or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Sherlock" Series on PBS Masterpiece Mystery
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Sherlock" Series on PBS Masterpiece Mystery - Page 6

post #151 of 260
Stuff happens, it's OK. The apology is appreciated and accepted.
post #152 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Your penance is to be pelted about the noggin by a hail of scones and crumpets until your stiff upper lip begins to quiver with regret. tongue.gif

I actually saw the first sentence of your post only because of AVS's infernal and relatively recent practice of printing the beginning of the most recent post on the forum headline page. I therefore avoided the thread like a bad kipper, only re-entering when I was sure you spoiler-tagged the post. God save the Queen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by joed32 View Post

Stuff happens, it's OK. The apology is appreciated and accepted.

Mea culpa, gang, my face is still red over my gaffe. Gagh!
post #153 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


Mea culpa, gang, my face is still red over my gaffe. Gagh!

Now you gotta go back and take off the spoiler tags.smile.gif

This was brilliant, pretty much redeeming the whole season for me. Loved every minute of it.
post #154 of 260
So I finally came aboard and the game is on. I caught the first two seasons on Netflix and watched the current season culminating with last night's show. Didn't get hooked until the 3rd show of the first season and really liked the 2nd season. This 3rd season was okay but really didn't like last night's show. I can see the show runners see the problem in having JM return. No worthwhile villains in the 3rd season. The cypher last night was absurd and the something about Mary was iffy at best. Worthwhile watch but give me JM and Irene Addler or give me Elementary.
post #155 of 260
This was brilliant, pretty much redeeming the whole season for me. Loved every minute of it.

What he said. Complicated, far-fetched (it is Sherlock Holmes, after all) but it explained away all the sweetness and light from episode 2 and the beginning of episode 3 and put us back on the familiar footing of how its characters behave.

I thought it was probably the best episode since the Irene Adler one (A Scandal in Belgravia?). Such a pity their seasons consist of only three episodes.
post #156 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Watched Episode 3 of Series Three tonight and was blown away. I almost hate to say so, though, because of how little many of you thought of Episodes 1 and 2. Admittedly, the explanation of Mary's nearly fatal shot to Sherlock's chest was preposterous. Mary's explanation that she had intended that it not kill him was unconvincing. Still, I ended up liking the plot point because it setup the delicious interplay between Sherlock, Mary, and Watson. In fact the scene in which Watson threw the thumb drive with Mary's sordid backstory as a CIA and later freelance assassin on it into the fire moved me as much as it did Mary. No wonder Mary loves the guy!
post #157 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post



Now you gotta go back and take off the spoiler tags.smile.gif

Done!

Quote:
This was brilliant, pretty much redeeming the whole season for me. Loved every minute of it.

Really glad that you liked it too. It was fun to see Sherlock return to full-blown high functioning sociopath mode. smile.gif
post #158 of 260
I was a bit dubious about this season after epi 1. We missed epi 2 but last night was great! It was paced well, not confusing like epi 1, or I was more "in sync" with it this time, and the very last scene had me smiling for about 5 minutes after the credits rolled. Just wish it wasn't on so late cause It's after my Sunday night bedtime. Well worth the lack of sleep on a Monday though.
post #159 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

I was a bit dubious about this season after epi 1. We missed epi 2 but last night was great! It was paced well, not confusing like epi 1, or I was more "in sync" with it this time, and the very last scene had me smiling for about 5 minutes after the credits rolled. Just wish it wasn't on so late cause It's after my Sunday night bedtime. Well worth the lack of sleep on a Monday though.

My feelings exactly, well stated.This is what I meant-in the course of solving a mystery we learn more about, Sherlock and Watson, as well as Mycroft (love that guy!), than we did in the previous 2 episodes. Loved Watson going all Rambo at the crack house. smile.gif

So, one great episode out of 3. In baseball that would be a .333 average. Get you in the Hall of Fame.
post #160 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto Pylot View Post

I was a bit dubious about this season after epi 1. We missed epi 2 but last night was great! It was paced well, not confusing like epi 1, or I was more "in sync" with it this time, and the very last scene had me smiling for about 5 minutes after the credits rolled. Just wish it wasn't on so late cause It's after my Sunday night bedtime. Well worth the lack of sleep on a Monday though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post



My feelings exactly, well stated.This is what I meant-in the course of solving a mystery we learn more about, Sherlock and Watson, as well as Mycroft (love that guy!), than we did in the previous 2 episodes. Loved Watson going all Rambo at the crack house. smile.gif

So, one great episode out of 3. In baseball that would be a .333 average. Get you in the Hall of Fame.

I suspect you both remember, I liked Episodes 1 and 2 of Series 3 far better than many posters here. That said, though, I agree that Episode 3 was by far the best of Series 3. Gatiss and Moffat mounted a 4th quarter comeback worthy of Peyton Manning at the top of his game. smile.gif
post #161 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


I suspect you both remember, I liked Episodes 1 and 2 of Series 3 far better than many posters here. That said, though, I agree that Episode 3 was by far the best of Series 3. Gatiss and Moffat mounted a 4th quarter comeback worthy of Peyton Manning at the top of his game. smile.gif

Um, probably not the best analogy today. Just sayin'. wink.gif

Really enjoyed this episode, and the twist of having sweet Mary be a highly skilled assassin/spy in an earlier, pre-Watson life. Some interesting connections amongst the cast: Watson and Mary being real-life partners. Mr. & Mrs. Holmes being the real-life parents of Benedict Cumberbatch. And this episodes villain, Magnussen, played by Lars Mikkelsen, is the real-life older brother of Mads Mikkelsen who plays the ubër-creepy and compelling Hannibal Lector in NBC's stylish and addictive series 'Hannibal'. Some might remember him as the equally awesome villain LaChiffre in the recent Bond film Casino Royale.
post #162 of 260
The only part I didn't much like about season 2 was the dreamlike scenes. I just don't picture, except possibly for his drug habit which don't show up much in this TV transmigration, Sherlock's didactical deductions in a dream sequence. Maybe it's me, though.

BTW, RIP Phillip Seymore Hoffman.
post #163 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post


I suspect you both remember, I liked Episodes 1 and 2 of Series 3 far better than many posters here. That said, though, I agree that Episode 3 was by far the best of Series 3. Gatiss and Moffat mounted a 4th quarter comeback worthy of Peyton Manning at the top of his game. smile.gif

At least we agreed on epi 3 and won't hold any of the rest of that against you biggrin.gifwink.gif
post #164 of 260
I thought AV Club got it right with its review:

http://www.avclub.com/review/his-last-vow-107060

Not a great season. I thought the second show was the most interesting (John & Mary's wedding) but even that was like one of the comic relief shows that long-running series have every now and again to break up the rhythm.
post #165 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Um, probably not the best analogy today. Just sayin'. wink.gif

I stand my Peyton Manning reference. Although he is coming off a bad Super Bowl loss, Manning's record in the NFL has been remarkable. He is a first ballot hall of famer, period, paragraph, end of report, and has mounted more come from behind comebacks than I want to take time to detail here. Nevertheless, I love the young Seahawks and was glad to see them succeed.
Quote:
Really enjoyed this episode, and the twist of having sweet Mary be a highly skilled assassin/spy in an earlier, pre-Watson life. Some interesting connections amongst the cast: Watson and Mary being real-life partners. Mr. & Mrs. Holmes being the real-life parents of Benedict Cumberbatch. And this episodes villain, Magnussen, played by Lars Mikkelsen, is the real-life older brother of Mads Mikkelsen who plays the ubër-creepy and compelling Hannibal Lector in NBC's stylish and addictive series 'Hannibal'. Some might remember him as the equally awesome villain LaChiffre in the recent Bond film Casino Royale.

Glad you mentioned the Mikkelsen brothers. The boys do good work, to say the least.
Edited by gwsat - 2/7/14 at 10:41am
post #166 of 260
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We just watched Sherlock's "The Reichenbach Fall" and wondered how in the heck the series continued. I mean we, the audience saw it happen. To me the "Pirates of The Caribbean" style of reality changing at the service of the plot is sad when the writing in the series (and the editing, direction and acting) is so top notch. But that's just me, I guess.

"A Scandal in Belgravia" still stands, for me as a feature film worthy piece of cinema. All of the episodes are good. I wish I hadn't missed the Season three opener, but we started watching the Netflix offerings (1080 and 5.1) and didn't want to spoiler ourselves.

Excellent series.
post #167 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Admittedly, the explanation of Mary's nearly fatal shot to Sherlock's chest was preposterous. Mary's explanation that she had intended that it not kill him was unconvincing.

That wasn't Mary's explanation; Sherlock deduced it, did he not? Perhaps he was faking a deduction to make John not hate Mary as much, but it's hard to tell. The part that doesn't line up for me is that he equated her indirect shot to the coin (which happened by accident, because she almost missed) with her supposedly deliberately non-fatal shot to his chest. Either she's a master markswoman who decided not to kill him, or she's a rusty spy whose aim isn't what it once was, but she can't be both. Sherlock's reasoning didn't really make sense in that instance.

Other than that, I enjoyed the final episode of the series much more than the previous two. It redeemed series 3 in my eyes, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I actually saw the first sentence of your post only because of AVS's infernal and relatively recent practice of printing the beginning of the most recent post on the forum headline page.

That option has always existed, and you can turn it off. It may have accidentally become enabled for you in a recent forum software change.
post #168 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrano View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We just watched Sherlock's "The Reichenbach Fall" and wondered how in the heck the series continued. I mean we, the audience saw it happen. To me the "Pirates of The Caribbean" style of reality changing at the service of the plot is sad when the writing in the series (and the editing, direction and acting) is so top notch. But that's just me, I guess.

"A Scandal in Belgravia" still stands, for me as a feature film worthy piece of cinema. All of the episodes are good. I wish I hadn't missed the Season three opener, but we started watching the Netflix offerings (1080 and 5.1) and didn't want to spoiler ourselves.

Excellent series.

Regarding your spoiler... Consider:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We only see what they want us to see. While they didn't really officially tell us how he pulled it off, there are opportunities for it to happen. You need look no further than actual reality. IT looked like Cumberbatch jumped off the roof, but we know he didn't... not really... It is possible to duplicate some of that in real life given what they told us that Mycroft was in on it. Without Mycroft it becomes a harder pill to swallow that they could have the whole street closed off and only people in on the bit would be there... but with Mycroft in the loop, it is believable that they could control that street for a time. Once you know and accept that, Sherlock himself even says "it is a magic trick" before he jumps.

Meanwhile... bringing back Moriarty only barely poses more of a challenge. Sherlock wouldn't have expected him to off himself like that.. Sherlock was clearly surprised AND knew he had limited time to jump himself... so they never show Sherlock inspecting the body. Entirely possible in that scenario for Moriarty to fake it just like they faked it for us on TV! Relying on lack of close inspection... then after Sherlock jumps, Moriarty leaves and had some of his own team prepared to put another body in his place to fool everyone else.

In-show, Irene Adler faked her own death... then Sherlock helped her fake it again later... so they kind of set that up during the season to not believe that people were actually dead.
post #169 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

That wasn't Mary's explanation; Sherlock deduced it, did he not? Perhaps he was faking a deduction to make John not hate Mary as much, but it's hard to tell. The part that doesn't line up for me is that he equated her indirect shot to the coin (which happened by accident, because she almost missed) with her supposedly deliberately non-fatal shot to his chest. Either she's a master markswoman who decided not to kill him, or she's a rusty spy whose aim isn't what it once was, but she can't be both. Sherlock's reasoning didn't really make sense in that instance.

Your hypothesis is intriguing. You just might be right that Holmes, the omni-competent genius, faked his deduction that Mary had intentionally failed to make a kill shot in order to protect John's feelings. On the other hand, Mary did shoot a spinning coin out of the air which is convincing evidence to me at least that that she is still deadly accurate with a handgun. Another Sherlockian conundrum. We should both know better than to try to outthink the Great Man. smile.gif By the way, I went back and watched my BD of Episode 3 again and confirmed you were right that Mary didn't confess she had intentionally failed to kill Sherlock.
post #170 of 260
I don't see what the debate is. Hitting a spinning coin in the air with a pistol proved Mary was a dead-shot. And when she shot Sherlock, the first thing I noticed was that the bullet entered his chest on the right side of his breastbone. The heart is on the left. So she deliberately missed his heart from a distance of four feet or so - something she could probably have managed even if she wasn't a dead-shot. Sherlock's hypothesis was correct.
post #171 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

I don't see what the debate is. Hitting a spinning coin in the air with a pistol proved Mary was a dead-shot. And when she shot Sherlock, the first thing I noticed was that the bullet entered his chest on the right side of his breastbone. The heart is on the left. So she deliberately missed his heart from a distance of four feet or so - something she could probably have managed even if she wasn't a dead-shot. Sherlock's hypothesis was correct.

It is a mixed bag here... The way the actress played it leaves you guessing too. She acted surprised at the hospital when Watson tells her Sherlock will be ok... but was she surprised because she thought she should act surprised? OR was she genuinely surprised?

My gut says we are supposed to interpret things the way Sherlock explained them BUT with a slight twist... Sherlock also noted her hand shaking slightly... he took that as evidence of her indecision... I propose that because of her hand shaking due to emotional involvement she had in fact meant to injure rather than kill, BUT she was worried her aim still might have been off.
post #172 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post


My gut says we are supposed to interpret things the way Sherlock explained them BUT with a slight twist... Sherlock also noted her hand shaking slightly... he took that as evidence of her indecision... I propose that because of her hand shaking due to emotional involvement she had in fact meant to injure rather than kill, BUT she was worried her aim still might have been off.

