Sherlock Page 28

Quote: Timbo @ August 9 2010, 11:49 AM BST

I remain unable to come up with any explanation of Moriaty's actions which is consistent with him being master criminal rather than a bit of a tosser. I seem to be alone in preferring the previous episode, which at least made some sort of sense.

View original

As I said:

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 9 2010, 9:46 AM BST

Well, he was merely toying with Holmes, his 'good' opposite, for no other reason than to beat him and for fun. Plus he had been behind, at the very least, last weeks mystery, which Holmes foiled, so perhaps fealt it time to tackle the problem head on.

View original

He's supposed to be like Holmes, who we saw at the start bored because of the lack of suitable excitement. They're both more interested in the game than in people and in Holmes Moriarty has found a suitable enemy to test himself against, and so sets up the game. As I said, Holmes has also been the cause of professional failure a few times for Moriarty, such as in the second episode, and who knows how many times before, so he decided it was time to show Holmes who was boss and, eventually, take him out of the picture altogether.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 9 2010, 12:16 PM BST

As I said:

He's supposed to be like Holmes, who we saw at the start bored because of the lack of suitable excitement. They're both more interested in the game than in people and in Holmes Moriarty has found a suitable enemy to test himself against, and so sets up the game. As I said, Holmes has also been the cause of professional failure a few times for Moriarty, such as in the second episode, and who knows how many times before, so he decided it was time to show Holmes who was boss and, eventually, take him out of the picture altogether.

View original

Are you Gatiss's press agent?

Quote: Nogget @ August 9 2010, 10:36 AM BST

I liked it, and I thought it sped along very well despite its length, which is quite some achievement. Certain aspects were odd though; why did the blind lady have to die? Surely once she was released, she would be at liberty to talk as much as she wanted? And how on earth do you get a child to perform as a hostage? In my experience, kids just cry or say the wrong thing when I tie a bomb to them.

View original

The death of the woman and the child were just cheap sensationalism. No reason was given why Moriarty should personally have met the woman; the only reason he did so was that she could be killed. Her death was an unnecessary gimmick and being elderly she was expendable. It is noticeable that even this programme did not stoop to actually showing the kid tied up with bomb attached; that would have been considered beyond the pale even for this.

Gatiss is first and foremost known for League of Gentlemen, where life is cheap and valueless. So it's hardly surprising that he would have a pretty blase attitude to life in this show.

Have to say I found last night's ep pretty boring. A singular lack of intrigue and an OTT Master Moriarty.

This show really doesn't need to be 90 minutes. Really.

Quote: Cheesehoven @ August 9 2010, 12:53 PM BST

The death of the woman and the child were just cheap sensationalism. No reason was given why Moriarty should personally have met the woman; the only reason he did so was that she could be killed.

View original

Well, um, exactly. He's a heartless, super intelligant maniac, that's the point.

Quote: Cheesehoven @ August 9 2010, 12:53 PM BST

The death of the woman and the child were just cheap sensationalism.

View original

Well, aren't all crime shows and novels guilty of that to a certain extent? They all use horrific murders and rapes etc to tell and sell a story.

Quote: john lucas 101 @ August 9 2010, 1:01 PM BST

Have to say I found last night's ep pretty boring. A singular lack of intrigue and an OTT Master Moriarty.

This show really doesn't need to be 90 minutes. Really.

View original

I was wondering when Daily Mail Dan would chip in!

Quote: chipolata @ August 9 2010, 1:03 PM BST

Well, aren't all crime shows and novels guilty of that to a certain extent? They all use horrific murders and rapes etc to tell and sell a story.

View original

Yes. And many do so in a much more graphic and gruesome way than this one.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 9 2010, 1:04 PM BST

Yes. And many do so in a much more graphic and gruesome way than this one.

View original

And if you were watching Sherlock for a dose of Torture Porn, as Cheeshoven described it, you're going to be pretty disappointed.

Quote: Cheesehoven @ August 9 2010, 12:53 PM BST

Are you Gatiss's press agent?

View original

No, it's just annoying when people completely miss the point of something, or say something doesn't work when it does, and what they really mean is they don't personally like the choice the writer has made.

I watched the last episode in the hotel last night- mainly because there wasn't anything else on of Freeview. I hadn't realised Martin Freeman was in it- I would have watched the whole thing if I'd known. It was pretty good, I don't think anything special though. I thought the characters were all great, especially Homes (but that's probably more to do with my soft spot for Freeman). I wasn't expecting Moriati to be played as he was, but I think it worked really well. At first I giggled a bit at the silliness of it, but the more he went on, the more I though "Oooh he's an ACTUAL crazy person", which is always nice.

Also I think that the death of the old lady in particular was quite important, despite the holes. I amagine the whole idea was to show that if you play outside of the game's 'rules' then you are punished. Not even punished- not worth keeping alive. The fact that they barely brushed upon the emotional fallout of the deaths was to mirror Moriati in that respect. It's an understood 'penalty'.

Well, I think that was enough of me spouting useless twoddle.

Quote: chipolata @ August 9 2010, 1:05 PM BST

And if you were watching Sherlock for a dose of Torture Porn, as Cheeshoven described it, you're going to be pretty disappointed.

View original

Imagine the dissapointment if you'd double billed it with 'Hostel'.

Quote: chipolata @ August 9 2010, 1:03 PM BST

I was wondering when Daily Mail Dan would chip in!

View original

Baaaahhh!!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ August 9 2010, 1:06 PM BST

Imagine the dissapointment if you'd double billed it with 'Hostel'.

View original

I suppose there was a spot of blood on a window ledge at one point, that might get them going.

It was fun it pegged along at a fair old pace and had some clever ideas and good jokes. But if you shook it the whole thing started to fall apart.

It's no Columbo, Cracker or Jonathon Creek. And it seems redolent of much lazyish BBC scifi of late; got the budget, got a good looking star and a fairly well known writer? Away you go!

It's not like earlier better stuff where it feels like character and plot were ground out in meetings and long into the night. It was fun, but well disposable.

Other than Dr Who, it seems interesting that the only BBC scifi show of late that feels like it has the big ideas was Torchwood children of Earth?

Quote: sootyj @ August 9 2010, 1:18 PM BST

.

Other than Dr Who, it seems interesting that the only BBC scifi show of late that feels like it has the big ideas was Torchwood children of Earth?

View original

Which other BBC sci-fi shows are there?