BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


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



March 19, 2012 8:54 am  #21


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

I think it shows that in THIS version, John isn't the bumbling sidekick that he was shown to be in other versions.
And that there IS a place for 'commonplace' rather than 'clever'. It helps Sherlock understand to never overlook the obvious, simple solutions.
Something I think we should all consider in our deducing!


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

March 19, 2012 9:26 am  #22


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Yeah, it doesn't always have to be the "improbable" that's the truth!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.

Independent OSAJ Affiliate

http://9.asset.soup.io/asset/1715/0057_6c7d.gif
     Thread Starter
 

March 21, 2012 4:15 pm  #23


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Remember in The Reichenbach Fall Moriarty tells Sherlock that his failing is that he always expects things to be clever.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist and if they did I wouldn't be one of them.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdq1pcLCUR1rs9hrro1_500.jpg
 

May 20, 2012 3:36 pm  #24


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

In the final fighting scene where Sarah is all tied up there is a very obvious one.
The "spider" tries to choke Sherlock with this long purple-ish piece of cloth and after he dies, Sherlock is all wrapped up in it.
You can see him clearly pulling the cloth over his head and putting it away. Then he frees Sarah and you can still see the purple on him... Then you see him without it... and then you can see it again on him.
It is a bit complicated to describe, but it really bothers me.

 

May 22, 2012 6:17 am  #25


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

yeah  I  saw that scene with the purple scarf.

The wall with the Cipher.   Remember  when John   ran to sherlock   and  they both went to the wall and noticed it had been  "painted"  over?   well,  with WHAT?   that wall didn't look like it had been...you could still see the brick lines,  and it appeared to me as it the cipher hadn't actually been there at all.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SHERLOCK!!!!!!
 

June 2, 2012 7:53 pm  #26


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

What really bothers me is that when Sherlock finally figures out that the symbols of the code are Chinese numbers and then puts a name to the number system, he incorrectly pronounces the word.  He says it as Hong-zoo, where the first "o" is like "on" and the second syllable is like the word "zoo."  But in pinyin (the standard system on the mainland for transliterating Chinese into Roman letters), the name of the place is spelled Hangzhou, and in Standard Mandardin the second syllable should be pronounced as "joe."  And that doesn't even take into account the tones.

I don't know what the Hangzhou dialect sounds like and I suppose it's possible the producers researched it so Ben could say it in dialect, but if Sherlock knows enough to pronounce the word correctly in the local dialect, then I would have thought he'd recognize the symbols as numbers much sooner that he eventually does.

But Sherlock pronounces the name of the city Dalian correctly so why not Hangzhou?

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Last edited by Sherli Bakerst (June 2, 2012 8:46 pm)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.  -- Helen Keller
 

June 2, 2012 10:39 pm  #27


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Yeah, he didn't really pronounce that correctly at all.
Hm, well, I guess it's just considered a complicated word to say, one would not expect one to pronounce it completely right if not familiar with Chinese..
it doesn't really bother me. Like "Reichenbach", there not really pronouncing it the way it should be, but that's just British talking in other languages with a strong accent, so..

(Fun fact: I've been to Hangzhou, it's nice!)

 

June 2, 2012 11:39 pm  #28


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

SherliB wrote:

Sherlock...incorrectly pronounces the word

Yes, these are things that I would have thought would have taken two ticks to get right...surely they have a Mandarin speaker somewhere in the BBC, even in Wales?!
Ok, so foreign words are difficult for a non-native speaker to get right but I too hoped they'd 'go deeper' into the accuracy of such things. Their audience is more likely to contain people who would notice any inaccuracy and appreciate their making the effort. Haven't Moftiss et al ever had their belief spontaneously shatter when such a thing occurs in a programme depicting something they know? And some viewers may even consider the programme as some sort of reference for accuracy, given the reputation of the hero and the attention to deatil crucial to the plots.
     In contrast I know they are doing their best with Benedict's violin playing - cutting away quickly or to him at the end of a piece to keep the view short and giving him a professional from whom to copy the bowing - far more than most programmes ever do. I think Brett's bowing was better, though still no vibrato (which looks odd in conjunction with the sound if you're used to watching real players). But vibrato is very tricky if you're not used to doing it (and I'm still rubbish at it!)
     Perhaps inevitably I feel a little rant coming on about aspects of the 'science/technology' (both as depicted and as described) that are wide of the mark and simply need not be so. I'm not talking about 'not wearing a lab coat', or even quiblling about the unrealistic sidelighting done 'because it which looks cool'! They could so easily ask a scientist to help them to come up with semi-believable fudges for the short comings, and again it would take two ticks. Eg Baskerville could have a secret superfast HPLC machine using which Sherlock could discover there really is nothing but sugar and water in the solution of Henry's sugar very quickly and a million times more plausibly than 'looking down a microscope' and flashing the word hydrogen and chemical formula for water at us.
     Yes, I've got a list, and some of them are mistakes in a more plot-related way, but the details aren't important: they're all through what seems to be considered 'justified continued ignorance', yet are easily avoidable, if only they'd ask someone who knows. I'm still hoping that might fall within the remit of a professional programme maker some time soon.[/rant]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important thing I have learnt from 'Sherlock':
British army research bases keep their bins at the bottom of a quite deep lift shaft.
 

