sammymc
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 3,395
that the only way she could have known his middle name was from the wedding invitation to his old capt.Can someone explain the importance of the woman knowing the name 'John Hamish Watson?'
that the only way she could have known his middle name was from the wedding invitation to his old capt.Can someone explain the importance of the woman knowing the name 'John Hamish Watson?'
Watson doesnt let anyone know his middle name - they would only know via the wedding invitation. Sherlock deduced that each of the women he "met" on the internet were working for The Major (Gardener, Nurse, Security) and were using the wedding as an opportunity to make their move on him.Cumberbatch is a phenomenal actor. All those subtle facial emotions were just I felt so sorry for him at the end when he's walking away from the wedding.
Can someone explain the importance of the woman knowing the name 'John Hamish Watson?'
Wait all of the women worked for him? I need to rewatch the ep.Watson doesnt let anyone know his middle name - they would only know via the wedding invitation. Sherlock deduced that each of the women he "met" on the internet were working for The Major (Gardener, Nurse, Security) and were using the wedding as an opportunity to make their move on him.
The whole mysetery and subsequent solving of it was a bit of a massive coincedence - which is quite ironic considering what the episode itself said about coincedence.... though I now realise that was probably the whole point.I was worried when the speech kept going beyond the "I'm an awful person" bit (Which I think - as sentimentality goes - was pitched perfectly) and then increasingly antsy during the drunken bit, which looked like it could've unravelled the whole thing, but it all came together very nicely, and I actually came out the other end thinking it was a brilliant, inventive piece of writing. Even if the actual crime didn't make a lot of sense, and the arresting of the culprit was an anti-climax, for what they set out to do (half character piece, half mystery) I think they nailed it as well as can be. *
My only criticism would be of the showy for showy's sake ADHD direction (again!). But all in all it was a welcome return to form.
* though I still sort of vainly hope it's a straight mystery next week.
Nah, they're going to do the Famous Five books next. Timmy the dog will be played by Andy Serkis.Okay, so, every episode is (loosely) based on one of Sir Arthur's famous stories, or at least contains quite a few elements of it. My question is, when they've covered all the books, will they keep going, make up their own Sherlock adventures, or is it only 3 episodes a season because they will stop after all books have been covered, hence spacing out the episodes?
Well there's 60 Holmes stories, so it's unlikely they'll run out at a rate of 3 every 2 years. Not unless they develop some brilliant anti-aging effects.Okay, so, every episode is (loosely) based on one of Sir Arthur's famous stories, or at least contains quite a few elements of it. My question is, when they've covered all the books, will they keep going, make up their own Sherlock adventures, or is it only 3 episodes a season because they will stop after all books have been covered, hence spacing out the episodes?
Well yes, but if you're not going to be buy into the ludicrous coincidence that the unsolved cases he happens to have included in his Best Man speech (which is a slightly ludicrous idea anyway) end up all being related to a murder taking place at that very moment, then nothing in the episode is going to redeem it.The whole mysetery and subsequent solving of it was a bit of a massive coincedence - which is quite ironic considering what the episode itself said about coincedence.... though I now realise that was probably the whole point.
This why you're getting the lifetime achievement award. Gold standard.Nah, they're going to do the Famous Five books next. Timmy the dog will be played by Andy Serkis.
Isn't their only like 9 proper books by Sir Arthur? I'm pretty sure two of thoes were a collection of short stories.Well there's 60 Holmes stories, so it's unlikely they'll run out at a rate of 3 every 2 years. Not unless they develop some brilliant anti-aging effects.
Well for starters you can pull your trousers back up.I really should've actually watched it before opening my gob, shouldn't I?
EDIT: ok Mel answered before me but Australia is like 12 hours in front of us so I'm not doing that bad.
Wasn't the point that he didn't sleep with them? Just chatted to them like some nice/thoughtful bloke?The actual plot was complete nonsense when you actually analyse it. I mean, the idea that the photographer would manage to sleep with all the members of this guy's household, in the same way, without any of them interacting or talking about it (but they would all go on a website about sleeping with ghosts!?) and then actually stay at the wedding while the best man - who happened to be a world famous detective - vocally described to everyone the two exact cases he was guilty of. I mean, it was fecking bonkers, but if you can blind yourself to that, it was very well engineered.
Some were better than others... I would actually say this second episode was better than either of the second episodes in the first two seasons... and the Hounds of Baskerville episode is still the weakest so far.No. First two seasons had very good plots in each episode that were resolved nicely, besides the cliffhangers at the end of both seasons which weren't really about finding a solution to a mystery.
Like The Mentalist, you mean? That was the biggest con ever. They spend five seasons building up a massive mystery and then dispose of it within half an hour without explaining any of it.*sighs* Is this one of those new-fangled modern series in which there are endless cliffhangers/puzzles (à la Lost) spun out forever because...the writers just wanted to feature captivating mysteries/puzzles without actually bothering to work out the solutions in advance?
Second episode is definitely the weakest in each season, but I quite enjoyed the Blind Banker. But in terms of what Steve is asking, each mystery was resolved in each episode. The only tenuous overarching plot was Moriarty.Some were better than others... I would actually say this second episode was better than either of the second episodes in the first two seasons... and the Hounds of Baskerville episode is still the weakest so far.
Haven't you seen any of this BBC one Steve? Honestly, you should give the first episode a try, it has the essence of the show with the acting and interacting between the characters, and the directing/production, so you'll have a pretty good idea on whether or not you like it.To be fair to the writers/makers, I think it must be very tough to put a credible, modern spin on the Holmes stories.
Great minds think alikeMy favourite episode is a Scandal in Belgravia, brilliant, brilliant TV.
Good man. But seriously, those trousers, pull them up now.No, I haven't, mate. But will do.
... but fools seldom differ?Great minds think alike
Some were better than others... I would actually say this second episode was better than either of the second episodes in the first two seasons... and the Hounds of Baskerville episode is still the weakest so far.