Episode 2.2 ,"The Hounds Of Baskerville"

[Van Buren Supernova]

where a person has a rare carcino-repellant gene,

Carcino repellant might not be a fiction anymore, not the same but similar, I believe there are already some research to study Naked Mole Rat closely to learn about the secret of that cancer-free rodent that might benefit to human.

 

(As long as it doesn't go wrong and create undesirable mutation!)

 

I really enjoyed the sequence where, after Sherlock and John have had a typical 'guy' tiff, Sherlock texts John asking him to talk to Dr. Mortimer. It was such a guy thing, his sending John a photo of the woman, knowing John will be tempted. It sort of underscores the friendship, without any sentimentality

Exactly. I love how Sherlock understand John's persuassion point here.

 

Towards the end, I didn't get why did Dr. Frankland came to Dewer’s Hollow all? And he who had been working at Baskerville for the past over20 years should of all people be the last one to be so careless as to step on a landmine. Why would he come to Dewer’s Hollow if not with a plan in mind, and how could that plan not take into account some safe getaway route for himself? It was too pat an ending, far less forgivable in Sherlock than in your average TV show/thriller movie.

I have the distinct feeling that as the series progresses the plotlines are getting thinner and less credible.

I might get it wrong, for me, Frankland kept trying to make sure that Henry was 'insane'. I think it was mentioned at the end that Henry was fogged everytime he visited the Hollow. Although there is a possibility that the chemical was always there, Frankland probably wanted to make sure. Afterall, it's getting very serious that Sherlock Holmes was interested.

 

About the minefield, I think it gave him advantage, it helped drive people off that area. He was running away from Sherlock, on the rush, disorientated and somewhat exposed to the chemical too, it's very possible that he accidentally stepped on it eventhough he knew the area well.

[Carol the Dabbler]

When Frankland realizes that he's stepped on a land mine, he could choose to hold very still and yell for the bomb squad (surely they have one at Baskerville!), but instead he makes the deliberate decision to lift his foot, thus detonating the land mine.

 

Bearing that in mind, I think it's even possible that he (consciously or subconsciously) headed that way on purpose in the first place -- though it's also possible that, as Van Buren says, he was merely disoriented.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I wonder how the other people started to call the monster a hound, did they have that name from Henry?

 

I've been thinking more about this, and am starting to wonder why Sherlock thought it was odd in the first place.  Henry is a rural landowner, and as such would likely be aware of hunting terminology.  I'm not a hunter, nor from a hunting family, but I know that certain types of dogs (mostly hunting breeds) are called hounds, and I've been known to refer to them as such myself, even when I didn't know the specific breed.

[Arcadia]

I actually think (without knowledge as well) the other way around, that reality is crazier than movie.

Human beings are curious and given some power and opportunities, I don't see why someone with shaky moral wouldn't try something funny, although I really really hope there are no other Joseph Mengele, but then again, history always repeats itself. As intelligent species, human still never learn.

John Watson now and one hundred years ago still a war veteran from Afganistan.

True, true. Okay, you've convinced me!

 

 

Towards the end, I didn't get why did Dr. Frankland came to Dewer’s Hollow all? And he who had been working at Baskerville for the past over20 years should of all people be the last one to be so careless as to step on a landmine. Why would he come to Dewer’s Hollow if not with a plan in mind, and how could that plan not take into account some safe getaway route for himself? It was too pat an ending, far less forgivable in Sherlock than in your average TV show/thriller movie.

I have the distinct feeling that as the series progresses the plotlines are getting thinner and less credible.

About the minefield, I think it gave him advantage, it helped drive people off that area. He was running away from Sherlock, on the rush, disorientated and somewhat exposed to the chemical too, it's very possible that he accidentally stepped on it eventhough he knew the area well.

 

I think it's even possible that he (consciously or subconsciously) headed that way on purpose in the first place -- though it's also possible that, as Van Buren says, he was merely disoriented.

I'm such a clod, it never occurred to me to wonder why Frankland came to the hollow! :facepalm: But for some reason, I've always thought he went into the minefield deliberately, hoping it would deter his pursuers. Otherwise, why leave the woods, where it was easier to hide, in favor of running across an open field.

 

I'm so sleeepy right now I'm not even sure I'm making sense. 'Night, all!

[Boswell]

Assuming Dr. Frankland had been tailing Henry the whole time and knew precisely when Henry would reach the Hollow even though Henry was basically out of his mind at that point and was simply running wild as it were, Dr. F was practically giving himself up by coming to the Hollow when he knew Holmes & Watson would be there too. Surest way of admitting his guilt. 

There was no evidence that Dr. Frankland had murdered Henry's father, it was just a theory that Holmes had formed and which Dr. Frankland could very well deny if confronted, while continuing to 'worry' about Henry which shouldnt be difficult to do after 30 years' practice. It would only confuse Henry further because it was one new theory vs 30 years of 'avuncular concern' i.e. brainwashing. He's more likely to simply go crazier wondering whom he should trust.

Not convinced, although very willing to be persuaded. 

 

Another thing I didnt catch - who was it that played with the lights on Henry's lawn?

[J.P.]

The lights looked to me like attached to a motion sensor, which could be set off by some small animal. I can imagine Henry had the lights installed out of the fear something could sneak up his house. But instead the flashes triggered his paranoia.

 

One more thing: the CGI hound looks a bit like Henry's drawing from the TV program.

[Arcadia]

 

Assuming Dr. Frankland had been tailing Henry the whole time and knew precisely when Henry would reach the Hollow even though Henry was basically out of his mind at that point and was simply running wild as it were, Dr. F was practically giving himself up by coming to the Hollow when he knew Holmes & Watson would be there too. Surest way of admitting his guilt. 

There was no evidence that Dr. Frankland had murdered Henry's father, it was just a theory that Holmes had formed and which Dr. Frankland could very well deny if confronted, while continuing to 'worry' about Henry which shouldnt be difficult to do after 30 years' practice. It would only confuse Henry further because it was one new theory vs 30 years of 'avuncular concern' i.e. brainwashing. He's more likely to simply go crazier wondering whom he should trust.

Not convinced, although very willing to be persuaded. 

 

Another thing I didnt catch - who was it that played with the lights on Henry's lawn?

 

Not saying you're not right, but let me have a go .... if Frankland was following Henry, how would he have known Sherlock & Co. would show up at the same moment?

 

Or ... what if you assume Frankland wasn't following Henry, he just picked a bad time to visit the Hollow himself? (I know, too much coinkydink!)

 

Agree with JP on the lights... motion sensors. Don't all rich people's homes come equipped with them? :D

[Van Buren Supernova]

At first I thought it was activated by the guys from the inn, to make him crazy. But then again, it seems like they are not that evil and Frankland has more motivation to do so.

 

Motion sensor, possible, but I would think Henry would know or the motion sensor sensitivity had been adjusted. Otherwise, it would be flashing every night and lose its purpose.

 

Rich's people home, I don't know..the only time I remember seeing one is in I Am Legend, to fend of mutant. XD that's another story.

 

Anyway, curiosity about genetic experiment made me google 'unethical genetic experiments' and 'chimera'. The results are not pretty.

[Boswell]

 

 

Assuming Dr. Frankland had been tailing Henry the whole time and knew precisely when Henry would reach the Hollow even though Henry was basically out of his mind at that point and was simply running wild as it were, Dr. F was practically giving himself up by coming to the Hollow when he knew Holmes & Watson would be there too. Surest way of admitting his guilt. 

There was no evidence that Dr. Frankland had murdered Henry's father, it was just a theory that Holmes had formed and which Dr. Frankland could very well deny if confronted, while continuing to 'worry' about Henry which shouldnt be difficult to do after 30 years' practice. It would only confuse Henry further because it was one new theory vs 30 years of 'avuncular concern' i.e. brainwashing. He's more likely to simply go crazier wondering whom he should trust.

Not convinced, although very willing to be persuaded. 

 

Another thing I didnt catch - who was it that played with the lights on Henry's lawn?

 

Not saying you're not right, but let me have a go .... if Frankland was following Henry, how would he have known Sherlock & Co. would show up at the same moment?

 

Or ... what if you assume Frankland wasn't following Henry, he just picked a bad time to visit the Hollow himself? (I know, too much coinkydink!)

 

Agree with JP on the lights... motion sensors. Don't all rich people's homes come equipped with them? :D

 

Hmm..no Dr. F wouldn't know Sherlock and the others would be there too, would he, since it was a deduction of Sherlock's that Henry would probably rush to the Hollow...it wasnt as if there were with Henry all that time..yes, that's right.

And yet it is not clear why Dr F did go there at all?  Probably need to rewatch

[Van Buren Supernova]

Another thought about the episode:

Why Sherlock didn't show more reactions when John explained to him that the innkeepers couldn't bring themselves to put down the dog.

In fact, it seemed like it took a while before he asked,"Sentiment?"

 

Remember Redbeard?

[Arcadia]

At first I thought it was activated by the guys from the inn, to make him crazy. But then again, it seems like they are not that evil and Frankland has more motivation to do so.

 

Motion sensor, possible, but I would think Henry would know or the motion sensor sensitivity had been adjusted. Otherwise, it would be flashing every night and lose its purpose.

 

Rich's people home, I don't know..the only time I remember seeing one is in I Am Legend, to fend of mutant. XD that's another story.

 

Anyway, curiosity about genetic experiment made me google 'unethical genetic experiments' and 'chimera'. The results are not pretty.

Well, my thinking was, Frankland was out there deliberately tripping the sensors and making shadows, to increase Henry's paranoia. He picked that night because he knew Sherlock was in town, and needed to destroy Henry's mind before Sherlock learned anything useful from him. Something like that.

 

Now of course I am going to have to google 'unethical genetic experiments' too .... 

 

And yet it is not clear why Dr F did go there at all?  Probably need to rewatch

So that Sherlock could catch him and expose him to Henry in a dramatic manner! :D

 

Maybe he was following Henry, or heard what happened and guessed Henry would run to the Hollow? Then he followed so as to pull more tricks and make Henry even crazier? I've always assumed something like the latter without really thinking about it. (I'm the perfect audience for this kind of show, I never think about plot holes until someone else points them out. :D )

 

Another thought about the episode:

Why Sherlock didn't show more reactions when John explained to him that the innkeepers couldn't bring themselves to put down the dog.

In fact, it seemed like it took a while before he asked,"Sentiment?"

 

Remember Redbeard?

Alas, I'm afraid the answer is probably that Redbeard didn't exist when the "sentiment" dialog was written.

 

But I'm open to an "in-story" explanation!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Well, my thinking was, Frankland was out there deliberately tripping the sensors and making shadows, to increase Henry's paranoia. He picked that night because he knew Sherlock was in town, and needed to destroy Henry's mind before Sherlock learned anything useful from him. Something like that.

 ...

Maybe he was following Henry, or heard what happened and guessed Henry would run to the Hollow? Then he followed so as to pull more tricks and make Henry even crazier? I've always assumed something like the latter without really thinking about it. (I'm the perfect audience for this kind of show, I never think about plot holes until someone else points them out. :D )

 

Me neither! And I always assumed more or less the same as you, Arcadia. In fact, I wouldn't put it past Dr Frankland to try and murder Henry before Sherlock found out the truth. He could have made it look like suicide - in fact, he almost succeeded at making Henry commit genuine suicide.

 

I have always wondered about the howling in the background after the dog had already been shot, the sound that sent Frankland running in a panic. But now I wonder, maybe the dog we saw wasn't the innkeepers' dog, but one that Dr Frankland had brought with him, perhaps from the lab, to scare Henry further? Maybe the plan was even to scare Sherlock himself away, drive him insane as well and end the investigation?

 

In that case, the original dog might still be out there and that might be what we heard. Why it would cause Frankland to scamper mindlessly across a minefield is anybody's guess, but perhaps he just preferred that to being arrested and the howl only served as the distraction he needed to get away instead of really scaring him.

 

 

Another thought about the episode:

Why Sherlock didn't show more reactions when John explained to him that the innkeepers couldn't bring themselves to put down the dog.

In fact, it seemed like it took a while before he asked,"Sentiment?"

 

Remember Redbeard?

Alas, I'm afraid the answer is probably that Redbeard didn't exist when the "sentiment" dialog was written.

 

But I'm open to an "in-story" explanation!

 

Hmmm... difficult. I think it's really just an inconsistency - even Sherlock has those sometimes. But okay. What if Sherlock just doesn't have enough empathy to compare his feelings as a little boy to those of two grown strangers?

[Inge l-w]

Dear TOBY, Sherlock isn't supposed to have any empathy at all! As for there being a hiccough (sorry, an inconsistency), Messers. Moffat and Gatiss should sit down one of these days and iron out their differing approaches to the original character, like all devoted ACD fans, before driving us to distraction ( a Chief Inspector Morse title, by the way! Hang on in there!

[Arcadia]

I have always wondered about the howling in the background after the dog had already been shot, the sound that sent Frankland running in a panic. But now I wonder, maybe the dog we saw wasn't the innkeepers' dog, but one that Dr Frankland had brought with him, perhaps from the lab, to scare Henry further? Maybe the plan was even to scare Sherlock himself away, drive him insane as well and end the investigation?

 

In that case, the original dog might still be out there and that might be what we heard. Why it would cause Frankland to scamper mindlessly across a minefield is anybody's guess, but perhaps he just preferred that to being arrested and the howl only served as the distraction he needed to get away instead of really scaring him.

 

One thing I do notice is how, in true '50's horror movie fashion, once everyone knows the hallucinogen is in the fog, they all stop being affected by it! Except maybe Frankland? That's what occurs to me, anyway, is that he was literally getting a dose of his own medicine and panicked.

 

I'm confused by the howling too, but I think it was supposed to be the shot dog itself; just not a very well done sound effect. Or maybe it was someone's still-drugged imagination? I'd have to watch it again to see if that could be it.

 

Either way, I'm pretty sure it was meant to be the innkeepers' dog, not another one. Why it chose that exact moment to show up is anyone's guess.... since the universe is rarely so lazy for it to be coincidence ... :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

Another thought about the episode:

Why Sherlock didn't show more reactions when John explained to him that the innkeepers couldn't bring themselves to put down the dog.

In fact, it seemed like it took a while before he asked,"Sentiment?"

 

Remember Redbeard?

Alas, I'm afraid the answer is probably that Redbeard didn't exist when the "sentiment" dialog was written.

 

But I'm open to an "in-story" explanation!

Happy to oblige!  Sherlock doesn't like to think about Redbeard, in fact he's apparently ashamed of his own reactions (encouraged no doubt by Mycroft's ridicule).  It may never have occurred to him that other people might have similar feelings, so it took him a while to deduce that the innkeepers might.

 

[Arcadia]

Good one, even if it does make Sherlock sound a bit dense. :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sherlock definitely can be a bit dense when it comes to emotions -- even his own.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Now of course I am going to have to google 'unethical genetic experiments' too ....

 

Just want to clarify about 'not pretty' It's not the image, but the articles about what had been done. But I'm sure you understand.

 

About Redbeard, it would be a mess if I tried to Multiquote from phone, so to conclude I think the explanation about Sherlock doesn't understand other's sentiment rightaway makes sense, even though he had experienced it himself. Nobody knows what is inside that funny little curly head.

 

I think it's applicable vise versa with anything that is not measured scientifically (feelings!)

[Inge l-w]

And I have just realised that Mr Gatiss used both the "mind racing like an engine" at the beginning, and the hallucinogenic properties of the drug from The Devil's Foot! Are they going to leave any of the original stories for the rest of what we hope will be S4?

And, of course, since everything is canon to the two magpie creators, Sherlock's confrontation with Moriarty right at the end was "borrowed" from the madness sequence, where Holmes sees himself grappling with the Professor at the Reichenbach falls in the Granada series. Honestly!

[T.o.b.y]

And I have just realised that Mr Gatiss used both the "mind racing like an engine" at the beginning, and the hallucinogenic properties of the drug from The Devil's Foot! Are they going to leave any of the original stories for the rest of what we hope will be S4?

