Discussion in 'Community' started by Mar17swgirl, Jul 21, 2010.
Has there been a Doctor Who monster of the week that feeds of paranoia?
There's been one in Red Dwarf
The views in this thread concerning the Sherlock Holmes movies remind me of my brother's opinions on all TV shows.
"This show is not as good as The Wire, therefore its not even worth watching"
I hope you get someone to rise to your bait, IJG!
Its not meant as bait, I'm just saying its unfair to say it sucks because its so much worse than something that's damn near perfect.
But we're not saying it sucks because it's worse than Sherlock. We're saying it sucks because it sucks (the second one, anyway - the first one is quite fun, actually).
Oh yeah, the second one is definitely not as good as the first one. But Stephen Fry's Mycroft was awesome.
I've now seen the second one (although not legitimately) and although I love Stephen Fry, Mycroft in this film is lousy.
Gatiss' Mycroft >>>>>>> Fry's.
Couple of articles.
Sue Vertue (Moffat's wife) saying that a 2012 return is unlikely.
'Elementary' causing trouble. To be honest, I now hope that CBS are so stupid as to produce a dead ringer for Sherlock, and that they have the pants sued off of them as a result.
Stephen Fry was awesome - the way his Mycroft was written... NOT. (I still can't forgive the writers for "Sherly" and "Myccie" and the random nudity... )
I don't think anyone seriously expected that. Moffat's probably too busy with Doctor Who - Series 7 this autumn and the 50th anniversary thing next year. I'm betting Series 3 of Sherlock airing in early 2013...
Yes, please, sue their arses off!
Bit weird to see how feverish the speculation is over how Sherlock survived. I love this series and the rapid-fire deductions are really very clever- but the main mysteries do tend to be resolved in anti-climactic fashion. The 'Hound' explanation comes to mind, particularly the ridiculous, rabbit-out-of-a-hat acronym thing.
Why was HOUND ridiculous? I thought it was a great use of the word.
Exactly. Sherlock was right - no one would say "hound", they'd just say "dog". Therefore, it had to mean something else.
As for the "how did Sherlock survive" speculation, here's my theory. Well, two theories, actually:
1. Sherlock did jump, but fell on that rubbish truck that cushioned his fall. The biker who ran into John was in on it, the purpose was to disorientate and daze John.
2a. Sherlock then promptly rolled off onto the pavement. The blood was fake (courtesy of Molly). The bystanders (at least some of them) were in on it - note one of the women trying to prevent John from taking Sherlock's pulse, which would be there, but shouldn't.
2b. Sherlock stayed on the rubbish truck, and a substitute dead body was rolled onto the pavement (courtesy of Molly). Again, there would have to be fake blood and the bystanders would want to prevent John form taking Sherlock's pulse, because he'd realise the body was already cold. The additional problem of John seeing Sherlock's face (which was clearly Sherlock's) would be solved by a small amount of the hallucinogenic gas from Baskerville, administered by the biker who knocked John over - therefore, John would see what he expected to see, dead Sherlock.
I asked about the acronym thing earlier in the thread and the answer was given.
Holmes got the idea from Watson seeing the headlights of a car flashing with nonsensical morse code letters. The car was just flashing randomly to either alert other doggers in the area, or just as a result of an amorous encounter. But that's where the explanation comes from.
It works doubly well as the flashing of lights across the moor was an important clue in the original story. A great double-bluff to those who know the original story.
So it wasn't "out of a hat". It was written into the story.
Nonsensical ramblings (just fishing for a lead, really):
When Sherlock meets with Molly for the 'last time', not only is he asking for her help, he's (it seems to me) asking for her help as a fraud. When Molly helps Sherlock, she's doing so because she thinks she's seen through his sadness. Even if he is a fraud, she will help him. So... Sherlock has owned up to both Molly and John before he 'dies'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see any reason why Sherlock needed to own up to any of his close associates. Moriarty's game only required Sherlock to jump... not own up. Confession is therefore part of Sherlock's plan. I don't think it's a part of how he survives the jump, necessarily, but maybe it has something to do with how he recovers his reputation in series three...
Sherlock was (I thought) genuinely surprised when Moriarty revealed the computer code to be a misdirection. He thought he was going up onto that rooftop to beat Moriarty. In order to 'jump off the top of the building and survive', though, Sherlock would have to have planned well in advance. He therefore went up there thinking he had Moriarty pegged, but also planning to follow-through with his own suicide. Why? Because maybe Sherlock had decided that the only way out of Moriarty's game was to keep playing beyond the point at which Moriarty himself had intended to stop. Sherlock's suicide. Moriarty has done serious and insidious damage. Sherlock says himself, you can't kill an idea. The only way to begin recovery is to (for now) let Moriarty's very public victory play out and then start again from scratch. Build his own idea. Be Sherlock Holmes the low profile detective once again and quietly turn opinion back in his favour. People can be persuaded to believe the worst very quickly, but it takes time to build trust.
So Sherlock fakes his own death. Maybe not even Moriarty had considered that.
Sherlock says to Moriarty that he thinks he can get the code to call off the hits out of him. I think Sherlock's bluffing. Sherlock only needs to do enough to convince Moriarty that he could get the code. This simple ruse is enough to provoke Moriarty into suicide. Sherlock banking, perhaps, on Moriarty's love of the theatrical. So Sherlock goes on about being willing to do anything. What he means, of course, is 'anything' to win in the long term... what he means, of course, is he's prepared to make the life of his best and only friend, John Watson, a miserable one once again.
Whatever happened on that rooftop, Sherlock always planned to jump.
In the stories he deliberately faked his death because he was becoming too well known to be effective as a detective. He then spent the period before his "resurrection" surreptitiously dismantling the entire criminal network of mainland Europe. I'm guessing something similar is in play here.
Agreed. Honestly the only reason I'm expecting an explanation of the "how" is because Steven Moffat is OCD about that kind of thing.
Oh, I understand that Watson had mentioned acronyms (and I do like the sly references to the original). But Sherlock's eureka moment- "what if hound is an acronym?"- is still an arbitrary place to leap to.
Allow me to play it out. Imagine the episode was paused just before the HOUND revelation. The single clue we (both Sherlock and the audience) have to the correct answer is Watson mentioning acronyms in a different context. There is nothing else.
1. 'HOUND' is an acronym
2. The acronym is made up of a team of scientists' surnames
3. The boy sees it spelled out on a t-shirt worn by the attacker
The first point is odd, but there is the chance it could be explained in a satisfying way. Unfortunately, the second point brings in new information that we were previously unaware of and never could have guessed at. That is the very opposite of satisfying when it comes to narrative resolution- it is the basis of deus ex machina. The third point, upon which the entire mystery pivots, is not only unguessable but highly implausible.
Again, even if it had to mean something else, the answer was entirely random.
I take issue with that line in any case. "Hound" is not an archaic word. It is still in use, particularly among the upper classes, who use "hounds" for their hunts and refer to them as such. Considering that the man using the word was quite clearly a member of the upper class and lived in the countryside, it was perfectly plausible that he would use the word in normal conversation. In fact, you could argue that it would be more plausible for him to say "hound" than "dog".
Apparently the door of 187 North Gower Street now has the number '221B' permanently affixed. [face_cool
I want to go see it again.
This last episode was a bit like "The Dark Knight" but with Sherlock characters and better leads (well, Moriarty and Joker are pretty even - and pretty much the same character - but Cumberbatch and Freeman are head-and-shoulders above Bale and Eckhart).
And yeah, I was disappointed by the final reveal - it's a Sherlock Holmes story! The fun's in seeing the mystery resolved at the end, not a LOST-style "we'll find out in a year but no explanation is really going to be satisfying enough after such a long wait" cliffhanger.
Minus the explanation, I kind of wish they'd just left him "dead" until the next series.
EDIT: Freeman was really awesome in this episode. I didn't think it was a possible thing, but I'm looking forward to The Hobbit even MORE now.
the company behind the BBC's Sherlock to sue CBS over new version of Sherlock Holmes
Good. Sue their arses off.
Yeah, it's a total coincidence that you came up with the same idea at the same time as a highly successful British show that's already gaining popularity in the US... Pure coincidence... And now the one about the Little Red Riding Hood.
Sherlock Holmes is unprotectable, but updating it in the particular way Moffat et al did certainly is.
And as Sue Vertue points out, it's hard to believe this is an original idea when CBS approached the BBC to doing a remake of Sherlock before they decided to commission Elementary.