|
Pick posted:This one was pretty cute in terms of character plot stuff, but ultimately the core crime was kind of daft. Why not just ask to see the map, that you own, and quickly scratch out the tiny part of it with sandpaper or something? They can't really charge you with damaging something you own, even if it is on permanent loan. Even if they wanted to, I doubt they'd risk angering a donor, and even if they did, the crime would only be property damage and not super murder. Wasn't it because it was already scanned and put online? She just replaced it with a fake map that was the same, then drew attention to it (with the murder), calling the authenticity into question and making it inadmissible in court. She didn't want to be traced back to doing anything to it since her family owned the land. Scorchy fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Dec 5, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Scorchy posted:Wasn't it because it was already scanned and put online? She just replaced it with a fake map that was the same, then drew attention to it (with the murder), calling the authenticity into question and making it inadmissible in court. She didn't want to be traced back to doing anything to it since her family owned the land. Yeah, Kitty addresses it directly: “This all started when the library put a scan of the map online. You couldn’t just steal it and make it disappear. You had to throw the history of the original into question.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Ah, right. That makes sense. Though it still feels there were probably less convoluted ways to do it, and it seems like a leap that an olde tymey map would be seen as sufficiently credible. Has that ever happened?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Well, the logic was that the specific territory kept by the Indian nation was based on that original map (referenced in the treaty)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:Well, the logic was that the specific territory kept by the Indian nation was based on that original map (referenced in the treaty) I do remember that, but even that is a bit of a leap. We've done kind of bonkers things in the past (Northwest angle) though so I was wondering if there was precedent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Pick posted:Ah, right. That makes sense. Though it still feels there were probably less convoluted ways to do it, and it seems like a leap that an olde tymey map would be seen as sufficiently credible. Has that ever happened? Since the border of the territory was set at the river as defined by that map, yes. Even back then they knew that rivers change, so it's good to have a reference that doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Since the border of the territory was set at the river as defined by that map, yes. Even back then they knew that rivers change, so it's good to have a reference that doesn't. I'm asking if we've ever done that, that was explicitly my question. In fact, the case of the Northwest angle is one where new borders were formed because old maps upon which the treaty was based were not applicable. Pick fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Pick posted:Ah, right. That makes sense. Though it still feels there were probably less convoluted ways to do it, and it seems like a leap that an olde tymey map would be seen as sufficiently credible. Has that ever happened? The Country Club Dispute is a similar situation. The border wasn’t explicitly based on an old map, but it was based on the course of the river as it flowed in 1850. I am not a lawyer, but the problem I see with this episode is that “throwing the history of the original into question” may well not be enough. A hydrological survey would confirm that the river flowed where the map said it did, forgery or no. Reasonable doubt isn’t the standard here. At the end of the episode, there’s momentary tension when it’s thought that the original map was destroyed, allowing the casino to be built after all, but the old photographs apparently had enough detail that they could have established the boundary on their own (which is why they should have been destroyed and certainly not lent to Sherlock).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Yea her plan was pretty dumb and overly complicated. I think this is a case where someone really just wanted to kill somebody, anybody. Even when it came to calling the authenticity of the map into doubt, it could have been done without murder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:I think this is a case where someone really just wanted to kill somebody, anybody. Even when it came to calling the authenticity of the map into doubt, it could have been done without murder. Murder wasn't necessarily part of the crime. It was part of the cleanup. Streep-child wasn't Moriarty and had to let the thief and forger see her face to employ them. She killed the thief (and eventually would have killed the forger) to keep from being turned in or blackmailed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:44
|
|
 S3 E7 The Adventure of the Nutmeg A bored Sherlock forces his investigative services onto Joan, who is trying to locate a woman who has been missing for five years, and the only clue is the smell of nutmeg at the site of her disappearance. Meanwhile, Joan's bond with her long-distance boyfriend, Andrew, is tested when a man from her past reappears and asks for her help.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with tonight but kind of by-the-book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Gotta say, I'm really not feeling this season. Kitty is the only character who's been even mildly interesting. Bell may as well be an extra; Gregson too, except for that crappy plot where he Defends His Daughter's Honor From…what, a rapist? abuser? And Sherlock and Watson have had a pretty feeble back-and-forth that's resolved/not-resolved for whatever reason. And Ms. Hudson shows up for what exactly? Meh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
The problem is that we suspect Kitty is temporary, so while I like her as a character I always feel a "when's the ball going to drop?" vibe from her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
It's times like this in a show that reveal that we as viewers are essentially horrible, sadistic people. Holmes is in a really good place with his addiction and personal situation, even being able to take on and help another person. Watson has taken Holmes' lessons to heart and become a successful private investigator and consulting detective. She's even in a long-term relationship with someone, even if there are a few bumps in the road of love. Gregson and Bell seem to be mostly doing well from what we've seen. Even Kitty, Holmes' damaged protege is clearly if slowly healing from the horrors of her past. These are happy people, or at least content people. Happy, content people are dull to watch and the showrunners know this. And that is why Kitty is likely to suffer some horrible fate that ricochets through everybody's life. Sherlock will likely go on some vengeance trail and even relapse. Joan will lose her boyfriend as she tries to help him put his life together again. Ultimately, Kitty must die horribly so that we can be entertained.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
I actually think that Kitty might realize that real-world things like therapy are more helpful than trying to become an apprentice wizard, and she returns to her life, and then we have to reflect on how Holmes and Watson are both crazier than someone the rest of the world considers "broken".
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Kitty is going to use the skills she's being taught by Sherlock to brutally murder her kidnapper and almost gets away with it. Sherlock, who's seemingly stopped going to meetings/interacting with his sponsor will likely relapse (unless he already has, addicts lie after all). Sherlock has essentially created a new Moriarty and will burn himself trying to catch her as his sobriety goes to poo poo. The shock of losing two friends while her boyfriend is off in Denmark will finally make Watson lose perspective and she goes chasing after them. She's ultimately the one to solve the case and catch kitty, but in her effort to keep her two friends from killing each other she's neglected the relationship beyond repair. Throw in some kind of analogy for how Sherlock got Bell shot and her transformation is complete.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Kitty is going to use the skills she's being taught by Sherlock to brutally murder her kidnapper and almost gets away with it. Sherlock, who's seemingly stopped going to meetings/interacting with his sponsor will likely relapse (unless he already has, addicts lie after all). Sherlock has essentially created a new Moriarty and will burn himself trying to catch her as his sobriety goes to poo poo. The shock of losing two friends while her boyfriend is off in Denmark will finally make Watson lose perspective and she goes chasing after them. She's ultimately the one to solve the case and catch kitty, but in her effort to keep her two friends from killing each other she's neglected the relationship beyond repair. Throw in some kind of analogy for how Sherlock got Bell shot and her transformation is complete. Except that Sherlock's sense of justice/morality is unconventional at best. Kitty murdering the man who kidnapped and raped her would probably be somewhat okay in Sherlock's eyes. The only way I see him going after Kitty is if she murders an innocent person (either she somehow kills the wrong man or causes deaths in addition to that of her target).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
johntfs posted:Except that Sherlock's sense of justice/morality is unconventional at best. Kitty murdering the man who kidnapped and raped her would probably be somewhat okay in Sherlock's eyes. The only way I see him going after Kitty is if she murders an innocent person (either she somehow kills the wrong man or causes deaths in addition to that of her target). Did he not comment on that kind of scenario though, or was that the other Sherlock? I remember something about him being very into hard justice, but that murder was somehow a clear moral line that he would neither cross himself nor tolerate from others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
johntfs posted:Except that Sherlock's sense of justice/morality is unconventional at best. Kitty murdering the man who kidnapped and raped her would probably be somewhat okay in Sherlock's eyes. The only way I see him going after Kitty is if she murders an innocent person (either she somehow kills the wrong man or causes deaths in addition to that of her target). Sherlock was about to do the exact same thing to Sebastian Moran because he thought he had killed Irene Adler, and had even begun to torture him until Moran proved that he couldn't have done it, at which point Sherlock gave him up to the police. While he may have been ok with torturing/killing the guy who had murdered the women he loved, he couldn't kill someone who was innocent of that, even if it was a mass murderer (or maybe he just wanted to stay out of jail to catch the real killer). He might giver her a lecture about how he was like her until he got better, but ultimately the choice is hers since he doesn't have the right to stop her given what he almost did, but the worst that could happen is if she does go through with it he'll kick her out, if that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Biomute posted:Did he not comment on that kind of scenario though, or was that the other Sherlock? I remember something about him being very into hard justice, but that murder was somehow a clear moral line that he would neither cross himself nor tolerate from others. The was probably the other, other Sherlock. As Narmi notes below Miller's Sherlock intended to torture Irene's killer to death. Whatever he said, it was clear to me that the only way Moriarty survived encountering Holmes was by being Irene. Meanwhile, whatever his stated opinions about murder, Cumberbatch's Sherlock shot a guy in the brain to stop his blackmail. He was also pretty fine with letting Mary go be happily married to John despite killing a bunch of people and shooting Sherlock in the gut.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:33
|
|
New thread rule: you can only mention the Other Sherlock if you give him a  I liked the episode but it didn't really blow me away. It was a little boring? I blame the lack of Clyde!
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
How many cases has Kitty solved this season? I think it's like 6 now. The lottery ticket math murder, the package store guy looking to get into diamond smuggling, removing the officer who hit Gregson's daughter, the casino on tribal land, and this week's cleaner disappearance and bonus ID theft... She's doing more than Holmes and Watson combined. Also, a silk road shout-out? Blind Pineapple fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Someone involved in the making of this episode really, really does not like Criminal Minds. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 08:31
|
|
I just re watched Guardians of the Galaxy with the kids and realized the pink girl with the Collector is none other than Ophelia Lovibond/Kitty Winters. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
hollylolly posted:I just re watched Guardians of the Galaxy with the kids and realized the pink girl with the Collector is none other than Ophelia Lovibond/Kitty Winters. I know it's her and all, but I still don't recognize her. That neon pink skin and black contacts really throws me off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 10:01
|
|
I recognized her and then checked IMDB to be sure. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
Yeah I couldn't figure out where I had seen her before and had to check IMDB to realize that she was in GotG. Also Ophelia Lovibond is a Benedict Cumberbatch-tier name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
With a name like Ophelia Lovibond, I think she needs to be cast in Spectre next year. Wouldn't even need a character name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Horizontal refreshment 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
hollylolly posted:New thread rule: you can only mention the Other Sherlock if you give him a This site may be helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
mushroom_spore posted:Someone involved in the making of this episode really, really does not like Criminal Minds. I was wondering why he was flipping out on the FBI profiler guy, then on rewatch I noticed the bookshelf behind him was filled with books written by himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Scorchy posted:I was wondering why he was flipping out on the FBI profiler guy, then on rewatch I noticed the bookshelf behind him was filled with books written by himself. drat, I missed that. For my part I kind of liked the Blake Tanner character, or at least the idea of him. Holmes needs an enemy/foil in law enforcement and one of his stated objectives during this episode was to humiliate Blake Tanner. Humiliating a Special Agent in Charge of the FBI seems like an excellent way to acquire a powerful enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:This site may be helpful. I think it'd be fun if Jonny Lee Miller and Benedryl Cumberbun guested on each others' shows at some point. Perhaps each could play an actor who was going to portray Sherlock Holmes in an unauthorized biopic movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
johntfs posted:I think it'd be fun if Jonny Lee Miller and Benedryl Cumberbun guested on each others' shows at some point. Perhaps each could play an actor who was going to portray Sherlock Holmes in an unauthorized biopic movie. It's weird how they keep mirroring each other. They did Frankenstein together. They both play modern versions of Sherlock Holmes. And, even weirder, they've both played Edmund Bertram (Cumberbatch only in a radio play, but still). Someone needs to give Jonny a role in a super hero movie so they can keep it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Nah, they ought to remake Earthsea (and get the casting right this time; no white dudes), but cast Jonny Lee Miller as Yevaud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:With a name like Ophelia Lovibond, I think she needs to be cast in Spectre next year. Wouldn't even need a character name. How do you do a Spectre TV series? Isn't the guy basically omnipotent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Azhais posted:How do you do a Spectre TV series? Isn't the guy basically omnipotent? Not entirely. He can only use his awesome power to avenge/judge crime and murder, and as (nigh-)omnipotent as he is, he's not omniscient, so you can still run into interesting morality questions. As in, if a judge in a capital punishment state orders an innocent man executed, knowingly or otherwise, can the entire state, which sanctioned the use of the death penalty, be held responsible for that murder? A woman commits murder in her 20's, gets away with it, and spends the rest of her life trying to atone. Can the Spectre still pass judgement against her? Her daughter kills her, to spare her the Spectre's tortures. Is this murder or mercy? You can have interesting episodes, but yeah, I'm not sure you can do a full series on the subject. ETA: See this and the next page. That's what you'd make the story about; the Spectre is a spirit of vengeance, cruel and terrible, so how does it react to modern society, where vengeance is suddenly more complicated? And also, wrong SPECTRE. darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
VDay posted:Also Ophelia Lovibond is a Benedict Cumberbatch-tier name. It's a cool name if you're into brewing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
VDay posted:Ophelia Lovibond is a Benedict Cumberbatch-tier name. Now I want to see them do a movie together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:56
|
|