Jump to content

Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)


Undead Medic

What did you think of "The Abominable Bride"?  

122 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote Here:

    • 10/10 Excellent.
      47
    • 9/10 Not quite the best, but not far off.
      26
    • 8/10 Certainly worth watching again.
      32
    • 7/10 Slightly above the norm.
      12
    • 6/10 Average.
      2
    • 5/10 Slightly sub-par.
      1
    • 4/10 Decidedly below average.
      1
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
      0
    • 1/10 Abominable.
      1


Recommended Posts

and I took that sentiment of Mofftiss (keeping their leads happy) to mean:  guns, car chases, trips to Morocco, lots of hero visuals... not psycho-sexual explorations of childhoods!  ; )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that too. :smile: But I think most good actors are mostly interested in exploring human nature. Psychological and spiritual challenges, not physical ones. I could be wrong! :smile:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that too. :smile: But I think most good actors are mostly interested in exploring human nature. Psychological and spiritual challenges, not physical ones. I could be wrong! :smile:

 

 

Oh I agree for sure w/ that ... but when it comes to keeping movie stars "happy" doing a tv show,  I just took it to mean more movie type stuff like explosions, costumes, car chases in fancy cars,  ie the fellers getting to do "boy stuff".

 

(I assume that Mofftiss had the main plot points, the main character arcs,  the main bits of dialog --  and thus the backgrounds and motivations  -- of Sherlock and John down already and not really negotiable or able to be changed much)

 

I was thinking all weekend how many memorable phrases came out of TAB:  "you'll do", it's never twins (yet another example of Sherlock being really crabby and grumpy and yelling unpleasantly at John), the stage is set/the curtain rises, we are ready to begin and on and on  "dead is the new sexy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's never twins": I keep thinking that's a sure sign it will be twins! (So either we are more clever than Moftiss thinks we are, or they have us exactly where they want us.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's never twins": I keep thinking that's a sure sign it will be twins! (So either we are more clever than Moftiss thinks we are, or they have us exactly where they want us.)

Maybe both. They realize that most of the fandom is highly intelligent but may forget that some of us could actually pull one on the Holmes boys all the while feeding us tidbits that get us riled up (to some degree or other) putting us in the right frame of mind for the next series (in their minds at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's never twins": I keep thinking that's a sure sign it will be twins! (So either we are more clever than Moftiss thinks we are, or they have us exactly where they want us.)

 

I am SURE it is going to be twins! (or look alikes in one way or another) just cuz it was so prominent to have Sherlock yell that out at John in TAB!  But then again - is it a bluff?, a double bluff?, or a triple bluff? ARUGH!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are not twins. Toby Jones's character is actually the great Jim Moriarty. And Jim Moriarty (as we know it played by Andrew Scott), was actually an actor: Richard Brook.

They are not twins, but brothers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think they are not twins. Toby Jones's character is actually the great Jim Moriarty. And Jim Moriarty (as we know it played by Andrew Scott), was actually an actor: Richard Brook.
They are not twins, but brothers.

 

 

 

metaphorical twins then.  We'll seeeeee.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"It's never twins": I keep thinking that's a sure sign it will be twins! (So either we are more clever than Moftiss thinks we are, or they have us exactly where they want us.)

 

I am SURE it is going to be twins! (or look alikes in one way or another) just cuz it was so prominent to have Sherlock yell that out at John in TAB!  But then again - is it a bluff?, a double bluff?, or a triple bluff? ARUGH!

 

 

I seem to remember a pic that Gatiss tweeted of two teddy bears, which harkens to the twins thing, but in a way, it was twins already because of all the "sister" brides.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"sister brides"  <----  <<<< shiver >>>>  Ew!

 

Well, that was on Emilia's tombstone!

 

Really?  I thought it said "beloved sister and friend"??  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"sister brides"  <----  <<<< shiver >>>>  Ew!

 

Well, that was on Emilia's tombstone!

 

Really?  I thought it said "beloved sister and friend"??  

 

 

Yes, put there by the other "sisters" of that movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but "sister wives" connotes polygamy ie. Mormons call multiple wives their "sister wives" 

to me, at least, it doesn't connote or reflect the "Brides" of purple robes and conical hats at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but "sister wives" connotes polygamy ie. Mormons call multiple wives their "sister wives" 

to me, at least, it doesn't connote or reflect the "Brides" of purple robes and conical hats at all

 

sorry... should have used the word bride.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Sherlock failed to do in his mind palace recreation of Emilia's death is to prove there was initially a 2nd body.  No extra body in the grave.  Emilia committed suicide  and then others pretended to be ghost.  The virus in his data was already creeping in on his visit to the morgue.  His data was faulty.  He thought he had something, but he came up empty.  Oh, he thinks he knows what "Moriarty" is going to do next, but he was still high at that point and he doesn't make the best decisions or calculations when he's high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he had "found" a second body, that wouldn't have proven anything about the historical Ricoletti case, because it would have taken place only in his mind palace. Like the rest of Victorian Holmes's case, it would still have been only conjecture.

 

And even if he had somehow been able to really prove his theories about The Bride, that would still not have been one bit of proof in the Moriarty case. He was simply using some similarities between the two cases to help himself think of possibilities. He feels that this gave him a good idea of how to investigate what "Moriarty" (or more accurately, his organization) might be up to now.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Sherlock have to "go deep, deep within myself" to solve the issue of Moriarity's video?  On the face of it, he wouldn't have to do that at all.  He could just think about it.  Just think about why/when/how M is in that video clip.   But since he was drugged, he let his mind/challenged his mind to "go deep"....... or was it "since he was drugged" his mind forced him to go deep, deep within himself?

 

 

 

I think it was to answer the question / play on the question of "miss me?" (did Sherlock miss Moriarity - in any way/shape/form?) as well as to answer the more pragmatic question of how the video could be broadcast on all the tv screens across England....  BUT I DON'T SEE ANY ANSWERS!  Arugh!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Sherlock have to "go deep, deep within myself" to solve the issue of Moriarity's video? On the face of it, he wouldn't have to do that at all. He could just think about it. Just think about why/when/how M is in that video clip.

That sounds reasonable enough, but -- as you point out -- it clearly isn't the whole story.

 

One factor is surely this: Sherlock is not simply a flesh-and-blood computer. I am convinced that the "pure, cold logic" that he prides himself on is more like a series of intuitive insights strung together with logic.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here about the intuition. And I agree there's something more to it we haven't been shown yet, otherwise Clavery's got it right ... the "deep into myself" bit doesn't make sense. Of course, there's the possibility it may never make sense.... :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Clavery's got it right ... the "deep into myself" bit doesn't make sense.

Maybe it's how Sherlock sees himself, how he thinks his mind works. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean that you understand yourself any better than the next person -- though you may think that you do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory was that Sherlock knows his limitations. His mind is working with logic and facts. But Jim is not logical. So, to understand Jim Sherlock has to leave the realm of logic. Which he thinks he can reach with drugs - setting the unconscious, the chaotic, the dark side of him free.

In Baskerville, under the influence of the gas, he has seen Jim. He saw him also deep in his own mind when he was on the threshold of death, but even then he is chained to the wall.

I had the impression (as I wrote before, sorry for repeating myself) that in TAB Jim is running free in Sherlock's inner world.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... Clavery's got it right ... the "deep into myself" bit doesn't make sense.

Maybe it's how Sherlock sees himself, how he thinks his mind works. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean that you understand yourself any better than the next person -- though you may think that you do.

 

 

Yeah, there's the "emotional intelligence" aspect that is lacking in Sherlock for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in HLV, Moriarty was chained in Sherlock's "dungeon," so perhaps part of that "going deep within myself" is exploring that depth where he keeps Moriarty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory was that Sherlock knows his limitations. His mind is working with logic and facts. But Jim is not logical. So, to understand Jim Sherlock has to leave the realm of logic. Which he thinks he can reach with drugs - setting the unconscious, the chaotic, the dark side of him free.

In Baskerville, under the influence of the gas, he has seen Jim. He saw him also deep in his own mind when he was on the threshold of death, but even then he is chained to the wall.

I had the impression (as I wrote before, sorry for repeating myself) that in TAB Jim is running free in Sherlock's inner world.

 

 

Well, in HLV, Moriarty was chained in Sherlock's "dungeon," so perhaps part of that "going deep within myself" is exploring that depth where he keeps Moriarty.

 

 

I guess I just don't see the need for Sherlock to do this (figure out anything emotional or psychological about Moriarity)  just to figure out why a video of Moriarity is being played on all of England's tv sets..... It seems like parallel lines, no?  I just feel like they presented psycho-social stuff to us but "in a fog" or "through a mirror darkly".   I'm distressed that I can't figure it out!  

 

and distressed that I can't figure out ANYTHING about what "exactly" Moriarity is going to do "next"!  Arugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

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.