Sparrow wrote:

"Late night in Baker Street..."

Mark's latest Sherlock related Tweet.

Hmmm - tripod, violin case and handprints on the window.  ::wonders::
 

Mrs.Wenceslas wrote:

ohoh, now I´m between "search" or "Don´t!"..but trying to stay on the side of the angels 

I know...I'm having fun trying to read between the lines.  Happily, I still don't know anything.
 

ancientsgate wrote:

erunyauve wrote:

horserider99 wrote:

We might get to 80 degrees(fahrenheit) some time this week. I'm not sure whether I'm happy or sad that it's going to be "hot".

I have no sympathy.  We have snow again today.  The next person who says, 'But we need the moisture!' will have a bucket dumped on their head.

And don't you love it, when someone says, "It's so pretty!"  OMG, maybe it was pretty back at Christmas, but not in mid-April.

  And, oh yes, we're on track for the coldest April since the 1800's, when they started tracking.

So much for global warming.
 

Well, actually, it is all about global warming.  Last week, we had one of our inversions, where the snow backs up against the mountains and it just snows for three days.  Except that it didn't snow for three days - we got some sleet and rain in the mix, and the pavement was too warm for most of it to stick.  That's been happening for about six years now.  Back in 2006, when we had our double blizzard in December, the New York office of the company that had newly acquired us panicked, thinking, 'OMG, Denver's going to be closed all the time!'  Well, actually, no.  We only missed two days that year, and we haven't had a single snow day since.  (New York, on the other hand....)

Even in December/January, they'll predict snowmaggedon, but it starts out too warm and it doesn't stick.  Or it'll snow and then turn to rain, so we only get a foot (30 cm), which is barely enough to cool a Hobbit's toes.  And then we've got to slog to work again.

I'm just hoping the snow is done, but I'm not counting on it - we do get snow in May.  (And June, some years...)

tobeornot221b wrote:

This cell/mobile phone thing immediately reminded me of the scene in Agatha Christie's "Murder On The Orient Express" where Poirot deduced that Miss Debenham who said during her interrogation: "I can always call my lawyers long-distance" had lived in America because "an Englishwoman who had never lived in America would have said 'I can always make a trunk call to my solicitors.'"

I think Sir Henry's time abroad had already been mentioned in the text, but when he says 'By thunder!' in The Hound of the Baskervilles, I immediately recognised it as an Americanism from the 1800s.  Since then, I've come to truly appreciate the care ACD took to not only give his American characters an authentic dialogue, but a dialogue that is right for the region and status of the character.  A Chicago thug sounds different from a young woman raised in gold camps, and Sir Henry, having made his fortune farming in the American West, sounds different again.
 

anjaH_alias wrote:

 But Moffat/Gatiss said, that Doyle made a big incredible fake scenario (because he actually didn´t plan to bring him back) and that they want to do it better. They also said, we are able to see everything, we don´t even need slow motion.
@ besleybean: I also don´t think that they fake a whole setting - what a waste of money and time this would be! But on the other hand I can imagine a little Moffat/Gatiss joke - to bring somebody to an actual set to confuse the whole setlock-junkies . That would be only less effort, especially in comparison to the shaped ape, which Paul McGuigain placed in ASiB. Time for a little fun.....

I was thinking the same yesterday - other series have filmed alternate episodes to keep cliffhangers secret (IIRC, they had something like seven versions ready to go for the 'Who Shot JR' episode).  But of course, that's money as well as time, and it's not like a weekly series - all of the actors have other commitments.

I can see a short scene, perhaps, or some fake stills to anonymously throw out on the internet.  If I'm guessing right about the Person of Interest who was seen, however, I'd think it was flashback.  I don't think they'd mess with anything involving the actual fall, as they said everything was there to be seen in TRH.  My understanding is that anything additional, such as a camera angle that makes something a bit more obvious, was also filmed at the same time.  (For one thing, they wanted to avoid the problems they had with the resolution for TGG, when the actors came back with different hair, weights, etc.)

And of course, with regard to some possible Persons of Interest, they genuinely enjoyed being part of the show, so they might be stopping by out of curiosity or might not mind being used as red herrings to drive the fans crazy.

MNRebecca wrote:

May I just say, the way this series absolutely CRAMS you with wondering about the characters' psyches and backstories is what makes it such a stupendous show.

We can pull some information from the original stories, but the writers play with canon - reversing it, combining it, updating it - so much that we can't rely on it.  But I think they're quite meticulous about the characters as they've envisioned them, and it's those little details that make the show.
 

Finally seen this - I wanted to see it at the cinema, but I was too busy with work.

Impressions:  First, Martin is brilliant, as I knew he would be.  Second, I'm very much looking forward to Bilbo and Smaug's scenes - they will certainly have a bit of subtext for us Sherlock fans.  Third, as a long-time Tolkien fan, I have to say that I'm terribly disappointed.  The movie was well made, and it's as beautiful as the LOTR films, but whereas Peter Jackson made only the most necessary adjustments to the book to fit LOTR to the screen (except for the substitution of Arwen for Glorfindel, for which most Tolkien fans still haven't forgiven him), 'An Unexpected Journey' is horribly unfaithful to the book.

Thranduil (who is a hero in Tolkien's legendarium) did not refuse the dwarves help at Erebor - he was never there.  He probably heard of it only later, and there isn't much he could have done.  He had his hands full protecting his own realm.  Thorin had no particular enmity toward the Elves at the start, and I'll leave it at that for those who don't know the book.

Sauron had been forced from Dol Guldur at the start of the Watchful Peace, but by the time the dragon took Erebor, he had been back for some time.  Thranduil was very aware of this, since it affected his people the most.  Galadriel could have cared less - she had a Ring of Power to protect her realm and never lifted a finger to help Thranduil.  The movie implies that she is somehow more powerful than Gandalf, which is ridiculous.  She was a powerful Elf, but not a Maia.  And the Witch King never 'died' - he fled before Glorfindel (which is why he had to be the Elf to make the flight to the ford in FOTR - no other Elf in Middle Earth could have made that ride).

I did like the bit with Radagast, even if it's contrary to canon.  (Gandalf actually entered Dol Guldur - he found Thrain there and that's how he got the key.)  Fili and Kili are lovely, and Gollum is actually rather adorable in the riddl

KeepersPrice wrote:

Bee, I suppose this might be possible in canon as both brothers are drawn as rather eccentric and a touch bohemian; but in BBC Sherlock, they seem to come from a privledged, highly educated, if not wealthy background. Mycroft is completely accepted in society, is in the highest echelons of the government which he apparently controls, and appears to be a polished gentleman from his head to his umbrella. I'm not feeling quite the "oddness" from this show that you seem to be refering to.
 

In canon, it would have been a bit different because the old inheritance rules were still in effect - Mycroft would have inherited everything (or would be expecting to inherit everything, if the parents are still living), and Sherlock, as the younger son, had to make his own way.  (Of course, being the younger son of a wealthy family would afforded him education and connections a less well-off family wouldn't have.)  In one story, he tells Watson that his ancestors were country squires, but that still tells us nothing about his own parents.

I don't feel the 'oddness' either.  Sherlock has expensive taste in clothes and I don't see him dressing to keep up with the Jonses.  Rather, he's simply accustomed to nicer things.  And Mycroft seems to be treated as an equal at the palace, whereas John - ordinary middle class - is as visibly awed and out of his element as I would be in that situation.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Mary could actually be quite a cool character, if done in the right way.

In the canon, even when Watson was married, it didn't stop him going off with Holmes on adventures, although obviously they didn't live together, and I don't think that'd quite work in the same way in BBC Sherlock.

D'you remember Moffat said the end of Series 3 would be just as frustrating/heartbreaking....wonder if that might be the death of Mary? Although, for the audience to be actually upset/bothered over it, she'd have to be written really well as a character and we'd have to really grow attached to her.

Sorry, I'm really going off track on the original "how will John react..." topic.


EDIT: I just edited my own post for spoilers! *face palm*

Still guessing - I know nothing, have seen no spoilers - but the 'significant impact' bit pretty much confirms that she is going to be John's wife.  They've got an uphill haul to get the audience to care about her, though.  Three 90-minute episodes don't leave much time, and the Johnlock fandom is simply going to hate her from the outset.  (I do understand how they feel - I'm not thrilled about it, either.  And I liked Sarah, so Mary is going to have to outdo her.)

Realistically - and I know it sounds a bit mean, especially as she's Martin Freeman's real-life SO - half the fandom might be hoping for her death in the cliffhanger.  Then again, this is Moftiss here, and if anyone can pull it off, they would be the ones to do it.

anjaH_alias wrote:

beekeeper wrote:

Well by "cut" I just meant time loss.Cut time. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I don't know all the jargon I'm afraid.

 

I thought so, but wanted to make it sure .
A cut could be just a change of perspective, but here it´s definitely not the only reason. Whatever he or they did in the passing time in between the two cuts - it changed his position and will explain how he survived. Somewhen ....

I saw a screen shot with John getting hit by a bicyclist in the foreground and something that looks like a blue sheet with the people around Sherlock.  It might just be the blur of the blue scrubs some of them are wearing, but I think the most likely solution is that the homeless network caught him with one of those nets the fire brigade uses for people jumping from a burning building, and then quickly rolled him off to the pavement.

The part where they catch him would be when the angle changes - we see him fall nearly to the ground and then we see him hit the ground.  The last part of the fall would be from the net to the ground.  They could have got rid of a net pretty quickly, much more easily than any mat thick enough to absorb the fall.