Jump to content
Undead Medic

Episode 1.1, "A Study In Pink"

What did you think of "A Study In Pink?"  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off.
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
      0
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
      0
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
      0
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

I thought the same thing, until they introduced his parents into the show. Knowing what I know now, I would assume it was Eurus that upset Mummy, except Sherlock's not supposed to know anything about her. So I'm liking Artie's interpretation; it's the feud between them that Mycroft's referring to, but Sherlock blames Mycroft for the feud (and rightly so :P ) because Mycroft's so … well, Mycroftian. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I thought the same thing, until they introduced his parents into the show.

Because they seem so "ordinary," you mean?  I dunno, still waters run deep.  I'm wondering if the reason Daddy is so mild-mannered is that he doesn't want to risk p*ssing off Mummy again?  She doesn't seem the type to forgive that sort of nonsense more than once.

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2018 at 2:00 PM, Arcadia said:
On 12/24/2018 at 1:18 PM, J.P. said:

what the Cabbie told Sherlock about killing the others, had to be a lie.

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? :P

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, about mummy - the way they play the scene implies it's something very important and rather recent. At least that's the feeling I've had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.P. said:

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? :P

Thanks! I confess I noticed the thing about the different number of pills in the bottle, but passed it off as poor continuity management, and not as anything meaningful.

I think this is another instance where I just take the character at his word; like Sherlock saying Mary's shooting him was "surgery." Well, no, obviously it wasn't … you don't perform surgery with a gun, for pity's sake! -- but I allow it as poetic license, and acknowledge that Sherlock's real point is that Mary was trying to silence him temporarily in order to protect herself, but did not, in fact, intend to kill. It doesn't make sense in real life, but that's apparently how things work in Sherlock-world, so I take his explanation as gospel.

Similarly with the cabbie … he says he "knows how people think" and how "they think he thinks" … his point being that he has outguessed his victims each time, and that's why he has survived so far. Plus he doesn't really care who wins, because he knows he's going to die soon, and alone, at any moment anyway.

Well, in real life, that's pretty preposterous too; as you say, everyone can lose by mistake; but in Sherlock-world, because the cabbie says that's how it works, I just accept that's how it works. Hence John really was saving Sherlock's life when he shot the cabbie, because the cabbie had already proved he knew how to outthink his victims. John had already seen Sherlock make several mistakes; he couldn't count on him being right this time.

I agree the thing with the different number of pills in the bottle is an unfortunate (and avoidable) mistake, because I can see how it would prompt people to look for reasons the difference exists. But I guess I'm a bit jaded on that score; I've encountered so many continuity mistakes in my entertainment over the years (even Tolkien committed them!) that I just assume sloppiness is the reason, not an act of genius. 😛 

Not trying to convince of you anything JP, just trying to explain why it doesn't bother me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artemis said:

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. 

Yeah, same. Except I did think they might get around to revealing more specifics, some day. I agree with Carol that they simply abandoned that plot line (Daddy's infidelity).

I do believe there was an attempt to address it in S4, though, in a small way; in HLV it's already obvious (to me) that Mummy favors Sherlock, for some reason. Then in TFP, her "Sherlock was always the grown-up" line indicates (to me) that she always had very little patience with Mycroft's bossiness. So in that way, it explains Sherlock's "it wasn't I who upset her" … no, it was Mycroft who upset her, by trying to run everyone else's lives for them. 

At any rate, I'm content to believe that's the answer to "why was Mummy upset?"

17 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:
19 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I thought the same thing, until they introduced his parents into the show.

Because they seem so "ordinary," you mean?

Not really … more because Daddy seems like such a sweet, sensible, straight-up guy, and I hate to think he'd do something like that to his family. Would give the character more depth though, wouldn't it? Agh. Some things I'd just as soon do without! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Plus he doesn't really care who wins, because he knows he's going to die soon, and alone, at any moment anyway. 

Oh, he does care. For each victim he gets paid. He was instructed by Moriarty - and it was all intended to get Sherlock's attention, until he takes the bite and finds the murder, so he needed to survive some of the games. Because Sherlock finding the murder was the part of the plan. Actually, the Cabbie didn't have to be a genius at all, it was enough if he was a good actor with nothing to lose.
But then, what was the intention of the whole game? To kill Sherlock? In that case both pills could be poisoned. The cabbie was promised a really big sum going to his kids, if he kills Sherlock Holmes AND himself. Was that Jim's intention? But then, he wouln't have anyone to play any more. Of course he might have been thinking Sherlock was just another annoying sniffing dog and got interested in playing a bit later.

