bborchar

Yes, yes, yes ... that makes so much sense, bborchar . And when Sherlock asked Moriarty for and received that moment of privacy, there was this little sound that I thought was a mobile being opened or closed, which would fit nicely (Sherlock would probably want to stop the recording before the whole Not An Angel spiel). Whoever picked up Moriarty's corpse (signs again point to Mycroft) then would have secured the phone, too. I haven't heard this, but I'll check it out. I could be entirely wrong about this, and I wouldn't be surprised at all. I'm just trying to connect some dots that aren't entirely clear

Oooh, that's a brilliant thought! Not many places on that barren roof to hide recording equipment though, and Moriarty's quite perceptive, too. Maybe Sherlock was wired with some high-tech stuff ... which would point to Mycroft, again, I guess. Well, we also see earlier in the episode that Sherlock finds the wireless spy cam in his room and hacks it. It's so small that it could fit anywhere on the roof. You can stream a wireless camera's video to a computer OR a smartphone. Maybe he recorded the film via his smartphone (which would make sense as to why he left his phone on the roof so as to not get damaged in the fall), and the camera is so small that Moriarty would never see it if put in the proper place.

I think that the exchange on the roof is filmed or recorded somehow. What better evidence than Moriarty's own confession on the roof? Sherlock gets him to admit everything up there. I just don't see how he exonerates himself without Moriarty's confession and Moriarty's body to prove that he committed suicide.

Yes, but the BBC reported it, as well. They are a legitimate news outlet. And people will say he's great, but they are considered friends of Sherlock, and the public usually doesn't pay much attention to that. And while there would be someone like Angelo vouching for Sherlock, there would also be cops who DIDN'T like him at all, and people put more weight on a policeman's word. I"m sure several news outlets reported his suicide, and f you are judged guilty in the news, that's pretty much all it takes to convince people you are guilty- even if you are cleared in a court of law. Do people actually think that OJ didn't kill his wife or Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter? They were cleared in the court of law, but not the court of public opinion. And since Sherlock is believed to be dead, people aren't going to look into very much because there's no one to exonerate or crucify. The fact that he committed suicide is a huge red flag to everyone. The public's perception will be that innocent people don't become fugitives from the law then kill themselves- unless they have something to hide.

I doubt many people were trying to prove Riley wrong - and those who were just would have been called conspiracy theorists (ie: who shot JFK?). And the for every person giving a good opinion of Sherlock, there were probably several giving a bad opinion of him (really, does someone believe the best friend of an accused serial killer?). And what might happen if people pry too much? Then they could possibly find out that Sherlock is alive, and he doesn't want that until his friends are completely out of danger and he takes care of Moriarty's web. The people who helped Sherlock survive have an apparently very good reason not to tell (money, blackmail, working for someone with influence, etc).

Moriarty had at least three months to set up his master plan, and he would have definitely been watching Sherlock's cases. He could have easily rigged up a fake identity as an actor in that timeframe. He just needs to pull the right strings and threaten the right people. I don't think Sherlock actually wants people to think he was telling the truth, because it might put his friends in danger until he can take care of business.

It looks like the general perception after Sherlock's "death" is that he was a fraud. We see a tabloid that Mycroft is reading with the story on the front page, and we also see a BBC news report on John Watson's blog with a reporter speculating that he jumped because he had been caught in his lies (I love the way they cut away from it, I laughed). I don't believe that his reputation will be restored before reveals he is alive in TEH, but that is my opinion because I have seen no evidence that in the general public's opinion of him is different than how they left it. I believe that Mycroft is in on something, but we don't have enough information to accurately guess as to how he was specifically involved. I, too, hope Kitty Riley gets her comeuppance (actually, I hope everyone who deserves it does, lol).

I did that a bit as a child. There was a national park I pronounced in my mind as "YO-sem-ite" the last syllable rhyming with "right." Then there was a cartoon character who's name I heard spoken called "Yo-SEM-i-tee" Sam. Never occurred to me those things were connected. I was, I think, 15 before I found out. BTW, as we are discussing language and this is the Sherlock forum, you might find this interesting: Janus Words I did not know that auto-antonyms were also called Janus Words- that's pretty cool. One auto-antonym that has changed meaning over the years is "awful"- it used to mean full of awe, but now it means terrible. I didn't know about the first definition until I was reading Jane Austen, and she used it quite a lot in the antiquated meaning. I remember learning about Janus the god in my Latin class one day when my Latin teacher started rattling on about it for 30 minutes out of nowhere (he did that quite often- we made a game out of who could get him off the subject for the longest at one point).

That's exactly what my husband does. He knows a lot of words, but not exactly which syllable to emphasize.

Engineers are notorious for that sort of thing, like "asterick" for "asterisk." How does your husband pronounce "nuclear"? Well, even though both of us are from the south, we pronounce it the right way (new-clear) and not "nukuler" But my husband had speech therapy when he was young because constant ear infections caused speech delays, so he still occasionally has a problem with pronunciation (you would never know it unless you were around him constantly like I am, though). I'm better at pronunciation than he is, though, probably because it has always come more easily to me. But my husband is definitely smarter than me

Don't worry about it My husband is a native English speaker and a nuclear engineer, and he STILL mispronounces simple words like "offense". One day he said "that was OFfensive to me" instead of "ofFENsive" (the first means the opposite of defense, the second means something you don't agree with). I have studied several languages (I can speak rusty Japanese, too), and I mess stuff up all the time. I wish I were as fluent as you in any of them

His last bow could definitely be adapted loosely into a thriller and cliffhanger. I like the adventure of the dying detective, but I don't see how it could be adapted as such.

Bow could very well mean any story in the last book of short stories, too- but I would wager it is the last story in the canon, just reworked to fit a younger Sherlock. Really, the last one could be about him actually doing a job for the gov't like the real story, and then just change it however. I'm scared of but excited about what the cliffhanger would be. Oh, and people are saying there might be another big spoiler for the next episode:

Well, now that we have seen a bit of what the first two episodes will contain (although not much, really), what do you think the third episode's "Bow" means? They won't film it until later this summer, so let the speculation begin

Well, really, we HAVE to wait until series 3 to find out everything for sure I'm just wondering if it's something we could figure out from what we were given- I'm not sure of that, but I just wanted to see what other people thought.

A significant number of people prefer death over protracted, extreme pain -- and will actually kill themselves if faced with that sort of agony, especially if there's no chance of eventual improvement. To be fair, pain to him is just living with "ordinary" people. He's happy to die because he wants to escape from it. To me, Moriarty just seems dead to everything and everyone other than Sherlock.

We saw him slapped in the face...but we didn't see everything (torture is something that they can't really show on television during the hours Sherlock is on). But how would Sherlock have the opportunity to torture Moriarty before Moriarty's people killed his friends? He couldn't have done it up there, on the roof, with Moriarty's people watching. And if Sherlock had left the roof, his friends would be killed. But if Moriarty had been interrogated and tortured for weeks by his brother's people (it's obvious that Mycroft wouldn't play nice and just slap Moriarty), then how could Sherlock do anything to Moriarty in enough time to save his friends? If Moriarty isn't afraid of death, he's not afraid of pain. He's only afraid of losing.

John is mad at Sherlock because Sherlock hasn't told him what was going on yet. He says right before "This isn't the kind of bank I thought you were talking about." And Sherlock wanted John to go with him initially, until John said he had a date. So then he invited himself along. Sherlock definitely trusts John by the second episode, and John is still in a bit of the "hero-worship" phase where he is still watching what Sherlock does with amazement. The third episode is where we see their two different views of crime clash with each enough that John and Sherlock almost hit an impasse. If the two of them didn't have a real friendship by that point, that scene would not have had the impact that it does have. But I will say that I think TBB was the worst written episode so far, so it doesn't have a lot of the same character building (John's character is flushed out a little more, but that's it) that we see in the other episodes. Really the only scene that I really enjoyed in that entire episode was the one where Sherlock is getting strangled in the apartment while John waits outside mad at him. The premise of the gang, the chinese characters (which anyone who can read any chinese or japanese characters would recognize as a form of chinese), and the ending with the HUGE spear thing IN the tunnel to threaten John (when we see that a gun works well enough) just was verging on the ludicrous. Fun, but ludicrous. Back OT, I'm still convinced that Sherlock says something only Moriarty understands. The reason I think this is that the first time I watched it, I was absolutely stunned and confused. Now that I have seen it many times, I'm STILL confused. To me, Moriarty has the upper hand the entire time. He doen't know that Sherlock knows what Moriarty is planning, and he is convinced (by Sherlock) that Sherlock is "ordinary". But then Sherlock says "I can win this if you give me the code", Moriarty doesn't believe him. Moriarty still doesn't believe him unti Sherlock says "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for ONE SECOND, that I am one of them." THAT'S when Moriarty responds with "I see, you're not ordinary, no, you're me." Moriarty says this because he understands something that Sherlock has said, but not said- and I think it's a code that Moriarty has given Sherlock at some point beforehand and Sherlock has figured it out. It could possibly be the recall code, it could be something else. But Sherlock has said something to convince Moriarty that he could, in fact, get Moriarty to call off the killers- something that torture or arrest would not have done. Moriarty only cares about beating Sherlock, winning the game. He doesn't care about death or pain (we saw him get tortured by Mycroft's people already and he didn't talk). I can't wait to see what it is, though.

