Sherlock Page 87

...and what was the stag night all about?
Why did they take that case when they were pissed?
Did she have an appointment?
We had already established that Sherlock had a 'full inbox' of cases, but wasn't taking them on.
So how did she get through the net?
Plus they had to engineer(badly) that they came back from their stag night early to make it even faintly plausible that they'd interview a client at that time of night.

As my wife said " Let's hope it gets back to being Sherlock next week."
Little hope of that, I should imagine, as the next one is the "Season Finale" so will spend the whole episode building up the next cliff hanger.

I think they've really f**ked this up.
Bloody tragic.

Quote: Lazzard @ 6th January 2014, 9:36 AM GMT

Little hope of that, I should imagine, as the next one is the "Season Finale" so will spend the whole episode building up the next cliff hanger.

View original

Someone told me that in the books Mrs. Watson dies, so maybe they'll chuck that in there for the inevitable tear jerker.

My optimism for the final episode has increased because Sherlock will be bouncing off the main villain and hopefully something will actually happen.

Plus the villain wears glasses and as we all know, speccy four eyes are evils.

I was annoyed that they squandered the first few minutes showing irrelevant bank raids just to set up that lame gag, and stayed variously annoyed, confused and exasperated throughout. As Bill says, you couldn't fatally stab someone and be guaranteed they wouldn't notice it; and yes Lazzard, the whole stag night thing was perplexing, and despite being played for laughs, failed to be funny. There were countless other questions; why is he suddenly so lonely as to be looking to a simple bridesmaid for company? Why is it he all of a sudden can't solve puzzles unless he's being a drama queen? And if that's true, then why can't he deliver a best-man's speech? Why, if Watson and Sherlock were apprehended at the scene of an attempted murder, was they immediately freed, when all that had changed was that Watson had shouted a bit?

I still found things to enjoy though, it looked good, and Cumberbatch especially is a formidable performer, even when given this sort of mish-mash. Also, last week it was nice that the moustache did get shaved off, but Jenna Coleman still doesn't look quite right.

*I'd also like to know why Sherlock has so many laptops running when he could open several chat windows on one screen, but I'll put that down to quirkiness.

If you want to hear Sherlock being done properly (and the demise of Mrs Watson) try this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b007jlpz/The_Return_of_Sherlock_Holmes_Series_1_The_Empty_House/

For my money Clive Merrison is better than Jeremy Brett.

In Nightmares and Dreamscapes Stephen King does a rather good version of one.

nb I maintain the BBC redid Sherlock a few years ago, it was called Jonathon Creek (f**k, f**k). The idea of the fiendish solvable mystery, the ingenious but inhuman detective and their down to Earth companion. A dash of the bizarre and lots of dry wit, with some excitement.

It's Sherlock Holmes, but here' the thing back in the day. They had the confidence not to f**king call it Sherlock.

Similarly Monk and even Columbo, ok when he had that cop that accompanied or maybe his dog.

Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 3:32 PM GMT

Similarly Monk

View original

Monk was awesome.

Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 3:32 PM GMT

nb I maintain the BBC redid Sherlock a few years ago, it was called Sherlock.

View original

Have another go there!

Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 3:32 PM GMT

It's Sherlock Holmes, but here' the thing back in the day. They had the confidence not to f**king call it Sherlock.

View original

I'm not sure how confidence has anything to do with it. Lots of detective shows crib from Holmes, but in ths case the duo in charge loved the orignal books and wanted to make a Sherlock Holmes TV show, just set now.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ 6th January 2014, 4:10 PM GMT

, but in ths case the duo in charge loved the orignal books and wanted to make a Sherlock Holmes TV show, just set now.

View original

And for two series they achieved this admirably. I was one of the show's biggest fans and stated how brilliant it was on these very forums.

So you can imagine what a massive kick in the nutbag this latest series has been.

Yes, I was annoyed by the pointless bank robber intro, and yes I was also irritated by the drawn out wedding speech flashback format, but as I had enjoyed the previous series and really wanted to like this one was willing to forgive these, but -

Such massive holes in the plot!
How many 'single' women did the mayfly man randomly 'meet' and woo around the country before he found 4 or 5 who just happened to work for his 'victim'?

Why did he go to the huge effort and risk of assuming the identity of recently deceased men and break into their homes to entertain, when he could have just taken them out for a nandos?

Why did he not just follow one of these 4 or 5 women to their work (at his intended victims home) and commit a simple murder there, instead of the complicated wedding murder?

And worst of all there is the sheer bloody coincidence of the Guardsman he randomly chose to practice his murderous technique on just 'happening' to consult Sherlock about being stalked.

I need Sherlock to be smarter than me, not the other way round...

Series 2 was definitely the high point. The first and last episodes were great and felt like the vision was being realised, the one with the sexy lady was pretty good but too many improbables and a silly ending.

Quote: playfull @ 6th January 2014, 4:20 PM GMT

Why did he not just follow one of these 4 or 5 women to their work (at his intended victims home) and commit a simple murder there, instead of the complicated wedding murder?

View original

I'm confused over the nurse woman, she's the one who said 'Hamish' and 'enjoy the wedding', was she supposed to be the photographer in lady clothes? Or was she complicit with the photographer? I might have missed something in the exposition dump that usually ends a Moffat show, anyone shed any light?

I think she had a fancy pocket watch and was actually the Master, who was having a relationship with a lesbian chair in episode one. Isn't that obvious, God are you stooooopid or something?

Quote: playfull @ 6th January 2014, 4:20 PM GMT

Yes, I was annoyed by the pointless bank robber intro, and yes I was also irritated by the drawn out wedding speech flashback format, but as I had enjoyed the previous series and really wanted to like this one was willing to forgive these, but -

Such massive holes in the plot!
How many 'single' women did the mayfly man randomly 'meet' and woo around the country before he found 4 or 5 who just happened to work for his 'victim'?

Why did he go to the huge effort and risk of assuming the identity of recently deceased men and break into their homes to entertain, when he could have just taken them out for a nandos?

Why did he not just follow one of these 4 or 5 women to their work (at his intended victims home) and commit a simple murder there, instead of the complicated wedding murder?

And worst of all there is the sheer bloody coincidence of the Guardsman he randomly chose to practice his murderous technique on just 'happening' to consult Sherlock about being stalked.

I need Sherlock to be smarter than me, not the other way round...

View original

Also why didn't he just look the Colonel up on Facebook?

Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 4:33 PM GMT

I think she had a fancy pocket watch and was actually the Master, who was having a relationship with a lesbian chair in episode one. Isn't that obvious, God are you stooooopid or something?

View original

That explains everything, sorry for my stoooopiditude.

Absolutely I bet you didn't even guess that Watson is an undercover Silurian, his missus a Dalek and Mrs Hudson Clara Osmond in disguise.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 4:30 PM GMT

I'm confused over the nurse woman, she's the one who said 'Hamish' and 'enjoy the wedding', was she supposed to be the photographer in lady clothes? Or was she complicit with the photographer? I might have missed something in the exposition dump that usually ends a Moffat show, anyone shed any light?

View original

That's the thing - she mentioned Hamish so she had to have 'seen' the invitation which -

a) Means that she worked at his house and the murderer could have simply followed her there.

b) She would have known that he had not RSVP'd so he probably wasn't going to the wedding, so why plan an elaborate murder there!?