Posted by m0r1arty March 27, 2012 2:46 am | #1 |
In order for us to piece together what happened where and when I've came up with the idea of us defining a timeline of events both televised and internet based. I shall embolden TV knowledge to allow us to differentiate between the two.
1989 - Carl Powers is killed - "It's where I began"
29th January - John meets Sherlock for the first time at Saint Bart's. I've originally placed 2010 as the year due to Sherlock having a Blackberry Bold 9700 when we first see him however 2011 seems more apt due to John's blog's timeline.
31st January - John moves into 221b Baker Street, Sherlock has already moved in. 'A Study in Pink' occurs
23rd March - Sherlock has a fight with a Sikh man over the 'Jaria diamond' case
27th March - 'The Blind Banker' case comes to a close
28/29th March - Sherlock flies to Minsk to meet with Barry Berwick
29/30th March - 'The Great Game' occurs and Jacob Sowersby makes his first blog comment upon it the next day.
April - John goes to New Zealand with Sarah for a couple of weeks and they break up.
May - The Tilly Briggs pleasure cruise incident occurs, a laptop melts and Sherlock steals a bus.
June 16th - John writes up 'The Geek Interpretor' case
July 13 - John writes up 'The Speckled Blonde' case.
August 1st - John writes up about the man found in the car boot who should have died in Düsseldorf.
August 12th - John writes about how busy he and Sherlock have been over the last few months and how they have achieved internet fame
September 2nd - John writes about 'The Aluminium Crutch'
15th September - John writes about his and Sherlock's visit to Buckingham Palace
19th December - John publishes his 'The Six Thatchers' notes
25th December - John publishes his note on Christmas
25th December - Sherlock identifies Irene Adler's body in morgue
31st December - John meets with Irene Adler, Mrs Hudson is attacked by CIA looking for Adler's phone
1st January - Sherlock x-rays Irene Adler's phone at St. Bart's.
January 1st - John posts Happy New Year (2012) and shows video of Jacob Sowersby on his blog
March 12th - John posts 'The Woman' concluding 'A Scandal in Belgravia'
March 16th - John blogs his 'The Hounds of Baskerville' write up.
March 16th - Moriarty hacks into John's blog and posts a video of his rummaging through 221b
June 16th - John posts that Sherlock is dead (With BBC news report eluding that it was Sunday 12th June when Sherlock jumped)
We know that Mycroft has Moriarty detained at some point between 'A Scandal in Belgravia' and 'The Reichenbach Fall', presumably released on or before March 16th. Moriarty had to commit the crime of 'stealing' the crown jewels and have his trial mid April and of course Sherlock nipped across to Irene Adler's aid at some point too.
Now this is where is gets odd...
Jim's 'Richard Brook' resume has a photograph allegedly taken in 2010- this would be before Watson had met Holmes, giving credence to the tale that everything was manufactured before 'A Study in Pink'.
Sherlock has to appear in the Old Bailey to give evidence for a crime which, according to John's blog, hasn't occurred yet.
Now add to this Stephen Thompson's part about the episodes not being shot in order - at the 3:00 minute mark (Yes context I know):
And we may either have continuity gaffs or another angle to look at with regards to how the story unfurls.
Feel free to scrutinise and amend this timeline with your own observations (and evidence) so we may share a more truthful understanding of when things occurred and perhaps in what order.
Thanks in advance for any and all thoughts upon this.
-m0r
Posted by kazza474 March 27, 2012 3:09 am | #2 |
I haven't studied all this, may do so if I get time, but let me point out 2 main things to keep in consideration here.
1.
Jim's 'Richard Brook' resume has a photograph allegedly taken in 2010- this would be before Watson had met Holmes, giving credence to the tale that everything was manufactured before 'A Study in Pink'.
Not too much credibility can be held in that picture considering it was taken by Arwel Jones unless of course he branched out!
2. It's fiction. The show is fiction and sometimes when writing fiction, whilst they try to make it all believable some 'obstacles' get in the way and have to be rolled over. Yes, by all means let's look at the sequence of events, but let's also stick to something everyone now seems to hold very dear to them: it's exactly in the same style as the canon. It wasn't written 'in sequence' , names mysteriously changed from one story to the other , etc etc.
My main point is #1, but #2 needs to be said quite often with this shows dissections.
Oh and the part about the series being shot in the order of Reichenbach, Hound & then Scandal? That's been well documented before but has no bearing on continuity that I can see. Except that Ben's hair and style went 'backwards'. lmao
Last edited by kazza474 (March 27, 2012 3:12 am)
Posted by m0r1arty March 27, 2012 3:33 am | #3 |
I'd say #1 is a humorous nod to the fourth wall and #2 should be more careful (especially in light of Mr Moffat's prior experience) of 'suspension of belief' when calibrating fiction with sleuthing.
Either way, the timeline is worth investigating - even if there are inconsistencies which weren't intentional.
-m0r
Posted by Sherlock Holmes March 27, 2012 6:42 am | #4 |
Nice idea!