Yeah, the old good theorising - only now there is that little voice in my head whispering: Mofftiss didn't care, if it made sense or had a meaning - as long as it looked cool. It spoils all the fun. :(

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Daddy seems like such a sweet, sensible, straight-up guy, and I hate to think he'd do something like that to his family. Would give the character more depth though, wouldn't it? Agh. Some things I'd just as soon do without! :D 

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.

7 hours ago, J.P. said:

Yeah, the old good theorising - only now there is that little voice in my head whispering: Mofftiss didn't care, if it made sense or had a meaning - as long as it looked cool. It spoils all the fun. :(

Oh, who cares why Moftiss wrote it that way?  :P  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!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how long it will take until I assimilate (or get rid of) that new way of looking at the show and it's makers.
But meanwhile - did we notice that?

I assume that "84" is either a typo or a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J.P. said:

Oh, he does care. For each victim he gets paid. He was instructed by Moriarty - and it was all intended to get Sherlock's attention, until he takes the bite and finds the murder, so he needed to survive some of the games. Because Sherlock finding the murder was the part of the plan. Actually, the Cabbie didn't have to be a genius at all, it was enough if he was a good actor with nothing to lose.
But then, what was the intention of the whole game? To kill Sherlock? In that case both pills could be poisoned. The cabbie was promised a really big sum going to his kids, if he kills Sherlock Holmes AND himself. Was that Jim's intention? But then, he wouln't have anyone to play any more. Of course he might have been thinking Sherlock was just another annoying sniffing dog and got interested in playing a bit later.

Yeah, the old good theorising - only now there is that little voice in my head whispering: Mofftiss didn't care, if it made sense or had a meaning - as long as it looked cool. It spoils all the fun. :(

Okay, good point, the cabbie does, in a limited way, :P care.

I'd have to read the script again but I was always under the impression that the cabbie was embarked on his mission whether Sherlock got interested in it or not. But when Sherlock DID get interested, it got the attention of the cabbie's "employer", Moriarty.

And in my opinion, Moriarty didn't much care about the outcome of anything, as long as he was causing chaos. That's how sick he was.

6 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

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).  

You must have a different definition of "sensible" than I do. :P 

Quote

Oh, who cares why Moftiss wrote it that way?  :P  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!

But only as long as you don't spoil the show for yourself, yeah? I mean, you can if you want to, but why would you want to?

46 minutes ago, J.P. said:

I don't know how long it will take until I assimilate (or get rid of) that new way of looking at the show and it's makers.
But meanwhile - did we notice that?

I assume that "84" is either a typo or a joke.

I did notice, and did wonder … but as a wise woman once said, people do silly things. :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I was always under the impression that the cabbie was embarked on his mission whether Sherlock got interested in it or not.

Quote

SHERLOCK (frowning): Who’d sponsor a serial killer?
JEFF (instantly): Who’d be a fan of Sherlock ’olmes?
(They stare at each other for a moment.)
JEFF: You’re not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There’s others out there just like you, except you’re just a man ... and they’re so much more than that.
...
SHERLOCK: Okay, tell me this: your sponsor. Who was it? The one who told you about me – my ‘fan.’ I want a name.
JEFF (weakly): No.
SHERLOCK: You’re dying, but there’s still time to hurt you. Give me a name.

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, J.P. said:

To me the whole story works only as a trap for Sherlock.

That's how I take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh. Interesting. I really don't think I ever thought of it that way. I always believed Jim was just supporting chaos for the sake of chaos, and not aiming specifically at Sherlock. It wasn't until later, I thought, when Sherlock became more successful, that Jim decided he needed to eliminate his competition.

Sounds like it's really getting to be time for that long overdue rewatch I keep promising myself. :smile: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J.P. said:

I don't know how long it will take until I assimilate (or get rid of) that new way of looking at the show and it's makers.
But meanwhile - did we notice that?

I assume that "84" is either a typo or a joke.

Can't say about the umbrella, but the 84 years are in reference to that Titanic meme.

DGEoPl3.gif

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may also have been 84 years since ACD's original James Phillimore went back for his umbrella?  *looks it up*  Nope, James was mentioned (as one of Holmes' unsolved cases) in The Problem of Thor Bridge, first published in 1922, which was 96 years ago -- and of course the disappearance was presumably some years before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I always believed Jim was just supporting chaos for the sake of chaos, and not aiming specifically at Sherlock. It wasn't until later, I thought, when Sherlock became more successful, that Jim decided he needed to eliminate his competition.

