BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


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



March 27, 2012 9:18 am  #1


Richard Brook

So Jim Moriarty never existed, he was a character made up by Sherlock and he employed Richard Brook to portray him...OK...but I was thinking, if they really wanted to, I'm sure they could easily prove that Jim Moriarty did actually exist.

On the rooftop Sherlock says he can use the computer code to kill Richard Brook and bring back Jim Moriarty, then Moriarty starts laughing at him and says there is no code bla bla bla. But if there is no code, then Moriarty wouldn't have been able to use the code to delete all trace of himself in the first place. I'm pretty sure Mycroft and his people at the Government would have records of their dealings with Moriarty. I mean, I understand that wouldn't have helped Sherlock in the immediate situation....he would have still had to make the jump if only to save the lives of his friends, but he could have used the information to clear his name quicker then he wouldn't have had to stay away for ages. What do you think?


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

Independent OSAJ Affiliate

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

March 27, 2012 9:34 am  #2


Re: Richard Brook

I think the identity thing is given a greater relevance than it's got. He discredited Sherlock and then forced him to suicide. Moriarty would therefore believe Sherlock won't be around to clear his name. I think Sherlock will find it a very simple thing to demonstrate that Moriarty was Moriarty and not Brook. Not sure on the point of theorising what will happen when he comes back as that depends a great deal on how the writers want to cover it. They could even not touch on this at all. Dramatic license and all.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dislike being outnumbered. It makes for too much stupid in the room

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdmfsd8LI11rs9hrro1_400.gif
 

March 27, 2012 9:43 am  #3


Re: Richard Brook

He Sherlock, interesting, that you should post this! I started to feel mega uneasy about the whole Rich Brook situation. First I could not put my finger on it, but when I started to do some research on possible clues, which might really be continuity errors, I stumbled on this: When Sherlock takes a look at the cabbie, who turns out to be Moriarty, Jim is absolutely clean shaven, as Moriarty always is. Yet only a bit later, when he meets Rich Brook, he has a little goatie and a three day beard, which would take days to grow and  hours to fake with make up. I mean, come on,you can put on a false beard, but that's not, what we are looking at here. This could be absolutely nothing more than a big continuity error. But it doesn't inspire confidence, that in canon Moriarty has a brother with the same first name (Doyle wasn't THAT good with continuity either, lol, but MoGiss have used that more than once  to their advantage)  and, if you look up Andrew's acting resumme, you find, that he once played twin brothers (Dying City). One of them died in the war, but the other one came back to unsettle the wife of his brother. (Of course, Andy's acting career has nothing to do with Sherlock, but on the other hand, writers don't create stories out of thin air. They are inspired by something.). Commenters at other websites pointed out, that, when Sherlock said, that you can wrap up a big lie in a whole lot of truth, he's not talking about his life story, but about Rich Brook really existing as an actor,but of course not having been hired by him. As you point out correctly, the talk about the computer code enabling to erase and create records at will is bullshit, or at least Moriarty says so. I'm not sure, if there's any more than an error to it, but this would be a BIG slip on the side of the makers.
Of course these thoughts don't square with the fact, that the name 'Rich Brook 'is supposed to allude to 'Reichenbach', though Sherlock says himself at one point, that you never can count out coincidences. At the moment I don't know, what to think.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 10:12 am)

 

March 27, 2012 10:18 am  #4


Re: Richard Brook

I think we have to take the "Moriarty never existed" thing with a grain of salt.
Sure he says that he's deleted all record of his being, but he's not against telling untruths is he?

Sure Kitty's expose says he wasn't real, but let's face facts, she didn't exactly check out much of Moriarty/Rich's story that he told her did he? We know there are huge holes in the fabric of truth she has weaved, that is the whole point of the storyline really. The press just printing what they want us to believe. So we can't believe her story that there is no proof of Moriarty's existence.

I think he would have 'wiped out' most things that point to his life, but if anyone did some REAL investigative work they would find data on him.

