BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Sherlock Special: Theories, Suggestions & News » The special - the game is on (spoilers) » November 26, 2014 2:49 am

RedKitten
Replies: 2569

Go to post

Russell wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Maybe a story from our times, but with the flashbacks into Victorian era, where a parallel story would take place?
That would explain "Ghosts of the past" as well (maybe....)

…Or of their ancestors?

nakahara wrote:

Maybe Sherlock and John would attend the costume party where they would impersonate Jeremy Brett and David Burke/Edward Harwicke?
It would be first time in history when characters would impersonate the actors and not the other way around.... http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/grin.png

Seriously! Loved it that the strong, immediate vibe was of their classic style. But…. er, how meta would that be? Characters impersonating actors, in the style of the famous characters they played, of the same name of those characters? Head hurts!

Sorry just wanted to point out this has been done...."Supernatural"  Season 6 the meta episode "The French Mistake" which had the actors playing the characters playing the actors playing the characters. Also since it has been reported that the Moriarty thing gets cleared up in the special and I don't think that could happen in an episode set in the past.
 

Series Four Suggestions & Ideas » " Not sure...but possible ! " theory: The 3th Holmes in series 4...? » June 18, 2014 1:57 am

RedKitten
Replies: 12

Go to post

In orginal canon, Holmes mentions that he is decended from "country squires". In the 19th century and earlier, squires would own a manor house and the land on which the town around it was situated. The squire was responsible for the management of the town.
William Baring-Gould, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes biography, speculated that there must have been a brother older than Mycroft who had inherited the family's country seat.
So the idea of a third brother (or sibling) is semi-canonical, if one wants to accept Baring-Gould's ideas as part of canon. Since Moffat and Gatiss borrowed Sherlock's full name from the Baring-Gould biography, I assume they are borrowing the idea of a third sibling also although it remains to be seen if the above quoted line leads to the addition of a new character or was simply a throw-away line.

Series Four Suggestions & Ideas » Four things I would prefer NOT to see in series 4 » May 1, 2014 6:35 pm

RedKitten
Replies: 207

Go to post

"Less comedy more emphasis on solving well plotted mysteries."

In order to do this, they need to find a writer who knows how to write well-plotted mysteries.

Series Four News » 59966999Possibility of One-Off Episode Before Series 4? » April 25, 2014 11:16 am

RedKitten
Replies: 2

Go to post

Freeman told Alan Carr at the recording of tomorrow night’s Chatty Man episode: “Mark Gatiss may beat me up, but there is an idea for this one-off special that’s such a good idea, and as I was listening to it I thought ‘we’ve just got to do this’. And I don’t know when we are going to be able to do it, unfortunately.”He added: “It’s a fantastic, really mouth-watering idea. But I really don’t know when we are going to get to do it.”Last week the actor revealed that it had been intended to film the new series later this year: “I thought the plan was to do it in the autumn but apparently that’s fallen away.” 

General Sherlock Discussion » Sherlock metas on tumblr (a collection) » April 4, 2014 11:59 pm

RedKitten
Replies: 7

Go to post

This sort of thing is what earned the Sherlock fandom a 7 ouy of 10 on TV.com's crazy scale.

His Last Vow » Sherlock's name » March 17, 2014 12:50 am

RedKitten
Replies: 20

Go to post

I was always under the impression that the name "William Sherlock Scott" came from the Baring-Gould "biography" of Sherlock Holmes published in the early 1960's. Same source as the idea of a third Holmes brother.

The Empty Hearse » The theory he told Anderson - The actual answer?? » March 10, 2014 11:24 pm

RedKitten
Replies: 445

Go to post

Yeah, I'm late to this discussion and admit I haven't read this entire thread but...shortly after the second series aired, Moffat gave an interview where he said that the second and third series were commissioned by the BBC at the same time and when "The Fall" was written into the last episode of the second series, he and Gatiss had a solution already in place for the third. In fact, the resolution scene to be shown in the third series was filmed at the same time as "the Fall" was in the second  (in order to ultimately save time and money would be my guess). This was done, of course, before the second series was broadcast and the fans spent two years going nuts trying to figure out how it was done. I think at that point, Gatiss just threw in the towel and wrote what he did for TEH knowing that there was no way they could ever come up with anything that would make everyone happy or outdo some fans' imaginations. I would bet anything that the third "resolution" shown to Anderson was what was originally filmed and originally intended to be the only and "correct" solution. And I think Anderson got to hear it because, of all the people who were not in on the fact that Sherlock was not actually dead, Anderson, whom Sherlock always thought was an incompetent idiot, was the only person believed he wasn't dead (following the newspaper clues in the mini-episode) and he was right. I think it would be in keeping with Sherlock's character in this series that he acknowledge that fact in this way. .I don't think we will ever be sure what really happened, tho'.

Series Four Suggestions & Ideas » Mary's Death » March 4, 2014 4:12 am

RedKitten
Replies: 422

Go to post

Ok I never post to these things but I decided to do so here.
I knew that Mary would not be killed off at the end of series 3 because it would have made very little sense to do so after having spent a whole episode, when there are only  3 the begin with, on the wedding. I mean why 'waste" a whole episode on a marriage that lasts a month?  And they didn't have to kill her if they really wanted to get rid of the character--Mary's lying  to John about her past/shooting Sherlock could have ended her right there. In fact, Moffat once said in an interview that he wanted to look at the idea of Sherlock and John living apart  but didn't  know if he would have John get married. He obviously had his reasons for deciding to do that.
Sorry folks, but the baby is the issue here. That's because the idea of the pregnancy/baby is so far out of canon that to bring it into the story and then just have it go away (loss of pregnancy/baby death/child living elsewhere) just for the sake of canon is pointless.  Add to that, the fact that they throw canon out the window all the time. Now Moffat and Gatiss have been known to introduce  pointless plot developments into their stories (Molly's engagement, for example), but I don't think this is one of them. This all has to do with the fact that Moffat is very fond of the idea of family. The idea of "family" is all over his past projects--Coupling,  Jekyll, even Doctor Who (Amy and Rory were the first married couple to be The Doctor's companions. They even had a child--although that didn't work out like it usually does, but still...). And you couldn't miss the family bonding theme in this 3rd Sherlock series.  Anyway, what Moffat is doing here is something  that is sometimes done in genre TV--giving a/the protagonist a surrogate family. Through John and Mary, he is giving Sherlock a kind of family (i.e., couple/child) that he will never have on his own. This has nothing to do with what is or is not canon and everything to do with an id

Introductions Please... » Saying hi » February 24, 2014 12:50 am

RedKitten
Replies: 6

Go to post

Hi. I've been lurking for a while and thought I would be pollite and say hello. Don't know if I'll ever actually post anything but saying hello anyway. From the US.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum