him into Doctor Who or whether it's supposed to be Sherlock actually unspooling and heading towards a breakdown or something - he's slower at solving things than he was before The Reichenbach Fall, his character has changed and he's noticeably lonley.
I enjoyed it as entertainment - but it's nothing on the previous series'. And considering we only get three episodes I feel too much is being wasted on fluffy stuff.”
Originally Posted by jiminyjillicker:
“It's satisfying as a fan to re-watch episodes and with hindsight be able to look for and spot hidden 'clues' and elements of foreshadowing but the fact that there are clues to the mystery of an as yet unknown episode cannot justify such weak and wishy-washy offerings as series 3 has served so far. Despite all the hype episode 1 never delivered a concrete resolution to how Sherlock actually faked his death (which after 2 years of waiting for the writers to go "oh he could've done it several ways" feels like a real cop out) and although there was a crime to solve it was quite jumbled and in the end was sorted by a bomb having an off switch (lazy). Episode two felt equally as confused narrative wise with much jumping about and again although the threads were tied at the end it was weak overall when compared to series 1 and 2 which have clear,stand alone episodes which all contain character, comedy AND crime. I am a real fan but very disappointed with series 3 so far. I can only hope that the finale somehow makes up for eps 1 and 2 but even so the feel of the show has changed immensely and I won't be rushing to buy the dvd.”
“It's satisfying as a fan to re-watch episodes and with hindsight be able to look for and spot hidden 'clues' and elements of foreshadowing but the fact that there are clues to the mystery of an as yet unknown episode cannot justify such weak and wishy-washy offerings as series 3 has served so far. Despite all the hype episode 1 never delivered a concrete resolution to how Sherlock actually faked his death (which after 2 years of waiting for the writers to go "oh he could've done it several ways" feels like a real cop out) and although there was a crime to solve it was quite jumbled and in the end was sorted by a bomb having an off switch (lazy). Episode two felt equally as confused narrative wise with much jumping about and again although the threads were tied at the end it was weak overall when compared to series 1 and 2 which have clear,stand alone episodes which all contain character, comedy AND crime. I am a real fan but very disappointed with series 3 so far. I can only hope that the finale somehow makes up for eps 1 and 2 but even so the feel of the show has changed immensely and I won't be rushing to buy the dvd.”
I've been reading through the thread and thought i'd just quote some of what has been posted already as they prettyt much cover my views.
The two episodes this series have taken a massive shift imo and it doesn't seem like the same show we saw in the first two series.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“Has there never been a soap wedding that has reached the reception stage before the dramatic interruption has occurred, then?
I don't know - I dislike soaps. And I like even less decent detective stories that descend into schmaltz.”
“Has there never been a soap wedding that has reached the reception stage before the dramatic interruption has occurred, then?
I don't know - I dislike soaps. And I like even less decent detective stories that descend into schmaltz.”
Generally if (big if) both parties actually turn up there's fireworks at the church
I would go back to my earlier point though- we have to consider what kind of show we are watching. You believe it is a detective show, I think it is a show about a detective
You may think displays of emotion are schmaltz- I believe it was an exploration of the relationship between Sherlock and Holmes
If this was a straight detective story, however smart or well executed I don't think it would be as interesting to me
I think some people watching think this show should be a different show to the one the writers are choosing to
write- if you want a procedural detective story- this isn't it- they aren't just going to rehash series 1 and 2- they aren't writing a detective story, I think they are writing a story about a detective
Originally Posted by nethwen:
“There is also no chemistry between John and Mary IMHO.”
“There is also no chemistry between John and Mary IMHO.”
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Really? You do realise they are long-term partners and have two children together?”
“Really? You do realise they are long-term partners and have two children together?”
I think you are mixing up actors and characters
Originally Posted by marsch_labb:
“Viewing figures: of course they're gonna be high after the ending of season 2, being curious doesn't mean you enjoy the result. The real test is gonna be the boxsets figures. Even then, you don't know if it's new fans for different reasons. Because the show is different.
Respect of the original work: be honest, how many of us would have guess it was Sherlock Holmes had it been described in the following way. He's a detective (at this point, there's hundreds of choices). He's the sort of guy who goes on stagnites and gets drunk to the point of being arrested. He's a practical joker, like when he and his friend/assistant were diffusing a bomb. He would not tell his scared to death friend that it was already done just for a joke! How many would have said Sherlock Holmes with that description?
I still enjoy it but not for the same reasons as the first two series.
