Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Arcadia]

So do you think that we were supposed to confuse the two women?  Do you think John was confusing them?  The scene would make more sense to me that way.

No, no, and to me too.

 

So what makes Moriarty assume that Claudette would confuse Cumberbatch's stunt double with Sherlock?  He lucked out, apparently, but seems just as likely to me that she'd see hardly any resemblance.

Maybe he wore something resembling The Coat?

 

I know what you're getting at; except for the way he's dressed, I don't think Tom looks anything like Sherlock. But apparently other people do. (Can you imagine the casting call for that role? "Wanted; 6 foot actors who look like Benedict Cumberbatch.")

[Carol the Dabbler]

For the ensuing analysis of Tom, please see this thread. 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Looking at the IMDb list of cast, it shows that Not-Anthea is in the episode (listed as uncredited) so I'm assuming she's the lady who takes John to see Irene. Otherwise Moftiss found an amazing double.

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, so you think Irene's messenger looks amazingly like not-Anthea, whereas I think -- umm, they're both very pretty women with dark hair.  Even their voices sound different to me.  But regardless of who's right, there are a lot of people holding each opinion, so I still say Moriarty would have been a fool to assume that Claudette would be fooled by any specific Holmes look-alike.

 

I've often wondered where IMDb gets their info on uncredited roles.  If it's not from the producers, then it's some kind of guesswork -- often correct, but perhaps not always.  Also, I believe that IMDb members (i.e., anyone who has registered) are able to modify the information, though I don't know if that ability extends to the cast lists (does anyone know for sure?).  A lot of fans believe it's not-Anthea in "Scandal," so perhaps a registered fan added that line?

 

Alex (my in-house expert on women) says they're definitely two different actresses, and therefore presumably two different characters.  And it would seem very odd to me that Mycroft would allow his employee to be hired away by Irene Adler, and then would take her back for "Empty Hearse."  (Yes, I know the UK is basically a free country -- but we're talking about Mycroft.)

 

Maybe someone can post screencaps of not-Anthea and the mystery woman?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I found a blog post with those screencaps.  Apparently Irene's messenger in "Scandal" is credited as "Beautiful Woman" and played by Thomasin Rand.  If that's accurate, then Scandal's not-Anthea credit for Lisa McAllister (though the photo on her IMDb page scarcely resembles not-Anthea!) was presumably added by a fan.

 

And here is a thread on another forum where Rosalind Halstead's Kate (Irene's assistant) is added to the confusion.

 

[Schlauer Fuchs]

Thanks for that link to the other forum, Carol. On those photos, Kate and Scanal's not-Anthea actually look somewhat alike (apart from the hair colour). But since they are portrayed by different actresses, they're surely not meant to be the same person (and John should have noticed).

And I totally agree that 'Anthea' (Mycroft's assistant) and the woman in Scandal who brings John to Irene don't look similar to each other at all. 'Anthea' is a bit of a Latino type while the "beautiful woman" is just completely different... I always wondered why John assumes it's Mycroft, but then I thought that the whole setting (woman + black car + an air of secrecy) must have reminded him of Mycroft. I never thought he mistook this woman for 'Anthea'.

[Carol the Dabbler]

After a bit of thought, I have a theory as to why so many people are confusing these women.

 

Some years back, I read about a study (which I think I've mentioned before) which showed that the type of face most people consider most beautiful was basically all the faces in the world morphed together.  In other words, the ultimate "beauty" is literally average, with no distinguishing characteristics.

 

Fortunately the main characters in Sherlock are all played by actors with attractive yet wonderfully distinctive faces.  However, I suspect that when these three minor characters were cast, the main criterion was non-individualized "beauty."  So yes, the three actresses do bear a certain resemblance to one another -- even though they don't particularly look alike to some of us.

 

[Boton]

After a bit of thought, I have a theory as to why so many people are confusing these women.

 

Some years back, I read about a study (which I think I've mentioned before) which showed that the type of face most people consider most beautiful was basically all the faces in the world morphed together.  In other words, the ultimate "beauty" is literally average, with no distinguishing characteristics.

 

Fortunately the main characters in Sherlock are all played by actors with attractive yet wonderfully distinctive faces.  However, I suspect that when these three minor characters were cast, the main criterion was non-individualized "beauty."  So yes, the three actresses do bear a certain resemblance to one another -- even though they don't particularly look alike to some of us.

 

That's an interesting study.  I'll bet you are right.  And further, I'll bet we get so accustomed to that as viewers that, for minor parts like these, we file those images away under the heading of "beautiful woman" or "beautiful dark-haired woman" or "beautiful dark-haired mysterious woman" or something that doesn't help us differentiate later.  I got not-Anthea and Irene's messenger confused on first viewing but afterwards, once I had the plot down, couldn't see how I had ever made such a mistake.

 

Your comment about the distinctive faces of our main actors reminds me of the disproportionate number of articles that somehow have "why is BC considered attractive?" as the hook.  The answer may well be, "because he's an aesthetically pleasing man who doesn't look anything like every other cookie cutter heartthrob out there."

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, thank God they didn't cast stereotypical "pretty boys" as Sherlock and John -- or Lestrade or Moriarty, et al.

 

[Arcadia]

Oooooh, I don't know ... that poster art for the original pilot ... maybe I've just grown so accustomed to the way BC looks that he doesn't seem quite as exotic to me as he once did. But he's a pretty smashing pretty boy in that photo, imo.... (down, girl...)

[T.o.b.y]

Oooooh, I don't know ... that poster art for the original pilot ... maybe I've just grown so accustomed to the way BC looks that he doesn't seem quite as exotic to me as he once did. But he's a pretty smashing pretty boy in that photo, imo.... (down, girl...)

 

You know, I don't like that poster at all. I much, much, much prefer the way Sherlock looks in the aired version, and the promotional pictures for that. I doubt that that poster would have drawn me in. Scared me away, more likely.

 

[Arcadia]

What can I say, I like 'em cute. Put little fuzzy bunny ears on him and I'll be in heaven. (KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

[T.o.b.y]

Ah, cute. Nope, I'm afraid I don't go much for cute, in men or women. Might explain why I think Irene Adler is pretty darn attractive. She's like the opposite of cute.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I have no idea, maybe the Dr. Who fans can answer that, they have more experience with it/them. Hey Who fans, does Moftiss ever offer a "why" for anything?

 

In the episodes I've seen in series 5, there hasn't been a need yet. Nothing has been so crazily contrived to drive us nuts. But part of that may be the sci-fi factor of it that Sherlock doesn't have.  The most recent episode I watched today in series 5 I almost expected the credits at 1 point which would have lead to a cliffhanger and me going "Moftiss?!?!?!"

[Arcadia]

 

I have no idea, maybe the Dr. Who fans can answer that, they have more experience with it/them. Hey Who fans, does Moftiss ever offer a "why" for anything?

In the episodes I've seen in series 5, there hasn't been a need yet. Nothing has been so crazily contrived to drive us nuts. But part of that may be the sci-fi factor of it that Sherlock doesn't have. The most recent episode I watched today in series 5 I almost expected the credits at 1 point which would have lead to a cliffhanger and me going "Moftiss?!?!?!"

 

That's a good point -- if Sherlock were sci fi, would I be so determined to make sense of it?

 

Mmmmmm -- yeah, I probably would, because I like to let people torture me that way, evidently....

[Boton]

 

Oooooh, I don't know ... that poster art for the original pilot ... maybe I've just grown so accustomed to the way BC looks that he doesn't seem quite as exotic to me as he once did. But he's a pretty smashing pretty boy in that photo, imo.... (down, girl...)

 

You know, I don't like that poster at all. I much, much, much prefer the way Sherlock looks in the aired version, and the promotional pictures for that. I doubt that that poster would have drawn me in. Scared me away, more likely.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I love that poster art either.  It's an evocative photo of both leads, for sure, but I do like BC's hair better in the series as broadcast -- I think it was a wise decision to give him a less controlled hairstyle to better convey the fact that this is a young and still relatively untamed Sherlock Holmes.

 

Then again, if either of them showed up on my front door step looking like the do in that poster and wanting dinner, I'd still invite them in.  

[SherlockedCAMPer]

That poster art reminds me more of a Sherlock does sci-fi/fantasy with how the lighting hits Benedict's eyes.  There's something about the way they do his hair for the show that screams more of the mystery/crime drama that we love.  And it also seems to fit better with his interaction with The Woman.  His look for the poster would almost make her look older than him by a few years.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, thank God they didn't cast stereotypical "pretty boys" as Sherlock and John -- or Lestrade or Moriarty, et al.

Oooooh, I don't know ... that poster art for the original pilot ... maybe I've just grown so accustomed to the way BC looks that he doesn't seem quite as exotic to me as he once did. But he's a pretty smashing pretty boy in that photo, imo.... (down, girl...)

 

Hey, I didn't say they aren't -- uh, good looking!  Just not stereotypically so.

 

[sittything]

Oooooh, I don't know ... that poster art for the original pilot ... maybe I've just grown so accustomed to the way BC looks that he doesn't seem quite as exotic to me as he once did. But he's a pretty smashing pretty boy in that photo, imo.... (down, girl...)

 

Oooohhh, no, no, no.  Hair is so much better as the curly, floppy mess.  I feel like it adds to the overall vibe of his walking the fine line between something... sanity?  control?  something.  I feel like it sets him apart visually, makes him less like the "others."

 

 

I have no idea, maybe the Dr. Who fans can answer that, they have more experience with it/them. Hey Who fans, does Moftiss ever offer a "why" for anything?

 

In the episodes I've seen in series 5, there hasn't been a need yet. Nothing has been so crazily contrived to drive us nuts. But part of that may be the sci-fi factor of it that Sherlock doesn't have.  The most recent episode I watched today in series 5 I almost expected the credits at 1 point which would have lead to a cliffhanger and me going "Moftiss?!?!?!"

 

 

I'm only on series 4, but the thing that stands out to me with Doctor Who is that I don't really look for rationale or "why" in them. I tend to take them at face value.  I don't know if that's b/c it can be campy and hokey?  Or maybe b/c a lot of the episodes are fairly self-contained and don't require continuity with other episodes? 

 

I don't even think it's a sci-fi specific thing.  I could write you a novel on The X-Files and all of the inconsistencies over the episodes/seasons, as well as an endless list of unanswered questions. Same with Lost.   Does Lost count as sci-fi?  Lost was the king of the mountain as far as unanswered questions go.

[Arcadia]

You know, I don't like that poster at all....

I'm not sure I love that poster art either.....

That poster art reminds me more of a Sherlock does sci-fi/fantasy ....

Oooohhh, no, no, no....

WHAT!?!?!?!??!? You people have no taste. Fine, fine, fine .... Carol and I will take them in and nuture the poor rebuffed, overlooked, neglected little things, just you wait and see what they grow into.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I didn't say it wasn't good. It just reminded me of sci-fi/fantasy like Sherlock was going to turn into a werewolf or vampire. It's the lighting as it hits his eyes. The overall shot is rather cool, just Sherlock looks better with the hair style they used.

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

The look in Sherlock's eyes reminds me just a bit of "Sign of Three," when he says, "Let's play murder."

 

[Arcadia]

The look in Sherlock's eyes reminds me just a bit of "Sign of Three," when he says, "Let's play murder."

Ah, that may explain it; I LOVE that look! It's so weird and yet perfect for the moment at the same time. Love it, love it. (I don't acutally see it up there, though. I just like his youthfulness, I'm drawn to the idea of a barely adult Sherlock; and it fits better with his immature behavior in the first season, frankly.)

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Now I need to rewatch TSOT and try remember this pic at that point.

[Arcadia]

It's just a snip, but it's worth it. It's shortly after he jumps over the table.