Sherlocked I know quite a few guys who can grow that amount of stubble overnight; hairy things but yeah it is possible.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
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 27, 2012 10:24 am  #5


Re: Richard Brook

As I wrote myself, I'm not sure, if there's anything to it, but we're not talking overnight here. There can't be more than a  gap of a few hours between Sherlock seeing the cabbie and meeting Rich Brook. The beard could be nothing more than artistic license to make Rich Brook feel more real, but at this point I'm not sure about anything.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 10:54 am)

 

March 27, 2012 1:28 pm  #6


Re: Richard Brook

I think, we all made too easily the assumption, that Kitty is a bad reporter and would not have checked Brook's credentials. For one thing, we really don't know, how bad Kitty really is. Actor Rich Brook is presented as a public persona, even if he is not well known. His resumme is easy to check, even for a bad journo. The counter argument always was, that Moriarty altered all the records, but he himself said, that this is bullshit and this kind of powerful code doesn't exist. Well, we can't have it both ways. If the code does exist after all, Moriarty was lying to Sherlock. If it doesn't exist, we have to conclude that the Rich Brook persona is real to a certain degree. I tend to assume the latter. If actor Rich Brook never existed, people would have found out in a very short time. And more important, John would know it. He was there, when Sherlock came face to face with Brook, and heard all the accusations. He would be VERY interested after Sherlock's suicide to find out, if there's any truth in the Brook story. Well, he must still believe, at least it COULD be true, mustn't he? We talked about John having found inconsistencies in Sherlock telling him, he's a fraud. I've pointed out some inconsistencies in another thread (and, as always in the times of the world wide web, others have beat me to it, as I found out), but Rich Brook never having existed would be a glaring biggie for John. So if Sherlock wanted John to believe in the 'I am a fraud' story for a prolonged period of time, he must have known, that the Rich Brook story would check out.
So, what are the conclusions:
The simplest one would be, that Moriarty had created 'Actor Rich Brook' quite some time ago as a fall back identity, which would be always handy and practical for a supervillain. A variant of this theory is, that actor Rich Brook IS Moriarty (Moriarty being his artistic alias, since it sounds more menacing than his real name). The actor, who was not contend being a small fish and decided to become the greatest villain of all time.
Another possibility: We've never seen the real Moriarty so far, because Rich Brook, the small time actor was hired to be Moriarty's public face. The actor for hire story was true, but the client was not Sherlock but Moriarty.
Third possibility: Rich Brook is Moriarty's twin brother, who is willingly or by force working together with him. I like this possibilty least of all, but if the beard is not a continuity error, we are forced to conclude, that there are two guys, who look more or less identical. And in canon Moriarty has a brother.
As I said before, at this point, I don't know, what to believe. The most plausible solution would be the first one, that actor Rich Brook has always been one of Moriarty's identities (Jim, the IT guy, who dated Molly was another short term one), so the credentials would check out. But when was a tv show always about the most plausible solutions???

 

March 27, 2012 1:37 pm  #7


Re: Richard Brook

I like those theories! I've often wondered if they'll bring Moriarty's brother into it, although in this particular case I think the more likely theory is that Rich Brook has been one of Moriarty's many aliases for a while, something he set up some time ago. Can't explain the stubble though!


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

Independent OSAJ Affiliate

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

March 27, 2012 2:10 pm  #8


Re: Richard Brook

Well according to Kitty's records which John goes through Rich Brooks plays 'Brian Stokes' on the BBC1 award winning drama 'Emergency'. So it would be pretty hard to cover up whether or not that was true - even Kitty would've IMDb'd it as a precaution unless she had seen it herself.

Other reporters (Or at least members here) would certainly investigate the content once it was published and scrutinise it for consistency.

I think it's fair to say John would be aware of the allegations, who stated them and whether or not he had indeed performed in an award winning BBC1 drama as stated.

If it all turns out to be a sham - well Sherlock is effectively dead in the public's mind and so it's another odd twist to an already weird mystery which John would want to whittle away at to find the truth.

I still think Moriarty's helping Sherlock out with a clue in 'The Great Game'; "The clue's in the name: Janus Cars", was blatantly redundant and hinting towards a meat-puppet proxy played, in part at least, by Andrew Scott.

Finally food for thought, if "The Princess Bride" took it's poisoned cup game from "A Study in Scarlet" could 'Sherlock' not bring equilibrium by utilising the way the ship 'Revenge' employed its captain Dread Pirate Roberts each time?

