BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


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

The Reichenbach Fall » Some Things We Might Take For Granted as TRUE » March 23, 2013 10:08 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 3

Go to post

Here are a couple of things that I feel like the audience takes for granted as true:

1.  The three killers Moriarty hired to kills John, Mrs. Hudson, and Lestrade are actually hired to kill those three. 

Now, we can infer with near certainty that the sniper who disengages after Sherlock's fall was assigned to kill John.  I'll take that.

But we never see the same with the police mole and the bald-headed fix-it man (with the gun in his tool box) -- how can we be so sure that these two were Moriarty's men?  Could they have been hired by Sherlock?  We don't ACTUALLY know or have closure that these two men got the call to "stand down," so how do we even know that there were supposed to kill Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade? 

Which segues to the next....

2.  The international hitmen were hired by terrorist cells, and Moriarty had a hand in all of it, and/or they had the primary purpose of getting the computer keycode

During Mycroft's and John's meeting, Mycroft says "If it's not Moriarty, then who?"  

That should be a tip-off that things may not be what they seem.  They may not be hired by Moriarty, or have any interest in Moriarty at alll.

There's a possibility that it could be John, Sherlock, or even Mycroft who hired those hitmen, to protect Sherlock -- and they had no intention of recovering any sort of key code (even though it was mentioned by the last killed hitman). 

John could have hired them to protect Sherlock.  John was a captain in the military, he probably has the connections to procure international hitmen.  Plus, John was not scared or impressed when presented with the information of the foreign hitmen -- if anything, John was rather ambivalent.  He wasn't surprised that they were there, or surprised about who they are.  Why?

Sherlock could have hired them himself.  Sherlock has proven himself capable of infiltrating terrorist cells -- perh

General Sherlock Discussion » Cumberbatch vs Lee Miller? Please don't hit me... » March 23, 2013 7:11 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 5

Go to post

I actually didn't watch Sherlock until 2 months ago, and I started watched Elementary in the fall.

First of all, there is virtually NO "spirit of Sherlock" in Elementary.  JL Miller is a fine actor, but he does not seem like a 2013 version of Sherlock Holmes.  Holmes is supposed to be an icy cold, calculating super brain machine.  Miller brings a little too much warmth to it, even if it is a few degrees above freezing.  He also brings a little too much humanity to it, which would be great if it WEREN'T a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. 

JLM's version also doesn't seem like a borderline superhero in terms of brainpower.  It has been estimated that Sherlock Holmes' IQ likely would have been 180-190, or basically one of the smartest men ever recorded.  I don't get that with JLM, and that's probably more due to the writing than to the actor's portrayal.  I also don't see much of the obsessiveness of Sherlock Holmes in JLM.

If Elementary were produced in EXACTLY THE SAME fashion (but with changed names), and had zero connection to Sherlock Holmes, I don't think it would been picked up as a TV show.  Once you get past the suppposed Sherlock Holmes adaptation aspect of it, it's a very run-of-the-mill procedural without ANY 3-dimensional characters or anything special or interesting about the main protagonists.


Cumberbatch's portrayal seems like a very believable contemporary Sherlock Holmes.  He's not only a super brain, but he's coldly detached.  Not only that, but he's compulsively, obsessively dedicated to his work, so much that he breaks down without work.  He also shows stretches of virtually complete disgregard for human life -- i.e., compassion and empathy -- and this is fairly evident in the books.

The Great Game » The van Buren Supernova (and the painting) » March 23, 2013 7:03 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 7

Go to post

I have so many questions here regarding this!

1.  How did the forger/painter paint a near-exact copy of the lost painting? 

Hasn't the painting been lost for centuries?  There would be no postcards or other duplicates off of which he could have been painting his version.

2. Why paint the van Buren supernova at all? 

Unless Moriarty intentionally instructed the painter to paint it in -- just to give it a fool-proof signature of its inauthenticity -- then it's a totally random decision, a rather esoteric one at that.  Or, I guess the painter could've just been painting off of the night sky, but that would've required the absolutely coincidental and perfect timing of the forging artist's painting and the original artist's painting, since star positions constantly change throughout the year. 

3.  How does Sherlock know the name of the supernova? 

We never hear the words, "van Buren supernova" at the planetarium (during which Dr. Caanes/Kanz was being choked by Golem).  Are we supposed to believe that Sherlock searched for ALL supernovae that were only visible in the 1800s but not in the 1600s, and luckily and correctly deduce it all the way down to THE one supernova.... all in the matter of literally less than 2 seconds on his phone? 