Wouldn't worry too much about what year the Richard Brook photo was supposedly taken. Seeing as he's a liar anyway he could have said it was taken in any year.
When did Hounds actually take place then? Presumably sometime between 12th and 16th March.
What date was the Richard Brook expose article released?
Posted by m0r1arty March 27, 2012 11:41 am | #5 |
I only mentioned the year the Richard Brook photograph was allegedly taken to give weight to the ploy which was trying to be put together by Moriarty, it being taken prior to John and Sherlock's first meeting could give value to it if it wasn't for John's resolve with his friendship for Sherlock.
According to John's blog 'The Hounds of Baskerville' takes place between 12th and the 16 March 2012 - I've yet to fine-tooth comb it to death but with the exception of the Moriarty scene at the end it could take place any time due to lack of obvious external episode referencing. I'll get back to you on that one later though.
The Richard Brook expose article didn't have a date on it, I've only found one date on any newspaper so far and it's published above, however including the BBC news clip into John's timeline the article would have been published on Saturday June 16th 2012 with the trial being at some point in mid April 2012 and the crime of 'stealing' the crown jewels at some point earlier than that.
-m0r
Posted by Wholocked March 27, 2012 12:20 pm | #6 |
The Moriarty story line most definitely started before John met Sherlock. It was Moriarty who was sponsoring the cabbie in Study in Pink and 3 of those murders took place prior to their meeting. He was a 'fan' of Sherlock, remember? It's conceivable he had been planning it for some time. Though I do support the "don't put too much stock in the posted dates in the show"
Posted by Davina March 27, 2012 1:23 pm | #7 |
I think the photo taken by Arwel Jones is an in-joke.
Posted by Shenanigans March 27, 2012 1:43 pm | #8 |
Thanks for this timeline, M0riarty! I love it. I agree with the points raised (that the episodes were filmed out of sequence etc...) but I still like to have a global view of how the events were meant to unfold for the characters. Somehow, it anchors my thought processes as I'm hopelessly still trying to figure this out! :D
Merci!
S
Posted by Sherlock Holmes March 27, 2012 1:45 pm | #9 |
Yeah and it makes it seem more real! I hate having to remember that it's just a TV series...real life is so ordinary!
Posted by theCuriousOne March 27, 2012 1:59 pm | #10 |
Sherlock Holmes : yes that's true... but I can't imagine if there's real Moriarty wandering out there.. XDD
Posted by Sherlock Holmes March 27, 2012 5:44 pm | #11 |
That would certainly make life pretty exciting if there was. I'd like to be the one to stop him!
Posted by izatty October 2, 2012 11:00 pm | #12 |
it seems this thread has not been active in quite some time. But, i found it and wanted to add/ask:
is it possible that the hound of baskerville took place after Moriarty's heists and while he was in jail but before he was found not guilty and released?
i ask because: 1) Mycroft was interrogating him at the end of hounds. why would he have reason to bring him in and keep him but for the heists? 2) in TRF SH tells Watson "if he wanted the jewels he would have them, if he wanted the money he would have that too. he is in jail because he wants to be there." SH even tells JW that being in jail is all part of his plan. I think this goes a long way toward SH figuring out M and being a few steps ahead enough to plan his fake suicide.
so, if being in jail is all part of the plan, then the timeline would look like this:
Moriarty sets up the reichenbach fall theft and all the other crimes that SH solves to bring him to over the top famous.
Moriarty conducts the heists and gets captured and is in lock up awaiting trial. i assume in England a criminal trial won't happen in short order just like in America.
SH gets brought in because it says "get sherlock"
While reviewing the investigation, SH says to JW that M wants to be in jail and that it is all part of M's plan.
M stays in lock up awaiting trial for a month or more. Mycroft goes in to find out why he "wants to be there." this is when mycroft "divulges" SH's personal details.
while M is in lock up nothing is happening. there are zero interesting cases for SH. this is why Hound opens with SH going mad needing a case (and cigs). he is bored and there is nothing happening. M is in lock up. After all, EVERY single interesting case SH has had since we met him had M behind it.
then along comes the Hound case as a distraction. and this is why Hound ends with a shot of Mycroft interrogating M.
the newspapers that flip through on the screen during the first part of TRF says things like the government is asking hard questions about how this could happen, etc. Mycroft then sends him off to stand trial.
when JW confronts Mycroft about spilling the beans to M in TRF, Mycroft says, "James Moriarity is the most dangerous criminal mind the world has ever seen and in his pocket is a key..." that means that Mycroft questioned him after "the key" made an appearance.
JW asks Mycroft, "you abducted him to find out about the key?" Mycroft does not say yes or no, he just says i interrogated him for weeks. but, there was no mention of the key at any time BEFORE M's three heists. No one seems to have known about the key until such a time. and, of course, the key DOES NOT EXIST. we know this in hind sight. the deduction can then be made that Mycroft interrogated him AFTER M pulled the heists and while he was in lock up and after SH deduced that being locked up is part of M's plan.
as an outside meta note, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off SH and the fans wanted him back. So, SACD wrote the Hounds and it was written in a timeline that occurred before Holme's fake death. Then, the next story brought SH back to life. I think this is a way for the writer's to pay homage to this timeline.
AND, i think this is some more evidence that Mycroft was in on the plan.
Last edited by izatty (October 3, 2012 8:44 am)
Posted by Wholocked October 3, 2012 3:21 am | #13 |
The "when does Mycroft interogate Moriarty" has had a lot of discussion. It happens at the end of Scandal and before/during Hounds.
Posted by Sherlock Holmes October 9, 2012 10:43 pm | #14 |
izatty wrote:
it seems this thread has not been active in quite some time. But, i found it and wanted to add/ask:
is it possible that the hound of baskerville took place after Moriarty's heists and while he was in jail but before he was found not guilty and released?
i ask because: 1) Mycroft was interrogating him at the end of hounds. why would he have reason to bring him in and keep him but for the heists? 2) in TRF SH tells Watson "if he wanted the jewels he would have them, if he wanted the money he would have that too. he is in jail because he wants to be there." SH even tells JW that being in jail is all part of his plan. I think this goes a long way toward SH figuring out M and being a few steps ahead enough to plan his fake suicide.
so, if being in jail is all part of the plan, then the timeline would look like this:
Moriarty sets up the reichenbach fall theft and all the other crimes that SH solves to bring him to over the top famous.
Moriarty conducts the heists and gets captured and is in lock up awaiting trial. i assume in England a criminal trial won't happen in short order just like in America.
SH gets brought in because it says "get sherlock"
While reviewing the investigation, SH says to JW that M wants to be in jail and that it is all part of M's plan.
M stays in lock up awaiting trial for a month or more. Mycroft goes in to find out why he "wants to be there." this is when mycroft "divulges" SH's personal details.
while M is in lock up nothing is happening. there are zero interesting cases for SH. this is why Hound opens with SH going mad needing a case (and cigs). he is bored and there is nothing happening. M is in lock up. After all, EVERY single interesting case SH has had since we met him had M behind it.
then along comes the Hound case as a distraction. and this is why Hound ends with a shot of Mycroft interrogating M.
the newspapers that flip through on the screen during the first part of TRF says things like the government is asking hard questions about how this could happen, etc. Mycroft then sends him off to stand trial.
when JW confronts Mycroft about spilling the beans to M in TRF, Mycroft says, "James Moriarity is the most dangerous criminal mind the world has ever seen and in his pocket is a key..." that means that Mycroft questioned him after "the key" made an appearance.
JW asks Mycroft, "you abducted him to find out about the key?" Mycroft does not say yes or no, he just says i interrogated him for weeks. but, there was no mention of the key at any time BEFORE M's three heists. No one seems to have known about the key until such a time. and, of course, the key DOES NOT EXIST. we know this in hind sight. the deduction can then be made that Mycroft interrogated him AFTER M pulled the heists and while he was in lock up and after SH deduced that being locked up is part of M's plan.
as an outside meta note, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off SH and the fans wanted him back. So, SACD wrote the Hounds and it was written in a timeline that occurred before Holme's fake death. Then, the next story brought SH back to life. I think this is a way for the writer's to pay homage to this timeline.
AND, i think this is some more evidence that Mycroft was in on the plan.
Interesting point, especially your little note about the canon...but to be honest, I think that would be way too confusing and complicated for the audience. It would basically mean that the episodes were out of order...so that the first part of Reichenbach Fall happened, then all of Hounds, then the second part of Reichenbach Fall...
The reason Moriarty was interrogated at the end of Hounds is due to that line at the end of Scandal where Mycroft says Moriarty has been desperate for his attention and "that can be arranged".
Posted by m0r1arty December 5, 2012 5:31 am | #15 |
Well I'm sure the 'Olympics' will be mentioned in S3 and if so could help us round up the dates a little.
I still think it's a little hazy though and c/(sh)ould have the writers work it in to be extra tight.
The show's been great so far - no need to balls it up when writing could clear it up.
That's my thoughts anyway.
-m0r
Posted by Sherlock Holmes December 5, 2012 9:02 pm | #16 |
A reference to the Olympics would be pretty cool yes.
And of course, we know the date Sherlock "died" because it's on John's blog. If they're sticking to canon, it should in theory be three years later, but wouldn't that technically mean setting the programme in the future, which is unlikely to happen right? So they'll probably just operate on a real time basis, give or take a few months.
Posted by MichaeljohnDGTAIRL May 16, 2013 6:21 am | #17 |
it seems this thread has not been active in quite some time. But, i found it and wanted to add/ask:
Posted by MichaeljohnDGTAIRL May 16, 2013 6:22 am | #18 |
But, i found it and wanted to add/ask:
Posted by Davina May 16, 2013 6:48 am | #19 |
Go on then! Just don't be sneaky about it.
Posted by SusiGo May 16, 2013 6:49 am | #20 |
Building up the tension …