Don't have a problem with Moffat's Who (ups and downs but overall good). But Who is fantasy and he regenerates, so you have a lot of freedom.
Sherlock Holmes is also fiction but not fantasy. If you change almost everything about a character exept it's name, what's the point. If Moffat doesn't like the original, why not do a different series with his ideas, wich are good. It's just not Sherlock Holmes anymore. Had last night episode been the first of a new series called Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, i would have accused Moffat of surfing on someone else's genius. If, let's say, you enjoy super-heroes, you buy a comic with the name Spider-man on the cover and when you read it, it's about Dora the explorer, you would feel cheated.
I said if this had been the first episode of a new series. Moffat did such a brilliant job with the first two series, that i'm still hooked.
And i'm still going to try to find clues and loose ends to speculate; see my next post.”
“Viewing figures: of course they're gonna be high after the ending of season 2, being curious doesn't mean you enjoy the result. The real test is gonna be the boxsets figures. Even then, you don't know if it's new fans for different reasons. Because the show is different.
Respect of the original work: be honest, how many of us would have guess it was Sherlock Holmes had it been described in the following way. He's a detective (at this point, there's hundreds of choices). He's the sort of guy who goes on stagnites and gets drunk to the point of being arrested. He's a practical joker, like when he and his friend/assistant were diffusing a bomb. He would not tell his scared to death friend that it was already done just for a joke! How many would have said Sherlock Holmes with that description?
I still enjoy it but not for the same reasons as the first two series.
Don't have a problem with Moffat's Who (ups and downs but overall good). But Who is fantasy and he regenerates, so you have a lot of freedom.
Sherlock Holmes is also fiction but not fantasy. If you change almost everything about a character exept it's name, what's the point. If Moffat doesn't like the original, why not do a different series with his ideas, wich are good. It's just not Sherlock Holmes anymore. Had last night episode been the first of a new series called Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, i would have accused Moffat of surfing on someone else's genius. If, let's say, you enjoy super-heroes, you buy a comic with the name Spider-man on the cover and when you read it, it's about Dora the explorer, you would feel cheated.
I said if this had been the first episode of a new series. Moffat did such a brilliant job with the first two series, that i'm still hooked.
And i'm still going to try to find clues and loose ends to speculate; see my next post.”
In the case of the bomb, the "joke" was on us. He wasn't playing a joke on Watson - he was putting Watson under pressure to forgive him for pretending to be dead.
Originally Posted by aggs:
“What difference does it make? Or are you asking if you can only enjoy this series if you haven't read the books or seen other adaptations?
If it makes any difference, I've read the books, watched Rathbone and Brett and enjoy Elementary (and House). If I want the pure story and to exercise my imagination, I'll read the books. If I want to see a moving book, I'll watch Brett. If I want to watch a Sherlock-that-isn't-Sherlock I'll watch this.
[snip].”
“What difference does it make? Or are you asking if you can only enjoy this series if you haven't read the books or seen other adaptations?
If it makes any difference, I've read the books, watched Rathbone and Brett and enjoy Elementary (and House). If I want the pure story and to exercise my imagination, I'll read the books. If I want to see a moving book, I'll watch Brett. If I want to watch a Sherlock-that-isn't-Sherlock I'll watch this.
[snip].”
It doesn't make a difference.
I just wanted to know whether there were people who liked the original Sherlock Holmes who also liked this one. Because they are two completely different animals are they not?
For example, does it bother you at all that this Sherlock (only series 3 so far) couldn't deduce his way out of a paper bag and it was, in fact Gruesome Child who solved the mystery by standing up and telling Sherlock who the killer was?
Originally Posted by saladfingers81:
“No I accept that. But I just don't think its that bad. It has changed I'll admit. Its just funny that the reaction seems so extreme in some quarters (not you I hasten to add).”
“No I accept that. But I just don't think its that bad. It has changed I'll admit. Its just funny that the reaction seems so extreme in some quarters (not you I hasten to add).”
It would actually be good as a different sort of show. The Likely Lads of 2014 or something (without any of the detection elements, naturally).
It was funny and touching. The bit where the wedding guests were in tears had me in tears also.
But it's just not Sherlock, and it's Sherlock I've waited 2 years to see again, not some buddy movie. (Even if it has got Martin in it).
And it's full of padding!
Originally Posted by Fayecorgasm:
“http://www.wikihow.com/Attend-to-a-Stab-Wound
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you...torso?#slide=1 if nothing else at least we will all know how to attend to a stab wound after this episode”
“http://www.wikihow.com/Attend-to-a-Stab-Wound
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you...torso?#slide=1 if nothing else at least we will all know how to attend to a stab wound after this episode”
Yes, apply pressure...by covering the wound!!!
