Ineffable Wingbolt MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 http://firststoptv.com/sherlock/season/2/episode/3 Please express your opinion on it here. It's an episode of a show, not some political garbage or viral video like most people put in threads with titles similar to mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Be warned: If you're not already a member, it tries to sell you things and takes you to multiple pop-ups full of ads. I did get it to play, but it took about 2 minutes of persistence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Given that season 2 isn't available for love or money from most legal US sources (iTunes/DVD/Neftlix/Hulu), I'd say two minutes of persistance is pretty fair. It's a great show, largely due to the impeccable influence of Steven Moffat. Which is why I'm going to avoid spoiling it for myself (although, of course, having read the books...) — Actaeon, who just remembered he celebrates in powers of 2, not 10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I'm waiting until next month when season 2 air on PBS in the States. After all episode 1 resolves the cliff hanger of the end of season 1. Congratulations Actaeon for making 1000 posts. Now people care about what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I really enjoyed both series of this show, except, probably, this episode. The short story it was based on was, in my opinion, far superior... Click to reveal.. ...mainly because Moriarty never actually appears. Yes, Holmes says that he sees him, and is fleeing, but Watson never sees him, and, since he's the one trying to clear Holmes's name you'd think he'd be all for saying "yes, I saw this man, and he was pursuing us across Europe". It's been a while since I read it, but, between that, the struggle at the end (in which Holmes had time to leave a note for Watson?!), and several things Holmes says throughout (like, off the top of my head, saying that he and Moriarty were basically the same, except he had never "to his knowledge" used his powers for evil, or that Moriarty was "very familiar/alike to him"), the way I read it was that HOLMES was Moriarty, or rather, was inventing Moriarty in order to create the crimes he would then solve. The show did play with this idea, but in the end there was a Moriarty; a separate individual - the mystery was removed. I'd have liked it much more if it turned out that it was all Holmes, all along, and that he'd been playing a much more interesting game with Watson and the police than playing it straight like he had been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Khoth Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: kafkaesque / kafkan I really enjoyed both series of this show, except, probably, this episode. The short story it was based on was, in my opinion, far superior... Click to reveal.. ...mainly because Moriarty never actually appears. Yes, Holmes says that he sees him, and is fleeing, but Watson never sees him, and, since he's the one trying to clear Holmes's name you'd think he'd be all for saying "yes, I saw this man, and he was pursuing us across Europe". It's been a while since I read it, but, between that, the struggle at the end (in which Holmes had time to leave a note for Watson?!), and several things Holmes says throughout (like, off the top of my head, saying that he and Moriarty were basically the same, except he had never "to his knowledge" used his powers for evil, or that Moriarty was "very familiar/alike to him"), the way I read it was that HOLMES was Moriarty, or rather, was inventing Moriarty in order to create the crimes he would then solve. The show did play with this idea, but in the end there was a Moriarty; a separate individual - the mystery was removed. I'd have liked it much more if it turned out that it was all Holmes, all along, and that he'd been playing a much more interesting game with Watson and the police than playing it straight like he had been. That's a pretty strained interpretation of the original stories if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Khoth That's a pretty strained interpretation of the original stories if you ask me. Eh, I think there's plenty of evidence in the text to back up that interpretation. Click to reveal.. Moriarty had never been seen, and Holmes is seemingly the only person to know about him, for starters. Holmes's description of him doesn't just make him sound similar in appearance to Holmes, he makes him the same as Holmes; 'His appearance was quite familiar to me' seems an odd choice of words. Then there are phrases like this: 'As you are aware, Watson, there is no one who knows the higher criminal world of London so well as I do.' Surely the person in charge of the London underworld would know it better than anybody else, so why does Holmes say that he does? Likewise, the wording of this remark seems strained too, to make it appear that Holmes is the person Watson is playing against: 'my dear Watson, [...] you are now playing a double-handed game with me against the cleverest rogue and the most powerful syndicate of criminals in Europe'. Then, a little after they have caught the train, Watson asks '"What will he do?"', to which Holmes replies, '"What I should do?"'