June 3, 2012 12:47 am  #29


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Britgander wrote:

Eg Baskerville could have a secret superfast HPLC machine using which Sherlock could discover there really is nothing but sugar and water in the solution of Henry's sugar very quickly and a million times more plausibly than 'looking down a microscope' and flashing the word hydrogen and chemical formula for water at us.

Now here's where I stand up for Moftiss and back them 100%.
The show is not made solely for an audience of scientists, linguistic experts or music aficionados. It is NOT a tutorial. It is made for the public in general and especially for those with a love of the ACD canon.
It is not so much 'justified ignorance' which causes small flaws in the shows but more likely that the focus of the show is on certain aspects.
Yes ACD himself made glaring errors, and whilst they are not actually repeated faithfully we will find them there in all the shows. His focus was elsewhere. Yes these days Moftiss could get in an expert on every aspect of the show, but where would that end and would that then diminish the affect Mofftiss has on the show? We'd be getting a show made by a group of experts; how dull frankly. (*note to self, don't be late for my Baritsu class)

Yes, for most things there probably ARE faster and easier ways to do things. I hope people would be happy with a 30 minute show if that becomes a reality. Of course we could have a 90 minute show but we'd have to cram far more into it then so the canon would be covered in about 3 or 4 series.
Also, the footwork & the investigating are all very central to the heart of Holmes' stories. It is what gives it the charm that we all love so dearly.

I could go on but let's ponder the 'fast paced, totally modernised and technology wise' Holmes.
- no more heads or thumbs in the fridge. Far better & faster results will be achieved using the hospital's equipment.
- no taxi rides; much easier to totally modernise & do all work from home.
- no Great Coat, so impractical in this day & age.
- no blogger; anything John can do, a computer can do better & faster & more accurate no doubt.


So there we have it "Holmes" ; shouldn't take long to watch so that the modern 'up & at 'em" person isn't held back too long  while viewing it on their ipad on the way to work. Pity they miss the cinematography on such a small screen but then sometimes we must sacrifice things in the name of progress.

Things are not always 'perfect' in this world, as much as people like to think they could/should be. Having a hoard of consulting experts would never work. So we have a Scientist, Violinist, maybe a lab tech specialist? We really should have a psychiatric expert, a sociologist & a relationships consultant as well. Then there's the matter of Mycroft's work within the Government, best we get a Secret Agent consultant, foreign affairs consultant etc.
Now I know there will be some excellent professional Landladies out there who have been cringing at the lack of security features that really are a legal requirement in this day & age to avoid litigation.

The list goes on.
(Soapbox time)
Crucial to the whole Holmes experience is the actual reading of the originals. Only then can you possibly understand the love and caring that these shows have sprung from.
Now I have read nearly every post on this forum from the beginning & trust me, so many people say that they have read the canon & know the stories. Yet there is so much proof that they have not. Reading is not skipping through the main outline on Wiki or some such, however that's what I see in the posts here.
There is NO SHORTCUT to reading the canon. You have to physically read it. And for some who have stated 'oh yes I have read the canon' then it leads me to believe that comprehension in this day and age is sadly lacking. I don't mean about 'interpreting' what is read but in understanding what is read. It is as if people read through the stories as quickly as possible to say " I've read the canon'.
That is not starting a deep appreciation with the canon, a love affair with the canon if you will.
That is speed dating; it will be over soon enough & in a year or so you will forget what was so great about Sherlock Holmes.

It may be old fashioned, but I urge you all to go back and READ the words of ACD and for those who really haven't done so, you are kidding yourself if you think all the knowledge you need about the stories can be googled/Wikisearched.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 3, 2012 10:42 am  #30


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

In similar vein, the decision was made between the pilot and the final version of SiP not to have Sherlock wear the blue 'all in one' (to my mind slightly Andy Pandy looking) scene of crime outfits. Incorrect technically, but more aesthetically pleasing from the creative perspective, and lets face it, so much effort has gone in to all the aspects (creative, technical, arts and sciences) of these series which make it the whole package that we love to love. The people who have input to this process deserve all the plaudits ( why was this was not adequately recognised at the BAFTAs? - not just the technical awards but the major 'best series' categories also).