We already know that Sherlock has virtually no working knowledge of OUR solar system -- but we are to assume that he knows the solar explosions occurring in solar systems literally light years away? 

4.  How did the painting pass all the rigorous authenticity tests? 

I would assume that all sorts of forensic testing would have revealed that the painting was not only not painted 400-500 years ago, but it was painted a few months ago.  Even if they couldn't prove the exact timing of the painting, SURELY they could've found out that it's not 500 years old. 

These "testers" need a new job if they can't tell the difference between a painting painted in the 1600's

The Great Game » Question on John's sleeping arrangements at Sarah's flat. » March 23, 2013 6:44 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 28

Go to post

I think LILO is actually the brand name, and it presumably has been so commonly used in the UK that air mattresses have come to be known as "lilos" -- i.e., a generic trademark (like Xerox'ing a copy, or using a Kleenex to blow a nose, or Googling a term).

The Great Game » Watery pool scene mistake » March 23, 2013 6:42 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

Why not throw the bomb in the pool?

There might have been a possibility that the bomb could have short-circuited from the water, setting the bomb off. 

The Great Game » A few more questions about this episode » March 23, 2013 6:36 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 23

Go to post

Moriarty can break into the Bank of England, Pentonville Prison, and the Tower of London simultaneously -- surely, he could have easily broken into the flat where he put Powers' shoes. 

Besides, he also picked the lock of 221B in the Reichenbach Fall to pay Sherlock a visit after he was acquitted of all charges and was a free man. 


Lastly, Moriarty TOOK the shoes initially because they were potential evidence, since they had traces of the poison.  As to why he KEPT them, I'm not sure; he could've burned them completely and it would've been a cold case. 

The more likely theory or explanation is that Moriarty has the profile of most serial killers -- he likes to keep trophies and mementos of his criminal conquests, in this case, Carl Powers' shoes. 

The Great Game » Why kill the blind lady? » March 23, 2013 6:26 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 27

Go to post

Someone mentioned it earlier, but....

WHY KILL HER?  Because she was "revealing" too much about Moriarty?   It should go without saying that if she were rescued, she would have eventually ended up telling the police the same things.

Moriarty had to have figured that the hostages would have told the police as many details as possible, like the first victim (off-screen, presumably) telling the police that she was receiving instructions via text on a pager, and if she deviated from it at all, she would've been shot. 

So, again, Moriarty surely would've figured that the blind lady would've told the police that "his voice is so soft" anyway.

The Great Game » Gottle o' Geer and the van Buren Supernova » March 3, 2013 9:45 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 5

Go to post

1.  Was that a slight Doctor Who crossover with the "gottle o' geer" reference? 

That Sherlock episode was broadcast in 2010, but there was a DW episode that mentioned the same phrase in 2011, under the same premise (a ventriloquist using a dummy and having it say "gottle o' geer" instead of "bottle of beer"; here, obviously Moriarty is the ventriloquist, John is the dummy).

2.  The van Buren supernova.

John said that Sherlock's wee bit knowledge of the "solar system" helped him solve a case, since he learned/knew about the van Buren supernova, which led to the inference that the painting was a fake.

However, the van Buren supernova is techinicaly not in our solar system -- otherwise we'd be all be pretty sunburnt. 

Cheers!

A Scandal In Belgravia » The "Client" [very mild spoiler (short story)] » February 26, 2013 8:54 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 19

Go to post

Who is the "Client"?

Now, I know that they describe the Client as a "young female," and Irene confirms this by telling Sherlock that she might want to see "her again."

So, the very simple answer is that the Client is merely young female royalty whose identity is not relevant or otherwise interesting for such intents or purposes with respect to Sherlock (the TV show).

But that's just so boring  http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/tongue.png



***SHORT STORY SPOILER BELOW***

Here are my reasons why I believe we actually see the Client in the episode (and also why I love the idea):


1.  Sherlock meets the Client face-to-face in the source material/short story

I can't be the only one who read the A Scandal in Bohemia (the story on which A Scandal in Belgravia is based) AND assumed that the Client's Representative (who walks in saying "...illustrious") was actually the Client when watching the episode. 

Am I?

In the short story, during the initial consultation, the meeting was conducted between Holmes/Watson and some purported representative of the Client (whom I remember to be some sort of duke or baron or something.  Forgive me, it's been a while since I've read it). 