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“It would actually be good as a different sort of show. The Likely Lads of 2014 or something (without any of the detection elements, naturally).
It was funny and touching. The bit where the wedding guests were in tears had me in tears also.
But it's just not Sherlock, and it's Sherlock I've waited 2 years to see again, not some buddy movie. (Even if it has got Martin in it).
And it's full of padding!”
“It would actually be good as a different sort of show. The Likely Lads of 2014 or something (without any of the detection elements, naturally).
It was funny and touching. The bit where the wedding guests were in tears had me in tears also.
But it's just not Sherlock, and it's Sherlock I've waited 2 years to see again, not some buddy movie. (Even if it has got Martin in it).
And it's full of padding!”
I think part of the problem is the obviously limited number of episodes and the sequencing of this one right after last weeks. Because of the lengthy reunions needed last week there was alot of character stuff and a sidelined mystery element. That was again the case last night. I feel if last nights episode had been something of a one off or been spotted between two more detective led adventures it would have played better as a quirky episode. Instead it seems to have marked a shift in the direction of the program. I get the impression next weeks may well revert to a more s2 type of episode. Who knows.
I do think Cumberbatch has been showboating a bit in the last two episodes. He seems very self aware and alot bigger in the role. Less subtle. As I said there was an almost Alan Partridge moment in last nights episode. I love it! But I can see how it grates for some and suddenly seeing the character change quite abruptly.
Originally Posted by planets:
“it depends on how fine the wound was and where....there are places (the belly button is best) where you can operate and not even need a stitch (laproscopic surgery) in the footage it looked like the photographer guy was stabbing around the kidney area....when watson examined Benbridge(?) in the shower he said there was a "very fine puncture"...i've had various drains, about a quarter of an inch wide, in my abdomen and when they are removed there are no stitches just a bandaid! not so sure about the back though....”
“it depends on how fine the wound was and where....there are places (the belly button is best) where you can operate and not even need a stitch (laproscopic surgery) in the footage it looked like the photographer guy was stabbing around the kidney area....when watson examined Benbridge(?) in the shower he said there was a "very fine puncture"...i've had various drains, about a quarter of an inch wide, in my abdomen and when they are removed there are no stitches just a bandaid! not so sure about the back though....”
That's what I was wondering. If the victim died due to an injury inflicted on them by piercing a major organ, keeping the belt on wouldn't prevent them from dying. The belt would make no difference.
Or was the victim supposed to die from blood loss? Even if the belt somehow held all the blood in what about internal bleeding?
All this talk about the stab wounds reminds me of something I read ages ago. A guy was shot in the head and the bullet destroyed some of his brain and brain matter was blown out. Despite this, evidently he survived for a while and managed to walk about and sit down on a bench holding his head in his hands before he died. The human body is an amazing thing, so I wasn't surprised about the Guardsmans belt.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“But isn't it a bit hit and miss? they might wander round for ages, but surely they might also collapse to the ground screaming and bleeding profusely.
It seems a bit uncertain for a premeditated murder.”
“But isn't it a bit hit and miss? they might wander round for ages, but surely they might also collapse to the ground screaming and bleeding profusely.
It seems a bit uncertain for a premeditated murder.
”
It's the suddenly dying as soon as you take your belt off that sounds very far-fetched to me.
Did they say if the murderer was trying to pierce something in particular or if it was just a general stab in the hope that the victim bleeds to death?
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“That's what I was wondering. If the victim died due to an injury inflicted on them by piercing a major organ, keeping the belt on wouldn't prevent them from dying. The belt would make no difference.
Or was the victim supposed to die from blood loss? Even if the belt somehow held all the blood in what about internal bleeding?”
“That's what I was wondering. If the victim died due to an injury inflicted on them by piercing a major organ, keeping the belt on wouldn't prevent them from dying. The belt would make no difference.
Or was the victim supposed to die from blood loss? Even if the belt somehow held all the blood in what about internal bleeding?”
that's where it was all a bit iffy for me, if it was supposed to be blood loss then where was the trail of blood from the lockers to the shower? there wasn't that much blood in the shower (a tiny bit of blood looks like loads in water)....so not blood loss then?
it it was puncturing a kidney i don't know what use a belt would be....a quick google led me to:
"As a medical examiner I see, try to interpret, and try to explain the effects of wounds quite a lot. If you're asking would a person likely literally drop dead from a single wound, I'd say, excluding a single severe wound to the head or heart (including the aorta right when it leaves the heart), probably not. As far as "dropping dead" goes, the way I try to explain it is to think of your ABCs of basic life support in reverse. To maintain life, you try to keep the airway, breathing and circulation functioning at a basic level. Conversely, for life to end, one of those basic systems has to fail. For someone to "drop dead", one of those basic systems has to fail completely and more or less instantaneously. There's really not much that can do that. A kinfe-belly wound, as mentioned in the OP, and for that matter a gunshot to the abdo or even chest (with the above caveats) would not. You'd be more likely to linger like the guy in Reservoir Dogs. How long you'd linger would depend mainly on what damage was done and your baseline state of health.
Other things I can say is, I've seen cases of people stabbed over a hundred times, all over their body, including damaging major blood vessels. There's clear evidence, sometimes witness accounts, of them engaging in a lot of activity, so clearly they did not die or become incapacitated from one wound. I've also seen a few cases where someone was shot through the abdomen severing their aorta, and still managed to run a little ways"
so i guess it depends on how accurate the photographer was with his stabby skills
The rubbishing of Sherlock in the press is pure click-bait. Build a programme initially then look for things to criticize it for later. That way they get people either defending the show or having digs because of the hype they caused. Ching-ching.
I liked the episode. A decent mystery and ingenious method. The stag night was funny and also showed how Sherlock feared the change.
I liked the episode. A decent mystery and ingenious method. The stag night was funny and also showed how Sherlock feared the change.
Originally Posted by Enfant Terrible:
“Being stabbed feels like being punched. You wouldn't know straight away, unless you saw the knife.”
“Being stabbed feels like being punched. You wouldn't know straight away, unless you saw the knife.”
Well that would make the crime implausible too then, because the soldiers would think that the photographer had just given them a sly punch.
Originally Posted by Granny McSmith:
“It would actually be good as a different sort of show. The Likely Lads of 2014 or something (without any of the detection elements, naturally).
It was funny and touching. The bit where the wedding guests were in tears had me in tears also.
But it's just not Sherlock, and it's Sherlock I've waited 2 years to see again, not some buddy movie. (Even if it has got Martin in it).
And it's full of padding!”
“It would actually be good as a different sort of show. The Likely Lads of 2014 or something (without any of the detection elements, naturally).
It was funny and touching. The bit where the wedding guests were in tears had me in tears also.
But it's just not Sherlock, and it's Sherlock I've waited 2 years to see again, not some buddy movie. (Even if it has got Martin in it).
And it's full of padding!”
I actually think the 2 year wait has been a big part of the problem.
This series has been so anticipated and so hyped that I think any programme or series would have struggled to live up to it.
Originally Posted by jcafcw:
“The rubbishing of Sherlock in the press is pure click-bait. Build a programme initially then look for things to criticize it for later. That way they get people either defending the show or having digs because of the hype they caused. Ching-ching.
I liked the episode. A decent mystery and ingenious method. The stag night was funny and also showed how Sherlock feared the change.”
“The rubbishing of Sherlock in the press is pure click-bait. Build a programme initially then look for things to criticize it for later. That way they get people either defending the show or having digs because of the hype they caused. Ching-ching.
I liked the episode. A decent mystery and ingenious method. The stag night was funny and also showed how Sherlock feared the change.”
Yep. A shame the papers have to follow the example of the online reactionary brigade.
So rather than Sherlock having had a couple of divisive episodes suddenly its 'is it all wrong and finished and jumping the shark!'. Its all so over the top.
Originally Posted by Jennell_Sierako:
“All this talk about the stab wounds reminds me of something I read ages ago. A guy was shot in the head and the bullet destroyed some of his brain and brain matter was blown out. Despite this, evidently he survived for a while and managed to walk about and sit down on a bench holding his head in his hands before he died. The human body is an amazing thing, so I wasn't surprised about the Guardsmans belt.”
“All this talk about the stab wounds reminds me of something I read ages ago. A guy was shot in the head and the bullet destroyed some of his brain and brain matter was blown out. Despite this, evidently he survived for a while and managed to walk about and sit down on a bench holding his head in his hands before he died. The human body is an amazing thing, so I wasn't surprised about the Guardsmans belt.”
famously Robert Lawrence was shot in the head by a sniper losing 43% of his brain, he survived.
his book When the Fighting Is Over: A Personal Story of the Battle for Tumbledown Mountain and Its Aftermath details this and his long recovery.
115 of 127
