BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Moftiss Intentionally Misleading Us?

**Posted by aWorldlyPhilosopher** November 6, 2012 9:59 pm

Are there any scenes where you think Moftiss are intentionally trying to mislead us? Since, as they have said, the clues are all out there...did they divert our attention from real clues with red herrings?

There have been obvious examples (the way they portrayed Dr. Stapleton as the genetically modifying suspect) and subtler ones (using only numeric pass codes so we wouldn't think of the, now obvious, alphabetic "SHER" code that unlocked Irene Adler's phone).

If you think you've spotted a misdirection, please do share!

**Posted by SusiGo** November 6, 2012 10:15 pm

I'm not sure about the whole code thing. The more I read about it, the more confused I get.

**Posted by kazza474** November 7, 2012 4:15 am

Red herrings are the only defence Moftiss has against failure for this series. To tell the tales 'straight' would soon become boring. They have an inquiring audience that demands to be tested.
I'd say the 'misleads' are more the fault of the viewer for 'assuming' which is something Sherlock would never do.

**Posted by tobeornot221b** November 7, 2012 4:47 am

A case of intentional misleading the audience is Moffat make Mycroft look like a "criminal master mind" (if not Moriarty!) in ASiP.

**Posted by SusiGo** November 7, 2012 7:53 am

tobeornot221b wrote:
A case of intentional misleading the audience is Moffat make Mycroft look like a "criminal master mind" (if not Moriarty!) in ASiP.

Yes, I walked into that trap when watching it for the first time. That was excellent.

**Posted by hypergreenfrog** November 7, 2012 10:34 am

SusiGo wrote:
tobeornot221b wrote:
A case of intentional misleading the audience is Moffat make Mycroft look like a "criminal master mind" (if not Moriarty!) in ASiP.
Yes, I walked into that trap when watching it for the first time. That was excellent.

Yes, that was the most obvious one, and extremely well done.

Also, when we first see John at the pool, for a short moment I thought - "is he Moriarty?" Of course, that didn't last very long, but I do believe that it was done not only to confuse the viewers, but to confuse Sherlock, even if only for a moment.

As for "intentionally misleading" viewers or readers, that is what crime fiction is all about, isn't it? In the most classic whodunnit stories, there is always an obvious suspect without an alibi, and also some very obvious clues... none of which lead to the actual solution.It's knowing which clues are just there to confuse you, and which are actually true that makes the game worth playing (or the book worth reading).

**Posted by Sherlock Holmes** November 23, 2012 9:39 pm

How about setting it up so we think Jim is just Jim from IT then we discover he's actually Moriarty?

I think there's probably loads in Reichenbach though...like the RUBBER BALL!!! The rubber ball is so obviously a red herring. (In my opinion anyway...I don't buy into the rubber ball theory).

**Posted by besleybean** November 23, 2012 9:44 pm

I know some smart alecs gussed who Jim from IT really ws.
I might have done so too, if I'd actually remembered Moriarty's forename was James!

**Posted by Mnemosyne** November 24, 2012 11:02 pm

aWorldlyPhilosopher wrote:
using only numeric pass codes so we wouldn't think of the, now obvious, alphabetic "SHER" code that unlocked Irene Adler's phone.

I surprised myself by guessing that one. It didn't ruin anything for me though...a case of the journey being better than the destination. This guesswork is why a friend of mine has banned me from watching CSI with them. I told them the ending of a new episode before the opening credits... (if you're out there somewhere; I'm sorry I genuinely didn't think I'd be right.)

When I watched The Great Game the person I watched that with swore down that Mycroft was Moriarty... and *still does* I can't help them. God knows I've tried but they are bloody minded.

To be fair I did have a brief 'WTH moment' when John emerged at the swimming pool scene.

That's the draw of good writing, you never really know what's going to happen next.

**Posted by sherlockian111** January 22, 2013 9:47 am

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
How about setting it up so we think Jim is just Jim from IT then we discover he's actually Moriarty?

I think there's probably loads in Reichenbach though...like the RUBBER BALL!!! The rubber ball is so obviously a red herring. (In my opinion anyway...I don't buy into the rubber ball theory).

I don't think the rubber ball theory is correct either. Lots of people think that Sherlock landed in the truck(I think the truck was just another red herring), but that would've been physically impossible. The solution will turn out to be really obvious and simple, but we didn't see it because (quote) we "always want it to be clever" and then Gatiss and Moffat: "we knew you'd fall for it!" In short, we're all way over thinking this

**Posted by Mnemosyne** January 22, 2013 10:31 am

It's been fun though hasn't it?

'Did we get ya?'