Like that, fits Moffat's style. I mean here we have the master detective smugly sure he has everything figured...with only Mary knowing he's only part right and she was really afraid she had killed him.
post #173 of 260
Mary was never going to kill Sherlock. She knew what that would do to John who'd already thought his best friend was dead once. And though she may be a retired assassin, she's not a murderer of innocents. The thing that puzzled me was why she didn't kill Magnussen. Wasn't that the reason she went there in the first place? Or maybe it was just to threaten him, let him know that if he did expose her she could always get to him and next time she'd finish the job.
post #174 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

The thing that puzzled me was why she didn't kill Magnussen. Wasn't that the reason she went there in the first place? Or maybe it was just to threaten him, let him know that if he did expose her she could always get to him and next time she'd finish the job.

Sherlock explained that, too. She couldn't kill him after Sherlock and John arrived, because with both of them gunned down and John in the building, she would have made him the prime suspect in the murder after fleeing the scene (especially if Sherlock also died in the hospital and couldn't clear John's name).

In all likelihood she was threatening the guy with the gun to get him to give up the documents he had on her past, since a) she didn't consider herself a murderer anymore (and killing him wouldn't have destroyed the documents, so when the police confiscated his documents after the killing, her past would have come to light anyway, and she would have gone to prison) and b) she didn't know that the information was only stored in his mind, so killing him was the only way to destroy it. Like everyone else, she thought he had a physical vault of information, rather than a mental one, so her strategy for destroying the records of her past was critically flawed.
post #175 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleron Ives View Post

Sherlock explained that, too. She couldn't kill him after Sherlock and John arrived, because with both of them gunned down and John in the building, she would have made him the prime suspect in the murder after fleeing the scene (especially if Sherlock also died in the hospital and couldn't clear John's name).

That's right, I remember now. My mental palace clearly needs some upkeep.
post #176 of 260
Haha you never know what conversation will get struck up here. A debate about a deduction and nothing on the climax and cliffhanger? Well allow me. smile.gif

I feel Magnussen suffered a bit from being the bad guy after the arch enemy. Episodes 1 and 2 didn't really even have a huge antagonist. I mean there were some but not like episode 3's mastermind. But it felt like, you know, the Ori after the Goa'uld. The Observers after William Bell. Or Doggett after Mulder. (okay I know the last one aren't bad guys but the point still stands.). But do not take any of that to mean I did not LOVE the episode. (and incidentally I liked the references I made too.). They had to come up with a guy who could match Sherlock with similar stakes as Moriarity, and they did a pretty good job. Especially with the whole mental palace thing. I for one was quite surprised when Sherlock killed him.

And then we are surprised by the possible reappearance of M himself?! When I read recently that show creators were asked about a big screen adaptation, I thought that the return of M would make a worthy story, but I don't know how they'd do it because he clearly shot himself in the head. The cuts were very short and I don't know that we ever saw blood pooling, but even if we did, do we have a double on our hands? I guess if Sherlock could fake his death, so could Moriarty.

A whole year to go already? Cripes!
post #177 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Regarding your spoiler... Consider:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We only see what they want us to see. While they didn't really officially tell us how he pulled it off, there are opportunities for it to happen. You need look no further than actual reality. IT looked like Cumberbatch jumped off the roof, but we know he didn't... not really... It is possible to duplicate some of that in real life given what they told us that Mycroft was in on it. Without Mycroft it becomes a harder pill to swallow that they could have the whole street closed off and only people in on the bit would be there... but with Mycroft in the loop, it is believable that they could control that street for a time. Once you know and accept that, Sherlock himself even says "it is a magic trick" before he jumps.

Meanwhile... bringing back Moriarty only barely poses more of a challenge. Sherlock wouldn't have expected him to off himself like that.. Sherlock was clearly surprised AND knew he had limited time to jump himself... so they never show Sherlock inspecting the body. Entirely possible in that scenario for Moriarty to fake it just like they faked it for us on TV! Relying on lack of close inspection... then after Sherlock jumps, Moriarty leaves and had some of his own team prepared to put another body in his place to fool everyone else.

In-show, Irene Adler faked her own death... then Sherlock helped her fake it again later... so they kind of set that up during the season to not believe that people were actually dead.
I think there is too much need to justify and rationalize to allow for any expectation of amazement and wonder on the part of the viewing audience. I remain a fan of the show. I think some things could have been done better. Just my opinion.
Thanks for your thoughts, they were well-considered.

And I very much enjoy the debates going on here. The show engenders lots of interesting ideas.
post #178 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

My mental palace clearly needs some upkeep.

I can relate. It seems lately every time I try to enter my palace I end up falling in the moat...
post #179 of 260
OMG I didn't even mention about how Magnussen had some kind of implant or contact that was feeding him the data, rather than the google glass style spectacles. They showed that then never mentioned it again. What's up with that???? Crazy!
post #180 of 260
I think that was just showing his thought process, much like they show Sherlock's mind working
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › "Sherlock" Series on PBS Masterpiece Mystery