And hasn't that been said, time and time again. He is only human, he makes mistakes. He's a genius, yes he has an inordinately huge ego and he has all the faith in the world in himself and when it is shaken, as in the "Hounds of the Baskervilles" it is a big time thing even for him. It takes time for people to get to know each other. Yes, Sherlock finally found someone who accepted the challenge of flat sharing but also put up with his idiosyncracies. But both men are fully grown and have trust issues and Sherlock Holmes is used to working alone. Plus he had called John friend and had been rebuffed and in front of a smug prat. But he has been a detective for years. Danger and sudden death comes with the territory. John is a battle field doctor and he knows that same ground very well. He himself had been shot and almost died. It goes with the territory. I know that other people have said it, but I was just replying to the other statement. And to expand on it, I think that his flaws end up making him a better person. But it's not the danger that Sherlock gets into by being a detective that is the issue, it's the unnecessary danger he puts himself in that is the problem. Why does Irene Adler get the upper hand by drugging him? He lets his guard down because he thinks he's won- he underestimates her. If he had been more careful about it, she would have never been able to get him with the syringe. I'm just saying that his flaws are a good thing, because his flaws humble him (even if he doesn't want to admit it), and what he needed more than anything when he met John was some humility- at least enough to admit that he needs help sometimes. I would say that John and Sherlock became best friends pretty quickly. We see the change in their relationship when John saves Sherlock's life in ASIP. By TBB, they are close enough friends that Sherlock will let John borrow his bank card and follow him on a date. That's pretty close to me.

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much. I think we're done. It sounds to me like you're basically agreeing, but you don't realize it because you're using the same phrase to mean two different things. I'm like bborchar, or at least I was before Series 2 -- I thought Sherlock was an excellent, interesting, well-played character, but I would NOT have wanted to have lunch with him. So I liked the character in the artistic sense, but not in the pretend-that-he's-a-real-person sense. With Series 2, Sherlock-as-a-person began to grow on me -- but I still like John a whole lot better! All too true, though that took me a minute -- you're talking about Soo Lin's apartment, right? I agree that he definitely changes for the better during the 2nd series, but he's really still only sociable with people he considers friends- but on the plus side, he actually starts treating his friends better. Yup, in Soo Lin's apartment

But you have to qualify it by saying he often overestimates his abilities and makes mistakes. He's the kind of person who thinks that he's never wrong, and isn't wrong most of the time- however, when he DOES get something wrong, it's often a big and dangerous mistake. I would say the biggest mistake he often makes is that he doesn't admit that he needs help. For example, keeping John locked out of the apartment almost gets him killed in TBB.

Well, there are photos (spoilers, obviously) of their attire, but they aren't wearing these yet, sadly. Well, I'm going to assume that since they are carrying them, they will wear them at some point (I certainly hope so, lol).

Like I said, you don't seem to like him very much. I think we're done. So, because I admit that Sherlock acts like a jerk (which is exactly the way his character is written- just name one person that he doesn't offend at some point), that means I don't like his character? It's a show- the protagonist is written as an anti-hero and evolves as the show goes on. Some of my favorite books have protagonists like, because flawed characters make for better stories. What difference does it make if I would like him as a person or not? I like him as a character in a tv show because it makes for good storytelling. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can't tell me whether I like something or not. If I didn't like his character, it would be impossible for me to like the show; and if that were true, I wouldn't be here discussing my opinion on it. If you think he is different from what I said, feel free to say how you see Sherlock's character.

Oh my....

Nah, and truth be told, I really don't want him to