Phew!
Quote: AJGO @ January 16 2012, 12:14 AM GMTCrikey what a load of babble, sorry to inflict, won't be able to sleep otherwise.
Aside from making everyone feel a bit thick, this is bloody good stuff!
(ie, keep going.)
Sherlock Page 56
We actually see Sherlock dive off the building, fall, and eat pavement.
Then we see him evidently dead on the ground.
If the program makers try to slice it any other way in future they're cheating.
Watson never got to examine the body and the drs and nurses could all be actors.
And if he didn't get close it might have been a dummy.
And Catskillz could get to write the episode.
More like Sherlock will be killed by succesful Hollywood career. Bentdik cum up my hatch is playing Khan in the new Trek move dontcha know.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 15 2012, 10:48 PM GMTI seem to remember you speaking quite highly of the first episode?
yes as an enjoyable mess, which this one wasn't
What's going to happen is that Sherlock is going to arrive at 221B and say to Watson, "I'm not going to explain how I survived death. You wouldn't understand..."
Quote: sootyj @ January 16 2012, 6:42 AM GMTyes as an enjoyable mess,
Mess? Okay...
At its best, Sherlock has been great romping fun. I'm not sure I ever believed a moment of it, and as drama it was pretty lightweight and ultimately forgetable, but it's certainly livened up Sundays. I just hope the next series is more consistent, without the dreary episode in the middle.
As for Moriarty being a Childrens TV presenter, I assumed he actually had done that. That he'd created the false identity, then really gone and lived that life sometimes, he said there was a DVD out. Playing the long game. So it wouldn't just fall apart the first time someone looked, because he actually had done what he said, not just knocked up some fake documents.
Sherlock is great, bold, exciting entertainment when it's at it's best; which is why it's caused such a big reaction and interest.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2012, 9:07 AM GMTAs for Moriarty being a Childrens TV presenter, I assumed he actually had done that. That he'd created the false identity, then really gone and lived that life sometimes, he said there was a DVD out. Playing the long game. So it wouldn't just fall apart the first time someone looked, because he actually had done what he said, not just knocked up some fake documents.
Putters said he'd just faked documents - the absolute arse! Although it would take more than just presenting the odd kids show to solidify a completely new identity.
When Moriarty was on screen in the Taxi, I did wonder why it looked like he was in a kids TV show, seemed a bit of trouble just for a video message.
Quote: AJGO @ January 15 2012, 11:35 PM GMTMoriarty can't be dead, that would be wasteful. IO:U, Io being nymph seduced by Zeus, father of Gods and men, changed IO's identity to escape detection, changed own identity to conceal wrongdoing, matches religious dialogue in episode, they agreed on plan hence 'you/U are me' stuff.. Sorry, I'll try to reign in the pathetic ramblings now
Quote: AJGO @ January 16 2012, 12:01 AM GMTJust wikied to check I had my facts right and Io the moon's inclination is 2.21. Cute.
Quote: AJGO @ January 16 2012, 12:14 AM GMTOoh, they specified that one of the assassins is Russian, and she's one that hasn't been killed; in the cyrillic alphabet (that came out rubbish, it basically looks like I-O with a shorter dash) is pronounced 'U'; connections? And U is 21st letter of latin alphabet, so could be code for something in 221, what would the other '2' be?
Blimey AJGO, you need to watch a bit of snooker, give your brain a rest. 
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ January 16 2012, 12:23 AM GMTWe actually see Sherlock dive off the building, fall, and eat pavement.
Then we see him evidently dead on the ground.
If the program makers try to slice it any other way in future they're cheating.
It's going to be unsatisfying; these kinds of things pretty much always are. In the original stories, Sherlock's rising from the dead (At Reichenbach Falls, supposedly at the hands of Moriarty) felt like a cheat. I would wager that even if the initial reaction is 'Ooooh, that's clever,' the follow up will be, 'but, hang on..'.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 16 2012, 9:05 AM GMTMess? Okay...
SPOILER WARNING
Well this one had an almost clockwork neatness in how it all fitted together.
Holmes setting himself up by hubristically speaking at Moriarty's trial. The convincingness of the idea that Sherlock could have created Moriarty. How the 4 hitmen ensured his safety.
The explanation for the code macguffin.
And each piece rathecheting up the tension further (and none of that irritating, "good man goes to war" or "he will knock 3 times" and "badwolf" rubbish that plagued who)
Very satisfying because it worked neatly as well as being dramatically pleasing.
The first episode was a lot of fun. Holmes out smarted, sexiness, humour meeting with someone as smart as him who wasn't a villain (ingenious actually).
But that one with it's squidgy ending (was she even dead?), uncrackable phones and random planes full of corpses didn't stand upto much scrutiny as a coherent story. Still tremendous fun though.
Quote: Rob H @ January 16 2012, 9:41 AM GMTIt's going to be unsatisfying
Not sure it will be unsatisfying.
They've carefully given us a lot of clues which will only make sense if there's a big pay-off, otherwise why bother putting them in?
We've seen that Sherlock could easily have fallen into all those bin bags, and the cyclist could have delayed Watson whilst all those people chucked a doppelgänger corpse out. Holmes made sure the sun was in Moriarty's eyes on the rooftop, was something going on behind him? AJGO's brilliant Io theory suggests Sherlock and Moriarty could have been colluding, at least to a degree. Perhaps the 221 thing was just a co-incidence, though. What was the 'U'? Did Molly help with 'U'? Any suggests as to what the tapping might mean? We were shown Zeros and Ones, was it computer-related?
Cracking episode, too many good bits to list. Like Sootyj said, it all fitted neatly and was clever without being confusing. I didn't mind the Dark Knight influence/rip-off, but yes,it's about time we had another twist put on all these people coming back from the dead
Quote: Nogget @ January 16 2012, 9:58 AM GMTNot sure it will be unsatisfying.
Well, I think it'll be relatively satisfying, providing you don't think about it too much. Put it under any kind of scrutiny and it'll crumble. Like Sherlock itself. A decent little show, providing you don't start thinking about all the plot holes and loose ends.
Perhaps the Dr slowed his fall down with a timewimey tachyon bollocks beam?
Quote: sootyj @ January 16 2012, 9:44 AM GMTThe first episode was a lot of fun. Holmes out smarted, sexiness, humour meeting with someone as smart as him who wasn't a villain (ingenious actually).
Yes, but that was Conan Doyle's idea.