DS Forums

 
 

Sherlock - BBC Drama (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-01-2014, 18:47
TRIPS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,584
That's exactly the problem I have with it. Why on earth does Sherlock have to jump at all if Mycroft has the men and resources to cover every potential sniping point (including those vantage points with a view of the airbag) and thus has already prevented Watson getting shot?

Is it because Sherlock thought he might have to also fool Moriarty because he didn't know that Moriarty would kill himself? But that doesn't work either because what would have stopped Moriarty from seeing the airbag if he had remained alive?

If the over-arching requirement was simply for Holmes to be believed dead (so that he could destroy Moriarty's network) there were a load of other ways to achieve it.

Sorry if it's been covered before it is bugging me...
No it's a good point, no argument with the logic either.
Sherlock cant be sure if all the hit men have been covered though, Mycroft cant inform him of this as he is unaware of Moriarties suicide and is concerned what Moriarties reaction would be to this news.
TRIPS is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-01-2014, 18:54
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
That's exactly the problem I have with it. Why on earth does Sherlock have to jump at all if Mycroft has the men and resources to cover every potential sniping point (including those vantage points with a view of the airbag) and thus has already prevented Watson getting shot?

Is it because Sherlock thought he might have to also fool Moriarty because he didn't know that Moriarty would kill himself? But that doesn't work either because what would have stopped Moriarty from seeing the airbag if he had remained alive?

If the over-arching requirement was simply for Holmes to be believed dead (so that he could destroy Moriarty's network) there were a load of other ways to achieve it.

Sorry if it's been covered before but it is bugging me...
yeah , all that bugs me too .

it seems the only person that needed to be fooled was Watson , but I can't really see why .


.
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:02
Trsvis_Bickle
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,940
yeah , all that bugs me too .

it seems the only person that needed to be fooled was Watson , but I can't really see why .


.
Well, quite.

Especially as the list of people who knew that Holmes wasn't really dead included at least one of Moriarty's snipers, Molly, Sherlock's parents, Mycroft, Mycroft's agents, the homeless bods, the homeless bods' tennis partners, their friends and some chap I bumped into in the mess called Bernard.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:05
eggshell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,766
yeah , all that bugs me too .
eems the only person that needed to be fooled was Watson , but I can't really see why .


.
The additional problem is that, if this is the real Moriarty back, then it sort of questions the whole roof scenario since Holmes jumped after Moriarties death which now didn't happen.

I just get an uneasy feeling with a lot of Moffatts writing that a lot of his twists and turns totally invalidate what's gone before.
eggshell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:06
Cheetah666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,591
I've just watched that BBC4 doc about Sherlock Holmes, and it strikes me that the ending with Moriarty all over every televeision station is reminiscent of the Voice of Terror in the Basil Rathbone film. I've never seen the film though, so I don't know what that may mean in the greater scheme of things.
Cheetah666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:09
Yvie123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 923
Don't forget that Sherlock never actually told John why he was the only one close to him who wasn't told he was alive?
Maybe it's actually John being protected from something that we don't know about yet?
A bit far fetched I suppose, but the lack of explanation to John as to the why rather than the how, has bugged me slightly, and I wonder if there's more to come on that.
Yvie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:13
Trsvis_Bickle
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,940
The additional problem is that, if this is the real Moriarty back, then it sort of questions the whole roof scenario since Holmes jumped after Moriarties death which now didn't happen.

