163 replies to this topic

[Ogul]

Lestrade's assistant believes Sherlock's pyschopathic and that he'll turn to evil. Once she thinks he's actually done that it opens the gates to how much of what he's done has been real and how much was his own invention? She makes a point of saying that the police forensic guys couldn't have found the kids from the scraping he took of a footprint at the school.

Essentially, his problem is that he doesn't show the maths. Like when I was in highschool, they wanted us to write down all the steps we took as we solved the problem, but Sherlock is just doing all that in his head, and if you can't see all the CG, you can imagine that he's just throwing out an answer he already knows because he caused the problem, just as a kid that is given a very difficult math problem and just says "the answer is 57," you might suspect he's cheating.

[Mark Peyton]

Which is the limiting factor, no doubt. Three more if they're lucky, after that I think they'll all be ready to move on?

Freeman's said that this a setup he's happy to keep coming back and dipping into alongside his other stuff. In fact he commented on how much a surprise that was to him I think.

[Christian U]

He asked for help, beyond that, what did he do that was out of character?

Well, caring about people, I suppose, but that's been a long time coming...

It's progressive.

Lestrade's assistant believes Sherlock's pyschopathic and that he'll turn to evil. Once she thinks he's actually done that it opens the gates to how much of what he's done has been real and how much was his own invention? She makes a point of saying that the police forensic guys couldn't have found the kids from the scraping he took of a footprint at the school.

As I've said already; it's a bit messy but I don't think the producers left anything out of the show.

Well, the whole point of Sherlock being around was that he deduced stuff that nobody else could, that's what he's been demonstrating every day for years, apparently. And like I said, are we supposed to believe that he arranged every single crime he solved for them? In which they were there a lot of the steps, interviewed the witnesses, got the confessions? He is supposed to what, have bribed people into getting sentenced for murder?

[steveuk]

<SNIP>

Well, the whole point of Sherlock being around was that he deduced stuff that nobody else could, that's what he's been demonstrating every day for years, apparently. And like I said, are we supposed to believe that he arranged every single crime he solved for them? In which they were there a lot of the steps, interviewed the witnesses, got the confessions? He is supposed to what, have bribed people into getting sentenced for murder?

No, we're not supposed to believe that at all. Neither do the police in the story.

It's like a corrupt police officer, although all that officer's cases have to be re-examined it's not as if anyone expect all of their work to be wrong. They will have investigated many crimes properly and those cases will be safe and fair, but they are all tainted by the fact that this person was bad in an important, even fundamental way.

They WANT him to fail, they want him to fall, they want him to be shown to have been a fraud, but he doesn't have to be a total fake, just dishonest enough to be untrustworthy and pushed down to below their level.

Talented, even brilliant, but ultimately unreliable and a cheat.

[Christian U]

No, we're not supposed to believe that at all. Neither do the police in the story.

She says that outright though, doesn't she? "What if he's done it to us with all of his cases?" or something along those lines. The basis of her sudden suspicion is, after all, that nobody could do what Sherlock has done in every single one of those, so if he could've done it in some of them, there wouldn't be a basis for that.

Ultimately, it's in the execution, and that wasn't the least bit convincing. Not the sudden way in which they turned on him, not in the way Lestrade fell in line, not in the way the superior was acting, not in the way Sherlock himself reacted in running away, not in the way nobody bothered to find out why the girl reacted the way she did and so on. And there were a lot more things like that in that episode. I'm afraid talking it out won't help, either, I just didn't find it a lot more convincing where that aspect of the plot was concerned than you did with Hound of Baskerville. I did like it better because a lot of other stuff was very well done, I liked Moriarty a lot in general and the first half was fine where all of Holmes' interaction and dialogue was concerned, and the Key idea in itself and the way Moriarty starts it off, I can buy. I just wish the whole framing Sherlock thing worked better.

[Patrick A]

The only other thing I can think of was the laughter.

he laughs occasionally. For example, he laughed in the first episode this season, when he and John were sitting on the couch in Buckingham Palace. they both did, it was a great moment.

[steveuk]

She says that outright though, doesn't she? "What if he's done it to us with all of his cases?" or something along those lines.

That's her, it's who she is as a character.

She's the first person in the first episode to doubt Sherlock and she's the most eager for her suspicions, her beliefs which she's held for years, to be proven right.

The basis of her sudden suspicion is, after all, that nobody could do what Sherlock has done in every single one of those, so if he could've done it in some of them, there wouldn't be a basis for that.

It's not a sudden suspicion though is it?

Ultimately, it's in the execution, and that wasn't the least bit convincing. Not the sudden way in which they turned on him, not in the way Lestrade fell in line, not in the way the superior was acting, not in the way Sherlock himself reacted in running away, not in the way nobody bothered to find out why the girl reacted the way she did and so on. And there were a lot more things like that in that episode. I'm afraid talking it out won't help, either, I just didn't find it a lot more convincing where that aspect of the plot was concerned than you did with Hound of Baskerville. I did like it better because a lot of other stuff was very well done, I liked Moriarty a lot in general and the first half was fine where all of Holmes' interaction and dialogue was concerned, and the Key idea in itself and the way Moriarty starts it off, I can buy. I just wish the whole framing Sherlock thing worked better.

And as I've said, I agree with you on some of it, it wasn't perfect.

But I think you're taking an extreme position yourself and ignoring some of the evidence that's was in the show. There are flaws there, but other bits I just don't think are the way you're presenting them here.

[Mark Peyton]

Plus Lestrade definitely didn't fall in line. He did what he was told to do, but took the time to warn Sherlock to get away.

[Ogul]

Well, the whole point of Sherlock being around was that he deduced stuff that nobody else could, that's what he's been demonstrating every day for years, apparently. And like I said, are we supposed to believe that he arranged every single crime he solved for them? In which they were there a lot of the steps, interviewed the witnesses, got the confessions? He is supposed to what, have bribed people into getting sentenced for murder?

The story I'd be prepared to believe, under the right circumstances, is that Holmes was Moriarty. I mean, Moriarty was established as a "consulting criminal," someone who aided and/or abetted in dozens of crimes, many of which Holmes "solved." If Homes was behind Moriarty then he was behind those crimes, though for all the actual criminal actors knew, he didn't exist in that facility.

[Will Carper]

Finally got to watch this last night as I was waiting for a friend to get caught up.

I agree that the plot holes people here have found are plot holes, and very implausible ones. Though the episode moved along so quickly and wittily that I didn't notice, except for the "few lines of code" and the Brook disguise being far too unlikely to even be seriously considered by Moriarty.

Edited by Will Carper, 20 January 2012 - 02:36 AM.

[David Meadows]

The only other thing I can think of was the laughter.

I thought of the crying. It surprised me at the time but I couldn't (still can't) figure out if it was significant.

[Scott Wilkinson]

Moffat is saying that no-one has worked out how Holmes staged his death . . . seem to recall either him or RTD saying something similar and then it turned out a lot of people had guessed correctly and they were flat out lying . . . they've already filmed the stuff for season 3 as to how it was performed and hopes that series 3 will air before the year is out (good news).

[Christian U]

But I think you're taking an extreme position yourself and ignoring some of the evidence that's was in the show. There are flaws there, but other bits I just don't think are the way you're presenting them here.

It just didn't work for me, Steve, I'm not deliberately trying to put the show down or anything. I was just a bit annoyed with those bits of the episode in the second half, while watching it.

[steveuk]

It just didn't work for me, Steve, I'm not deliberately trying to put the show down or anything. I was just a bit annoyed with those bits of the episode in the second half, while watching it.

Which is fine, I was the same with the second episode, I'm only trying to argue about what's there, not what you think of it.

[David Chapman]

He asked for help, beyond that, what did he do that was out of character?