The Representative has covered his face with I believe a handkerchief, masking his identity.  However, Holmes quickly deduces (and reveals to the parties) that the representative is actually the Client himself, rather than just mere proxy for the duke, at which point the duke removes his mask.

So, if Sherlock (the TV show) followed suit, they would have had Sherlock not only actually meeting the Client face-to-face, but exposing the Client's wasted attempt to disguise himself as a mere representative of the Client.  Here, the "mask" would be the "the Client's a young female" mis-direct.

The Reichenbach Fall » Something I'm absolutely sure of - preparations for the fall. » February 3, 2013 2:32 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 104

Go to post

My thoughts:

1.  The "paramedics" who called John at St. Barts, they were not Moriarty's team but Sherlock's medics, likely the same medics at the bottom of the fall.

2.  The cab back from Baker to St. Barts.  That's no random cabbie.  That's specifically for John, and the cabbie knows exactly where to park. 

3.  Moriarty looks down at the 2 bus visual.  The 2 buses are intentionally parked to prevent any intervening car parkers.  He even mentions the crowd/audience building.  He doesn't know that they're actually Sherlock's people.  (Remember John as he departs to check on Mrs. Hudson? "Friends protect you!") 

4.  We never see the 2 bus visual again after Sherlock asks for his "privacy."  This is where and when the set-up for the fall begins.  Moriarty walks away, Sherlock follows to further stall while staging begins, and to stall to allow for John's return.  Between now and the fall, the 2 buses make way for the garbage bag truck.

5.  Moriarty kills himself.  Sherlock has beaten Moriarty.  Sherlock feigned his ordinary-ness, like pretending that a code existed -- which frustrated Moriarty (since no code exists, IMO), presumably because Sherlock was "revealed" to be ordinary.  Moriarty has no equal, no distraction.  Briefly prior to this, Sherlock grabbed Moriarty and threatened to throw him off the roof -- but Moriarty didn't flinch.  This was Sherlock's test, the same sort of test of Irene's pulse and dilated pupils.  It was at this point that Sherlock realized that Moriarty was not afraid to die, meaning Sherlock could push the right buttons to convince him to kill himself (Sherlock has been very un-Sherlock the whole time on the roof, displaying little mental prowess, proving himself ordinary, i.e. giving Moriarty every reason that he has no reason to live).  Sherlock knows Moriarty won't give up the fail-safe, but he has convinced Moriarty that so long as Moriarty is alive, Sherlock will wait it out -- but Sherlock knows that Moria

The Reichenbach Fall » Observation: Handshake is deadly » February 3, 2013 1:33 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 11

Go to post

My theories:

1.  The assassins were mercenaries hired by Mycroft to protect Sherlock from Moriarty.  Mycroft clearly leaves it ambiguous as to how and why they're there.  "If not Moriarty, then who?"  Along with Mycroft's guilt, and his resources, I think he's trying to protect Sherlock.

2.  Moriarty knows of the assassins (but not of their purpose), he believes that they're there to attack/kill Sherlock for the "code" that Sherlock "believes" exists, even though Moriarty knows there's no code, and Sherlock knows there's no code (but pretends that he thinks there's one, anyway, to Moriarty).

3.  Moriarty's snipers have been instructed to kill the assassins if they make contact with Sherlock.  Moriarty is ensuring that Sherlock is stayin' alive, otherwise he can't perform his own fall.  If the assassins really wanted to kill each other, they could have already done it.  My guess is that Moriarty instructed his snipers to kill any suspicious person who tries to make contact with Sherlock, as it jeopardizes Sherlock's life.

The Reichenbach Fall » "Got something of yours you might want back..." » February 3, 2013 1:22 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 21

Go to post

It's the "code."

The beauty of it is that Sherlock knows that there was never any code, but Moriarty believes that Sherlock believes there's a code.  Sherlock texts Moriarty to say that he has it, if he wants it back. 

The further beauty is that Sherlock is "disappointing" Moriarty on purpose.  Pretending that Sherlock "knows the code," it's the ONE thing that crushes Moriarty -- that Sherlock is ostensibly not as smart as Moriarty think he was/is.  This is the character development.  For 5 episodes, we see nothing but Sherlock showing off his intellect.  The genius of TRF is that Moriarty's undoing is caused by Sherlock's feigning his seemingly ordinary abilities (that he actually "believes" there's a code). 