I just get an uneasy feeling with a lot of Moffatts writing that a lot of his twists and turns totally invalidate what's gone before.
That's why I think there's not been the speculation about what really happened on the roof on here this time around. Folk think that either Moriarty or his brother killed himself on the roof (he clearly ate that gun) and that either him or his brother is now back. I don't think they give a toss either way.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:16
Trsvis_Bickle
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,940
Don't forget that Sherlock never actually told John why he was the only one close to him who wasn't told he was alive?
Maybe it's actually John being protected from something that we don't know about yet?
A bit far fetched I suppose, but the lack of explanation to John as to the why rather than the how, has bugged me slightly, and I wonder if there's more to come on that.
I would like to think so but with an estimated two years to wait to find out, surely the writers would be taking the piss by doing that? Casual viewers of series 4 would be baffled as to why something broadcast years ago was being referred to and even fanboys have their limits.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:18
Yvie123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 923
I would like to think so but with an estimated two years to wait to find out, surely the writers would be taking the piss by doing that? Casual viewers of series 4 would be baffled as to why something broadcast years ago was being referred to and even fanboys have their limits.
Ah yes ... Point taken!
Yvie123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:31
niceguy1966
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,479
I would like to think so but with an estimated two years to wait to find out, surely the writers would be taking the piss by doing that? Casual viewers of series 4 would be baffled as to why something broadcast years ago was being referred to and even fanboys have their limits.
I think we just have to accept Moffitt wrote an excellent cliff hanger and a not so good explanation. I'll add a "in my opinion" just to be safe, but Moffitt does like to include words and phrases in scripts to get the viewer thinking, but thinking then reveals issues with the plot. He'd be better off just keeping it simple so people don't think too much.
niceguy1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:33
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
I would like to think so but with an estimated two years to wait to find out, surely the writers would be taking the piss by doing that? Casual viewers of series 4 would be baffled as to why something broadcast years ago was being referred to and even fanboys have their limits.
Moffat does like to do this tho , DW is full of plotlines that went on and on (are still going on ) because the twists go round and round and just seem to disappear up its own arse after a while
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:41
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,752
I understand where you're coming from here -and to make this problem a bit easier to swallow, Magnusson said that he 'sometimes has to send for something', and, of course indicated he could find people, witnesses if he wanted.

I'm able to stretch it enough to accept it. Once something is printed and people are found, it all comes out anyway quite often.
Fair point. If in the episode it was alluded to that he actually does have access to hard copies from various sources which aren't necessarily stored in one place then I can accept that.
Alrightmate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:48
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
so the "East Wind " stuff is a reference to the Rathbone movies which was refering to the Nazis , is that right ? or is it mentioned in the Doyle books too ?
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:50
Cheetah666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,591
so the "East Wind " stuff is a reference to the Rathbone movies which was refering to the Nazis , is that right ? or is it mentioned in the Doyle books too ?
Its mentioned in the Doyle books too, but its a reference to the First World War in the book. The Rathbone era updated it to WW2, and god only knows what its a reference to now. Especally with Moriarty now playing Lord Haw Haw.
Cheetah666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:57
NathanBarley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 163
Not true. There was well over a seasons worth of set up and planning that went into the season four finale of Breaking Bad (which is what made it such a satisfying piece of television). To say that the plan to kill Gus all boiled down to one episode is beyond simplistic
It's not that the plan to kill Gus boiled down to one episode - obviously Walt wanted to kill him from Ep 1 - my point was that he only concocted that particular plan in that episode, or possibly the penultimate one. Before that he was trying to blow up Fring's car.

That he was trying to kill him in earlier episodes is irrelevant to my point, which was that it is possible to come up with a plot where the 'hero' uses brute force/violence to kill a very smart villain, but still do it in a clever way that involves psychology, cunning, technology etc. Rather than just pulling out a weapon that he shouldn't logically have had access to.

"That it was Sherlock's last desperate move."

It was Walt's last desperate move too.
NathanBarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 19:59
Milton Jones
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,653
If Mary had only befriended John because she needed sherlock's help to destroy magnusson. Then how would she know that Sherlock was alive all along? seeing as she only befriended John almost a year after Shelock had been confirmed dead.

And seeing as she was capable and seconds away from shooting Magnusson, I don't see what is the point of even getting into contact with John or needing Sherlock in the first place. If anything he made things worse by saving Magnusson's life and getting in the way.
Milton Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:02
Cheetah666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,591
If Mary had only befriended John because she needed sherlock's help to destroy magnusson. Then how would she know that Sherlock was alive all along? seeing as she only befriended John almost a year after Shelock had been confirmed dead.
Mary met and married John for the usual reasons women meet and marry men, nothing to do with Magnusson or Sherlock. Don't know where you got that from.
Cheetah666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:11
fiveinabed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 498
yeah , all that bugs me too .

it seems the only person that needed to be fooled was Watson , but I can't really see why .


