BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » I favour the simple solution

tobeornot221b · July 2, 2012 7:45 pm

I bet that nobody could have predicted that Stayin' Alive phone call thing at the Pool.
Our question over many months: "How on earth will Sherlock and John get out of there?" was answered within less than ten seconds.
So, I'm expecting the solution of "how Sherlock did it" to be likewise simple.

One important reason can be the economic aspect, that is, the BBC will again be selling the series to more than 180 countries in the world, and there will be parts of the TV audience that will be newbies to it. If the very beginning of S3E1 appears to require too much prior knowledge those new viewers may be deterred from sticking to the episode – and Sherlock as a whole – that would mean a forseeable economic loss.
The beginning of "The Empty House" episode should be a real blast – and it will be - sure as hell!
Care must be taken to ensure that nothing will slow it down.

So: no long explanations, no complicated flashbacks, no rhododendron ponticum stuff, no body doubles for Moriarty and Sherlock. I'm expecting a massive and immediately in the eye jumping solution.

I'm sure Gatiss (and his co-writers) will keep it as clear and easy as possible.

Fetchinketch · July 2, 2012 8:12 pm

I'm inclined to agree with you!

Davina · July 2, 2012 9:08 pm

Count me in! I think Jim's taunt about Sherlock always wanting things to be clever will be shown to be nonsense.

Sherlock Holmes · July 3, 2012 8:26 am

Yeah me too. I think that was one of the clues "you always want things to be so clever..etc..." because in this case, things were extraordinarily simple.

Also, if you look at most of the stories in the canon, they all seemed complicated at first, but the solutions were normally staring you in the face and once Holmes explained them it seems glaringly obvious.

SusiGo · July 3, 2012 10:58 am

I'm with you, too. For the life of me I don't see a solution requiring slow-motion analysis and other technical gimmicks - which of course doesn't mean there's no fun in doing just this . But I guess the solution will be elegant, clever and simple, in short, worthy of Sherlock.
P.S. Sorry for changing my avatar once again but I just couldn't resist .

Last edited by SusiGo (July 3, 2012 11:31 am)

Irene Adler · July 3, 2012 11:21 am

I agree with tobe too. I don't think the solution will involve doubles, inflatable castles or a flying Tardis. As Sherlock, I think we all want things to be clever, but I'm sure this will be a very simple thing. But... what thing, for God's sake?

hypergreenfrog · July 3, 2012 11:24 am

I actually hope it will be fairly straightforward.
Not that I don't like the really smart theories involving all kinds of hints going back to S1 and using slow-motion analysis - I love all the specutation and I am amazed how many hints you can find if you look close enough.

But I agree with tobe that the writers cannot base their solution on fans like us, and that's perfectly alright. I watch quite a few shows casually, and if they all required me to spend hours thinking about the show and rewatching episodes in order to follow the plot, I would definitely stop watching (Fringe, anyone?).

I do imagine there will be a few flashbacks though, e.g. an extended version of the last conversation Sherlock had with Molly.They could even help casual viewers remember (or see for the first time) what happend before the fall.

Davina · July 3, 2012 11:41 am

I still think it may be something to do with an illusion of some kind. These are not complex, in the main, but are totally believable. Soooo long to wait until we find out though!

Sherlock Holmes · July 3, 2012 8:45 pm

Flashback scenes where Sherlock is explaining things with a voice over would get pretty boring pretty quickly, so I think they'd really only do a very short section of him explaining it, probably about the same length as when he explains the phone deductions in ASIP when him and John are sat in the back of the cab. I always imagine it being a bit like that, perhaps just a touch longer.

kazza474 · July 4, 2012 2:53 am

I doubt we will see it all explained as quickly as the poolside cliffhanger was defused. There was no 'mystery' with the poolside encounter. It was just a continuance of the plot.
With the Reichenbach solution we will see different angles of the same scene.
We will hear Sherlock eventually explain what he did, if only just to John.
We will watch Sherlock meld once again into society.
It won't take up too much time of the episode, but I believe it will be spread through the episode as there will be a new case for Sherlock to work on.
The explanation however will be very straight forward; we will all see how simplicity works with the greatest effect.
We will see, (as I have said all along) the KISS method applied.
Keep It Simple Stupid.

I do chuckle that it has taken this long before people start agreeing with that.
(Care to look back at old theories etc? lol)

hypergreenfrog · July 4, 2012 7:58 am

I wouldn't say that simple necessarily implies stupid, just straightforward.
Coming up with a straightforward, easily explained trick how to survive a jump from a multi-storey building will involve quite a lot of thinking and planning (both in-universe and from the writers).
And at least for me, it would (and hopefully will) be a lot more satisfying this way. I said in one of my first posts here that I hope it will be something that stared us in the face all along, not something involving numerous unforseeable twists that make it seem like the writers only invented the solution after they finished S2.

kazza474 · July 4, 2012 8:09 am

"Keep it simple, stupid." It's a saying used to mean 'don't over think things' or as you say 'keep it straightforward'. The word stupid has nothing to do with it; it's used as a pronoun.

What you are saying is what I have said all along, since February ; the answers are there, it will be a common sense train of thought. It will not involve things from other episodes; it will not involve secret spy stuff; it will not involve a great knowledge of chemistry, religion, ancient history (just to name a few theories that have been bandied about the past 6 months or so)

So in reality, it will NOT take a lot of planning & thinking.
That wouldn't be straightforward would it?

hypergreenfrog · July 4, 2012 9:27 am

I was wondering whether it was meant to be read like that, as "simple stupid" sounded slightly odd. Thank you for the clarification.
You could repost it in the languages thread, as an example of how punctuation can change the meaning of a phrase (I am not being sarcastic, there really were posts about that, albeit referring to German).

Sherlock Holmes · July 4, 2012 10:41 am

kazza474 wrote:
I do chuckle that it has taken this long before people start agreeing with that.
(Care to look back at old theories etc? lol)

I know, I find that amusing too. Even my own theories have changed so much since I first saw the episode. I'm still introducing new people to Sherlock and I find it really funny when they see Reichenbach for the first time then ring me up going, "it was the rubber ball" "it was Moriarty's dead body", it was this it was that...and now I'm like "nahhh, it was something really simple" although I'm still not entirely sure what!

I'd kind of like my theory to be wrong, and then I'll be surprised when I watch the episode.

kazza474 · July 4, 2012 10:43 am

Yes, I have also said all along I hope I am way off & they surprise me; and they most likely will I am almost certain.

Sherlock Holmes · July 4, 2012 10:46 am

Yeah, and then we'll all be kicking ourselves saying "How could I not have thought of that?!"

Tantalus · July 5, 2012 6:54 pm

Wait, kazza, you don't have a copy of the S3 script?

I've been sure all along that you knew exactly what happened (maybe even wrote the scene), and were just stringing us along...

Bummer.

Sumac60 · July 14, 2012 3:33 am

Well, somebody on youtube says it's got to be the crisps in Sherlock's pockets. (Is it cheating to go off-forum?) Then some others I found while googling that idea claim that Sherlock is fond of "Quavers"...a kind of puffed up curious snack that looks a bit springy...like a fake pork rind. The British here could of course fill me in...would they serve as say, a good packing material?

Could those have been the tiny puffy pillows that meant life over death? That and some careful landing on non vital organs? Molly did say at one point she was going off for more, though she doesn't suspect they could be useful for anything other than lunch. They'd have to be all over him, though, for it to work...

I think the blood is real. A cut on the scalp can bleed pretty alarmingly, and it was raining so the watery pavement would enhance that.

Aarg...I need to do something else for a few days...really fun, though.

Last edited by Sumac60 (July 14, 2012 12:40 pm)

Nadezhda · July 16, 2012 12:20 pm

Ha ha ha, I read this and hurt myself laughing.
I am sticking with the perspective magic trick. Sherlock jumps, they roll him onto the pavement, Molly rushes out and slaps bits of brain and blood on him. The ball might have been a red herring, but all the people there were definitely Mycrofts and the H.N, Lestrade may have been in on it too. Either way poor John Can't wait to see his reaction when he see's Sherlock he is so gonna break his nose.

Sumac60 wrote:
Well, somebody on youtube says it's got to be the crisps in Sherlock's pockets. (Is it cheating to go off-forum?) Then some others I found while googling that idea claim that Sherlock is fond of "Quavers"...a kind of puffed up curious snack that looks a bit springy...like a fake pork rind. The British here could of course fill me in...would they serve as say, a good packing material?

Could those have been the tiny puffy pillows that meant life over death? That and some careful landing on non vital organs? Molly did say at one point she was going off for more, though she doesn't suspect they could be useful for anything other than lunch. They'd have to be all over him, though, for it to work...

I think the blood is real. A cut on the scalp can bleed pretty alarmingly, and it was raining so the watery pavement would enhance that.

Aarg...I need to do something else for a few days...really fun, though.

hypergreenfrog · July 16, 2012 1:54 pm

Sumac60 wrote:
Well, somebody on youtube says it's got to be the crisps in Sherlock's pockets. (Is it cheating to go off-forum?) Then some others I found while googling that idea claim that Sherlock is fond of "Quavers"...a kind of puffed up curious snack that looks a bit springy...like a fake pork rind. The British here could of course fill me in...would they serve as say, a good packing material?

Could those have been the tiny puffy pillows that meant life over death? That and some careful landing on non vital organs? Molly did say at one point she was going off for more, though she doesn't suspect they could be useful for anything other than lunch. They'd have to be all over him, though, for it to work...

I am not British, but I have spent enough time in the crisp-eating part of the world that I feel qualified to comment on this:

I believe the importance of the crisps or quavers is over-interpreted by Sherlock fans from outside the UK (or Ireland), because they do not fully understand the role of crisps in every day life. Crisps and a sandwich is a perfectly acceptable lunch, and you can buy crisps just about anywhere, definitely from a vending machine somewhere at St.Bart, even at times when the canteen would be closed.. Both Molly and Sherlock buying crisps is therefore nothing unusual or particularly noteworthy.
An average packet of crisps holds 30g of content, the rest is air. However, even without any empiric evidence, I refuse to believe such a package could provide any sort of cushioning from the impact of a fall from a building. If you step or sit on them, they immediately burst, so even if Sherlock had only jumped a few feet, or merely fallen over, the weight would have been to much for the crisps to support.

The only way I could possibly imagine this theory could work is that if you used crisps or quavers packets, but resealed them yourself with a much stronger type of glue. But that leads to a new question, i.e. why use crisps at all, when you can just fill any small bag with air?