Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[bedelia1984]

 

On another thought, in the beginning of TAB, Sherlock is very dismissive about John's intelligence. He is rude, says John barely understand a word first time they meet Mary. And here, in the sign language scene. It's no rocket science at all to deduce that Mycroft is there for meal in the room. Where else he will be in his condition? (love to eat, difficulty to move, and the room). So it's either Sherlock is very courteous to the butler (?) or he finds John clotty and amusing in his mind with that scene.

 

I did get the impression that Sherlock does like to impugn John's intelligence for his own amusement in his mind palace. It's sort of bizarre that he hallucinated a very long conversation between John and his maid where John comes off as both foolish and pompous. Even better, when we get the big reveal and he finally realises who Molly really is, he can't resist also having John see his own mistake in discounting said maid earlier. Even in the mind palace, poor John never gets the last laugh.

[sfmpco]

 

If England = Mycroft in TAB, is England also Mycroft in HLV?

Mycroft is always England.

 

 

Well then it puts a bit of a different spin on the end of HLV.

[sfmpco]

Okay, on the fifth viewing now of TAB, and although Sherlock is in Victoriana at the beginning, he seems to still be stumbling around a bit as if he knows he remembers a case from back then but can't quite find it in his mind palace... and it is only while playing his violin whilst the Watsons are bickering in the background that THEN he remembers the Ricoletti case at which time Lestrade comes to the door to open the case up for him.

 

Oh and another pun... Sherlock's Victorian study is done is scarlet.  Get it?  A study in scarlet.  Oh those boys and their cleverness.

[Carol the Dabbler]

And from page 9 onwards:
 

I am not convinced that Sherlock is unaware that Dr. Hooper (the only time she has been officially called "doctor") is not actually female in disguise but that he chooses to keep her secret [....]

 
What still amazes me about that scene is not the "why" but rather the mere fact that she's finally been called "Doctor."  Since (as you point out later) all this is a product of the modern Sherlock's mind, apparently she really is a doctor -- or at least Sherlock is under the impression that she is.

 
Me at the verification that Molly Hooper is in fact Dr. Hooper:
 

 
 
It's really a good thing I didn't see this in the theater first as I probably would have been thrown out for screaming over and over....

 
Me too, regarding several scenes!
 
It does, however, occur to me now that perhaps the Victorian Holmes addresses Molly as "Doctor Hooper" because she's dressed as a man -- so she finally "looks like a doctor."  If so, I shall gladly join the queue to slap him upside the head.
 

Why was Mary wearing all black in her first scene?  Was she in mourning?  That didn't look like an appropriate outfit to me for the time (or even now, all black like that) unless she was.

 
That looked like pretty deep mourning to me.  I'm leaning toward thinking that's a clue that she is or will be mourning a death in real life, but I guess we'll see.  Some year.  Sigh.

 
For me it was a reflection of when he incorrectly deduced her as Lady Smallwood by her perfume when she was all in black ready to shoot Magnussen.  Here she is also in black, he knows it's her perfume, and he correctly deduces her.  it's a little fix in his mind palace.

 
I like that.  Also, the black outfit was (again) a disguise.  Plus, considering that they released so many pictures of Mary dressed that way, I suspect the black dress may actually have been a red herring.
 

The only thing, Carol, is that Sherlock was in solitary, and I doubt he was in a regular prison but in something MI5 related. [....]
 
Interesting that she in not pregnant in the Victorian times nor is there mention of a child.

 
As VBS pointed out a few pages back, Mary can hack MI5 security with her cell phone!  ;)
 
Hmm, yes, interesting.  But again, this is Sherlock's imagination, so any implications would relate to his view of things.
 

It was nice to see Anderson again.  Perhaps it's an indication that he's working with Scotland Yard again and not just heading up a fan club.

 
Or Sherlock thinks he should be.  (Or wishes he was.)  I'm disappointed that Sally didn't make at least a brief appearance, though I'm glad to see that Vinette Robinson is keeping busy these days (which may explain Sally's absence).  They seem to have gotten everybody else (if you count Irene's photo).
 

I did get the impression that Sherlock does like to impugn John's intelligence for his own amusement in his mind palace. It's sort of bizarre that he hallucinated a very long conversation between John and his maid where John comes off as both foolish and pompous. Even better, when we get the big reveal and he finally realises who Molly really is, he can't resist also having John see his own mistake in discounting said maid earlier. Even in the mind palace, poor John never gets the last laugh.

 
Well it is, after all, Sherlock's mind palace.  And what's the fun of having a mind palace if you can't run it the way you like?
 

Oh and another pun... Sherlock's Victorian study is done is scarlet.  Get it?  A study in scarlet.  Oh those boys and their cleverness.

I believe I read recently that the red wallpaper was another brilliant idea from the inestimable Arwel Jones.

[Arcadia]

MYCROFT:  Are you aware of recent theories concerning what is known as paranoia?

WATSON:  Ooh, sounds Serbian.

 

Hmmm.... harkening back to being tortured in a Serbian dungeon?  Is that part of his life creeping back into his drug-addled mind palace?

Maybe, but really I think it was just for the laugh.

[sfmpco]

 

MYCROFT:  Are you aware of recent theories concerning what is known as paranoia?

WATSON:  Ooh, sounds Serbian.

 

Hmmm.... harkening back to being tortured in a Serbian dungeon?  Is that part of his life creeping back into his drug-addled mind palace?

Maybe, but really I think it was just for the laugh.

 

 

Maybe, but there are a lot of other countries...  :lol:

[sfmpco]

Love Watson's ending line on this exchange...

 

SHERLOCK: Watson, your hat and coat.

 

WATSON: Where are we going?

 

SHERLOCK: To the morgue.  There’s not a moment to lose – which one can so rarely say of the morgue.

 

MARY: And am I just to sit here?

 

JOHN: Not at all my dear.  We’ll be hungry later….

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Finally have another chance, put the episode on and listen while working (with a bit of sneak peek once in a while), and there are buckets and buckets more things in my head.

 

But first..

(My multiquote exploded on the fifth quote, so I just use a bit of code trick)

 

Whether or not this will continue or he will still behave as "alone is what I have, alone protects me" remains to be seen.

 

I think he no longer believe that,  at least he is accepting that John is right, and John being there protects him.

He even acknowledges Mycroft’s presence as being there for him.

However, I strongly believe he will despise this fact, over again. He’ll get burnt and he will regret it. (I haven’t read the book so this is purely speculation)

 

 

Oddly enough, before Freeman was cast in Sherlock, many people thought of him as only a comic actor, due to his great success in The Office.

 

I read somewhere (or maybe in my mind) similar thing happened with Bryan Cranston. He is a comic actor and cast as Walter White in Breaking Bad (for those who don’t know, the show is not funny at all, but great) and he was brilliant. I think skill in comedy is probably greater than other genre?

 

 

It's really a good thing I didn't see this in the theater first as I probably would have been thrown out for screaming over and over....

 

I didn’t speak a word, because nobody around me watches Sherlock. I just isolate myself, but I beat up my big fat honey bee soft toy, I swear.

Not rage, excitement. I was giddy.

 

Yup, he'll die in 1897.

 

Shit……noooooooooooooooooooooo.

Not after the plane scene. Noooooo, no, NO!

 

 

Even better, when we get the big reveal and he finally realises who Molly really is, he can't resist also having John see his own mistake in discounting said maid earlier. Even in the mind palace, poor John never gets the last laugh.

 

I think so.

Luckily, he admits he is smart at the end. Which is correct.

 

 

(why people are talking around me?!?  NOISE!  SHUT UP!  I need to concentrate)

 

 

Maybe, but there are a lot of other countries...  :lol:

 

He did mention French and Scot. :P

[Van Buren Supernova]

Three things first for now, because I think they are important.

 

Molly is very angry.

She is a bit too angry at Sherlock at the morgue, unnecessary, as if her character hates him a lot.

Sherlock was taking drug, in moment of despair I would say, and in need to know the answer. But he also knows that Molly hates that, she has very strong reaction in HLV.

That couldn't be his last encounter with her in HLV (she would visit him in the hospital), but it certainly makes impression to him. Maybe he knows she will be angry, maybe he hopes she will forgive him. Maybe, maybe he sees her suffering and longing.. to be accepted.

 

 

Emelia as sister.

This one made me jump.

In the morgue, Lestrade says she is not twin, and doesn't have sister, only a brother who died four years ago, at the time of her death.

But this:

Why? Who does she really represent and what is the importance of this?

Could this be no importance and just made by Monstrous Regiment? I don't remember they mention each other as sister, but friend. (Need to listen again!)

 

 

There is not a moment to lose.

Heard it on the first watch, twice. I thought it's weird, but didn't think further.

However, upon rewatch rehearing+peek :P, it is said three times, three flipping times.

Bad script and dialogue, not in Sherlock. they excel in witty department, so I believe it's intentional.

 

Is he on the rush to solve the case? To save a life? To chase his ghost?

Or he knows any moment he might wake up...or die.

[sfmpco]

Since she had no living sibblings, and since her husband was dead and couldn't pick out her tombstone, I would guess that it was picked out by her sisterhood of suffragettes.

[Van Buren Supernova]

How if she represents Moriarty, or Sherlock in this case?

[Inge l-w]

While all the nitpicking is extremely diverting and oftentimes borders on the hilarious, why hasn't anyone pointed out that the two creators have turned the Sherlock Holmes universe on its head?

Holmes ONLY indulges in cocaine and morphine ( The Sign of the Four) when he is bored out of his mind, not when he has such important work to do, even under an MI6 directive that may prove fatal in six months.

To solve the Moriarty conundrum, which was an ACD plot device, like Mrs Hudson ( we are not amused, Messers Moffat and Gatiss!) Holmes would never overdose, like any good chemist, so the list lies between inexplicable and irrelevant.

Having fun is OK, having fun at the expense of the fans (Amazon has exploded with negative reviews of British BBC ratepayers) is absolutely, definitely, certainly NOT GOOD!

[sfmpco]

She doesn't represent Moriarty.  She is a real life case that parallels his in that she shot herself in the head.   Moriarty is the "ghost in the machine" - Sherlock's hard drive of a mind.  She doesn't represent Sherlock.

[Slithytove]

I read the negative Amazon reviews with some amusement.  It was similar to reading the comments section of The Daily Mail, i.e. dreadful and,  occasionally, unintentionally funny.

 

There seems to be two main gripes.  One is, basically - "this isn't authentic Victoriana, or authentic Conan Doyle, I'm off to re-watch Jeremy Brett."  These people don't seem to grasp the fact that this is ​Sherlock' s re-imagining of the Victorian era.  There are some deliberate anachronisms - "the virus in the data" - as the 21st century breaks into his dream, and maybe a few unintentional ones because he neither knows or cares about the details.  This is the man who retains only knowledge he deems relevant, and consequently didn't know the earth goes round the sun or that England has a queen, not a king.  Would you really be surprised that he didn't know, as one Amazon reviewer complained, that female property owners could vote in local elections by 1895?  And would it have made any difference to the story if he did? 

 

As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point?  This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories.  If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered.  The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent.  The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos.  After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches.  They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too.

 

The other complaint seems to be that people couldn't understand the time shifts.  I've got some sympathy for anyone who had never watched the previous series and fell for the "stand-alone episode" claim.  However, anyone with any intelligence who saw HLV should be more than capable of following the story.  Some people seem to want to be spoon-fed, and never have to think about what they are watching.

 

As for the reviewer who said Martin Freeman is a terrible actor and incapable of portraying Watson...Were they watching a different programme?  The man was born to be John Watson!

[T.o.b.y]

I read the negative Amazon reviews with some amusement. It was similar to reading the comments section of The Daily Mail, i.e. dreadful and, occasionally, unintentionally funny.

 

There seems to be two main gripes. One is, basically - "this isn't authentic Victoriana, or authentic Conan Doyle, I'm off to re-watch Jeremy Brett." These people don't seem to grasp the fact that this is ​Sherlock' s re-imagining of the Victorian era. There are some deliberate anachronisms - "the virus in the data" - as the 21st century breaks into his dream, and maybe a few unintentional ones because he neither knows or cares about the details. This is the man who retains only knowledge he deems relevant, and consequently didn't know the earth goes round the sun or that England has a queen, not a king. Would you really be surprised that he didn't know, as one Amazon reviewer complained, that female property owners could vote in local elections by 1895? And would it have made any difference to the story if he did?

 

As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point? This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories. If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered. The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent. The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos. After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches. They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too.

 

The other complaint seems to be that people couldn't understand the time shifts. I've got some sympathy for anyone who had never watched the previous series and fell for the "stand-alone episode" claim. However, anyone with any intelligence who saw HLV should be more than capable of following the story. Some people seem to want to be spoon-fed, and never have to think about what they are watching.

 

As for the reviewer who said Martin Freeman is a terrible actor and incapable of portraying Watson...Were they watching a different programme? The man was born to be John Watson!

Thank you. Now I know what the complaints were about without actually plowing through the mass of them. And you are right of course... I dub you the Voice of Reason for today.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I read the negative Amazon reviews with some amusement.  It was similar to reading the comments section of The Daily Mail, i.e. dreadful and,  occasionally, unintentionally funny.

 

There seems to be two main gripes.  One is, basically - "this isn't authentic Victoriana, or authentic Conan Doyle, I'm off to re-watch Jeremy Brett."  These people don't seem to grasp the fact that this is ​Sherlock' s re-imagining of the Victorian era.  There are some deliberate anachronisms - "the virus in the data" - as the 21st century breaks into his dream, and maybe a few unintentional ones because he neither knows or cares about the details.  This is the man who retains only knowledge he deems relevant, and consequently didn't know the earth goes round the sun or that England has a queen, not a king.  Would you really be surprised that he didn't know, as one Amazon reviewer complained, that female property owners could vote in local elections by 1895?  And would it have made any difference to the story if he did? 

 

As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point?  This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories.  If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered.  The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent.  The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos.  After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches.  They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too.

 

The other complaint seems to be that people couldn't understand the time shifts.  I've got some sympathy for anyone who had never watched the previous series and fell for the "stand-alone episode" claim.  However, anyone with any intelligence who saw HLV should be more than capable of following the story.  Some people seem to want to be spoon-fed, and never have to think about what they are watching.

 

As for the reviewer who said Martin Freeman is a terrible actor and incapable of portraying Watson...Were they watching a different programme?  The man was born to be John Watson!

Well said. Thank you.

I watched a lot of things, from craps to gems.

To me, all 10.5 episodes of Sherlock is imperfectly perfect and I will stand by that.

 

I enjoy good discussions and also criticize the show, I'm not always agree and worship them, but they are great because they're thought provoking, not at all because it's bad and not canon.

 

It may be my clueless opinion, I don't care, the rest can bugger off.

[J.P.]

Geeez, I will never be able to chatch with you all... Have no time to read, just a quicky.

 

 

Yup, he'll die in 1897.

Who, Mycroft?  Then that's the discussion about his last days was alluding to this... somebody has the numbers? (sorry if I repeat something) (and please NO - even if I thought about the possibility myself)

 

Emelia didn't necessarily had a sister. She had sisters, the Furies, that's why she was "faithful beyond death" = faithful to the cause. Wasn't there something about who founded the gravestone?

[Redbeard]

Well...so I saw it last night at the theatre and I will need to see it several more times to digest everything for sure!  But I really loved it.  I thought the writing was fantastic (dialogue was still superb!).  Lots of great banter and Benedict's line deliveries are out of this world. 

 

I was expecting a fully standalone and when we got modern day scenes I was shocked and so thrilled!  It was just around the time in the film I was thinking I kind of miss our modern day versions and then suddenly there they were!  I love the fact that this special does in fact play into the overall continuity and it was great bonus to see the progression of the storyline heading into the next season. 

 

I am intrigued about Moriarty's role in Sherlock's mind palace...there was some heavy sexual tension there that I was not expecting!  But then Benedict creates it with everyone lol.  

 

Loved getting the Reichenbach Falls scene. 

 

Very intriguing to see Sherlock's cocaine use explored a bit more...lots of fascinating stuff.

 

How were your audience reactions?  Our theatre was packed and the audience was really laughing and into it.  But the funny part was at the end the guy next to me said "I'm just here because The Force Awakens was sold out but this was really good."   :lol:

[Boton]

Three things first for now, because I think they are important.

 

Molly is very angry.

She is a bit too angry at Sherlock at the morgue, unnecessary, as if her character hates him a lot.

Sherlock was taking drug, in moment of despair I would say, and in need to know the answer. But he also knows that Molly hates that, she has very strong reaction in HLV.

That couldn't be his last encounter with her in HLV (she would visit him in the hospital), but it certainly makes impression to him. Maybe he knows she will be angry, maybe he hopes she will forgive him. Maybe, maybe he sees her suffering and longing.. to be accepted.

 

 

There is not a moment to lose.

Heard it on the first watch, twice. I thought it's weird, but didn't think further.

However, upon rewatch rehearing+peek :P, it is said three times, three flipping times.

Bad script and dialogue, not in Sherlock. they excel in witty department, so I believe it's intentional.

 

Is he on the rush to solve the case? To save a life? To chase his ghost?

Or he knows any moment he might wake up...or die.

 

Just my take (after 4 viewings, with the fifth in the theater tonight), but a couple of comments on the above.

 

I hope to not use the "it was all in Sherlock's drug-addled mind" explanation too much about this episode, but I think that's the case with Molly's anger.  Remember, we also got the flashback of Molly slapping the stuffing out of Sherlock when he was high.  I think he feels chastened and called out about his behavior.  I think he's feeling guilty that he let Molly down, both with the drugs in HLV and now again, when he is landing back in England high as a kite.  This is combined with his self-recrimination over the fact that he knows perfectly well that he's treated Molly as one of the boys -- that he's never seen her as a woman, let alone as his friend.  Mind-palace Molly has probably been giving him a tongue-lashing for the past week that Real Life Molly would never do.

 

As far as "not a moment to lose," I think part of that repetition explains his feeling that he needs to solve the Moriarty case before the plane touches down.  He has no reasonable expectation that he won't be bustled right back onto that plane if he doesn't prove himself useful.  Even if that would be a logical assumption (and I'm not sure it is), he's been locked up in his own mind for a week and is high; of course he's paranoid.  

[Slithytove]

Glad you agree, T.o.b.y and Van Buren Supernova - and I heartily agree that those who don't like the show because it's not canon can bugger off.  Well said!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've skimmed this morning's posts, and don't think anyone has mentioned this yet:

 

Ariane DeVere's transcript of "The Abominable Bride" is now online! 

[Tunguska]

I read the negative Amazon reviews with some amusement. It was similar to reading the comments section of The Daily Mail, i.e. dreadful and, occasionally, unintentionally funny.

 

There seems to be two main gripes. One is, basically - "this isn't authentic Victoriana, or authentic Conan Doyle, I'm off to re-watch Jeremy Brett." These people don't seem to grasp the fact that this is ​Sherlock' s re-imagining of the Victorian era. There are some deliberate anachronisms - "the virus in the data" - as the 21st century breaks into his dream, and maybe a few unintentional ones because he neither knows or cares about the details. This is the man who retains only knowledge he deems relevant, and consequently didn't know the earth goes round the sun or that England has a queen, not a king. Would you really be surprised that he didn't know, as one Amazon reviewer complained, that female property owners could vote in local elections by 1895? And would it have made any difference to the story if he did?

 

As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point? This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories. If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered. The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent. The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos. After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches. They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too.

 

The other complaint seems to be that people couldn't understand the time shifts. I've got some sympathy for anyone who had never watched the previous series and fell for the "stand-alone episode" claim. However, anyone with any intelligence who saw HLV should be more than capable of following the story. Some people seem to want to be spoon-fed, and never have to think about what they are watching.

 

As for the reviewer who said Martin Freeman is a terrible actor and incapable of portraying Watson...Were they watching a different programme? The man was born to be John Watson!

I did the same and couldn't agree with you more!

[bedelia1984]

 

As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point?  This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories.  If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered.  The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent.  The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos.  After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches.  They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too.

 

 

I also agree with the sentiment you're expressing here. In fact, for me, often when I see the writers doing something that seems to push the boundaries of the original canon, those are the parts that I sometimes enjoy the most. Like, I'm not crazy about Mary the character, but if they let her and the baby live, I'd love that, even more because it is their own retelling, to me that's the originality, the art, of what they do. For me, if they just tell the story straight, word-for-word as the original stories, or the other versions, well then why bother?

 

I also think the fact they already changed the time the story is set in, does leave it open for them to introduce other changes in an organic way. A female lab tech like Molly could never have existed in ACD's Sherlock, but I'm glad she can in ours. And if they let Mary survive, because modern medicine would give her a much better chance, I would applaud them for that too. If Holmes was a man ahead of his time, to me it is a brilliant concept to show how he lives when he's in a time a bit more in keeping with his ideas.

[BlackButterfly]

Yes I think it's fairly obvious BBC Sherlock slammed the door on ACD canons face in the first episode. Rach German for....Slam. Idiots.

[BlackButterfly]

A whole load of things here that make smile .

 

http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/sherlock/251713/sherlock-34-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-abominable-bride

 

Sorry if it's been posted I couldn't see it.

 

@thanksyou Carol for the tip on hiding posts.