Sméagol Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I didn´t. I had to work that night, but luckily I´ll be able to catch it on Belgian public television soon I believe.
MoogleViper Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Yeaaaaaaah, I did consider spoilering but then I thought surely people wouldn't be coming in here if they haven't seen it! Well people may have wanted to discuss the first episode. Also considering the second episode was aired less than a week after the first, people may not have realised it was even shown yet. Besides, it's just good practice to spoiler tag.
Agent Gibbs Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Sorry Moogle, since people were openly discussing it i assumed we'd forgone spoiler tags in this thread..... i'll spoiler in future I still think Moriarty isn't dead, either he was really an actor doing multiple bluffs on behalf of glasses guy (who bares an uncanny resemblence to Jared Harris) or that John Moriarty has a father or brother equally as smart and out for revenge(i doubt they'd do a female twist like elementary)
Jonnas Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Watched both episodes at last. Beginning was hilarious. So were all the jabs at conspiracy theorists and obsessive fanbases. The rest of the episode was just a big welcome back to Sherlock, undo the last finale, have everyone easily forgive him except for John... I was definitely disappointed that it wasn't a good mystery that brought him back (it was "I'm finally done with Moriarty", instead, quite underwhelming). The character scenes were generally good, but the episode as a whole was "meh" at best. This was much better. Character plots were better done, more significant, and the humour felt more appropriate. The mysteries were more engaging, what with us seeing more of Sherlock's thought process, and also, I liked the unique take on a case (even if framing the different stories for the audience was such a contrived coincidence). Unfortunately, they really telegraphed that "taking off the uniform" was significant, which soured it a bit. I definitely enjoyed this episode a lot more So, how did Sherlock come to the conclusion that the brigadier's stabbing was related to everything else? Seemed disconnected to me. Also, why did the victims not feel any pain from the stab? Was it because the tight belt numbed the lower back?
Rummy Posted January 9, 2014 Author Posted January 9, 2014 So, how did Sherlock come to the conclusion that the brigadier's stabbing was related to everything else? Seemed disconnected to me. Also, why did the victims not feel any pain from the stab? Was it because the tight belt numbed the lower back? I think they tried to seed it with the photographer - would always be at the royal guard cos of tourists etc. At the wedding. Can go places and not be seen/one man in none of the photos/all that jazz he said at the end As for not feeling pain - we don't know the extent/depth of the cut nor the implement used. I'm sure I've heard stories of people who cut themselves with super sharp scalpels and stuff without feeling/realizing, and I recall someone in school who got stabbed(not IN school) in the back of the leg and didn't realise straight away(though that might have been more adrenaline fuelled). So I dunno specifics, but I've always been under the impression that really sharp/clean cuts can be entirely painless at first. With the uniform and belt tightness, it'd probably not shift anything to cause the nerves to start feeling pain?
Jonnas Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I think they tried to seed it with the photographer - would always be at the royal guard cos of tourists etc. At the wedding. Can go places and not be seen/one man in none of the photos/all that jazz he said at the end As for not feeling pain - we don't know the extent/depth of the cut nor the implement used. I'm sure I've heard stories of people who cut themselves with super sharp scalpels and stuff without feeling/realizing, and I recall someone in school who got stabbed(not IN school) in the back of the leg and didn't realise straight away(though that might have been more adrenaline fuelled). So I dunno specifics, but I've always been under the impression that really sharp/clean cuts can be entirely painless at first. With the uniform and belt tightness, it'd probably not shift anything to cause the nerves to start feeling pain? 1st Point: That doesn't really work though. Sherlock reached the "how" (how would Major Sholton die?) because he compared it to the stabbed guard. He already knew that "Royal Guard was stabbed in a locked room" was the basis for the murder that was going to happen right now. But why did he think this? Surely "someone good with a photographic camera" is irrelevant, considering there was no such thing with the stabbed guard? 2nd Point: I suppose that fine blades may not be felt, and one could make the case that the wound would not be painful until the belt was removed (thus opening the wound). However, this was not a cut, it was a stab. If someone sticks a needle in me, I will feel it. Literally, the possibility of a rather tight military belt numbing the lower back is the only thing I can think of.
Grazza Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 1st Point: That doesn't really work though. Sherlock reached the "how" (how would Major Sholton die?) because he compared it to the stabbed guard. He already knew that "Royal Guard was stabbed in a locked room" was the basis for the murder that was going to happen right now. But why did he think this? Surely "someone good with a photographic camera" is irrelevant, considering there was no such thing with the stabbed guard? A photographer was a key, preceding event in both cases. The guard noticed someone kept photographing him, which is what made him suspicious in the first place.
Jonnas Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 A photographer was a key, preceding event in both cases. The guard noticed someone kept photographing him, which is what made him suspicious in the first place. Even so, that is the flimsiest of links. I suppose that, if he gets the idea in his head, he'll find plenty of common ground between the two cases, but even then, he would be banking on the perp be willing to practice for the "real deal", and all of this without even knowing how he did it. But at least there's an answer in there: Sherlock reached a conclusion thanks to the kid suggesting it, and built a justification with it based on the fact that nothing was disproving it (on the contrary, it was corroborating it).
Rummy Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 I agree with you @Jonnas, it is flimsy - I was taking the literal link that they use at that moment in the show - he drops his glass as the photographer is snapping away. How did he suddenly link them all up? A Sherlock leap of faith! One of those things that just magically clicked for him I suppose. Were the stories in previous episodes always watertight?
Jonnas Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I agree with you @ Jonnas, it is flimsy - I was taking the literal link that they use at that moment in the show - he drops his glass as the photographer is snapping away. How did he suddenly link them all up? A Sherlock leap of faith! One of those things that just magically clicked for him I suppose. Were the stories in previous episodes always watertight? The process of figuring them out is believable, at the very least. It was in this episode where connecting the guard to everything else was flimsy, considering that Sherlock shouldn't be aware that his stories all appear in the same episode Also, I was under the impression that Sherlock's eureka moment didn't come from the photographer, but from him saying "Hamish" out loud, which lead to a series of small deductions and inductions that lead him to the conclusion "The Mayfly is here, and he might be plotting a murder". While trying to buy time, he reached the conclusion that Major Sholton was the target. While asking "How could they do it without anyone seeing it?", the kid suggested "The man who stabbed the guard, like in your story", and that's the point where he first connected the guard's stabbing to everything. From here on out, I can only assume his thought process (since we don't see it): 1.both victims are military; 2.both cases involve a photographer in the vicinity; 3.both are very hard to kill quietly. That last one simply justifies the rehearsal theory, the middle one strongly hints at the killer and the first one has to do with the chosen method. Either all three connections are true, or none are. Once it was confirmed that connection 1 was true, 3 became very probable, which makes 2 true as well: the culprit was a photographer, and it is clear that the one at the wedding fit the murderer's profile. So yeah, the photographer's guilt had to be the last thing he reached, since he couldn't background check him before then. You can tell it's Sherlock's thought processes that I appreciate the most in this series Hence why I feel it's such a cop-out when they choose to not show it, only his conclusions (or maybe it's just so we can fill the blanks ourselves... I have my own theories as to how could anyone know that random waiter was an expectant father)
jayseven Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 It's tough, because you can't figure out either case (the guard, and teh wedding guy [it's late, sue me]) without the other instance... if you get me. Sherlock knew how the guard died, and where, and when -- stabbed in a locked room with nobody around (thus leading to the possibility of a slow-kill. Sherlock knew the when, and most of the how, and most of the who. The entire wedding scenario afforded the opportunity, albeit through chance of a best man' speech and the other vaious stories and situations, to fill in the blanks. I definitely agree that it was not the cleanest portrayal of jigsaw-solving and I definitely cannot write how I imagine it's supposed to work... and I also definitely have to agree that the episode was quite forcibly written in order to convey the entire bunch of plots... it shouldn't be left to a bunch of amateur viewers to explain this sort of thing. It should either be apparant in the episode's script or direction. I previously wrote about being content with the general cliff-hangery-ness... The elements previously mentioned, including the fall, are not as potentially annoying as what Jonnas has pointed out -- because it can be argued that those elements are well written, whilst the issues with this episode are that they are not well written.
Cube Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 No, I didn't actually. Doing the fanservice stuff is fine in Doctor Who - it's supposed to be cheesy and silly - but it doesn't suit Sherlock at all. This seems to have been done in a vain attempt to have the "how did he survive" thing and makes the entire end of Season 2 to be rather pointless. The sad thing is, this will probably work really well with the young fans. As for the rest...it was rather underwhelming. Everyone just seemed to be disconnected and not all that emotional. John's reaction when he find out Mary had been lying to everyone was rather lame, as well as when he was later informed that she did become an assassin-for-hire. It just seem to end like nothing had really happened in their relationship. As for Magnussen. He was great until the end. For how smart he was supposed to be, he seemed to have lost all intelligence by the end. He even said himself multiple times that everything was in his head, and how calm he (and everyone else was, despite all the police) was just made the whole thing feel...unsubstantial.
Happenstance Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Sherlock to have planted John's gun on Magnussen at the end, having him take it out wondering what it was while the police were aimed at him so they would have been the ones to shoot him?
Grazza Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I'm afraid I just don't really "get" this programme any more, which is a shame as I genuinely loved the first two series. For me, it's just become too epic, too melodramatic - especially with all the weird, surreal scenes. It's almost like full-on fantasy now. I thought Holmes might have had a clever plan, but he just shot the villain in the head! A cold-blooded murderer! I felt Moffat wanted us to hate the villain so much, with all the face-flicking etc, in order to justify Sherlock killing him. Sure, he was a loathsome villain, but there just seemed something a bit low and base about manipulating the audience like that. Moriarty appearing on everyone's TV? It was like a comic book villain threatening the world. Conan Doyle's stories were simple and unfussy. Whilst this programme used to get the feel just right, it's straying away from them with the melodrama in particular.
bryanee Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) The final episode was ok, much like this entire season. The ending was great though, got me fucking pumped for the next season. edit - Didn't Moriarty have a brother in the books? Edited January 13, 2014 by bryanee
Agent Gibbs Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 well finally watched the episode Loved it! and more to the point i was right Moriarty isn't dead! Anyway the episode, i like the twist on Mary's character and as a whole the episode felt good, but i do see the unnecessary melodrama complaint, it doesn't feel as refined as season 1 and 2 But i get the feeling he's trying to develop characters this season,only he's gotten the balance off thus far As for Magnus Magnessen (all i could think of when they talked about this guy for some reason) he was brilliant villain, disgusting and intimidating I was thinking the same as @Happenstance and Sherlock would plant the gun ergo the police would shoot him. As for shooting him, it was a desperate act committed by a man who had the mental capacity to run through his options,and it was the only logical course of action, bring about his death. This man had now acted in such a way that would see Holmes and Watson arrested for treason, in doing so he would also quietly ruin Sherlock's friends and family. Not to mention let enemies of Mary know about her, That alone would ensure her death and potentially Watson's as a means to make her suffer first. Mycroft was potentially the only one who would be safe given any fallout, all though at the cost of Sherlock. The only option was his death,planting the gun would mean some cleaver pic pocketing and getting him to produce the gun, something he likely couldn't do easily, time was limited. He was a dangerous man who had killed at least one the viewers saw (hope people watched the TV reports and saw the politician who argued with him imprison and the commit suicide- a direct result of his action) very reminiscent of his first case (a study in pink and the suicide inducing cabbie)....limited time, limited options, in direct sight of mycroft, police....the option was to kill him. Sherlock is bright enough to see the potential consequences of such an action and know that Mycroft would send him on the suicide mission, given how prison would likely not work. The thing i wonder....did Mycroft know? He knew Shelock would take the laptop, it would give them a chance to raid the place,but would he have foreseen the potential outcome? is that why he mentioned the serbian mission? a hint to Sherlock of the worst case scenario if is only option left was lethal force?
jayseven Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 I think this was the most consistent of the three series, but I think people worry with the direction. The show has gone form a pseudo-faithful modern adaptation to overly-referencing the original content, and now is seeking uniformity and reliability in a way which is normally found in longer series such as Doctor Who, Jonathan Creek and Hustle. The general popularity of the show is going to force it to 'evolve' in a way to adapt to the new audience, and I guess a part of me is sad to see the encapsulated, tv-movie episodes go in favour of the character-driven plots instead. In any which case, I have enjoyed every minute of sherlock so far, and wherever the emphasis goes I think there will still be something enjoyable to find in the show, whether it stays with the current 90-min formula or, perhaps, switches to a 45- or 90- min version to get more episodes into each arc. As for the way the show ended -- Moriarty is dead. Reviving sherlock is one thing but that would be too much, and lead to too many "why didn't he do something sooner?" things. Potential moriarty proteges or aliases or wannabes or copycats = fine with me.
pratty Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I thought Holmes might have had a clever plan, but he just shot the villain in the head! A cold-blooded murderer! I felt Moffat wanted us to hate the villain so much, with all the face-flicking etc, in order to justify Sherlock killing him. Sure, he was a loathsome villain, but there just seemed something a bit low and base about manipulating the audience like that. I didn't like that either. Holmes is supposed to be a genius, and yet the only thing he could come up with to stop the villain was to kill him in cold blood, I could have come up with that. If anything it left Holmes looking interlectually weak and defeated. It's like 'winning' a game of chess by physically attacking your opponent, instead of beating them on the board.
Happenstance Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I forget, is it ever revealed what Irene Adler said to Moriarty at the start of series 2 that stopped him trying to kill Sherlock?
Agent Gibbs Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I forget, is it ever revealed what Irene Adler said to Moriarty at the start of series 2 that stopped him trying to kill Sherlock? I don't think that ever was now you say that..... excuse to watch it again i guess
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I didn't like that either. Holmes is supposed to be a genius, and yet the only thing he could come up with to stop the villain was to kill him in cold blood, I could have come up with that. If anything it left Holmes looking interlectually weak and defeated. It's like 'winning' a game of chess by physically attacking your opponent, instead of beating them on the board. What did you expect? For him to give him a nice bash on the head to give him amnesia? I also doubt Sherlock could've found enough dirt to blackmail him to keep silent about his information. The only choice was to kill him at the source - his head. Extreme yes, but Moriarty did it and people didn't seem to mind.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 What did you expect? For him to give him a nice bash on the head to give him amnesia? I also doubt Sherlock could've found enough dirt to blackmail him to keep silent about his information. The only choice was to kill him at the source - his head. Extreme yes, but Moriarty did it and people didn't seem to mind. Exactly; the only way to get rid of Magnussen was to kill him right then and there. One also has to remember what was at stake: Sherlock's eponymous last vow was to always be there for Mary, John and their child, and at that moment John was at risk of going to jail with Sherlock for trying to sell national secrets to Magnussen while Magnussen had lethal leverage on Mary. Sherlock had no other option if he wanted to protect both John and Mary.
pratty Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 What did you expect? For him to give him a nice bash on the head to give him amnesia? I also doubt Sherlock could've found enough dirt to blackmail him to keep silent about his information. The only choice was to kill him at the source - his head. Extreme yes, but Moriarty did it and people didn't seem to mind. I expected some sort of battle of wits from Sherlock Holmes. I'd have thought they could have had Sherlock mind-fuck him into insanity somehow, or least stitch him up to appear mentally ill to damage his credibility while exposing the fact he had no physical proof of anything he claimed to know about people, if everyone thought he was mad and was making things up people wouldn't take his accusations seriously and his blackmail scheme would be useless without proof. Or make Mycroft's laptop some sort of trojan horse, so when he uploads the data to his own systems, instead Mycroft gets all the handy dirt and the baddie's data gets all corrupted and all his blackmail info is lost. Maybe it uploads dodgy porn to his computer too and he get's arrested and loses his business and all credibility aswell, or they blackmail him over the dodgy pics on his computer in a sort of poetic justice.
Agent Gibbs Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Regarding all the peoples thoughts on expecting a battle of whits, some mental trickery....I think that is what makes it so good of a conclusion, Sherlock has been this amazing other worldly detective who was capable of literally tying people in knots mentally, but for all that power,when faced with an equal and a situation with no foreseeable outcome....he was proven to not be all powerful and amazing he was left with a rather unsophisticated base outcome to resolve the situation. Its a shame they couldn't have fleshed the scene out a bit similar to the Downey Jr movies and have him in his mind run through some scenarios and come to the conclusion that to shoot him was the best option anyway Moriarty....what are peoples predictions? Twin Brother? Relative using a CGI image of Jim Moriarty? was it based in truth when Jim said he was an actor hired by Sherlock...and he was actually an actor hired by the real Moriarty and it was a treble bluff?
Recommended Posts