Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  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
    I agree about the fatalism, which to me is most pronounced by the time they introduce Eurus, which kicks up the nods to the ancient greeks more than a notch. To me, Moriarty and Sherlock are like old enemies from past lives. It's interesting to think what they must all have been like at that age, (the Carl Powers time) taking into account Eurus was already institutionalised and Mycroft probably as imperious as ever. Perhaps, as a criminal, Moriarty was from the start a particular kind of deranged mixed with devious that only Sherlock could understand and identify. Maybe, also, if we're allowed to fill in the backstory, having lost a hyper intelligent, criminally inclined sister, Sherlock might have started to subconsciously seek ingenius criminals elsewhere, whilst on some level really looking for her? (I know, it's giving them too much credit for planning!)
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 3 points
    Can't say about the umbrella, but the 84 years are in reference to that Titanic meme.
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. 3 points
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
  14. 2 points
    I know it’s a bit late, but this Christmas documentary is pretty interesting and one of my favorites. ”Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas” by the History Channel.
  15. 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.
  16. 2 points
    Yeah I can see that. I'm never sure about Moriarty whether he became interested in Sherlock from the beginning, just based on hearing about him (and then maybe that case about the boy with the trainers, did we know whether that was him? Apologies that I've forgotten). Or whether the true 'bromance' if you'll forgive the term, took off from their first in-person meeting? I can imagine Moriarty obsessing about someone from afar, even stalking them, before meeting them, not sure why I think that about him.
  17. 2 points
    I think that's mainly when major long-term exertion is abruptly replaced by total relaxation. So relax -- you're OK!
  18. 2 points
    A new member with good observations! Ooooh, it's Christmas indeed!
  19. 2 points
    Huh, I always had the impression it was old, and perhaps not all that important. Mycroft called it a “petty” feud, and he said “You know how it always upset Mummy,” which sounds more past tense or like something that’s been happening consistently for a long time.
  20. 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?
  21. 2 points
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  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.