Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[Arcadia]

Hey, we're happy to have you, no matter when you get here! Jump into the discussion, it's fun!

[J.P.]

Amber, you wrote "in Italian". Does it mean subtitles or dubbing?

 

[sfmpco]

The steelbook is out - please note that this is Blue Ray and only in the UK.  There is no US steelbook version.

 

https://twitter.com/hmvtweets/status/687711518713090048

[Inge l-w]

And it costs a whopping 43 pounds plus shipping! No, thank you, not interested! Just buying their personally collected stories excepting at least a half-page introduction to each one and getting paragraphs full of exclamation marks instead, was enough of a rip-off for me! Fool me once, etc.

[Amber§]

Thank you, Arcadia ^^

I watched the film dubbed

[J.P.]

Well, so how it is possible that the German TV needs 3 Months to achieve that?!

[jadpdr]

Three months is OK! TF1 and 2 plus TV5 are keeping absolutely silent on the eventuality of showing the Special, so shall have to order the DVD! Agree with inge that ignoring most of Europe is more than a bit NOT good in terms of fans, selling and advertising!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Wait.. you mean when it's showed in cinema, it's dubbed in Italian/German? 

So you don't get to hear The Voice?

 

No offense, but that is atrocious! (Still no offense ). I know it's being appreciative to local language and all, but what about originality of a work, wouldn't it be better to use subtitle instead?

 

So, for English speaking expats staying there who work in international company and don't understand local language well, there is no way they can watch/understand it.. or there are not many of them.

Is it only TAB or applicable to any other foreign movies?

[bedelia1984]

After what I think is my fourth viewing...

 

Does anyone think that when Sherlock says 'By every means short of actual speech.' to Lestrade, on the word 'speech' you can see BC break character for a split second and almost laugh? I'm convinced I see that. I think they left it in on purpose. God, I really have watched it too many times.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The way I'm starting to think of it, Mycroft got the mistaken impression at some point that he was supposed to help "parent" Sherlock.  Maybe it was when Sherlock was born ("you're a big brother now and have to help look out for him") or maybe it was when they went to boarding school ("make sure nothing happens to Sherlock"), but that seven year age difference is enough for young Mycroft to have felt like an adult but not really had any of the tools of adulthood to help Sherlock out.

 

That sort of thing definitely (and unfortunately) happens in real life.  I know a man who, as a young boy, was saddled with that "elder brother" responsibility, and bears it like a cross even in middle age.  He takes it so seriously that when one of his younger siblings makes an unfortunate decision -- he feels guilty!

 

I wish parents would bear in mind that young children tend to be very literal-minded, so that what you tell them becomes, in their mind, the truth.  Just as a silly example, when I was two, my parents had their photo in the newspaper due to their involvement in a charity, and I was included.  Just before the photographer snapped the picture, I was told, "Smile, Carol, the man is taking your picture."  Even though I was quite familiar with the resulting photo, I never associated it with my memory of the photo session, because that man had taken my picture.  So watch what you tell 'em, because they'll believe you.

 

That is surprising, coming from such a thoughtful, insightful person like you! It was pure camp, played as such, seeing as it was Mind Palace re-enactment; and we both know that although ACD Holmes used "Elementary", there is NOT ONE story which includes the whole sentence, which was used much later by Rathbone. But, of course, everything is grist to their mill!

 

Just because a scene has humorous (or even camp) elements does not mean that it cannot also have substance.  (I personally tend to find Gene Wilder's farces kind of touching.)

 

ACD's Holmes did say "Elementary" a good bit, and likewise "my dear Watson," so unless we're going to require that an adaptation must consist entirely of complete sentences that were actually used in the original, the use of "Elementary, my dear Watson" seems perfectly legitimate to me.  (Though I do suspect that the line was indeed intended as camp. ;) )

 

I thought it could be a curse of INTJ/P-folks.

Maybe we intimidate people so much that they do as if they liked us - and they are just scared?

 

Is that another INTP trait, unintentionally intimidating people?  I seem to have that effect on people, but I've never understood it.  In fact, I have one rather tenuous friendship where we each seem to intimidate the other. 

 

... I still can't imagine to my satisfaction why a grown man would still feel so damaged by the death of a childhood pet that it substantially changed the trajectory of his life.  

 

What if it wasn't the death per se, so much as the circumstances under which it occurred?  I can imagine all sorts of possibilities (though in HLV, Sherlock says to his mind-palace Redbeard, "They're putting me down too," so I assume that rules out accidental death, for which Sherlock might have felt responsible).  Just having your parents lie to you when you're young can be pretty traumatic, especially if you find out it's a lie while you're still young.  (See my prior comments to you, above.)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oh, but we didn't say we wouldn't take our revenge on Moftiss in some other way.....

Oh that's better XD

 

 

You're not. ;)

I'm contemplating giving you virtual hug.

[Arcadia]

 

 

... I still can't imagine to my satisfaction why a grown man would still feel so damaged by the death of a childhood pet that it substantially changed the trajectory of his life.  

 

What if it wasn't the death per se, so much as the circumstances under which it occurred?  I can imagine all sorts of possibilities (though in HLV, Sherlock says to his mind-palace Redbeard, "They're putting me down too," so I assume that rules out accidental death, for which Sherlock might have felt responsible).  Just having your parents lie to you when you're young can be pretty traumatic, especially if you find out it's a lie while you're still young.  (See my prior comments to you, above.)

 

Or if Sherlock is somehow responsible for Redbeard needing to be put down, through neglect or something.

 

 

Oh, but we didn't say we wouldn't take our revenge on Moftiss in some other way.....

Oh that's better XD

 

 

You're not. ;)

I'm contemplating giving you virtual hug.

 

As long as it doesn't involve ... you know ... people. :p

[sfmpco]

The TAB set was recreated in an Altoids box!!

 

http://blog.pixiehill.com/2014/01/221b-baker-street.html

[Arcadia]

That was awesome.

[Van Buren Supernova]

As long as it doesn't involve ... you know ... people. :P

No no no no you don't have to worry about that from me.

In fact, I have my contemplation result, you don't get the virtual hug yet. XD Too soon.. :P

 

The TAB set was recreated in an Altoids box!!

That is nice. Really want to do something like that in 1/12 scale. If only I have more spare time.

[Amber§]

Wait.. you mean when it's showed in cinema, it's dubbed in Italian/German? 

So you don't get to hear The Voice?

 

No offense, but that is atrocious! (Still no offense ). I know it's being appreciative to local language and all, but what about originality of a work, wouldn't it be better to use subtitle instead?

 

So, for English speaking expats staying there who work in international company and don't understand local language well, there is no way they can watch/understand it.. or there are not many of them.

Is it only TAB or applicable to any other foreign movies?

 

I agree with you that watching films in original language is better because you are more involved in the acting, but I think that, at least for this special, italians dubbers have done a good job.

I also could follow better the scenes and enjoy Sherlock's and other characters' face expressions because I didn't have to read subtitles

[Janine M. Adler]

I am still wondering how Sherlock will get away with the killing Magnassum? I mean maybe this killing most possibly kept hidden from public eyes, and Morierty is back and blah, blah...but heck there are laws, how can he be allowed to his home in Baker street than the prison after his return? Even Mycroft has limitations of his powers, doesn't he? It will be unrealistic if they simply not address the consequence of the murder. How can Sherlock be pardoned after sentenced to be an exile? 

 

[Boton]

I am still wondering how Sherlock will get away with the killing Magnassum? I mean maybe this killing most possibly kept hidden from public eyes, and Morierty is back and blah, blah...but heck there are laws, how can he be allowed to his home in Baker street than the prison after his return? Even Mycroft has limitations of his powers, doesn't he? It will be unrealistic if they simply not address the consequence of the murder. How can Sherlock be pardoned after sentenced to be an exile? 

 

It's a good question.  Although, at the risk of being unduly snarky, I'm not sure "realistic" has been the goal of very many Sherlock Holmes portrayals, let alone this one.  In my own mind, I figure that the original ACD Holmes tended to mete out his own justice occasionally when he thought circumstances warranted, and he never got punished.  This Sherlock is probably the same; everyone will realize that Mary was right, "people like Magnussen should be killed," and this will be swept under the rug by the same magic that allowed him to take an MI6 job in place of proper punishment.  

 

Honestly, I don't expect to hear Magnussen's name ever brought up again.  But that's just me.

[Boton]

 

 

I wish parents would bear in mind that young children tend to be very literal-minded, so that what you tell them becomes, in their mind, the truth.  Just as a silly example, when I was two, my parents had their photo in the newspaper due to their involvement in a charity, and I was included.  Just before the photographer snapped the picture, I was told, "Smile, Carol, the man is taking your picture."  Even though I was quite familiar with the resulting photo, I never associated it with my memory of the photo session, because that man had taken my picture.  So watch what you tell 'em, because they'll believe you.

 

 

... I still can't imagine to my satisfaction why a grown man would still feel so damaged by the death of a childhood pet that it substantially changed the trajectory of his life.  

 

What if it wasn't the death per se, so much as the circumstances under which it occurred?  I can imagine all sorts of possibilities (though in HLV, Sherlock says to his mind-palace Redbeard, "They're putting me down too," so I assume that rules out accidental death, for which Sherlock might have felt responsible).  Just having your parents lie to you when you're young can be pretty traumatic, especially if you find out it's a lie while you're still young.  (See my prior comments to you, above.)

 

 

Agree about impressionable childhood events.  I once was in the elementary school gym with 500 other kids, and the teacher in charge told us all that we had to be quiet or we'd be in trouble.  Sure enough, I came home that day and told my mom "I got in trouble for making too much noise today," and it took hours until she thought that she should ask a few questions about what really happened.

 

I agree with you about Redbeard, but the thing that still trips me up is the idea that, however traumatic Redbeard's death was, that Sherlock could possibly let that fester to the point where he won't have a friend or a relationship because of the fear of loss.  I tend to think that "they're putting me down too" really just indicates that Redbeard was old or ill, not necessarily traumatically neglected, so he would almost have to have had some sort of reinforcement to turn it into an adult trauma.  Like, maybe Mycroft kept telling him, "you said Redbeard was your best friend, and now he's gone; you can't let yourself have friends that you would miss if you lost them."  Something like that. 

[Arcadia]

I am still wondering how Sherlock will get away with the killing Magnassum? I mean maybe this killing most possibly kept hidden from public eyes, and Morierty is back and blah, blah...but heck there are laws, how can he be allowed to his home in Baker street than the prison after his return? Even Mycroft has limitations of his powers, doesn't he? It will be unrealistic if they simply not address the consequence of the murder. How can Sherlock be pardoned after sentenced to be an exile? 

 

Here in the States, the President has the power to pardon anyone, no matter their crime, if he chooses. So I assume they have a similar situation in Great Britain. I think the implication is that Mycroft will use his connections to convince the appropriate person that a pardon is in the best interests of the Commonwealth.

 

Morality aside, Sherlock did, after all, do his fellow citizens a big favor by eliminating Magnussen. (I can hear Sherlock now: "Ugh, morality. Boring." :d )

 

 

Honestly, I don't expect to hear Magnussen's name ever brought up again.  But that's just me.

Nope, not just you, I don't expect it either. But I'm sort of hoping in the first episode of Season 4 we'll glimpse a headline in a paper: "Media Mogul Commits Suicide." Just to prove my hunch right; CAM's actual means of demise has been covered up.

[Slithytove]

In the UK, there is "the royal prerogative of mercy", i.e. a pardon from the Queen, but it is very rare and sometimes posthumous (as in Alan Turing's case.)  I think you have to be convicted before you are pardoned.  Generally, convictions are only overturned by appeal to a higher court, but sometimes people get statutory pardons through Acts of Parliament.  Again, though, I think you have to be convicted first.  It would be convenient if Sherlock could be secretly tried and then pardoned, but this would be very difficult under UK law.  There was a secret trial here in 2014 under the terrorism act, but the Court of Appeal refused to allow complete secrecy.  So it would be quite difficult for Sherlock to be tried and then pardoned without whole thing being played out in public.

 

Maybe we should just accept that Mycroft has near-magical, unofficial powers of life and death in his undefined role as "the British Government."

[Arcadia]

I agree with you about Redbeard, but the thing that still trips me up is the idea that, however traumatic Redbeard's death was, that Sherlock could possibly let that fester to the point where he won't have a friend or a relationship because of the fear of loss.  I tend to think that "they're putting me down too" really just indicates that Redbeard was old or ill, not necessarily traumatically neglected, so he would almost have to have had some sort of reinforcement to turn it into an adult trauma.  Like, maybe Mycroft kept telling him, "you said Redbeard was your best friend, and now he's gone; you can't let yourself have friends that you would miss if you lost them."  Something like that.

For what it's worth.... (no charge )

 

I have no chance of remembering where I read this, but one of the Moftisses (and I think it was Gatiss) said that Sherlock had been told something like Redbeard was going to a happy place ... then later Sherlock realized that meant Redbeard was dead.

 

Where they got it from, I don't know, but I've noticed several fans think that Redbeard got rabies or became vicious, and had to be put down for that reason.

 

Personally, I think Redbeard means something else besides the dog, and my wild, unfounded guess is that it has something to do with "the other one."

 

 

ETA: I think the Moftiss remarks may be in the S3 extras, actually. I remember they also mentioned they talked about teasing out the Redbeard reference from TSo3 to the next season, but decided to go ahead and explain it in HLV. But maybe they were ... erm, being less than candid there...

[Arcadia]

In the UK, there is "the royal prerogative of mercy", i.e. a pardon from the Queen, but it is very rare and sometimes posthumous (as in Alan Turing's case.)  I think you have to be convicted before you are pardoned.  Generally, convictions are only overturned by appeal to a higher court, but sometimes people get statutory pardons through Acts of Parliament.  Again, though, I think you have to be convicted first.  It would be convenient if Sherlock could be secretly tried and then pardoned, but this would be very difficult under UK law.  There was a secret trial here in 2014 under the terrorism act, but the Court of Appeal refused to allow complete secrecy.  So it would be quite difficult for Sherlock to be tried and then pardoned without whole thing being played out in public.

 

Maybe we should just accept that Mycroft has near-magical, unofficial powers of life and death in his undefined role as "the British Government."

Aha. Thank you. Yes, I imagine a conviction would be necessary here in the States, too, and the accompanying publicity. So your conclusion is, I suspect, the right one.

 

However, to play devil's advocate (or something) for a moment ... since Vietnam, I've been conditioned to think that most governments can cover up anything they want if they have a mind to, at least for awhile. I'm sure it's not as easy as popular entertainment (or conspiracy theorists) would have us believe, but I'm willing to believe it's possible. So it might be difficult, but I trust Mycroft has the skills needed to make the pardon happen while at the same time keeping Sherlock's role out of the media, and simultaneously toppling the government of, oh, I don't know, Lower Slobovia. He's just that good. :d

[Janine M. Adler]

In the UK, there is "the royal prerogative of mercy", i.e. a pardon from the Queen, but it is very rare and sometimes posthumous (as in Alan Turing's case.)  I think you have to be convicted before you are pardoned.  Generally, convictions are only overturned by appeal to a higher court, but sometimes people get statutory pardons through Acts of Parliament.  Again, though, I think you have to be convicted first.  It would be convenient if Sherlock could be secretly tried and then pardoned, but this would be very difficult under UK law.  There was a secret trial here in 2014 under the terrorism act, but the Court of Appeal refused to allow complete secrecy.  So it would be quite difficult for Sherlock to be tried and then pardoned without whole thing being played out in public.

 

Maybe we should just accept that Mycroft has near-magical, unofficial powers of life and death in his undefined role as "the British Government."

Yes, conviction is necessary for getting pardons from the queen/president. A person must confess his crime before asking for a royal pardon. But isn't Sherlock is already convicted (though through a secret trial maybe) and was sentenced to be exiled? I don't know. I am just guessing. It'd be shame if Motfiss just ignore the topic at all in the next season and only focus on Moriarty things.

 

BTW...I am watching all the Sherlock episodes in a row for the last two days. I love how cute BC looks in the unaired piilot.

 

 

[sfmpco]

"Which is it today?  Morphine or cocaine?"

"It is cocaine.  A seven-percent solution.  Would you care to try it?" 

 

These are direct sequential quotes from the beginning of "The Sign of Four" where Watson recounts that Holmes had been doing cocaine 3X per day for many months.