|
||||||||
Sherlock - BBC Drama (Part 3) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1676 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,591
|
Agreed. Either they've made a continuity error, or John Watson isn't very good at fooling his wife.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1677 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Not sure I'd agree with that. If someone gives you something that you intend to duplicate, then supposedly destroy in front of them, wouldn't you want to make your copy as identical to the original as you could, lest they want to see it again for some reason, or you drop it on the floor or something? Why take the risk of doing a sloppy job and have the original owner twig it's not the original item?
If she wants to see it again, or be there when you destroy it, as she was, then what better than to actually give her the original, then there is no risk of her realising it is a copy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1678 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
No, just the opposite. You would create a copy that didn't look anything like the original, and call it something completely different, and password protect it. There would be nothing about it that would in any way tie it in with the original. The last thing you would do would be to create anything that could look anything like the original, as there is always a risk that Mary might realise there are two similar memory sticks.
If she wants to see it again, or be there when you destroy it, as she was, then what better than to actually give her the original, then there is no risk of her realising it is a copy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1679 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Agreed. Either they've made a continuity error, or John Watson isn't very good at fooling his wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1680 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
|
Quote:
I think that any differences are accidental. I don't think they are relevant to the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1681 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
I completely agree, but in a thread where people are scrutinising and theorising over the tiniest detail, it's more fun to assume everything's done for a reason !
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1682 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 2,605
|
Quote:
Again this is explained in the episode itself.
From the perspective of Moriarty (and thus his network) the whole purpose of that meeting on the rooftop is the death of Sherlock Holmes. If Sherlock leaves that roof alive then Moriarty's network immediately swings into action placing those closest to him in danger. Sherlock has to jump at that point because its the only way to guarantee the safety of those closest to him. That was the whole point of this set up by Moriarty to leave Sherlock with no choice but to die in that moment. This is why Moriarty kills himself on the roof because if he's still alive then Sherlock always has a way to make it off the roof alive. Its not Sherlock's choice to jump at that moment its what the situation demands. The problem comes when Moriarty's snipers discover that Holmes is not dead. Which means that all the immediate snipers must been neutralised (difficult to know) or Sherlock's fall (which I do not believe we have been told the full story - yet)is out of sight of all of them (unlikely but possible). Then we have Sherlock dismantling Moriarty's network. At some point Moriarty must have relasied that Sherlock was behind it if he was alive. At which point he kills Watson because he can. Or................. ![]() ![]() ![]() Magnussen was part of Moriarty's network (or a convienient stooge). Moriarty was lying low after Sherlock's "death" as his main aims were self preservation and killing Sherlock. A rogue Sherlock "off the grid" supported by Mycroft is a difficult target and to be honest Watson is an irrelevance except in his hold on Sherlock. Threatening Watson's life is useless unless Holmes knows about it from Moriarty's point of view and Holmes is not contactable. Moriarty sets up Magnussen to discredit Holmes and only after Holmes has been exiled to certain death does Moriarty resurface. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1683 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 757
|
Loving Sherlock.
Here's the relevant quote about the "east wind" from the original Conan Doyle story,"an ill wind that blows nobody any good."(Henry 1V,Shakespeare).That wind of change was war of course. "Good old Watson! You are the one fixed point in a changing age. There's an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it's God's own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared. Sherlock Holmes in His Last Bow, (1917), "His Last Bow," p. 980. ........... This season is the "humanising" of Sherlock. Many see him as a legendary hero and there are references in episode 3 to him as a "dragon slayer" back to fight because "there be dragons here in England"....not where they usually are at the edge of the known world of medieval maps, but here in the heart centre of it all,at home where we should know better. Great use of mirrors and camera to obscure,especially in Magnussen's business headquarters which is like a maze of glass and mirrors, illusions.Its a dangerous world that appears light and open and harmless yet does significant harm. Biggest illusion of all is the business man status of Magnussen.We see him peeing in the fireplace of Sherlock's flat. Urinating or defacating is male territorial behaviour. He is just marking his territory like any other animal, and no-one stopped him so it proved his dominance. He did the same when he licked the face of the feisty Lady Smallwood,proving he has control.He might look like a business man but in reality he is just an animal. This is what middle/upper class criminals do all over the place but we rarely see it this way. Instead of literally peeing they call it "making money". Others call it "making shit",urban slang.It looks charming but it usually involves something dirty.No bloody murders here but lots of killing involving abuse, charm,blackmail and manipulation. Sherlock, the man of Reason, is learning about the human condition this season. It takes him away from his safe zone of the case files,which have been peripheral, and deep into the heart of the messy horrors of Love,Hate,Revenge,Loss. Last season the only solution for Moriarty to win was to shoot himself. This sent Sherlock over the roof into a "staged death" and exile,same difference. This season the only solution for Sherlock to win was to shoot Magnussen. This sent Sherlock back into exile. Exile becomes a sort of limbo where the hero goes before returning to work. The hero hiding dormant is part of a long tradition.We cant be heroic all the time,it comes and goes. Both seasons Sherlock acts to defend others,out of altruism despite his arrogant egoism and sociopathic nature. Both seasons there is no clever way out,no place for deductive Reason,Sherlock's god and methodology. So, ironically, both seasons the resolutions have been inconclusive, physical and messy.The resolution becomes his antithesis and the Reason Sherlock values the most eludes him, which is why he looks devastated.Sherlock succeeds but Reason fails.... ...and thats what it means to be human. (for Who fans,here: First photos of Capaldi.http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...es-in-pictures) |
|
|
|
|
|
#1684 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 498
|
You should have that printed on a t-shirt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1685 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,591
|
Good post, henry hope. (And I think I might have to start watching Doctor Who).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1686 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 372
|
Or it could just be that they threw the original prop into the fire to film it, the shot didn't work so they had to film it again with a duplicate prop as the original was fire damaged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1687 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,541
|
Quote:
In the original CAM story it was the blackmailed woman who shot CAM and Holmes let her off..far more satisfactory for me.
A food analogy: I like coq au vin. I suppress any thought of the chicken being strangled or beheaded (and certainly suspect I would not be able to do the act myself). Nonetheless, I am complicit because if I didn't buy the dead chicken, it wouldn't be killed. That's an uncomfortable thought so I distance myself from it because I still want to eat coq au vin. Moffat, Gatiss and co removed that distance from Sherlock in this story. It's uncomfortable but, for me, not unsatisfactory. As for Moffat, I like clever; the cleverer, the better. I don't believe anyone can be too clever and have never understood the validity of accusing someone of it. I'm happy for Moffat and Gatiss to think they are clever because they are and by so being, they entertain me enormously. There are so many hours of television that aren't clever, that are simple and straightforward and easy to follow. Sometimes that can be entertaining. More frequently, for me, it's not. I like beans on toast, sometimes, but given the choice, serve me the complex flavours of a good coq au vin. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1688 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 923
|
Quote:
Sherlock, the man of Reason, is learning about the human condition this season. It takes him away from his safe zone of the case files,which have been peripheral, and deep into the heart of the messy horrors of Love,Hate,Revenge,Loss. Last season the only solution for Moriarty to win was to shoot himself. This sent Sherlock over the roof into a "staged death" and exile,same difference. This season the only solution for Sherlock to win was to shoot Magnussen. This sent Sherlock back into exile. Exile becomes a sort of limbo where the hero goes before returning to work. The hero hiding dormant is part of a long tradition.We cant be heroic all the time,it comes and goes. Both seasons Sherlock acts to defend others,out of altruism despite his arrogant egoism and sociopathic nature. Both seasons there is no clever way out,no place for deductive Reason,Sherlock's god and methodology. So, ironically, both seasons the resolutions have been inconclusive, physical and messy.The resolution becomes his antithesis and the Reason Sherlock values the most eludes him, which is why he looks devastated.Sherlock succeeds but Reason fails.... ...and thats what it means to be human. (for Who fans,here: First photos of Capaldi.http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...es-in-pictures) I recently rewatched the first episode and Sherlock uses the same line "do your research ....I'm a ...sociopath" in that as he does just before he shoots CAM. During that first episode Lestrade says that Sherlock is a brilliant man and one day, hopefully he'll be a good man. I think this series highlighted that transition taking place (people will argue that he's murderer now so can't be described as good, but we accept Watson as good, and he has also killed, to save Sherlock) I can understand the accusations of style over substance levelled at this series, and on closer scrutiny it can't be denied that there were major plot holes in it. But in terms of human development - especially of Sherlock and Mycroft, I think it was great. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1689 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 10,586
|
I saw courage in the series but which character had more courage?
Sherlock for what he did? John for standing by Mary? Mary for listening to what had been said about her? Mycroft for helping his brother Sherlock?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1690 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 349
|
Quote:
This is key, I think. Holmes approved, and indeed aided and abetted, the murder of CAM in the original story. We tend to prefer our heroes homogenized, their hands kept clean, even as we approve of the destruction of evil. I suspect one's degree of satisfaction with the end of this episode is dictated by the extent to which one can tolerate acknowledging this fundamental and very human hypocracy.
A food analogy: I like coq au vin. I suppress any thought of the chicken being strangled or beheaded (and certainly suspect I would not be able to do the act myself). Nonetheless, I am complicit because if I didn't buy the dead chicken, it wouldn't be killed. That's an uncomfortable thought so I distance myself from it because I still want to eat coq au vin. Moffat, Gatiss and co removed that distance from Sherlock in this story. It's uncomfortable but, for me, not unsatisfactory. As for Moffat, I like clever; the cleverer, the better. I don't believe anyone can be too clever and have never understood the validity of accusing someone of it. I'm happy for Moffat and Gatiss to think they are clever because they are and by so being, they entertain me enormously. There are so many hours of television that aren't clever, that are simple and straightforward and easy to follow. Sometimes that can be entertaining. More frequently, for me, it's not. I like beans on toast, sometimes, but given the choice, serve me the complex flavours of a good coq au vin. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1691 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
|
Has Mycroft met Mary ?
the reason I ask is because - these 2 must be aware of each other . Mycroft knows how important Watson is to Holmes so he would've checked her out , and she would know of Mycroft professionaly since he's essentially head of the secret service . . |
|
|
|
|
|
#1692 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
|
btw - is there a third brother in the Doyle books ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1693 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,764
|
Quote:
btw - is there a third brother in the Doyle books ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1694 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
|
Quote:
Barratt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1695 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 757
|
It's the audience that has the most courage, for sticking by its programme,whatever gets thrown at them.
68 pages of comments? That's Courage. Fantastic audience,from gripes to questions to rage,such a range of people, all interested enough to comment. Its nice to know any programme can do that. Its not passive watching, its protest watching! |
|
|
|
|
|
#1696 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 2,605
|
Quote:
btw - is there a third brother in the Doyle books ?
Although an older (Sherrinford) and a younger (Sigerson - played by Gene Wilder) have appeared in spin offs |
|
|
|
|
|
#1697 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 361
|
Quote:
It's the audience that has the most courage, for sticking by its programme,whatever gets thrown at them.
68 pages of comments? That's Courage. Fantastic audience,from gripes to questions to rage,such a range of people, all interested enough to comment. Its nice to know any programme can do that. Its not passive watching, its protest watching!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1698 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,842
|
Quote:
Ah I see what you mean. Generally yes, I agree, but in this context (the different props), the one he destroyed doesn't look like the original, so if the different props are deliberate and part of the story, then he didn't destroy the original, he destroyed a copy, and a sloppy one at that, with the implication being he's kept the original. I think.
The fake went into the fire and Watson has stashed the real one somewhere. I do reiterate that the reason I noticed this was because of the camera lingering on the initials as if it was trying to tell us something. Why risk a continuity error if it's not important? Why not just show a wide shot of him throwing it into the fire? My theory is that he will have kept the memory card and will use it to blackmail Mary out of his life once the baby is born. Imagine the conversation between Sherlock and John before they met Mary at Leinster gardens: S 'Can you forgive her?' W 'I will never forgive her for shooting you' S 'so what are you going to do?' W 'tell her to leave' S 'what about the baby? You'll never see the baby again' This is where I think they came up with a plan and the memory stick was a bonus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#1699 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 11,409
|
Quote:
Maybe he didn't make a copy at all - just wrote the initials on a blank memory stick. Why risk making a copy at all?
The fake went into the fire and Watson has stashed the real one somewhere. I do reiterate that the reason I noticed this was because of the camera lingering on the initials as if it was trying to tell us something. Why risk a continuity error if it's not important? Why not just show a wide shot of him throwing it into the fire? My theory is that he will have kept the memory card and will use it to blackmail Mary out of his life once the baby is born. Imagine the conversation between Sherlock and John before they met Mary at Leinster gardens: S 'Can you forgive her?' W 'I will never forgive her for shooting you' S 'so what are you going to do?' W 'tell her to leave' S 'what about the baby? You'll never see the baby again' This is where I think they came up with a plan and the memory stick was a bonus. |
|
|
|
|
#1700 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,842
|
Quote:
I would like to think that we find out more details about Mary, but for me blackmail seems a bit out of character for John somehow.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46.




