Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/23/2018 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    At the time Carl was killed, you mean? (I accidentally typed "Carol" … gah! It was a mistake, Ms. Dabbler, honest!) Because at some point he knew it was Sherlock, obviously, or he wouldn't have used the shoes as bait. If he didn't know about Sherlock's interest at the time of the murder, it would be interesting to know how he worked it out later. However, I always took the Carl Powers story as another instance of poetic license … as an indication that Sherlock and Jim were somehow linked (by the fates, by karma, something) from the very start, and their eventual death struggle was written in the stars. There's a whiff of fatalism hovering over Sherlock at times, don't you think?
  2. 4 points
    You mean the Xmas present? Need to look after the timing. But first what I've thought about reading this line was the BTS red herring scene with Jim and Myc at Bart's, shaking hands. Oh, imagine they would include that scene in TFP Jim was lurking around also in TBB, as the wire-puller of Chan's business. So it's possible he's got annoyed by Sherlock spoiling his business. But still killing completely random people in a quite sophisticate way just to annoy Scotland Yard - that feels not enough Moriarty-ish for me. Shut up, stupid brain! Yes, Mofftiss might have built the story by pulling notices with random ideas out of a hat. But it's not the point. Magic, remember? A whole that's more than the sum of it's parts? So SHUT THE BEEP UP and let me have fun!
  3. 3 points
    Well, Jim killed Karl and kept the "weapon" aka poisoned shoes. The question is - did he also know about a boy who tried to convince the police about the importance of this fact.
  4. 3 points
    You tell it, JP! Somebody's organized a "watchalong!" Starts tomorrow. Info at http://finalproblem.tumblr.com/megawatchalong. Putting it here in case I forget to post it somewhere more useful. TFP does feel somewhat rushed, doesn't it? Like they had to revise it on the fly. Let's blame the actor's schedules again, shall we? Maybe it's because I have no idea how the TV business works, but if it were me, I would have started writing the scripts as soon as I finished writing S3 … and have had plenty of time to polish them. But perhaps (successful) professional scriptwriters don't write unless they get paid first? (I know a few unsuccessful scriptwriters … they write all the time! ) Well, there was that whole "you're me" dialog on the roof … that was my cue that they sensed they had something in common. I've never clearly defined to myself exactly what it is, though, except a certain darkness of the soul. Which Jim gives into, and Sherlock does not, or something like that. Yeah, it was Moriarty. And somehow he knew that Sherlock had been interested in the case at the time. Doesn't he say something to that effect in TGG? He tells Sherlock to "back off" or else. And then a few minutes later Jim decides to kill him anyway, because Sherlock's getting in his way, or something. What I have always thought is that Moriarty is simply, irrevocably, stark-raving mad. And fascinated by death. A serial killer, essentially … they don't need a reason, do they? That's one of the many things that makes them so scary.
  5. 3 points
    Yes it's the most likely option. I used to have some kind of complicated backstory in mind that Moriarty was really the lost Holmes brother, or that he stole Carl Powers' identity (I still think the photo of him as a boy resembles Andrew Scott), but all we actually see is that something sparks with Sherlock in TGG. There are aspects of The Final Problem that throw things off for me as well- like for how long were Mycroft and Moriarty doing their backroom deals? I would have quite liked a flashback scene to show what their true relationship was, as Mycroft is a slippery fish, too.
  6. 3 points
    Can't say about the umbrella, but the 84 years are in reference to that Titanic meme.
  7. 3 points
    Okay, it might be that Jim, when bored, instead of shooting a wall, sends a cabbie to murder random people. But the mentioning of "fan" tells me that Jim was interested in Sherlock (maybe he never stopped observe him, or maybe he realized at some moment that the boy who'd made all that fuzz about poor Karl's death became a consulting detective and it's time to play or just to get rid of him. To me the whole story works only as a trap for Sherlock. And that Sherlock didn't see it for so long.
  8. 3 points
    Welcome, Caroline! A new member to play with, yay! I think even highly intelligent people get stuck on a certain way of thinking; it's just human nature. And I suspect that the real problem here is that the writers are not as smart as the character they are writing! (They've said so themselves.) But I also think they are trying to show that Sherlock is not as superhuman as he would like to be, or believes himself to be. I think the story is more about Sherlock learning to accept his own limitations than it is about how smart he can be. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that's important. Or something like that. It sounds a bit preachy!
  9. 3 points
  10. 2 points
    Hi guys, Merry Christmas . I am a fan of Sherlock series obviously, but I must say I have been puzzled by inconsistency in Sherlock deducing process . I would say they are of two types : 1) very slow hypotheses switching . My example is the moment where S.H. get puzzled by the fact the lost luggage in " a study in pink" is in the neighbourhood. I get the fact that the taxi slow appearance in the game is somehow theatrical, but it bothered me in the sense that S.H looks quite not as smart and quick as expected at this moment. 2) inconsistent hypothesis . My example is the suggestion by S.H. in "The Hounds of Baskerville" that the poison could have been spilled into the cup of coffee. I do no see how Henri could have been drugged in this manner before . Have you other examples ( I have other , but I probably need to rewatch to remind ) , or are you disagreeing with my recriminations ? Caroline
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    Damn straight! That looks really well organized. And gotta love the name of their chat room: Maybe. But I get the impression that Mr. Moffat doesn't write until he's eyeball to eyeball with a deadline. (Sort of like my own system, so I can't really criticize him for that.) Why not? It's what the Moftisses do.
