Jump to content

What Did You Think Of "The Great Game?"  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote Here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off.
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
      0
    • 6/10 Average.
      0
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
      0
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
      0
    • 2/10 Bad.
      0
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

Posted

All hail King Scott, King of best facial expressions ever.

  • Like 3
Posted

That's because he was a psychopath in the truest sense of the word, with all the bipolar attributes.  Unlike Magnussen who was so in control at all times that he probably never raised his voice.

Posted

It's funny tho..... Jim was crazy and a criminal genius, and knew he was both. CAM just decided one day that he has a RIGHT to do whatever he wants, and for some reason to me that's worse.

  • Like 3
Posted

But CAM is calm.  Too calm.

  • Like 1
Posted

Moriarty was a snob too.  Let's not forget his "Westwood!"

  • Like 2
Posted

I think Magnussen and Moriarty are both true villains. The closest thing in real life would be someone with severe antisocial personality disorder.

Posted

Moriarty was a snob too. Let's not forget his "Westwood!"

That's so gaudy and practically broadcasted a noveau riche vibe. Compare it with Sherlock's daily attire (even when our consulting detective exhibit a Bohemian attitude of life). :p

Posted

Yes, lounging about often in his pyjamas and house coat.  Except when John's away, and then a sheet is all he needs.

Posted

Yes, lounging about often in his pyjamas and house coat.  Except when John's away, and then a sheet is all he needs.

 

And it doesn't matter if there is a client in the house at the time.

  • Like 2
Posted

No, Sherlock doesn't have any particular shame about his body - else he never would have gone to BP in the sheet and been willing to "just walk away."

  • Like 1
Posted

I wouldn't either if I had a body like that. :naughty:

  • Like 2
Posted

Yes, lounging about often in his pyjamas and house coat.  Except when John's away, and then a sheet is all he need

 

Exactly. Sherlock feels no need to flaunt his possessions while Jim choose to highlight, "Westwood" instead of simply saying something along the line of, "I hate to be dirty".

Posted

Why on earth would Sherlock go all the way to Belarus to hear a testimony from an inmate when if he'd been sent the information in the first place, he could have deduced it immediately.  Clearly he wasn't all that interested in what the guy had to say.  So he did it for... the money?

Posted

Because for some reason he couldn't get the information unless he went to Belarus? And he did it because he was bored. :p

  • Like 1
Posted

He's just sitting there the whole time like, "This is a complete waste of my time and besides that, this poor sod can't even speak his native tongue correctly."

Posted

Just yesterday I've read a post where the author states that through the grammar game Sherlock was playing with the convict, he found out the guy was prone to outbursts of aggression.

Still a little far journey for such a thing. Must be boredom. :)

  • Like 6
  • 1 month later...
Posted

So I know there has been some discussion regarding whether or not John should have turned in his firearm after retiring from service.  But regardless of that technicality, he didn't.

 

We don't know that Sherlock has a firearm, but I would assume NOT.  The pistol he shoots smiley with is John's gun.  To keep that gun in private possession, John would need a renewable 5-yr licence, and the residence where the firearm is located has to be inspected for safe storage of such firearm.  Also, if you are not the licence holder, you are technically not even supposed to touch the firearm.

 

For the U.K. to supposedly have such strict firearms regulations, as I have mentioned before, there is a lot of gun activity in Sherlock, not the least of which is that he shoots CAM with John's gun - which would probably damn Sherlock from ever being issued a private licence for a firearm.  

 

Sholto also carried a gun, but he may have been granted a licence for reasons of personal safety but "personal safety" is not considered a valid reason for issuing a licence.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Watching The Great Game now... I will never not laugh at Donovan's "Fishing!  Try fishing!"

  • Like 5
Posted

Just yesterday I've read a post where the author states that through the grammar game Sherlock was playing with the convict, he found out the guy was prone to outbursts of aggression.

 

Well, a lot have people have died inadvertently due to their murderer letting loose a lot of aggression on impulse -- that's why some people call for tighter gun control in the U.S., 'cause 1 out of 10 of citizens are prone to aggressive outbursts and have access to a gun.

  • Like 1
Posted

Yup. I've been in proximity to a couple of those and have been very grateful they did NOT have a gun.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

First thing about TGG after rewatching: I checked the supernova.

 

Yes, there was one discovered by a team of astronomers with someone with the name Van Buren.

BUT it was in 1992, not 1858. LINK

Plus it was not in the constellation of Orion, which I believe to see on the painting, but in the Great Bear.

 

Someone haven't made their Homework again! nunu.gif
 

While looking up I stumbled upon a post about the painting, which was the basis for the painting in TGG.

 

More tomorrow, a headache is distracting me.

  • Like 1
Posted

First thing about TGG after rewatching: I checked the supernova.

 

Yes, there was one discovered by a team of astronomers with someone with the name Van Buren.

BUT it was in 1992, not 1858. LINK

Plus it was not in the constellation of Orion, which I believe to see on the painting, but in the Great Bear.

 

Someone haven't made their Homework again! nunu.gif

 

If I'm reading that correctly, it wasn't even in our galaxy -- but rather in a distant galaxy in the direction of Ursa Major. So the supernova would not be visible to the naked eye. But I don't think it's a matter of failure to do homework. There were no naked-eye-visible supernovas at the time they needed, so they simply made one up.

 

While looking up I stumbled upon a post about the painting, which was the basis for the painting in TGG.

 

Thanks!

  • Like 1

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.

×
×
  • 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.