[Sorry to digress - still slightly cheesed off that Sherlock did not win in categories for which it was/suddenly became ineligible ] 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

June 3, 2012 4:32 pm  #31


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

kazza474:
Really thoughtful and interesting comments in your most recent post.  Thanks!  I agree that having a horde of "experts" who can attest that every little detail is accurate in their respective fields would not be a good thing.  If that were the objective, then it would become a documentary.

I was thinking further after I posted my comment about Chinese pronunciation about why it bothered me, and I realized that when I heard the word, it interrupted the...flow is not the right word but the only one I can come up with...the immersive experience of the episode for me.  The story draws me in and moves me along and I don't feel like I'm watching a TV show because Ben and Martin make everything so believable.  Until I hear "that word" and then I'm jolted back to my living room and I become aware of the TV in front of me and that the people on-screen are actually actors and not real people.

I have thought, occasionally, about why Sherlock uses a microscope instead of something more high-tech and last night I decided it was because, by looking through a microscope, he can avoid more closely interacting with people.  In other words, the microscope gives Sherlock a convenient barrier that keeps him one step/slightly removed from the other people around him.  As well as demonstrating his scientific expertise.  So that doesn't bother me at all.  And it probably helps that I do not have a very strong science background so I don't know what he could be using instead.

Having watched Sherlock before reading the stories, I completely agree with you that people should read the canon.  I have started doing so and, yes, it's lots of fun to rewatch the episodes and see how the show's creators have incorporated the canon into them.  I definitely have a much greater appreciation of the episodes as a result, and I've only read a few things so far.  I am greatly looking forward to reading everything as I know that once I do, I'll be able to not only better understand and enjoy the heritage and references of/in the TV series, I'll also be able to comment on those aspects in the relevant forums on this board.

JaneCo:
You make another good point!  I haven't seen the Pilot yet but I did wonder about why Sherlock didn't also put on the crime scene outfit.  However, I thought that for both aesthetic and character reasons, it made a lot more sense for him not to: It differentiates Sherlock from all the other, ordinary people surrounding him and shows how he is unique.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.  -- Helen Keller
 

May 28, 2013 4:20 pm  #32


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

On the science topic and having down every detail technically, I think that maybe also there was not enough time during production to figure everything out in detail. And it might not have fit in the general tone of the series to have all things high tech or too sci-fi.

Maybe also they have made the choices such as using a microscope to be more relatable to the general viewers but also to give a connection to the originals.. which I think is a good descision stylewise.

 


______________________________________________________________________________
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y483/maggi131313/sign_zps21165d39.jpg Oh.God.Yes.
 

June 1, 2013 8:39 am  #33


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Soo Lin Yao's flat: 
So Sherlock gets in through the window on the first floor. But there aren't any stairs inside the flat and he just exitis on street level? 
Or am I missing something?


______________________________________________________________________________
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y483/maggi131313/sign_zps21165d39.jpg Oh.God.Yes.
 

June 1, 2013 10:19 am  #34


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Of course there are stairs.  He comes down them to the front door.

Last edited by besleybean (June 1, 2013 10:26 am)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 1, 2013 10:22 am  #35


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Ah, I saw but I did not observe http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/wink.png
 Thanks.


______________________________________________________________________________
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y483/maggi131313/sign_zps21165d39.jpg Oh.God.Yes.
 

June 1, 2013 10:25 am  #36


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

No sorry, I shouldn't have been snippy!
It's my least favourite episode, so I don't watch it that much and haven't seen it for ages.
I can't honestly remember whether we do see the stairs or not.
I assumed he came down them to the front door!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 1, 2013 11:11 am  #37


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

No worries ;-) 
Feel the same about the episode, but this stair thing just bothered me from the first time I saw it.


______________________________________________________________________________
http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y483/maggi131313/sign_zps21165d39.jpg Oh.God.Yes.
 

June 1, 2013 11:31 am  #38


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

(Cringes at the memories of the 'wardrobe' thing!)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 1, 2013 3:26 pm  #39


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

John's CV claims that he trained at Kings. It also doesn't follow the format of a proper medical CV, but I could forgive that.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

We met twice, five minutes in total. I pulled a gun, he tried to blow me up. I felt we had a special something.


Icon credit: wraith816 @ livejournal
 

June 1, 2013 3:27 pm  #40


Re: Noticed any mistakes?

Could he not have trained at both?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum