|
When being introduced to the woman, they were explicitly told she'd broken up a marriage through involvement with both participants. She's bisexual.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 01:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 16:48 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:The Brits and Americans had cracked a terrorist code and learned about a bombing of a jumbo jet. In order to keep the terrorists from knowing that they knew they filled a jet with already dead bodies and were just going to blow that up instead. Oh ok, it was that simple then. Apparently I was paying attention.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 01:32 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:The Brits and Americans had cracked a terrorist code and learned about a bombing of a jumbo jet. In order to keep the terrorists from knowing that they knew they filled a jet with already dead bodies and were just going to blow that up instead. This, of course, makes no sense when you stop to think about it. How would they provide a list of victims to the press afterwards? What about the families who were under the impression that their families had died days ago, and not on an aeroplane?
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 01:34 |
|
|
Gaz-L posted:I did notice that they're humanising Sherlock more this time round, with the giggle fit in the Palace and him actually apologising for hurting Molly's feelings when he realised the present was for him. I noticed this too, and I didn't like it very much. It's just like what they did with House, making him more emotional instead of someone who is completely apathetic. I've always liked the fact that Sherlock Holmes, in the books, very rarely expresses his emotions - even to those closest to him. It felt like a bunch of those obsessive Sherlock fanatics had gotten ahold of the script and wrote their own fanfiction into it. Still, it was a good episode. I'm just glad it's back. Walrus Truck fucked around with this message at Jan 2, 2012 around 02:37 |
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 01:54 |
|
|
Walrus Truck posted:I noticed this too, and I didn't like it very much. It's just like what they did with House, making him more emotional instead of someone who is completely. I've always liked the fact that Sherlock Holmes, in the books, very rarely expresses his emotions - even to those closest to him. But you potentially hit the problem House had, in that your protagonist isn't just flawed, he's actively dislikeable, which doesn't work, so you have to mitigate that somehow, and more of Dr. John Watson, Ladies' Man isn't going to cut it. Noxville posted:This, of course, makes no sense when you stop to think about it. How would they provide a list of victims to the press afterwards? What about the families who were under the impression that their families had died days ago, and not on an aeroplane? Fake names. When you're at Her Majesty's service I imagine it's not a big deal to get official documentation of people who don't exist.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:01 |
|
|
quote:This, of course, makes no sense when you stop to think about it. How would they provide a list of victims to the press afterwards? What about the families who were under the impression that their families had died days ago, and not on an aeroplane? I don't think it had to be that elaborate. All they really needed to do was fill the plane with bodies and then create identities for them, which I suppose is easy enough done when you're the government. Its not like the terrorists are going to be doing any major investigation into the victims. The attack itself for all intents and purposes would be a success, they'd be no reason to dig around. quote:I noticed this too, and I didn't like it very much. It's just like what they did with House, making him more emotional instead of someone who is completely. I don't think they've gone to far, a certain amount of emotion can be expected these days while still remaining detached, something which would be less pronounced when the original books were written. The whole point of this series is a up-to-date Holmes, a bit more of a relaxed outlook is part of that. I read the apologizing to Molly as the 'done thing' rather than something he actually meant.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:05 |
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Fake names. When you're at Her Majesty's service I imagine it's not a big deal to get official documentation of people who don't exist. Then why do you even need bodies? The whole thing's going to get blown up.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:07 |
|
|
Aircraft don't just vaporize and you can't guarantee that the first person to the crash site isn't going to have The Sun on quick dial, nor can you risk involving an entire air crash investigation in your ruse. You need actual bodies or someone will cry foul.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:10 |
|
|
My main problem with it is that the whole point of A Scandal in Bohemia was that Adler got the best of Holmes, which she didn't here, regardless of whether it was a dream or not.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:47 |
|
|
HookShot posted:My main problem with it is that the whole point of A Scandal in Bohemia was that Adler got the best of Holmes, which she didn't here, regardless of whether it was a dream or not. You seem to be labouring under the delusion these are outright adaptations, when clearly they're not.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:50 |
|
|
Jonnty posted:When being introduced to the woman, they were explicitly told she'd broken up a marriage through involvement with both participants. She's bisexual.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 02:57 |
|
|
The_Doctor posted:You seem to be labouring under the delusion these are outright adaptations, when clearly they're not. I understand that they're not, but one of the great things about the original series is that it did more or less stick to the basic themes of the original stories. And Irene Adler being basically the only person to best Holmes was definitely one of the major Holmes moments and the reason it's such an iconic story.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 03:10 |
|
|
HookShot posted:I understand that they're not, but one of the great things about the original series is that it did more or less stick to the basic themes of the original stories. And Irene Adler being basically the only person to best Holmes was definitely one of the major Holmes moments and the reason it's such an iconic story. Perhaps they are going the route of Moriarty besting Sherlock instead of The Woman and instead focusing on how this is the only person to really bring out something considered feelings in Sherlock. I can see how having two people beating Sherlock would be kind of redundant.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 03:43 |
|
|
wow, that was really well done, good story, nice twists, and I didn't see the ending coming at all. Really looking forward to the two other stories.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 04:03 |
|
|
That was a fun thing to watch! A bit shaky and unclear at times, but that's alright. I can deal with that. The timeline and pacing was muddy. The timeline and pacing is always just a bit muddy on this show, going all the way back to the very first episode. I was re-watching "A Study in Pink" recently when I realized that essentially that entire 90 minute episode took place over the course of a single day/night, despite the absurd amount of running and driving and moving back and forth across various parts of London. And then we have this episode, where I have no loving clue just exactly how much time transpired or exactly when everything was really happening. Like I said, it was very muddy. Obviously a part of it took place well before the holidays, then there was a big jump in time, then a part that took place during the holidays, and then another big jump in time, and then the conclusion. Oh wait, and then there was another big jump in time and then we had the real conclusion. For all I know, we could have covered upwards of 18 months in that single 90 minute episode. I must admit that they may have gone a little bit too far in making Sherlock "emotionally involved", but I can accept it since in the end he kept her at arm's length, and I can buy that he saved her out of respect for her intelligence and cunning, and not because he "liked" her. I was also a little caught off-guard by Adler telling Watson that she was gay. I'm pretty sure she meant "gay" in the general sense, meaning that she is not only bisexual but "queer" in a more broad sense - that is, accepting of (and actively interested in) a huge and wide range of sexual practises, preferences, and positions. She was very clearly going into a room to "dominate" some woman at the beginning of the episode, right? Plus there were the various insinuations made by Mycroft.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 04:13 |
|
|
HookShot posted:My main problem with it is that the whole point of A Scandal in Bohemia was that Adler got the best of Holmes, which she didn't here, regardless of whether it was a dream or not. I actually quite liked the fact that the series is a modern retelling of the story as opposed to just Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century. I honestly didn't mind that Adler didn't get the best of Holmes considering that Holmes himself isn't always perfect. It was a good twist for everyone who'd read the original story.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:08 |
|
|
I really want to like this show but the pacing kills it for me as do the weird padding scenes. I get that they need to have him gifted the phone somehow but what was up with the out of the blue Christmas party? And I agree on the time lapses, they were rather annoying to follow and I simply gave up and decided "some time has passed" and left it at that. SymfonyMan posted:Mock the Week is great, but a lot of the humor goes over our heads here in the US because of the humor being so topical for most the show. Our news doesn't report much on what goes down across the pond unless it's a major story like the Murdoch cell phone debacle. 
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:09 |
|
|
Holy gently caress that was great, and I guess a year has enabled me to get used to Moriarty because I found him a lot more palatable this time around (though I still disliked him blowing a raspberry at his text to Mycroft). I actually like the 90 Minute running time, so long as they keep the number of episodes down and put as much work as possible into them. I thought the pacing was well handled though sometimes they didn't quite show the passing of time very well (though the switch to Christmas was really well done). Also that bit with the boomerang left me confused, I expected the boomeranger to come up at some point later in the story, so unless he/she shows up in the finale or something it's a hell of a thing to just leave sitting in the middle of a story.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:10 |
|
|
You could theoretically say that Adler bested Holmes by making him fall in love with her so he would go all the way to Pakistan and save her, but of course that's not really the point. Since Adler is still alive, maybe she'll return and best Holmes again? It would really be a disappointment if she never got to best him considering that this is supposed to be modern times and in modern times you're allowed to have a woman win. Also one of the biggest differences between a sociopath and a psychopath is that a sociopath can feel attachment to a small amount of individuals they hold close, even if they don't understand what the point is to caring about people in general. Sherlock called himself a high functioning (!!!) sociopath as opposed to a psychopath . So right from the first episode there is the fact that he can feel attached to people like Watson and Ms. H. His emotions in this episode were not out of nowhere or unrealistic. Also I'm not buying any of the given explanations for Adler falling in love with Sherlock. She said she's a lesbian. She had no reason to lie about being gay because why would it matter if she really wasn't for Watson to think so? And if she meant bi by gay then that's even less of a reason for her to bring it up. In the scene she clearly was saying it as a reason for why she can't be with Sherlock, but then it's never brought up again even though he heard it!
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:11 |
|
|
QueerPope posted:Also I'm not buying any of the given explanations for Adler falling in love with Sherlock. She said she's a lesbian. She had no reason to lie about being gay because why would it matter if she really wasn't for Watson to think so? And if she meant bi by gay then that's even less of a reason for her to bring it up. In the scene she clearly was saying it as a reason for why she can't be with Sherlock, but then it's never brought up again even though he heard it! I'm honestly still trying to figure this out, because I don't even like the explanation that I came up with before. But reading your post made me think about the context of that scene, and the conversation that she and Watson were having at the time, and I think I get the point Moffat was trying to make. Watson was pointing out how absurd it was both for her to flirt with Sherlock via texts, and call him and Sherlock a couple, saying "who the HELL knows about Sherlock Holmes." Basically, he was stating how impossible it was for Sherlock to take her flirting at face value, because his sexuality is so utterly nebulous. And it's in that context that Watson ironically states that he isn't gay, and Adler replies that she is. "Look at us both," she adds. So I think that she's trying to one-up Sherlock in this situation - she wants it to seem as if it's just as impossible for Irene Adler to fall in love with Sherlock Holmes as it is for Sherlock Holmes to fall in love with Irene Adler - she wants to be on equal footing with him, and she does this by pointing out that her own sexuality would render her just as unsuitable to be in a conventional heterosexual relationship as Sherlock's. And I think part of it is the "game" that she's playing - painting them both as impossibly star-crossed lovers who were meant to be together, despite all the reasons why it wouldn't make sense. I mean, why should we believe her at this moment, or take anything she's saying to Watson at face-value? All three of them know that she has sex with both men and women, so she's in a position to present her "real" sexual preferences in whatever way she wants, in order to make whatever point she wants. Or maybe I'm overthinking all of this. I just desperately don't want to think that Moffat was pulling the tired and offensive trope of the lesbian who falls in love with the handsome, complicated anti-hero because she just "needed to find the perfect man". That just makes me want to loving throw up, so I'm trying to think of reasons for that not to be the case 
kaworu fucked around with this message at Jan 2, 2012 around 05:39 |
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:36 |
|
|
QueerPope posted:Sherlock called himself a high functioning (!!!) sociopath as opposed to a psychopath . So right from the first episode there is the fact that he can feel attached to people like Watson and Ms. H. His emotions in this episode were not out of nowhere or unrealistic. I thought the point of what we've been shown is that Sherlock just wants to be uncaring and indifferent, a beep-boop logic robot. There was that scene in the morgue with Mycroft that suggested they maintain a fiction between them that they are both heartless monsters who don't do the whole caring thing, when it's at least plainly true that Mycroft cares about Sherlock quite a lot. It's a front, something Sherlock puts on so he can inhabit the I Am A Sociopath And Can Say What I Like space.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:40 |
|
|
QueerPope posted:Also I'm not buying any of the given explanations for Adler falling in love with Sherlock. She said she's a lesbian. She had no reason to lie about being gay because why would it matter if she really wasn't for Watson to think so? And if she meant bi by gay then that's even less of a reason for her to bring it up. In the scene she clearly was saying it as a reason for why she can't be with Sherlock, but then it's never brought up again even though he heard it! It's a peculiar thing to throw in. The only thing I can think is that she said it because Sherlock wasn't returning her texts. She knew that he'd be listening, and proclaiming herself as uninterested in him made him regard her as something he could understand safely instead of his usual beep-boop mode. (but as those of us from the Doctor Who thread know, Moffat has something of a dubious history with writing women, so...) The end is very weird too. Mycroft tells John to tell Sherlock that she's in witness protection. Then he tells him she's actually dead. He has to know that Sherlock will be able to tell that John's lying when he gives him the cover story. Sherlock would know that Mycroft knows that John is a bad liar, and wouldn't have told him the other story if he actually wanted Sherlock to believe the cover. The purpose of the badly delivered cover is to make the second story believable- that she's dead. But the very fact the cover exists to push him toward believing the second story should be enough to tip Sherlock off that it's fake too, and Mycroft knows it, and the whole purpose of the thing becomes some kind of double reacharound I-know-that-you-know-that-I-know delivered through John. 
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 05:50 |
|
|
I also think that it's a mistake to translate love=sex when talking about Sherlock and Irene. Plus I don't think you can (or are supposed to) take anything Irene says at face value. Everything is calculated to achieve what she wants in any given situation, she is very much like Sherlock when he gets manipulative, except he normally doesn't have the patience to do that while it seems Adler does it constantly.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 06:06 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Also that bit with the boomerang left me confused, I expected the boomeranger to come up at some point later in the story, so unless he/she shows up in the finale or something it's a hell of a thing to just leave sitting in the middle of a story. It was an accidental suicide. The boomeranger was his own victim. kaworu posted:And it's in that context that Watson ironically states that he isn't gay, and Adler replies that she is. "Look at us both," she adds. I think when Irene says, "Look at us both," she is referring not to herself and Sherlock but rather to herself and John. She states that neither of them have the appropriate sexual orientation to make Sherlock his or her boyfriend, yet she compares her own feelings toward Sherlock with the fact that others see John as being in a committed relationship with him. By saying that she's gay, Irene sets up her revelation of her feelings for Sherlock and her acknowledgment of the confusion that they inspire in her.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 06:09 |
|
|
Animal Homicide posted:It was an accidental suicide. The boomeranger was his own victim.  Of course, I was going to ask why the boomerang wasn't still there then till I remembered they said it drifted off downstream. I've been as dumb as Lestrade!
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 06:44 |
|
|
I was with it up until the very end, but even that wasn't enough to ruin the whole episode. Cumberbatch remains utterly enthralling, with most of the cast as compelling in different ways. Lost my mind with the (first 20 minutes) ashtray.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:20 |
|
|
I got a good laugh at the Doctor who reference, when I say run run
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:30 |
|
|
And I have to say that all Irene Adler discussion aside, Sherlock and Watson are probably the most adorable pseudo-gay couple on television right now. It helps that Cumberbatch and Freeman actually have amazing natural chemistry. One of my favorite moments was actually at the end of the Christmas party, when Watson's girlfriend du jour (what was her name again?) tells him, "You know, my friends are so wrong about you. You're a great boyfriend... And Sherlock Holmes is a very lucky man."  I know it's terrible and wrong and I should be embarrassed to use a phrase like this, but there are certain aspects of this show that make me feel like a... squeeing fangirl. Or fanboy. Whatever. I think I'll just go and hide in the corner in shame, now. Carry on!
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:31 |
|
|
I really loved the ???????'s when he was looking at Adler initially, especially how he looks over at Watson just to confirm that his skills are still working. Also, I'm embarrassed that it took me several minutes to understand the relevance of the "THREE! little dogs" observation and Sherlock's smug,"I know exactly where we're going," line.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:31 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Also, I'm embarrassed that it took me several minutes to understand the relevance of the "THREE! little dogs" observation and Sherlock's smug,"I know exactly where we're going," line. You know what, I just got that
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:36 |
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Also, I'm embarrassed that it took me several minutes to understand the relevance of the "THREE! little dogs" observation and Sherlock's smug,"I know exactly where we're going," line. I took this as a reference to Queen Elizabeth and her Welsh Corgis, but I honestly wasn't sure... does she have exactly three of them? I wasn't sure if it was four or five, or if it was a reference to something else entirely. Not being British and not knowing all this trivia about the monarchy, I am basing most of this knowledge off a scant few sources.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:41 |
|
|
kaworu posted:And I have to say that all Irene Adler discussion aside, Sherlock and Watson are probably the most adorable pseudo-gay couple on television right now. It helps that Cumberbatch and Freeman actually have amazing natural chemistry. One of my favorite moments was actually at the end of the Christmas party, when Watson's girlfriend du jour (what was her name again?) tells him, "You know, my friends are so wrong about you. You're a great boyfriend... And Sherlock Holmes is a very lucky man." No, I think this is a really valid thing to feel. The Holmes & Watson friendship in the books is one of the best male friendships ever described in literature, and it works because they're always clear with how much they enjoy each other's company. Platonic lifepartners if there ever were ones. And I didn't know there were new episodes and now I'm really excited. Watching the Brett series with my grandparents is Christmas tradition, so now we'll be able to watch this too before I go back to college 
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 07:48 |
|
|
That was one of the greatest things I have seen on television, quite simply. My love for this show is growing even stronger!
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 08:36 |
|
|
Wow. So far so good on this season/series. Is there any way to get a .gif of Sherlock looking at the American guy's weak spots with all the targets popping up? I think that's as close to enraged as I've seen him get, for as deadpan as he seems at the time.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 09:01 |
|
|
Enjoyed this one. When's the next episode out? Are they spacing things a bit since there's only three of them?
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 09:29 |
|
|
Gordon Shumway posted:Enjoyed this one. When's the next episode out? Are they spacing things a bit since there's only three of them? Nope, next sunday and the one after that.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 09:43 |
|
|
Vicissitude posted:Wow. So far so good on this season/series. Is there any way to get a .gif of Sherlock looking at the American guy's weak spots with all the targets popping up? I think that's as close to enraged as I've seen him get, for as deadpan as he seems at the time.  You do NOT gently caress with Mrs. Hudson!  Although I actually preferred Holmes and Watson's mutual outrage when Mycroft told her to shut up.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 10:08 |
|
|
I absolutely loved Sherlock's "Heh, look at this woman here in love  " toward Molly and then the look on his face when he realizes how much of a giant rear end in a top hat he's just made of himself. I loved Sherlock and John's outrage at Mycroft telling Mrs. Hudson to shut up, after which Mycroft apologies and Sherlock tells her to shut up anyway. Then he kissed her on the cheek, which disappointed me only because every time I look for a clip of this show on YouTube to show anyone, I'm going to have to see dozens of "Related Videos" with awful titles like "Sherlock/Molly The Reason by Hoobstank - ~*THE KISS*~!!) I'm so glad this show is back.  However, I didn't care for Moriarty's Bronx cheer toward his text message to Mycroft. That was kind of terrible. Other than that though, a solid episode and I can't wait for next week's.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 10:19 |
|
|
Is anyone able to get this video on Watson's blog to play? I can't, I'm not sure if it's just not working right now or if it's because I'm in America.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 10:22 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 16:48 |
|
|
QueerPope posted:Also I'm not buying any of the given explanations for Adler falling in love with Sherlock. She said she's a lesbian. She had no reason to lie about being gay because why would it matter if she really wasn't for Watson to think so? And if she meant bi by gay then that's even less of a reason for her to bring it up. In the scene she clearly was saying it as a reason for why she can't be with Sherlock, but then it's never brought up again even though he heard it! You guys are acting like nobody's ever used the "sorry, I'm gay" excuse to avoid rejecting someone  But seriously, I don't think Adler was meant to be an example of the lesbian who just needs the right cock trope and if she was then it wasn't done very well.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2012 10:26 |
|