-m0r


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
 

March 27, 2012 2:12 pm  #9


Re: Richard Brook

The whole point of 'Kitty' is that she represents everything that is bad about the British media.
Real life history shows how bad the garbage is that they feed people. The public would 'eat up' anything they dished out if it discredited someone with a high public image.
Now you will sit there and say "Oh I wouldn't just take their word about anything" but the fact is at one time or other, the majority of the public (even you at some stage I dare to say) believed something they fabricated.

Of course now, everything is taken with a slice of cynicism. But eventually the whole circus of the media will be back in full force with another load of garbage. And why? Because people WANT it; people WANT to think that someone 'good' can't be all that good. The sad part is that there ARE 'good' people in the world and those people get irreparably hurt by the media circus.

Bottom line, holding on to the belief that Kitty could be right in anyway means you have missed the point of her even being in the show.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
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 27, 2012 2:29 pm  #10


Re: Richard Brook

You and your bottom lines Kazza! A bit of Pyrrhonian philosophy might be useful :D

I agree Sherlock and Moriarty would each have sized her up as being 'repulsive' for the same reasons (That's she's ambitious and not very smart) but John, and possibly a slew of others, would have investigated the background and evidence for her story and would either have been left wanting or have found out that Richard Brook did indeed exist.

-m0r


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
 

March 27, 2012 3:18 pm  #11


Re: Richard Brook

Thing is, even if records COULD be altered at will and documents falsified, you cannot alter people's memories, unless Moriarty had a zapping device like the agents Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in 'Men in Black', that is. Someone should be able to recall, if he gave a reward to a certain actor, another one, if he covered that in an article. And even if Kitty is unscroupulous and not very smart, if she has some sense of self preservation, she should at least have done some marginal background checks.
And Moriarty's idea was certainly not to discredit Sherlock for a day or two, but to damage his reputation permanently. That would not work out, if this big lie is wrapped up in all sorts of little lies, which can be found out easily. No, I think, Rich Brook is real to a certain degree, which makes the 'Sherlock is a fraud' story that much more devillish and intriguing.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 3:19 pm)

 

March 27, 2012 3:25 pm  #12


Re: Richard Brook

Sherlock, I agree, I believe into the simplest explanation as well, though the stubble IS confounding! We're looking at a time laps of a couple of hours at most between Moriarty as cabbie and Moriarty as Rich Brook. Even the most hirsute men can't grow a moustache as fast as this. Trouble is, in a tv show you just never know, how much they bend reality!

 

March 27, 2012 3:39 pm  #13


Re: Richard Brook

mOr1arty, I agree, even if the public is not interested (though I highly doubt that, considering the sensationalism of the whole story), John and other friends (Lestrade - a detective,no less! - would certainly want to know, if  a fraud helped him all the time, which would be very career damaging) would be very keen to find out the truth.

 

March 27, 2012 3:58 pm  #14


Re: Richard Brook

I think the time gap between the cabbie scene and the one on the roof is more than a couple of hours. The cabbie scene is in the pitch dark whilst the rooftop scene is in brilliant sunshiney daylight. I guess if he had been up all night he might be the kind of guy that gets stubbly quickly.

However, referring back to the newspaper exposé by Rich Brook, Remember when Moriarty says to Sherlock back in the flat that every fairy tale needs a good villain? We are encouraged to believe t hat he is talking about himself being the baddie here aren't we. Later, on the rooftop, Moriarty says how he loves newspapers, because they sell fairy stories. Is it not possible that what he means all along is that Sherlock will be cast as the villain in the fairy talles conjured  up by the press -with Moriarty feeding the information of course. There is a fairy tale motif running throughout the episode e.g. Hansel and Gretel (the witch in this is eventually burned to a crisp).

It seems feasible that there could be brothers, perhaps twins,  one Moriarty and the other Rich Brook. Unless acting was some form of cover for Moriarty through his career. The idea of two brothers would be more faithful to the ACD canon. At a stretch I suppose it could be a reference to identity theft. It is certainly true that it would be relatively easy to prove that Rich Brook and Moriarty were not the same person, unless of course, they were.

I still cannot credit that Mycroft, who is after all such a clever man, would inadvertently give his brother's arch-enemy the perfect ammunition to destroy him. He knows that Moriarty is a genuinely dangerous man.


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

March 27, 2012 4:14 pm  #15


Re: Richard Brook

davina, when I wrote about the time lapse, I wasn't thinking of the time between the cabbie scene and the rooftop scene. I meant the time between Sherlock seeing the clean shaven Moriarty as cabbie and seeing the moustached Moriarty as Rich Brook, the actor at the SAME evening in Kitty's flat. Check out the time line: Sherlock sees Moriarty as cabbie, the assassin gets shot, Sherlock checks his flat for hidden devices and finds the camera. Mrs. Hudson complains about being in her nighty. At the same time Lestrade comes in and tells him about some doubts. Lestrade goes away. The burnt Ginger Bread man is delivered, while Mrs. Hudson is still in her nighty. She opens the police with the arrest warrant in same nighty. Sherlock and John get arrested, go on the run, see the newspapers, go to Kitty's flat, where they encounter moustached Rich Brook.  All this takes place in the dark and in the same evening/night. So we either have to conclude, that Rich Brook, the actor and Moriarty, the cabbie are not the same person or we have artistic license and a continuity error here.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 4:14 pm)

 

March 27, 2012 7:42 pm  #16


Re: Richard Brook

Allright, Moriarty/Rich Brook is getting mysteriouser and mysteriouser every time I look at him. When he visits Sherlock after the jury found him not guilty, he is clearly shown to be a left hander. He makes a big show turning this cup of tea so he can hold the handle with the left hand.Our attention is drawn to it. But the guy, who breaks into the tower, is clearly a right hander: He handles his phone with the right hand, but more importantly, he applies the diamond with the right hand, which needs some fine motorical skills. Now, you could argue, he wrote 'GET SHERLOCK' with his left hand. Yes, but he's writing in mirror image. If you write mirror image, the left hand is easier, because you don't swish over the letters with your hand. I should know, because I am a leftie and, as many lefties I'm very good at mirror image writing. Also, the letters, he writes are kind of crude, so he doesn't have to be very skillful with his left hand to write those letters. But for me the clincher is the careful way he applies the diamond with his right hand. No leftie would do this.
To me it increasingly looks like we're dealing with two different persons here. On just an emotional level, I like the guy, who dances to the Rossini melody in the Tower, and who gleefully poses in the crown jewells. The guy, who shows up at Sherlock's flat creeps me out. But, of course, that's not a valid argument, just a personal feeling.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 7:58 pm)

 

March 27, 2012 7:55 pm  #17


Re: Richard Brook

Duh! I failed on that one didn't I! Yep,  it's either a continuity error, unlikely I would have thought or more than one person!


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

March 27, 2012 8:03 pm  #18


Re: Richard Brook

davina, we all saw but didn't observe, lol! No, I don't think, this one is a continuity error. This left/right hand thing is much too big for this. It's standard mystery novel stuff. But I like the way, they fooled us with the writing! If I weren't a leftie myself with lots of mirror image writing practice, I would never have caught on!

 

March 27, 2012 8:12 pm  #19


Re: Richard Brook

In the pool scene (Scandal) Moriarty seems to be righthanded  because he acts as I - as a rightie - would do, namely holding the phone in my left hand and clicking fingers with my right. Doing so the other way round would be difficult for me.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John: "Have you spoken to Mycroft, Molly, uh, anyone?"
Mrs Hudson: "They don’t matter. You do."


I BELIEVE IN SERIES 5!
http://up.picr.de/25572077rl.jpg



                                                                                                                  
 

March 27, 2012 8:22 pm  #20


Re: Richard Brook

That's true. If I, a leftie would use both hands, I would hold the phone in my right hand and use the fingers of my left hand to type/click. But the guy in the Tower holds the phone in his right hand and does the typing/clicking with his right hand also. No leftie would do that, but, as I said before, the clincher is the diamond. No leftie would apply that with his right hand in the way this is done in the show.
So, if tobeornot221b's observation is correct, the guy in the tower and the 'Moriarty' at the pool in 'Scandal' are the same person, whereas the guy, who visits Sherlock (and possibly the cabbie) is a different one. This could make sense, since I read somewhere, that 'Scandal' for some reason was filmed after 'Reichenbach', so they should have paid attention to those details.

An aside: SHOULD  we deal here with something like the Moriarty twins vs. the Holmes brothers (and it's still a big IF), it's not uncommon, that identical twins, though they share the same DNA, have different hand preferences. It's a phenomenon, which is still not completely understood, but the scientists are getting there.

Last edited by sherlocked (March 27, 2012 8:49 pm)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum