Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


It's a minor and completely irrelevant thing but the one thing that stood out to me in this episode was whatever the hell Joan was wearing at the beginning. I often notice that she's really well-dressed, but at the start of this episode she just looked weird, like she'd thrown some random clothes together.

CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:

Former drug dealer on parole probably just had a gun because that's how every drug dealer is written.
This specific drug dealer had already been established as having gone to prison for his involvement in a gun fight though.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


TheOneAndOnlyT posted:

Nooooo Sherlock why are you breaking up with Fiona

My guess is that the writers just couldn't think of anything interesting to do with her.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


It's always irritating to me the way this show pushes 12 step programmes as the only way to overcome any kind of addiction. I was really hoping that this time they'd let it go with Sherlock finding a different solution that works better for him right now.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


Keyser S0ze posted:

They need to ramp up the long game/classic adversary Holmes stuff as this show nears its conclusion and never should have let Natalie Dormer be Moriarty if she wasn't going to be available long term.

I hope they don't bring her back and I absolutely hate how every goddamn Sherlock Holmes adaptation has to bang on about this supposed long-term rivalry between Holmes and Moriarty. The original Moriarty was essentially a plot device for killing Holmes, shows up once, and gets mentioned maybe three other times? gently caress Moriarty.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


Pick posted:

Elementary is the wrong show to complain about it, since it's incredibly modest about using Moriarty.

Which is good and I want it to stay that way.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


It really seemed like the hostage situation was completely unnecessary. And are we supposed to think that they should have taken that guy's case sooner because it turned out to be more important? Because that's a terrible message - don't prioritise because sometimes things that seem unimportant are really important.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


InfiniteZero posted:

... but the whole point was that Sherlock would have to solve a case alone within a ridiculous time limit imposed on him by the hostage situation.

The time limit already existed because of the statute of limitations and there's any number of ways to keep Joan from directly helping. Not that that really seemed to make any significant difference anyway.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


Azhais posted:

The whole point was that Sherlock had 5 years to solve that case, but decided it wasn't important. The hostage situation was to force him to give a poo poo, not to keep Joan out of it

Well, that just goes back to my first question - why? What's the message here? That he shouldn't prioritise cases that seem important over ones that don't?

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


A surprisingly good episode about video games, even if the girls watching the stream were way too old to be in that guy's target demographic. Still miles better than the usual "You need to get to level 460 in the latest Car Stealing Murder Sim to unlock the secret message the hackers left in the code! But only on the X-Station U version with the virtual reality goggles!"

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


Did I miss something or did they never explain how a fake terrorist attack could be planned so exactly three years in advance?

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


ookiimarukochan posted:

They had an idea for how they'd get support back for the president if it was needed, and it turns out that it took 3 years before it was needed. If you don't have a contingency plan in place before it's needed, it's a poo poo contingency plan.

Sure, "fake a terrorist attack" is the plan though. "Blow up this particular building by putting this distinct explosive (that will be linked to this specific group) into the toilet" seems a bit too precise to still be a valid plan after three years.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


That's no way to treat an expensive musical instrument!

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


Pick posted:

Weird as it sounds, I actually appreciated that this week's involved a killer you don't meet until the end. That should happen sometimes.

It certainly avoids the "most famous actor did it" problem.

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


I thought this was a pretty weak episode. For a start it had that always-annoying cop show thing of investigating a crime they're personally connected to. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure Marcus should have been regarded as a suspect, and it was weird that they never considered that Chantal, as ADA, had probably made a lot of criminal enemies.

But by far the biggest problem? There's no DNA in urine.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tiggum
Oct 23, 2007


The Lord Bude posted:

I can't see this video in my country, but I assume it's about the movie 'Mr Holmes'? I just got round to watching it and I thought it was really good.

Nah, it's the Mitchell and Webb sketch where Holmes is senile. If you haven't seen it, you're really not missing much.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply