Episode 4.2 "The Lying Detective"

[sherlockandjohn]

Love that photo, Arcadia! Seems to express a lot of emotion. The three men are very serious. John looks deeply worried. Sherlock's got a more soft expression, but still solemn. Mycroft seems to be explaining something troubling.

[BLS_Pro]

Yep! He's a bad one ;) This episode made me like him less, just for him "supporting" Sherlock's drug use, even though I know it was part of Sherlock's plan to save John. I love Sherlock for his dedication to his friend, but it's still really difficult to watch him do this to himself. Not that I care if I like Wiggins or not

I had no problem with Wiggins because his presence is used to show that Sherlock is being VERY controlled in his drug use. It was one of the indicators to me that his behavior was part of an overall plan rather than just a descent into drug madness.

[J.P.]

What is the thing with tea/coffee code?

 

I think Sherlock is trying to downplay the fact that his friends have to stay with him all the time, to keep him from relapse.

BTW, this means that he and Molly had a lot time spent together. Hmmm...

[Fantasy Lover]

[Inge l-w]

Oh, the tea and coffee metaphors have been explained by Rebecca over at the TJLC YouTube enough. There is also food ads metaphor explained. Really fun to watch, even if you would rather stick to ACD Holmes, above the carnal sphere.

Dear J.P. , thanks ever so much for your thoughtful posting of the Mail review. Although it's a tabloid, the criticism was absolutely spot on! The series has become self-indulgent to the point of incomprehension, and it's bound to get worse if they do a fifth one! The downward spiral started with S3, and there is no end to the antics Moftiss will make the titular character go through or what hoops he will have to jump through either!

[Arcadia]

This should answer the question

 

 

But that date wasn't a Thursday either. ;)

 

One of the things I love about Mary's role in this episode (there aren't that many) is the moment when she says, "Christ, John. Stay. Talk!" because it shows that John is having an inner battle with himself.

I was a little put off by the inclusion of Mary at first, but by the end of the episode I was really glad they did. A, we finally got to see what about John & Mary's relationship worked, instead of all the dysfunctional bits; B, I think it really honored her loss in a way that the first episode didn't. Love her or hate her, she deserved to be more than a plot twist, and I think this episode did that for her. Bravo.

 

There's a little exchange in Baker St. that I'm wondering about:

John: "That's why we're all taking turns to keep you off the sweeties."

Sherlock: "I thought we were just hanging out." (Followed by a sort of sly or knowing smile)

 

What do you make of that? Is Sherlock trying to relieve the tension by making a joke? Trying to get John to talk? Or am I reading too much into it?

 

I agree with JP, I think Sherlock was just trying to lighten the mood, but at the same time indicating he'd like it if John would stay, without putting too much pressure on him to do so. So much for the high functioning sociopath .....

 

 

 

What is the thing with tea/coffee code?

 

I think Sherlock is trying to downplay the fact that his friends have to stay with him all the time, to keep him from relapse.

BTW, this means that he and Molly had a lot time spent together. Hmmm...

 

I thought of that too, I'm amazed there hasn't been a thousand fanfics yet. Or maybe there have, I haven't checked since yesterday. Of course, John encouraging Sherlock to get it on with Irene may have put a damper on that idea for some people.

 

The tea/coffee is the TJLC thing, remember? Sherlock must be gay because he drinks tea?

 

It's also ironic, because "tea" is (or used to be?) slang for marijuana. Either way, Wiggins is suggesting Sherlock might be looking for "something stronger".

 

I suspect most homosexuals would be shocked to learn that being gay makes them British. :D

 

 

 

[J.P.]

Oh, okay, thanks. That cup of coffe confused me :P

[sherlockandjohn]

Just been listening to the soundtrack for TLD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDslKapoVk0&t=1501s

 

Beautiful!

[sherlockandjohn]

 

One of the things I love about Mary's role in this episode (there aren't that many) is the moment when she says, "Christ, John. Stay. Talk!" because it shows that John is having an inner battle with himself.

I was a little put off by the inclusion of Mary at first, but by the end of the episode I was really glad they did. A, we finally got to see what about John & Mary's relationship worked, instead of all the dysfunctional bits; B, I think it really honored her loss in a way that the first episode didn't. Love her or hate her, she deserved to be more than a plot twist, and I think this episode did that for her. Bravo.

 

Excellent points about Mary and John's relationship and Mary's character. I think I like Mary's role in this episode better from this perspective.

 

 

 

There's a little exchange in Baker St. that I'm wondering about:

John: "That's why we're all taking turns to keep you off the sweeties."

Sherlock: "I thought we were just hanging out." (Followed by a sort of sly or knowing smile)

 

What do you make of that? Is Sherlock trying to relieve the tension by making a joke? Trying to get John to talk? Or am I reading too much into it?

 

I agree with JP, I think Sherlock was just trying to lighten the mood, but at the same time indicating he'd like it if John would stay, without putting too much pressure on him to do so. So much for the high functioning sociopath .....

 

That makes sense. I think Sherlock is so wonderfully transparent, yet subdued in this entire scene in Baker Street. Though I prefer discussing things in-universe (in order to maintain the feeling of these characters being real), I have to give credit to BC again for what a brilliant actor he is!

 

[Arcadia]

Yes, he really nailed it in this one. They all did. Which makes T6T even more confusing ... half the time Sherlock seemed out of character in that one. Can't figure out why these two episodes are soooooooo different .....

[J.P.]

Director. And a bit of the writer, I'm afraid.

[bedelia1984]

Sorry to agree as I really wanted the first female director to be brilliant. It reminded me a bit of The Blind Banker, which also had a lot of screentime devoted to aspects I didn't find that interesting.

[BLS_Pro]

Sorry to agree as I really wanted the first female director to be brilliant. It reminded me a bit of The Blind Banker, which also had a lot of screentime devoted to aspects I didn't find that interesting.

Given that there is a common denominator between the two episodes that is not the director, I'm more than willing to place a lot of the blame elsewhere.

 

Director. And a bit of the writer, I'm afraid.

I'd reverse that statement

[Arcadia]

Yes, there were a lot of weaknesses in the script, but that doesn't explain why the show looked so different. That, I'm afraid, I have to lay on the director. It's easier to forgive story problems, imo, if the production looks good. But it didn't.
 
I actually have very little problem with the plot of T6T. I found Mary's dying speech dreadfully trite, and I absolutely loathed Sherlock's behavior in the beginning. In between, nothing sticks in my mind, either good or bad. But visually, the entire episode felt ... cheap. It's a really weird decision to make, I just don't get it.
 
I must say, it makes TLD look brilliant by comparison. I wonder if I would like it as well if I didn't dislike T6T so much? Probably; it hits on all sort of themes that I love, and Sherlock is just fabulous in it, in spite of the drugs.

[BLS_Pro]

Yes, there were a lot of weaknesses in the script, but that doesn't explain why the show looked so different. That, I'm afraid, I have to lay on the director. It's easier to forgive story problems, imo, if the production looks good. But it didn't.

 

I actually have very little problem with the plot of T6T. I found Mary's dying speech dreadfully trite, and I absolutely loathed Sherlock's behavior in the beginning. In between, nothing sticks in my mind, either good or bad. But visually, the entire episode felt ... cheap. It's a really weird decision to make, I just don't get it.

 

I must say, it makes TLD look brilliant by comparison. I wonder if I would like it as well if I didn't dislike T6T so much? Probably; it hits on all sort of themes that I love, and Sherlock is just fabulous in it, in spite of the drugs.

 

Actually, when it comes to the look of a television show, the director can ONLY do what the show runner allows.  Television is not like a motion picture.  The director, while having much creative control, is not 'architect' of an episode the same way a movie director is the architect' of a movie (usually - Marvel and franchises in general are an obvious exception, but that is for precisely the same reason).  It is exactly because a show requires a sense of continuity that someone other than the director is essentially in charge.  That person is generally the show runner.  They have the first and final say on how anything will be shot (it always helps when the show runner is the creator of the show). 

 

And I guarantee you that the SCRIPT is why the show looked different in its many ways.  It is the script which says cut to shark, fade to blue water which will be our motif and have a voice over etc etc.  I believe our director was chosen for this particular script because the way it was written is closer to her style.  Thus if you have an issue of continuity between scripts/episodes, the director is not to be blamed.  The show runner and writer are to be blamed.

 

In this case, Gatiss.

 

As to me, my problem with T6T was with the plotting, the characterization, and the themes.  You'd have to be more specific about what "visuals" you are referencing which felt "cheap" to you.  Can you provide an example?  (What might be interesting is, when you think of an example, consider how you think TLD's director could have supposedly made it 'better' - but without changing any dialogue, action, or scripted direction.  I suspect you might discover what you dislike isn't something TLD's director could have improved given the explicit script limitations.)

[Surelock]

Gatiss also wrote The Hound of Baskerville which I thought had a pretty good script. What did you guys think of it?

Also have you guys heard of that theory on reddit of Redbeard not being real?

 

It's based on what Sherlock tells Henry about the hound at the end of The Hound of Baskerville. Sherlock said that there was no hound and Henry just imagined it because when he was a child he had trouble rationalising the traumatic experience of watching his father die.

 

Some people have speculated that Sherlock is subconsciously speaking from experience when he said that. Basically when Sherlock was a kid he saw Euros go insane and watched as she was taken away and locked up in a mental asylum or something like that. Sherlock had trouble understanding all this when he was a kid so his brain rationalised all of it as Redbeard. Basically Sherlock thought he had a dog named Redbeard instead of a sister named Euros and Redbeard being put down was actually Euros being taken away after going insane.

This sounds like a plausible theory. What do you guys think of it?

[sherlockandjohn]

Gatiss also wrote The Hound of Baskerville which I thought had a pretty good script. What did you guys think of it?

 

Love it! Love the plot, the humor, Sherlock's character development.

[bedelia1984]

 

Actually, when it comes to the look of a television show, the director can ONLY do what the show runner allows.  Television is not like a motion picture.  The director, while having much creative control, is not 'architect' of an episode the same way a movie director is the architect' of a movie (usually - Marvel and franchises in general are an obvious exception, but that is for precisely the same reason).  It is exactly because a show requires a sense of continuity that someone other than the director is essentially in charge.  That person is generally the show runner.  They have the first and final say on how anything will be shot (it always helps when the show runner is the creator of the show). 

 

And I guarantee you that the SCRIPT is why the show looked different in its many ways.  It is the script which says cut to shark, fade to blue water which will be our motif and have a voice over etc etc.  I believe our director was chosen for this particular script because the way it was written is closer to her style.  Thus if you have an issue of continuity between scripts/episodes, the director is not to be blamed.  The show runner and writer are to be blamed.

 

In this case, Gatiss.

 

As to me, my problem with T6T was with the plotting, the characterization, and the themes.  You'd have to be more specific about what "visuals" you are referencing which felt "cheap" to you.  Can you provide an example?  (What might be interesting is, when you think of an example, consider how you think TLD's director could have supposedly made it 'better' - but without changing any dialogue, action, or scripted direction.  I suspect you might discover what you dislike isn't something TLD's director could have improved given the explicit script limitations.)

 

 

I do agree the writing is playing a role in the problems. Gatiss is a bit of a hero to me, so it is hard to be objective. The thing about his take on Sherlock is that it is often a little bit more wacky than Moffat's. Some of his ideas have roots in comedy (e.g the Thatcher heads) and sci fi (parts of Baskervilles), and that brings a totally unique quality to Sherlock which makes the show what it is. I had moments during Baskervilles where I was thinking, this is straying too far outside the genre, much like in T6T, but I still loved THOTB . Partly perhaps as it was a second episode, so we were already in comfortable Sherlock territory with the first one.

 

It isn't right to only blame the director- and of course different teams have a different chemistry. Then also, Gatiss got landed with the worst plot point of the season so far, IMO- Mary's Death, so that was there to tackle too.

 

Gatiss also wrote The Hound of Baskerville which I thought had a pretty good script. What did you guys think of it?

 

Also have you guys heard of that theory on reddit of Redbeard not being real?

 

It's based on what Sherlock tells Henry about the hound at the end of The Hound of Baskerville. Sherlock said that there was no hound and Henry just imagined it because when he was a child he had trouble rationalising the traumatic experience of watching his father die.

 

Some people have speculated that Sherlock is subconsciously speaking from experience when he said that. Basically when Sherlock was a kid he saw Euros go insane and watched as she was taken away and locked up in a mental asylum or something like that. Sherlock had trouble understanding all this when he was a kid so his brain rationalised all of it as Redbeard. Basically Sherlock thought he had a dog named Redbeard instead of a sister named Euros and Redbeard being put down was actually Euros being taken away after going insane.

 

This sounds like a plausible theory. What do you guys think of it?

 

As above, very much agree on THOB.

 

Great theory on Redbeard, and it is a pirate's name too, reference to childhood games perhaps? If this is the case, though, it could drive a wedge between Mycroft and Sherlock, if Sherlock has been lied to and learns the truth. Especially if Eurus doesn't make it through the episode and he loses her again so soon.

 

About John in the trailer, is there any chance that John disappears (kidnapped by Eurus) and it is mind palace John helping Sherlock to find him? I don't think they would ever kill John, but they have taken a lot of liberties with the mindpalace people already this time around.

[Pseudonym]

It's possible he's kidnapped for a while, but in the dodgy looking explosion it's likely him, though that's probably near the end of the episode. 

 

I have to admit I'm not crazy about the idea of John as a single father. The fact we didn't see Rosie at all in this episode seems to suggest it's just going to be something kept aside from the main plot, but I'm just thinking if there is another season at some point in the distant future that's always going to be a dynamic that comes into play. I can't see John ever moving back into Baker Street when he has a daughter to take care of (and keep away from dodgy experiments) and whilst I don't want John in Baker Street anytime soon I would have liked it eventually. I just think if the series comes back in five years? Ten years? Hell, fifteen and we have a teenage Rosie, it's going to be a bit more tricky to shunt her aside than it might be with a baby. 

[Inge l-w]

It is a step in the right direction to have all major dailies criticising the latest fanciful flight of imagination of the creative duo, as well as the directing, because it will give them food for thought before unleashing another self-indulgent series like this one and S3 and TAB on the general public. This is their version of Sherlock Holmes, and I hope they come to their senses in the time between this series and the possible next one!

We're fans, so we're sheep led to the slaughter of our favourite detective of all time, buy the DVDs, download paid content etc. but the occasional viewer will not be so easily attracted to either S3 or S4, and a good thing it is, too!

[jadpdr]

This whole season seems off to me! Sherlock not functioning properly, in both episodes, Dr Watson behaving in mysteriously inexcusable ways, the ghost of Mary in TLD, for Heaven's sakes, trying to get her husband to behave normally. Nope, like Sherlock in TST, if this is an elaborate joke, I don't get it!

[J.P.]

I think John's behaviour is one of the things we've looked at but didn't see. More about it later.

 

Inge, how you receive S3 depends on what you like in stories and how your established opinion about SH (if there is any) fits or not fits into what Mofftiss do.

 

A question:

Did you notice that Mary (and I think someone else, but don‘t remember now) sometimes mimics Jim? Making faces like him in the limousine, or even using his words: attaboy! There was more I think, i had several little WTF moments about it.

 

There is no way John would know what exactly happened on Bart‘s roof.

[kimber8ada]

In regards to Redbeard, could it be a metaphor for Eurus? I know we've seen Redbeard in Sherlock's mind palace, but what if it is a name from their childhood game of pirates, with Sherlock being Blackbeard and the sister being Redbeard?

[Pseudonym]

Were there any other phrases you can think of or was it just attaboy? If it was just the one overlap I wouldn't think it was too weird. 

 

When people are referring to Mary's ghost, no one is thinking she's actually meant to be a ghost right?

 

I hope Redbeard isn't a stand in for Euros, that would be so cheesy :(

[Arcadia]

Actually, when it comes to the look of a television show, the director can ONLY do what the show runner allows.  Television is not like a motion picture.  The director, while having much creative control, is not 'architect' of an episode the same way a movie director is the architect' of a movie (usually - Marvel and franchises in general are an obvious exception, but that is for precisely the same reason).  It is exactly because a show requires a sense of continuity that someone other than the director is essentially in charge.  That person is generally the show runner.  They have the first and final say on how anything will be shot (it always helps when the show runner is the creator of the show). 

 

And I guarantee you that the SCRIPT is why the show looked different in its many ways.  It is the script which says cut to shark, fade to blue water which will be our motif and have a voice over etc etc.  I believe our director was chosen for this particular script because the way it was written is closer to her style.  Thus if you have an issue of continuity between scripts/episodes, the director is not to be blamed.  The show runner and writer are to be blamed.

 

In this case, Gatiss.

 

As to me, my problem with T6T was with the plotting, the characterization, and the themes.  You'd have to be more specific about what "visuals" you are referencing which felt "cheap" to you.  Can you provide an example?  (What might be interesting is, when you think of an example, consider how you think TLD's director could have supposedly made it 'better' - but without changing any dialogue, action, or scripted direction.  I suspect you might discover what you dislike isn't something TLD's director could have improved given the explicit script limitations.)

Let's see if I can remember some of the things that bothered me.

 

1. The pool fight. There were parts of it that were shot from so far away, and in the dark, that you couldn' tell who was doing what to whom. At one point I couldn't see which one was being pushed under water, Sherlock or Ajay, until they switched to a close up.

 

Compare that to ... oh, the scene in TBB where Sherlock shows up to rescue John and Sarah. It's in the dark, you see Sherlock from far away,  ... but you know it's him and where he is because the director makes a point of showing his iconic silhouette. When he moves forward at a run, you can barely see a thing, but you still know exactly what he's doing because of the camera angle, the sound effects, the reaction shots, etc. That doesn't happen by accident, it's a choice.

 

2. 221B. It looked like a set, not like I remembered it at all. The colors were desaturated and the space looked ... well, just fake. You could tell it wasn't in a real house, there was no sense of where it was located in the building. No shots out the window, no pans across the passageways. When they come down the stairs, the camera is simply relocated from the top to the bottom of the stairs. How many other episodes have we seen the camera travelling up and down the stairs with them? It's a signature image! Yet here we just get a standard transition shot, and it's obvious there's no 2nd flight above the landing.

 

Maybe this was an attempt to signal something was wrong with 221B, but what? And why? They didn't follow through on it in the 2nd episode, where 221B was back to looking like it always does (if a bit messier.)

3. Sherlock's appearance. I couldn't believe for a second that this took place immediately after HLV. He looked tanned and almost plump (for him). That's a makeup and lighting issue, I can't fathom why no one involved picked up on it and said something. They pulled off the right appearance for him in the plane scenes in TAB, and he looks like the same old Sherlock in TLD (if a bit messier. ) I know a lot of people are involved in this aspect, but between them, the director and the show runner should have noticed that things were off. Unless they made a conscious decision to make this episode look different from the others ... but why? So far it's served no story purpose, and just makes T6T look like ... a mistake.

 

4. This show is known for its visual inventiveness; it's won awards for it. Look at the scene in TLD where we first meet Culverton Smith; it's a masterpiece of shattered reflections, unsettling angles ... and oh, those beautiful rich darks! Yum. You know there's something off about the man the moment you clap eyes on him, before you even really see him. And it's carried throughout the episode; he's repeatedly flickering through scenes, as if the shattered reflections were rippling across all the other scenes. It's not in the script, it's sheer inventiveness on the part of the crew, under the direction of the, er, director. And these kind of effects are one of the signatures of this show. Yet I don't remember anything like it in T6T, except for a few murky water effects that never had any bearing on the story. It could have been used as a sort of premonition, to signal the location of the finale; but the water effects didn't evoke the aquarium at all, they were just stock water effects. IMO, of course; I don't know if such a thing actually exists. But that was my reaction to the water effects; they were lifted out of a tool box somewhere and imposed onto scenes in an attempt to provide atmosphere, but they were not an organic part of the story.

 

5. The finale in the aquarium is almost completely static. Sherlock just stands there, he doesn't pace about making deductions, the camera hardly moves. Mary runs in and simply stops next to him, neither she nor Sherlock interact with their environment. There's some nice shots of Vivien against the fish tank, but that's about it. And don't get me started on the staging of Mary's death. Although I agree the script was by far the biggest problem there; cliché upon cliché. But a better director, imo, would have made it look more interesting, which would have helped mask the cliché. 

 

I could go on all day, but hopefully you get the idea. I'm probably not explaining this very well anyway, because I don't have the proper lingo or filmmaking background for a really accurate description. I'm just talking about my gut response, which was ... the whole episode looked cheap. Ordinary. Unimaginative. And that's just not our Sherlock.

 

Argggh, sorry! I don't mean to be so harsh! There were some good points too; especially the gag of Mary doing all that travelling, only to find Sherlock sitting waiting for her at her destination. That whole travel sequence was well visualized, and the denouement was both unexpected and funny. So kudos to both the director and the writer for that one. But overall ... sorry, but definitely my least favorite episode, and it's mostly due to the way it looks, not the way it's written. IMO.