Offline
I have a question,it's not related to the topic we're discussing here. Is it necessary to write quotes or add images at the end of the post? I've never been in a forum like this,so I do not know.
Offline
Well I never do...
But then I'm probably the last person to ask
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Well I never do...
But then I'm probably the last person to ask
You just did. That dialogue between Watson and Irene. Or is it getting added automatically?
Never mind.
Offline
Oh sorry, the signature!
No you can opt in for it.
Yes I always use one of those...change it each season.
Offline
No, ruthinks, I never do that. it's just a personal touch.
Offline
It´s the so called signature. You can create one in your personal settings and it will always appear. Or you leave it like it is.
Offline
sherlocked wrote:
Sanaz, good that you posted the link to the finalproblem.tumblr. The observations about the missing blood puddle under the corpse, which was very visible and had a very peculiar shape in TRF, is a good catch. It's hard to believe in such a gross continuity error. The lady, who owns this tumblr is very observant and one of the saner analyzers. While I don't share many of her conclusions, she very good in detecting illogical things and discrepancies. I'm more confident now, that we will see another solution.
Yes, It would be very clumsy if they'd really made such a mistake. Things like this make me thing that we should wait for some other explanation too.
Offline
Reality check (i. e. I'm not worried about continuity or people's behaviour):
The first mistake is before the episode even starts, in the teaser "Many happy returns" (I finally got my series 3 special edition - don't order from Zoverstocks if you live in France and want to receive things quickly): There are no jury trials in Germany.
In The Empty Hearse: The restaurant can't have "the St. Emilion", only "a St. Emilion" - St. Emilion is an AOC (appelation d'origine contrôlé) which comprises hundreds of different wines.
Regarding animal fibres, tensile strength is rarely even mentioned (the individual fibre's strenght isn't important - twist and number of plies determine the yarn's strength). Important characteristics are diameter, crimp, staple length. But the easiest way to distinguish between alpaca and Icelandic sheep (once processed to yarn - nobody could confuse raw alpaca and Icelandic locks) would be to look at the fibre under a microscope - wool has clearly visible scales, alpaca is much smoother.
After all my nitpicking I also have to mention something the show got right: Next to firefighter's or Formula 1 pilot gear, a 100% wool coat is probably the best thing to wear when approaching a fire - wool does not burst into flames and it does not continue to burn once removed from a flame.
Offline
The restaurant can have only one kind of St. Emilion on their menu. In that case it would be right to offer "the St.Emilion".
Offline
I think Mark got a bit annoyed on Twitter when people repeatedly pointed out that there are no jury trials in Germany.
They either did not do their research or they wanted Sherlock in a place near Britain for that scene and all other neighbouring countries had no jury trials either. No idea about the Netherlands, Belgium, or France.
Offline
I think people often forget that three Sherlock´s cases in MHR are narrated by Anderson. The same man who believed in Derren Brown hypnosing John and similar theories. And that a jury in Germany (or in another places with a continental law system) was in no way more absurd than a young caucasian female blonde successfully passing for a monk in a Tibetan monastery.
In short, all three cases were suppossed to be jokes - and it´s really exasperating when people try to find mistakes in things that were intentionally absurd.
Offline
I didn't see it that way because of the newspaper headlines - I don't think that Andersen would fantasize that level of detail and with that much command of German...
Schmiezi wrote:
The restaurant can have only one kind of St. Emilion on their menu. In that case it would be right to offer "the St.Emilion".
The St. Emilion implies that there's only one to choose from. Meaning when John is sitting in the restaurant, he could order "the St. Emilion". But when Mycroft, from the outside, talks about the restaurant's wine selection, he should say: "they have a few bottles of a 2000 St. Emilion", or, even better "of the 2000 Chateau Bellecombe" (just picked any one from the list of producers (
But I suppose Mofiss know as much about French wine as about the German legal system...