Sherlock knows that by showing off, he is creating a bigger, more worthy opponent for Moriarty to defeat, playing right into Moriarty's hand.  Instead, he plays "dumb," pretty much giving Moriarty no "distraction" left in the world to play with.  I think this is a big part of the reason why Moriarty commits suicide. 

Character Analysis » Sherlock's relationship with Mycroft » February 3, 2013 1:09 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 141

Go to post

I agree with those who think that Mycroft's character has somewhat departed from canon.

Sure, Mycroft's does not appear heavily in the canon, but he is described enough in a couple of sentences that demonstrate that the show departs from such characterization.

Sherlock admits that Mycroft is in many ways the superior brainpower, but he's just too lazy and indifferent to details to follow through.  He'd much rather be lazy and wrong than make the effort to be right, quite the opposite from Sherlock. 

I'm certain the writers know this, and they figure that the TV character is a much more interesting character.  A lazy, indifferent Mycroft would severely limit the scope of Sherlock's available government crises to solve. 

My only nitpick is that Mycroft just doesn't seem close to Sherlock's brainpower in the BBC series.  Things like talking about the Bond Air over the phone while Sherlock is around, or being rebuffed by Irene Adler in every attempt to achieve leverage over her phone.  He certainly isn't lazy or indifferent in these instances, he just simply lacks Sherlock's forward-thinking, which I see as a minor, but not bothersome, nitpick.

The Reichenbach Fall » Shouldn't the "fraud" doubt begin and end here? » February 3, 2013 12:48 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

Swanpride wrote:

If they are really set on believing that Sherlock is a fraud, they will most likely argue that a few of his cases might have been real, but most of them were not.

Perhaps. 

I get that point.  That the public will see Sherlock as a fraud despite any legitimately-solved cases, since they're outnumbered by the fraudulent cases.

But not all cases are alike.  Not all cases carry the same weight.  Not all cases are verifiable, or verifiable to the same degree.  And not all cases are of similar difficulty. 

So, in my opinion, Sherlock's successful solving of the Interpol case should, by itself, disprove any allegation that any other case solved by Sherlock was a fraud.  There's just no way that the public can swallow all the other fraud bits while admitting that he actually solved the Interpol one. 

Why? 

1. Interpol is as credible as a source can get -- so if they say it's true, the public must believe it's true

This isn't a privately-solved case for a private client, where the "proof" is from the fuzzy detailed accounts from Watson's blog.  Heck, it's not even a Scotland Yard write-up by envious colleagues.

This is an international police organization comprised of 190 nations -- i.e., the biggest, most famous, policing organization in the world.  There are only 193-195 nations in the world.  So, we are literally talking about the police force represntative of the entire world. 

A police organization that big, that legitimate cannot be anything BUT a credible source.  Their news -- Sherlock's help in capturing Interpol's #1 -- is literally as "official" and irrefutable as it gets. 

There literally is no other police organization in the solar system that could have more credibility in making such an announcement.  

2. The alternative: Interpol is not credible, and the public doesn't believe Interpol.

So, Interpol

The Reichenbach Fall » Shouldn't the "fraud" doubt begin and end here? » February 3, 2013 9:33 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

miriel68 wrote:

Well, it was indeed the case, I think and what is really amazing, is that we have it coming as early as the beginning of the first episode, with Donavan predicting that Sherlock will "cross the line" one day.Quite a wonderful continuity, rarely seen in a TV series. Do you think M & G had already plans for Sherlock's fall at that stage, or they just used cleverly these early lines when RF arrived?  

I absolutely believe that Donovan's forewarning was a planned foreshadowing of Sherlock's fall. 

Donovan was the catalyst for the fraud investigation, and M&G would have been standing on very feeble ground (not to mention, it would have been near the height of lazy shoe-horning-ness) to have Donovan arbitrarily instigate it without any prior hints of motive/motivation (other than her suggestion to John to take up other hobbies, such as fishing). 

At the very least, Donovan's forewarning was meant to lay groundwork for a self-contained episode where Sherlock is the prime suspect. 

At the most and at the writers' best, it was carefully planned and purposefully placed in the pilot with the exclusive intent to use it as the spark that ignites the actual RF by Sherlock.  I'm 99% inclined to believe the latter, based on the show's overall quality, consistency, pedigree, and, well, goodwill.

The Reichenbach Fall » Shouldn't the "fraud" doubt begin and end here? » February 3, 2013 9:26 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

crazybbcamerican wrote:

Good point! 

(OK I'll play! nowhere in Sherlock or the original canon did sherlock *ever* say "Elementary, dear Watson." He says elementary once or twice, and calls Watson dear a few times, but those words never appear together in the text :D So is that the one that doesn't belong?)

You are technically correct, but only partially correct with respect to the entirety of the riddle.

You're on the right track....

The Reichenbach Fall » Shouldn't the "fraud" doubt begin and end here? » February 3, 2013 9:19 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

SusiGo wrote:

Sometimes I think they planned nearly everything. There was a post on Tumblr some days ago where they showed John's mug with the crown, the apple on his desk and the gun in his drawer, all from the very beginning of ASiP. And the crown, the apple and the gun return in TRF. 

I may be wrong, but I think that mug is meant to represent that Watson graduated from medical school, and/or otherwise is involved in the medical field. 

It has the classic Rod of Asclepius (spiraling serpentine symbol used to represent the medical profession), and on the bottom it has the phrase, "In Arduis Fidelis," which translates to "faithful in adversity" in Latin. 

These sorts of Latin phrases -- especially ones expressing faithfullness/loyalty ("Fidelis") -- are common among military units, like "Semper Fidelis" for the United States Marine Corps (meaning "always faithful).

So, you take the Rod of Asclepius medical serpentine and add the Latin expression for faithfullness in adversity, and you get a mug that adds to "medical" + "military."

In my humble opinion, the mug in the opening shots of ASiP represents that John served in the Royal Army Medical Corps.  But that's just one theory.

I do like the idea that it was a foreshadowing device, but more and more I'm inclined to favor the simpler interpretation -- John Watson was a doctor for the British army.

Other Cast & Production Team » Moriarty is more caricature than character. » January 31, 2013 12:00 pm

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 10

Go to post

[NOTE: The criticism is pretty much confined to Scott/Moriarty in S.1 Ep. 3 and S.2 Ep. 1. In the S.2 finale, he's more enjoyable -- or at least, tolerable -- for the reasons opposite to/from the ones stated below]


I'm going to get heat for this, but....

In my humble opinion, Scott tried a little too hard at times, so hard that it makes it very clear that it's a guy acting out a part, rather than a an actor portraying a character.  It's one thing to play an over-the-top character (see Joker in the Dark Knight). 

It's a totally different thing to use an over-the-top effort to play an over-the-top character. 

Moriarty's written to be psychotic.  If anything, in terms of acting, that requires less thinking or effort and more instinct.  At times, it felt like Scott was trying to think of how a psycho would act, and then try really hard to act out that thought.  I think he would have achieved better results if he acted more instinctually.  Who knows?  Maybe he did act instinctually, but I, for one, didn't receive it as that.

For example, it appeared to me that Andrew Scott intentionally added random vocal inflection changes to force upon the audience this psycho "tic," to try really hard to convince us that he's psycho. 

I'm not saying that there are no psychos who have random pitch changes.  I'm saying that Scott's pitch change felt measured/calculated, forced, disingenuous. 

Basically, there are many times that I am very aware I'm watching an actor try to act like Jim Moriarty, as written -- and it takes me out of the show. 

A well-directed, well-acted movie/film/TV show leaves you immersed into that world, and you forget that these are actors playing parts, and you really feel, believe that this is Sherlock Holmes.  Or, when Martin Freeman pleads with Holmes' gravestone to "please, don't be dead" -- I forget that these were actually written script lines recited by an actor; I

The Reichenbach Fall » Shouldn't the "fraud" doubt begin and end here? » January 31, 2013 10:01 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 13

Go to post

Sherlock was congratulated for the successful capture of Interpol's number one suspect, who had been on the loose for 30 years.

There can't be anyone (in the fictional universe or our universe) that believes that a 6 or 7-year old Sherlock began scheming with this guy in order to set up the ultimate pre-solved crime....3 decades later.

Introductions Please... » Hello! I'm a disappointed ***Sherlockology*** visitor » January 31, 2013 8:01 am

BlinkULDHC
Replies: 27

Go to post

Thanks for the kind welcome, SusiGo!

Sherlockology may be great for information, but just like Cumberbatch's Sherlock says, "I prefer to do my own editing" -- i.e., I'd rather gather information from the episodes themselves, and any pseudo-factual information from discussion with fans, rather than from a one-stop seemingly-authoritatuve source.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum