|
Revenant Threshold posted:Pretty well, actually. The joke at the beginning about Sherlock sending John down there and not going himself is because in the original story, that's exactly what happens. The hound is just a dog covered in a glow-in-the-dark substance. Other than that, I don't think there's actually any other direct references - though some indirect, like Baskerville being the army base's name in the show and it being a family name of the victims in the book. I really liked that bit at the start, a little joke thrown in to mess with readers of the original book. For a minute I was thinking "well, I know where this is going", and then it turned out that I didn't. As for other stuff from the book, there was also a Stapleton family in the book, and there was a vague thematic link in that the solution to this episode was what essentially boiled down to fear gas enhancing a dog, while the book's mystery revolved around a dog enhanced with phosphorous which caused a man to die of fear. Also when Holmes lies about the dog glowing, it may be a nod to the fact that it actually did due to the phosphorous in the book. Sereri posted:I actually just have two things to complain about this time. The memory palace thing was a bit too Minority Report-ish and the explosion of the anti-personnel mine seemed way too big. To be fair, it is hard to make a man thinking about words visually compelling without a bit of whizzy transposition stuff going on.
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2012 01:21 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 08:57 |
|
|
lelandjs posted:There was no gas leak. There was a gas leak from a pipe on the wall in the small darkened room that Watson explores before finding the one that he thinks he encountered the dog in. Watson actually investigated it briefly.
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2012 13:30 |
|
|
pik_d posted:Another Moriarty "moment" on Watson's blog: http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/16amarch. I don't know why it never occurred to me to check if there really was a Watson blog. These chat comments are brilliant.
|
| # ¿ Jan 9, 2012 15:31 |
|
|
Holy Doughnuts! posted:For some reason, the TARDIS appearing in the background has really annoyed me. Judging by the people I know, I think it had the impact it was meant to have: causing total meltdowns amongst the fangirls who were already busy photoshopping and writing Who/Sherlock crossovers. I actually thought it was kind of amusing and totally inevitable, but really hope that nothing comes of it. I really don't want to see an actual crossover happen. (okay, maybe a totally-not-canon Children in Need special, but it'd have to be even better than Curse of Fatal Death)
|
| # ¿ Jan 11, 2012 16:05 |
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:I'm looking forward to this week's episode though, and I want to know what's going on with Moriaty. (I still don't think he should have really been present until this series, but hay ho). To make him authentic to the original Moriarty, he shouldn't just have not been present, he should never have even been alluded to until one day Holmes just suddenly mentions his apparently longest-running arch-nemesis out of nowhere, along with the fact that he's basically behind every crime in London somehow. And then kills him. (The original Moriarty may be serial fiction's first retcon, now I think of it)
|
| # ¿ Jan 12, 2012 17:57 |
|
|
a flamboyant bogan posted:'A Scandal In Belgravia' was fantastic, and there were some truly wonderful references to some of the stories within the first few minutes. (I counted "The Naval Treaty," "The Speckled Band" "The Greek Interpreter" and "The Priory School.") I loved the Geek Interpreter joke. You can actually read the full story at Watson's blog in the entry found here.
|
| # ¿ Jan 15, 2012 20:45 |
|
|
Sodium Chloride posted:That last half hour was really something. I think we all saw the very ending coming (mainly because Martin Freeman apparently confirmed a 3rd series), but the how is a mystery. Your explanation is better than anything I can come up with.
|
| # ¿ Jan 15, 2012 22:30 |
|
|
CB_Tube_Knight posted:Okay we need to settle this now, its not even meant to be offensive. But what is it with the British and men dressing like women? I mean someone in here must be from the UK and it seems like that is just the funniest thing in the world to you guys. Kind of like how people from here love to see shirtless guys get chased on cops or someone get hit in the nuts by anything. The initial joke that "look it's a man dressed as a lady!" wears off quickly, but the best ones can make you forget that they're men and just laugh at the characters they portray and whatever situations they're in. Monty Python's mad old grannies, Lily Savage, the tragically deceased Kenny Everett as Cupid Stunt, and even whoever plays Agnes Brown are particularly good in this respect. (Oh, and speaking of that effect, I still think that Roger Taylor was disturbingly convincing in Queen's I Want To Break Free video (supposedly banned on some stations in the US at the time). That said, so was Freddie despite the moustache... ChuckDHead fucked around with this message at Jan 18, 2012 around 15:21 |
| # ¿ Jan 18, 2012 14:47 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 08:57 |
|
|
Martin Freeman has been so excellent in this series that I'm actually slightly excited for The Hobbit, despite having never cared about Lord of the Rings enough to even stay awake through one of the movies.keep punching joe posted:I shall end the derailment by posting this article on the history of female impersonation in British society. I just have to thank you for posting this article. Learning that Kenny Everett's Cupid Stunt was originally going to be called "Mary Hinge" has made my day. Apparently this was considered "better" by the BBC censors? ChuckDHead fucked around with this message at Jan 18, 2012 around 15:27 |
| # ¿ Jan 18, 2012 15:23 |
|