He told the morgue girl that he either needed or wanted her, I forget which. In any event, it was laid out as an expression of desire - which was so completely out of character for Holmes that I noticed it instantly.

[Christian U]

Which is fine, I was the same with the second episode, I'm only trying to argue about what's there, not what you think of it.

And we are seeing what was there very differently indeed. I see the girl cop suddenly come up with an entirely ridiculous theory that Lestrat should have laughed at instead of getting all quiet and doubty. I see his superiour acting in a way that makes no sense at all in the context of the series. I see Mycroft behaving extremely stupid for somebody who is supposed to be so clever and giving away quite a lot for nothing at all. I see nobody, including Holmes, asking why the girl actually reacted to him that way or trying to talk to her. I see all the cops - not just that girl cop - apparently buying into a theory (Holmes having faked all of his cases that is completely impossible). I see Holmes running away from the police when he has no reason to do so at all. And so on. I do also see how they try to make it logical, like the girl cop referencing what she said about Holmes in the first episode to Watson and other things you mentioned, but it doesn't work for me because it's all just not very well developed IMO.

He told the morgue girl that he either needed or wanted her, I forget which. In any event, it was laid out as an expression of desire - which was so completely out of character for Holmes that I noticed it instantly.

Yeah, but with that, it was very obvious that it was going to be misleading and that he had a plan for her that'll turn out to be the thing that allowed him to fake his death and get away with it.

[steveuk]

And we are seeing what was there very differently indeed. I see the girl cop suddenly come up with an entirely ridiculous theory that Lestrat should have laughed at instead of getting all quiet and doubty. I see his superiour acting in a way that makes no sense at all in the context of the series. I see Mycroft behaving extremely stupid for somebody who is supposed to be so clever and giving away quite a lot for nothing at all. I see nobody, including Holmes, asking why the girl actually reacted to him that way or trying to talk to her. I see all the cops - not just that girl cop - apparently buying into a theory (Holmes having faked all of his cases that is completely impossible). I see Holmes running away from the police when he has no reason to do so at all. And so on. I do also see how they try to make it logical, like the girl cop referencing what she said about Holmes in the first episode to Watson and other things you mentioned, but it doesn't work for me because it's all just not very well developed IMO.

I know. You've been perfectly clear.

The reason I've been arguing is that I didn't see half of that stuff in the episode. I didn't see the things you're describing.

We all read things slightly differently, as the 'Blade Runn..' I mean the 'Prometheus' thread shows, but I'm not arguing about reading, just about seeing.

Yeah, but with that, it was very obvious that it was going to be misleading and that he had a plan for her that'll turn out to be the thing that allowed him to fake his death and get away with it.

That bit we all saw.

[Will Carper]

I do wish the writers made it so that only some of Holmes' cases were suspected as fakes. All of them just makes no sense at all.

That Moriarty being a hired actor thing is bothering me the most of the inconsistencies, especially as Moriarty went as far as to claim his "actor" persona was once the star of a TV show! Gahh...

[Christian U]

We all read things slightly differently, as the 'Blade Runn..' I mean the 'Prometheus' thread shows, but I'm not arguing about reading, just about seeing.

I did see the same things, though, I just thought it wasn't at all convincing.

Ehk. Sorry, I am getting way more obnoxious about these things than I meant to be. I didn't buy that part of the story, but I wasn't really bothered by it, either. It was an enjoyable episode and a great season overall - better than the first one, I felt.

Edited by Christian U, 21 January 2012 - 03:19 PM.

[steveuk]

What's the point of the internet without pointless arguments?

I do wish the writers made it so that only some of Holmes' cases were suspected as fakes. All of them just makes no sense at all.

That Moriarty being a hired actor thing is bothering me the most of the inconsistencies, especially as Moriarty went as far as to claim his "actor" persona was once the star of a TV show! Gahh...

I wonder if any of those problems are deliberate? Of course, even if they're not, the might be retconned as deliberate by the next series.