.
Because Watson shows his feelings very transparently. If he'd known SH was still alive, he'd have given himself away (to the enemies) by his lack of grief. The only way to fool other people was for Watson to be broken in half by Sherlock's death.
fiveinabed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:13
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,752
Actually there is a dearth of peeing scenes by powerful villains in the history of drama. It really is more associated with a certain working class behaviour than anything else.

And I throw the gauntlet down to anyone wishing to explain why Sherlock (or anyone) should not have shot Magnusson dead after the reveal.
Well for one thing Sherlock in the episode states that he's a sociopath, but the difference is that he uses his abilities to solve crimes and not kill people.

So when Sherlock shoots Magnussen in the head, although some may see that as 'winning', it could also be seen as Sherlock conceding defeat to have to resort to that at all.
He should see that as a defeat too because he prides himself to be more clever than anybody else and every case is an intellectual challenge to him.
It somehow doesn't seem to fit with his own code presented in the series. He would be too arrogant to accept being bettered by a mind that outsmarted him.
Shoooting Magnussen in head stopped him. Fair enough. It solved the problem. But it was brute force and not due to Sherlock overcoming Magnussen intellectually. Which seems wrong considering how the character of Sherlock has been presented to us up until this point.
Alrightmate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:14
maycontainnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: the north
Posts: 1,391
the only thing that has puzzled me is why would the worlds greatest criminal brain kill himself just to get one up on Holmes?.. surely Moriarty would want to revel in the demise of Sherlock.so my take on this is that he must have somehow faked his death as well
(apologies if this has been discussed before.. it's a very long thread)
maycontainnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:18
marsch_labb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 513
so the "East Wind " stuff is a reference to the Rathbone movies which was refering to the Nazis , is that right ? or is it mentioned in the Doyle books too ?
It's from the short story 'His last bow' which Moffat said it was onr of the stories he based HLV on. But apart from that line and the modified title, nothing else comes from it. The original shows Holmes disguising himself to catch a German spy in England.

That's another point about the whole Sherlock series; he doesn't disguises himself enough to my liking
marsch_labb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:19
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
the only thing that has puzzled me is why would the worlds greatest criminal brain kill himself just to get one up on Holmes?.. surely Moriarty would want to revel in the demise of Sherlock.so my take on this is that he must have somehow faked his death as well
(apologies if this has been discussed before.. it's a very long thread)
I think at this point Moriarty and Holmes faked both their deaths , and Magnusson's , oh and Irene's too .

is anyone actually dead ?
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:25
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
Well for one thing Sherlock in the episode states that he's a sociopath, but the difference is that he uses his abilities to solve crimes and not kill people.

So when Sherlock shoots Magnussen in the head, although some may see that as 'winning', it could also be seen as Sherlock conceding defeat to have to resort to that at all.
He should see that as a defeat too because he prides himself to be more clever than anybody else and every case is an intellectual challenge to him.
It somehow doesn't seem to fit with his own code presented in the series. He would be too arrogant to accept being bettered by a mind that outsmarted him.
Shoooting Magnussen in head stopped him. Fair enough. It solved the problem. But it was brute force and not due to Sherlock overcoming Magnussen intellectually. Which seems wrong considering how the character of Sherlock has been presented to us up until this point.
I thought after the shift in Sherlock's character in the first two episodes this one would be back to how the first two series were. And it was a good episode. Sherlock was selfish and arrogant and we used to know him.

It was all looking good until that scene. I completely agree that it was arguably even more out of character than some of the things he did in the first two episodes to basically give up and kill CAM in that fashion.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:25
NathanBarley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 163
I think at this point Moriarty and Holmes faked both their deaths , and Magnusson's , oh and Irene's too .

is anyone actually dead ?
The show's credibility?
NathanBarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-01-2014, 20:26
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
Because Watson shows his feelings very transparently. If he'd known SH was still alive, he'd have given himself away (to the enemies) by his lack of grief. The only way to fool other people was for Watson to be broken in half by Sherlock's death.
If it was a matter of life and death then i'm sue he could have faked grief.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42.