Same here.  I thought that Moriarty’s initial crossing with Sherlock in ASiP (and again in TBB) was more incidental than contrived, even if he’d had his eye on Sherlock for awhile.  The cabbie said that he’d been “warned” about Sherlock, a choice of words which to me doesn’t really sound like something you’d say if you’re baiting someone (although vague enough to be taken different ways, I grant you).  It seemed to me that Moriarty didn’t become really fixated on Sherlock until Sherlock started butting into crimes that he was involved in as a consulting criminal, at which point he decided to get a closer look and start playing games with him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artemis said:

Same here.  I thought that Moriarty’s initial crossing with Sherlock in ASiP (and again in TBB) was more incidental than contrived, even if he’d had his eye on Sherlock for awhile.  The cabbie said that he’d been “warned” about Sherlock, a choice of words which to me doesn’t really sound like something you’d say if you’re baiting someone (although vague enough to be taken different ways, I grant you).  It seemed to me that Moriarty didn’t become really fixated on Sherlock until Sherlock started butting into crimes that he was involved in as a consulting criminal, at which point he decided to get a closer look and start playing games with him.

Thanks, you explained that so much better than I did! :Worship:   And I'd forgotten the "warned" part, which I would interpret the same as you, I think.

I do think JP's onto something too, though … when "Sherlock" was reduced from several one-hour episodes to three 1.5 hour episodes, I suspect some ideas got lost or jumbled … and the Moftisses were either too lazy or too inattentive to clean up some of the clutter. Or, in other words, inadequate continuity control … not an uncommon occurrence, in fiction. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... when "Sherlock" was reduced from several one-hour episodes to three 1.5 hour episodes, I suspect some ideas got lost or jumbled … and the Moftisses were either too lazy or too inattentive to clean up some of the clutter.

And the same thing again when they apparently combined seasons 4 and 5.  :(   Though I'd probably say they just didn't want to take the time -- which would probably have been considerable in each case, if they'd wanted to make things really click.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I wasn’t contesting that, there are certainly logic holes and continuity errors.  I can find those in just about anything, lol.  :smile:  I just like to chime in with my own interpretation of things.

giphy.gif

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 6:06 PM, Arcadia said:

Yeah, same. Except I did think they might get around to revealing more specifics, some day. I agree with Carol that they simply abandoned that plot line (Daddy's infidelity).

I do believe there was an attempt to address it in S4, though, in a small way; in HLV it's already obvious (to me) that Mummy favors Sherlock, for some reason. Then in TFP, her "Sherlock was always the grown-up" line indicates (to me) that she always had very little patience with Mycroft's bossiness. So in that way, it explains Sherlock's "it wasn't I who upset her" … no, it was Mycroft who upset her, by trying to run everyone else's lives for them. 

At any rate, I'm content to believe that's the answer to "why was Mummy upset?"

Not really … more because Daddy seems like such a sweet, sensible, straight-up guy, and I hate to think he'd do something like that to his family. Would give the character more depth though, wouldn't it? Agh. Some things I'd just as soon do without! :D 

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.😂

6 hours ago, Artemis said:

Same here.  I thought that Moriarty’s initial crossing with Sherlock in ASiP (and again in TBB) was more incidental than contrived, even if he’d had his eye on Sherlock for awhile.  The cabbie said that he’d been “warned” about Sherlock, a choice of words which to me doesn’t really sound like something you’d say if you’re baiting someone (although vague enough to be taken different ways, I grant you).  It seemed to me that Moriarty didn’t become really fixated on Sherlock until Sherlock started butting into crimes that he was involved in as a consulting criminal, at which point he decided to get a closer look and start playing games with him.

 

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bedelia1984 said:

Moriarty developed almost a love/hate obsession with Sherlock as a playmate.

I think so too, but not until TGG or later.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Artemis said:

I think so too, but not until TGG or later.

 

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he was definitely interested in Sherlock from the get-go, and probably followed his movements via public media and whatnot at least.  Moriarty is a strategist.  But I don’t think the actual obsession or “bromance” was there from the beginning.  I think it started more like observing from afar, keeping tabs, maneuvering to keep Sherlock from ruining his schemes, and general amusement, like “Get a load of this guy who thinks he’s a detective, that’s cute.”  Even in TGG, Moriarty was still saying things like, “Now you’re in my way,” “Back off,” and “Do you know what happens if you don’t leave me alone?”  He didn’t fully start with “Get Sherlock” mentality until S2.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 23 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×

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.