And, of course, since everything is canon to the two magpie creators, Sherlock's confrontation with Moriarty right at the end was "borrowed" from the madness sequence, where Holmes sees himself grappling with the Professor at the Reichenbach falls in the Granada series. Honestly!

 

Yes, in this episode as in all of them, there are a lot of references to the original Conan Doyle stories and to other Sherlock Holmes incarnations as well.

 

But why does this bother you? I can only speak from the perspective of a Doyle reader, because I have in fact not seen any other adaptations, nor am I interested in them, but for me, this adds considerably to the fun of watching Sherlock. I don't see the creators as "magpies" or as "stealing", I see them produce a hilarious, clever, insightful, creative commentary on and reinterpretation of their source material, and for me, this is intensely enjoyable. It's as close as I am ever going to get to having the in-depth discussions about what I read that I always longed for as a child and a teen, and I love it.

 

There are plenty of original stories out there, on television, in cinemas, in writing. But this isn't one of them - Sherlock was from the beginning a very self-conscious, reflective work of professional "fan fiction" based on the Sherlock Holmes universe, and while a lot of people can and do get a lot out of it without having ever read Doyle, watched Jeremy Brett etc, being familiar with these materials adds a whole other dimension of pleasure for the audience.

 

Or it leads to complaints of "parroting", "stealing" or similar. Whichever way you want to look at it. I prefer my view - because it is much more conductive to my happiness. You're welcome to keep yours, of course - I'm just afraid I can neither sympathize nor commiserate properly. Sorry.

 

[Inge l-w]

We have never really discussed our respective professions, dear TOBY, so I should make it clear that from an academic standpoint, plagiarism of any sort is deeply frowned upon, if it is light, or leads to the debarment of the culprit from using their teaching and other qualifications ever again in any institution anywhere! It is deeply abhorrent to me because it was ingrained in late adolescence at university that YOU DO NOT STEAL other people's ideas to further your own ends, much less your own profit, EVER. On top of that, I will read every pastiche available in book form and watch every iteration of Sherlock Holmes, my latest excursion into the matter being Mr Holmes with Ian McKellen, I would probably go and see a film about a twenty-second century Holmes and anything in between.

Just a different Holmes worldview, is all. Have some !

[Arcadia]

Just to be clear, in case anyone's wondering ... even from an academic standpoint, what our Moftisses have done with Sherlock is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you use someone else's ideas, characters or words, and claim they are your own original ideas. The Moftisses have never done that. In fact, "based on the works of ACD" is prominently displayed at the beginning of every episode, and they are quite open about their source material whenever they talk about the show, including every adaptation by anyone, ever.

 

Probably the most technically accurate word for what they do is adaptation, which is a perfectly legitimate and time-honored practice, as long as the source is acknowledged. Which they do.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, I have never heard or seen them acknowledge the work of John Hawkesworth, or the Granada series, which was his adaptation, but it is being plundered mercilessly, and I have no idea about TV series copyright, but in the long run, if they keep at it like they have done up to now, that gentleman, if he's still able, will have legitimate reason to act upon their "adaptation". Even in the Christmas Special teaser they used some of the music, but not enough to have to pay for copyright, just to lure the fans! On the contrary, they eulogise that rather mediocre Wilder film at every opportunity!

Concerning our ongoing discussion with dear TOBY, at some point I remember reading that she was persuaded to watch even this series, while for me, if it's a Holmes story, anything goes! Everybody has their own tastes, so here's to you and your unfailing good nature and superb humour!

[Arcadia]

And John Hawkesworth "plundered" the works of Arthur Conan Doyle mercilessly. That's what an adaptation is. It's a respectable occupation!

[Van Buren Supernova]

I should make it clear that from an academic standpoint, plagiarism of any sort is deeply frowned upon, if it is light, or leads to the debarment of the culprit from using their teaching and other qualifications ever again in any institution anywhere!

I believe plagiarism is frowned upon almost every profession and I also believe this definition

Plagiarism is when you use someone else's ideas, characters or words, and claim they are your own original ideas.

is still applicable to all.

 

Imho, now, almost nothing is original; designs, artworks, creations are inspired from somewhere and 'copied' from something, but it could be adaptation, deconstruction, reinterpretation etc which is not necessary plagiarism.