Jump to content
sfmpco

"BBC Sherlock" articles & other miscellany

Recommended Posts

I'm starting this thread for general articles about episodes that are summaries.  Like this one:

 

http://www.cultbox.co.uk/features/lists/top-5-sherlock-villains

 

 

Edited by Carol the Dabbler
This thread seems to have evolved into a home for any and all BBC-Sherlock-related miscellany, so I have renamed it accordingly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one amused me because they didn't exactly have many villains to choose from.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That one amused me because they didn't exactly have many villains to choose from.....

 

Also, since Sherlock and John and obviously someone reconciled the shooting incident, I don't feel like Mary is so much of a villain.  Never did anyhow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mary shot Sherlock because she felt cornered by him and Magnussen, and because she didn't have a Plan B if Plan A (Kill Magnussen) didn't work.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mary shot Sherlock because she felt cornered by him and Magnussen, and because she didn't have a Plan B if Plan A (Kill Magnussen) didn't work.

Agreed. She was stuck between a rock and a hard place. She did the first thing that came to mind since her plan got interrupted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they didn't mention Moran.  Even though Moran had no lines (the actor didn't even get a credit at the end), he was still a villain in TEH.  And since (presumably) he is in prison, that doesn't negate his return someday.  We might not have seen the last of him.  

 

Really, Mary should not have been included on the list at all.  Moriarty, on the other hand, could have filled half the villain spots by himself!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah! Magnussen is the worst!

 

definitely the creepiest!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAM is the creepiest but Moriarty did the most harm. I vote for them in the top two spots and forget the rest. :smile:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAM is the creepiest but Moriarty did the most harm. I vote for them in the top two spots and forget the rest. :smile:

 

Agreed CAM is the creepiest.  I would have switched Irene and him around for position definitely.  She used people for her protection, not necessarily to cause them harm even though she was in league with Moriarty.

 

Also with Mary being on the list, I'd put her at number 5 not 4.  She was stuck between a rock & a hard place and was a trained secret agaent taking out someone who needed to be taken care of per someone's orders that may not have been completely of her own doing.  (which gets me thinking of a possibility [far fetched as it may be] that she could be part of Moriarty's network in some capacity, even if it is unintentional, & that Moriarty's network was behind her hit on CAM.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAM is the creepiest but Moriarty did the most harm. I vote for them in the top two spots and forget the rest. :smile:

 

Awwww, but Moriarty's so adorrrrableeee!!!

 

 

tumblr_n6cjldi3Zl1rzik3go1_500.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moriarty is not adorable. Moriarty gives me the shivers. I think he's very frightening.

 

Mary is not a villain. The villain of series 3 was Magnussen. What's so villainous about Mary? I don't understand (and I want that t-shirt).

 

Neither is Irene Adler a villain. Antagonist, yes. Villain, no. In my humble opinion.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I most definitely would not include Irene and Mary as villains.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me neither.  (And I do think that Moriarty is adorable -- sometimes.  Other times, not so much.)

 

Mary is not a villain. The villain of series 3 was Magnussen. What's so villainous about Mary? I don't understand (and I want that t-shirt).

 

Neither is Irene Adler a villain. Antagonist, yes. Villain, no. In my humble opinion.

 

I suspect that some people do not grasp the distinction between antagonist and villain (which may explain the current vilification of political opponents).  Or else they choose to ignore it for the sake of a more dramatic headline.

 

We do not yet know enough about Mary's past to have an informed opinion regarding whether or not she's a villain, but she did claim to fear that she could be put in jail for the rest of her life.  And Irene did attempt to bankrupt the British Government.  That presumably qualifies each of them as some sort of criminal -- but I don't consider that to be synonymous with villain either.

 

What I really don't understand is why Mycroft didn't just go ahead and destroy the damned camera phone.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me neither.  (And I do think that Moriarty is adorable -- sometimes.  Other times, not so much.)

 

Mary is not a villain. The villain of series 3 was Magnussen. What's so villainous about Mary? I don't understand (and I want that t-shirt).

 

Neither is Irene Adler a villain. Antagonist, yes. Villain, no. In my humble opinion.

 

I suspect that some people do not grasp the distinction between antagonist and villain (which may explain the current vilification of political opponents).  Or else they choose to ignore it for the sake of a more dramatic headline.

 

We do not yet know enough about Mary's past to have an informed opinion regarding whether or not she's a villain, but she did claim to fear that she could be put in jail for the rest of her life.  And Irene did attempt to bankrupt the British Government.  That presumably qualifies each of them as some sort of criminal -- but I don't consider that to be synonymous with villain either.

 

What I really don't understand is why Mycroft didn't just go ahead and destroy the damned camera phone.

 

Well, the camera phone was wiped clean, and then it was, after all, an extraordinarily expensive phone (5 figures I've read), so not entirely disposable.  Besides, if he had destroyed it, we wouldn't have had that sentimental moment with Sherlock and the phone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the phone wasn't (and presumably couldn't be) wiped until after Sherlock gave Mycroft access to the information on it.  Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant I don't understand why Mycroft ever let Irene blackmail him, why didn't he just destroy the phone in the first place?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think because there were possibly lives of British citizens at stake, according to Irene.  It could have been a lie, but I don't think Mycroft was willing to take that chance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the phone wasn't (and presumably couldn't be) wiped until after Sherlock gave Mycroft access to the information on it.  Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant I don't understand why Mycroft ever let Irene blackmail him, why didn't he just destroy the phone in the first place?

 

Because Irene told him that lives of British citizens might depend on information that she had on the thing. When Mycroft raised his eyebrows at that, she only replied "take that risk", and apparently, he did not want to. Besides, I think he wanted a lot of the stuff she had for himself.

 

I found the following definition of "villain" at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/villain:

 

 
1.) a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel.
2.) a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.

 

 

I have always understood a villain as a character who does evil for evil's sake. It's a theoretical fictional concept, if you ask me, just like the traditional hero. I don't believe in villains in real life.

 
An antagonist, on the other hand, is simply a character who works against the protagonist:

 

1.) a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.

2.) the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama or other literary work

 

I much prefer antagonists to villains. A story is just so much more interesting to me when there are other motivators at work than just "good" and "evil". Note also that "antagonist" and "protagonist" depend entirely on point of view and are interchangeable, while "hero" and "villain" are not.

 

I think Mary fits neither of these descriptions. She's not evil per se (not as far as we know), nor intent on promoting evil. And she does not work against Sherlock, she's not his enemy. I'd say she was mostly on his side (or rather, he is on hers).

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think because there were possibly lives of British citizens at stake, according to Irene.  It could have been a lie, but I don't think Mycroft was willing to take that chance.

 

But in what sense could that have been true?

 

If the phone contained information that would have saved their lives, would Irene have divulged it?  We saw no evidence whatsoever of any public-spiritedness on her part.  She was out for herself, pure and simple -- not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that she's clearly not the sort of person you'd want to rely on for help.

 

If, on the other hand, the phone contained information that would have put their lives in danger -- well, then, just as well to destroy it, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moriarty is not adorable. Moriarty gives me the shivers. I think he's very frightening.

 

tumblr_mcq2asAJJk1ro5p10o1_500.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice Korean interview with Moffat and Vertue.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another Moffat/Vertue interview...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this lovely snippet...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very sensible, how they've adapted Watson.

 

[in Conan Doyle canon] he’s not as thick as he can sometimes be presented, but he is comically astonished by Sherlock Holmes’ deductions for the entire thirty years of their friendship. You think at a certain point he might know Sherlock Holmes has probably got this one — not saying, ‘You can’t possibly know that, Holmes!’ Not three decades in!

We’ve got an actor like Martin Freeman, and I think the thing that’s important for Doctor Watson is that he’s definitely hugely competent.

He’s not any kind of genius, but he’s a very competent military man, and a good doctor with a stout heart, and the best friend you could want, and the first man a genius would trust—which is a huge compliment.

 

I think that the Brett series did something a bit similar.  At least, I find Edward Hardwicke's Watson (in later seasons) considerably less easily boggled than David Burke's (in the first) -- though I don't know whether this was meant to show that Watson was becoming accustomed to Holmes' feats, or if it was simply different interpretations by the two actors.

 

  • Like 1

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

×

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.