|
||||||||
Sherlock - New BBC Drama (Part 2) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1501 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 421
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1502 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,131
|
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?) |
|
|
|
|
#1503 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
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?) |
|
|
|
|
#1504 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,854
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#1505 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,766
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
#1506 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 403
|
Quote:
"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! |
|
|
|
|
#1507 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
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.
![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
#1508 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 942
|
Well, that was pretty daft for several reasons:
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. |
|
|
|
|
#1509 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
That conversation was all in Anderson's mind. Surely as it was shown that Sherlock was not there at all
Edit: Of course, though, by doing it in the middle of the bomb scene, it just (successfully) adds to the confusion of the viewer. |
|
|
|
|
#1510 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2,970
|
Quote:
i refuse to watch this show now, people should boycott it. Nearly as frustrating as Lost!
|
|
|
|
|
#1511 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Quote:
i refuse to watch this show now, people should boycott it. The writer is stuck up this own *** and becoming American. Nearly as frustrating as Lost!
|
|
|
|
|
#1512 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,424
|
Well, in the nick of time, just as I had given up with feeding on the corpse of regurgitated sitcoms and undernourished Christmas 'Specials', along comes Sherlock to breathe a little badly needed originality into the Xmas/New Year TV schedules.
The whole thing rattled along, so watchable, and I loved the multi-version approach to the 'how did he do it?' aspect. The cast really love making the show and it really shines through in the performances. Reading through the thread, I can only laugh and shake my head at how literally some people will take a fictional television show!
|
|
|
|
|
#1513 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,699
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#1514 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Also did the rail enthusiast explain how he knew that the villain was not on the train and not just out of view?
For someone so observant and clever Sherlock can miss some 'obvious' stuff sometimes. It took him ages to notice that a whole carriage was missing from the train. |
|
|
|
|
#1515 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 35
|
I don't think it matters that the bomb plot was a relatively small part because:
a) I don't think it's a self contained story. It came across as the start of something bigger b) I'd rather that took a back seat to the character stuff than vice versa. You can't please everyone and I suspect had the bomb plot been bigger and less space had been left for the reunions and character bits then other people would be complaining. I'm glad John didn't just get on with his life with Sherlock back. |
|
|
|
|
#1516 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,766
|
Quote:
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. Surely Sherlock would not be thinking anything meaningful other than getting his "I forgive you" from Watson. After all he knew no death was involved ass he knew about the off switch. I do believe we are being played with and no definitive explanation will be given. I for one don't care I am just glad he faked his own death and delighted to see him back
|
|
|
|
|
#1517 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
I agree that a good plot is very important, but equally Conan Doyle's characterisation - particularly in The Empty House - was sometimes a bit off. Holmes is gone for 3 years (in the books' timeline), comes back, Watson faints, everything's then as it was as if Holmes had never gone. Really?!? I thought this was handled much better.
I would expect the final two stories to be more plot-driven. Personally I think you have to look at this one as a one-off, to explore how Sherlock and John's relationship has changed over two years, rather than immediately pressing the reset button. The plot was thin & even then full of holes. My main annoyance is what exactly happened to all the normal tube traffic that would have been crashing into the car left under the Houses of Parliament? We were told on numerous occasions that there were no other lines, deviations or other nonsense for the original tube to go down yet this car has been abandoned on a main line for a week plus without anyone noticing. Even as Holmes & Watson walked to the car, Holmes says the lines are live and they'll be OK if they don't touch them. Unused lines would not be powered up. |
|
|
|
|
#1518 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 352
|
Just re-watching last night's episode again hoping for some of it to make a bit more sense as it moved at quite a pace.
My favourite reaction has got to be Lestrade's "ooh you bastard" then a big hug |
|
|
|
|
#1519 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,859
|
Quote:
Well, that was pretty daft for several reasons:
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. (A mixture of my and a friend's tube geekery)
|
|
|
|
|
#1520 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 126
|
Rule Number 1: Gatiss & Moffat LIE!
They do this to protect 'spoilers' leaking online and ruining any plot twist which they may have coming up in furture episodes. When they kept telling us before this episode, "find out how he did it", "we will explain everything", it is quite blatanty a way to steer us into believing the 3rd explaination given to Anderson, was actually the correct one, but also - building up hype (which worked if the ratings of 11 Million as correct). But a magician should never reveal his trick - not fully anyway - which is their big fat (but genius) lie. However, if i know Moffat and co, and i think i know their writing pretty well by now, this is all building up to something much bigger, with the guys saying that Magnussen will be invloved with the show for a longer time than Mortiarty (i am saying this even although i know they lie - hmm) i CANNOT wait to see how it all turns out. Having said that, i hope they dont wait until the last 5 minutes of the last episode this series to introduce Magnussen like they did his predecessor. Never do the same trick twice.
|
|
|
|
#1521 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
Well, that was pretty daft for several reasons:
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. That niggle aside, I thought it was very entertaining. Not great when considered overall, but had little gems throughout; Mrs Hudson, his parents, and every scene with Mycroft. Their 'duelling logic' was great and M's line about gving S Interpol if he took his place at Les Mis was fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
#1522 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: katmandoodieland
Posts: 50,732
|
Quote:
Well, in the nick of time, just as I had given up with feeding on the corpse of regurgitated sitcoms and undernourished Christmas 'Specials', along comes Sherlock to breathe a little badly needed originality into the Xmas/New Year TV schedules.
The whole thing rattled along, so watchable, and I loved the multi-version approach to the 'how did he do it?' aspect. The cast really love making the show and it really shines through in the performances. Reading through the thread, I can only laugh and shake my head at how literally some people will take a fictional television show! ![]() sums up my thoughts exactly |
|
|
|
|
#1523 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
They were 'fan' theories and so didn't necessarily need to 'work'. Not everyone will have known that Moriarty's henchmen needed to think he was dead. Anderson's theory tried to get round it with Mycroft essentially talking them out of it!
|
|
|
|
|
#1524 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,249
|
The only thing I liked was seeing Dr Watson with a moustache because that's how he appeared in the original stories......but then, unbelievably, he shaved it off!
|
|
|
|
|
#1525 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 325
|
Quote:
"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! |
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23.