  13. 2 points
    Oh Yes! Or maybe she got even with her husband's brother/cousin! I don't know enough about the Sherlock family tree to speculate further 😂 And before anyone says it, I do take note that this is Sherlock and not The Bold and The Beautiful.
  14. 2 points
    Though I think Mycroft looks even more like him. Maybe Mummy is drawn to that look, even when she's just getting even? Because he's creepy?
  15. 2 points
    I also always thought that Sherlock seems to be her favourite. This is a wild theory, but I did wonder if Sherlock could be a child from her revenge affair. Though that's complicated by how much he looks like his father.😂 This was my take too, though I thought it went a bit further, and Moriarty developed almost a love/hate obsession with Sherlock as a playmate. There are some minor characteristics that Sherlock and Moriarty have in common, that I feel like they recognised in each other (e.g. that detached love of 'the game'), and there was something magnetic about that dynamic.
  16. 2 points
    Oh I wasn’t contesting that, there are certainly logic holes and continuity errors. I can find those in just about anything, lol. I just like to chime in with my own interpretation of things.
  17. 2 points
    Thanks for welcoming me Yes I agree with the " Sherlock has a bad habit of getting stuck on a particular hypothesis, and will do his best to stick with it even if evidence starts pointing in a different direction." I must say it sort of disappointed me , in the sense that it is the proper of highly intelligent people in every field ( like science for example )to contemplate a priori all kinds of hypotheses , including the exotic ones , compared to more mundane minds which are proner to dwelve into one theory . And then maybe correct it when facing other elements . I guess that it is more related to a storytelling constraints than failing to grasp Sherlock personality , since the whole hypotheses disply is very well used when Sherlock locally uses his talents to uncover a person 's personality or intentions, because he can explains it very succintly to the world by the bias of interaction with Watson for example . I did not know there was a shorter version of " A study in pink " , that makes sense now, but to me it looked it should have been introduced in a less obvious plot twist than " a taxi is here " and "the luggage is here " . I agree also with your explanation of the poison plot, but that hypothesis raises a lot of questions about its realizability , and it is kind of weird that S.H. seems to be very quick to raise these kind of questions in psychology mining stuff and questioning police investigation techniques but less adamant to do it when faced with a real plot movement. I have to rewatch to find other elements, and good, it is holidays
  18. 2 points
    Being a sweet, sensible, straight-up guy doesn't necessarily stop a middle-aged man from responding to a sexy young woman who's right under his nose (their au pair, as I recall). Besides, he clearly didn't intend for his family to know, thus hopefully no harm done -- but he forgot about his sons. By the way, I'm pretty sure that Mycroft had figured it out as well, probably even before Sherlock did, but (being a seven-years-older man of the world) decided that silence was the best policy. Thus his remark about *Sherlock* upsetting Mummy. Oh, who cares why Moftiss wrote it that way? As you're tired of hearing me say, it's my contention that Gene Roddenberry never really understood Star Trek. I won't make the same absolute statement for Moftiss and Sherlock, but I do think that we have a bit more perspective on it than they do. Or at least a different perspective. So please, theorize away!
  19. 2 points
    Okay, thanks! The first two I get. But I can't think what you mean about the last one. Help? Well, at the beginning we are shown the victims using bottles with 3 pills each. Why? I doubt Cabbie played a "game" with his victims. It would make no sense to risk his own death. He needed a chain of those fake suicides to draw Sherlock's attention, and still there would be a chance the victim would choose the good bottle by accident. My guess was the Cabbie gave the victims the pills and let them take them at the gunpoint. To make it easier, he could tell the victims only one of the 3 pills is poisonous, but in fact they all were. I know we were there already, but who cares?
  20. 2 points
  21. 2 points
    I always thought Sherlock’s response there was a bit strange. It sounded to me like Mycroft was saying that the brotherly feud between them was what upset her, in which case it’s implied that both of them are to blame. But then Sherlock responded with, “I upset her? Me?”, as if he thought Mycroft was blaming him only.
  22. 2 points
    "Moriarty is more than a man". Mycroft upsetting mummy with something very important. And the fact, that what the Cabbie told Sherlock about killing the others, had to be a lie.
  23. 2 points
    I just happened across another TED talk, this one by Daniel Kish, a man who's been completely blind since he was about a year old, but who can not only get around on foot just fine, he can actually ride a bicycle through an obstacle course. He clicks his tongue and uses the sound for echolocation, much as a bat navigates its world. And he teaches the technique to others, with considerable success.
  24. 2 points
  25. 2 points
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.