. What moments we do see of Moriarty, there are reasons enough that it could easily be somebody else. The 'tall man pushing his way furiously through the crowd, and waving his hand as if he desired to have the train stopped' is a fixture at any rail station when somebody has missed their train, and when Holmes and Watson "give him the slip" by getting off their train early, all we see is another train speeding past. Trains are, I imagine, wont to use the same lines as trains that have passed before. It'd be impossible to see Moriarty on the train, so how does Holmes know he's there? Most tellingly, Holmes recieves a letter from the police saying that '"[t]hey have secured the whole gang with the exception of [Moriarty]."' Could it be because he isn't actually Moriarty, he's the person reading the letter to Watson? But, I think, my favourite line, in favour of this argument is possibly when Holmes says '"your memoirs will draw to an end, Watson, upon the day that I [...] capture [...] the most dangerous and capable criminal in Europe."' They'll draw to an end, because there'll be no more far-fetched and fancy crimes, because there'll be no Holmes, hiding under a guise, committing them. Either that, or the suicide note he leaves - he seems awfully sure that he'll take Moriarty with him, and yet, how could he be? Maybe it is a stretch, but I think the evidence is all there in the text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 If you just read The Final Problem, it might seem plausible. But the many other stories establish the character of Holmes pretty firmly. It's even pretty much in character for him to have struggled for many years with this evil nemesis, without previously mentioning it to Watson. In fact, of course, Moriarty was murder by retcon, when Conan Doyle got fed up at being typecast as the author of Sherlock Holmes. The retcon stuck better than the murder, and after he resurrected Holmes a few years later, Conan Doyle wrote Moriarty into a few later stories that were set before The Final Problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 There are some elements of Holmes adaptations that are almost impossible to escape from. Lately, we seem to have finally escaped the bumbling Watson / stuffy Holmes element and returned to the original dynamic. To ask a writer not to include Moriarty or Adler as a major character, though... Good luck selling a story without an arch-nemesis or a love interest to the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I've read more than a handful of them, and I know what you're saying. At the same time, those stories are all narrated by Holmes's best (only?) friend, and why would he want to think his friend is a criminal mastermand? I dunno, I just find the idea of two geniuses, one good and one evil, much less interesting than one genius who is flawed and multi-faceted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Yeah, as an exercise you can try to make a case. But if you're willing to suspect the narrator to that degree, you might as well say that Holmes was really Watson's pet poodle. Since the stories are fiction, there is really no "really" to discover. It's all a game. I guess for me it boils down to this: if the stories are supposed to be ironic, they don't do a very good job of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I suppose it depends on if you're dealing with a series or a one shot-affair. With the latter, you can include a few failures and occasions where Holmes undermines himself. The need for a nemesis is lower. Although if it goes on long enough you start throwing in Moriarty and Mycroft and Adler just to keep things interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Great. Now I'm imagining Holmes as Samuel L. Jackson and Watson as Bruce Willis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: DINTIRADAN Great. Now I'm imagining Holmes as Samuel L. Jackson and Watson as Bruce Willis. Someone needs to make this. Now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I think Tarantino's the obvious candidate for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Great, now I'm really imagining it, rather than just making an Unbreakable reference. Also, Fixing My Typo: Quote: Great. Now I'm imagining Samuel L. Jackson as Holmes and Bruce Willis as Watson. I'm gonna blame that on dental freezing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt MMXPERT-seraph of thermodynamics Posted April 19, 2012 Author Share Posted April 19, 2012 Quote: Someone needs to make this. Now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Hmm. Was the Hound of the Baskervilles female? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: DINTIRADAN Hmm. Was the Hound of the Baskervilles female? Maybe, but as the Hound was an actual dog, it doesn't really matter. But seriously, the person behind the plot is a man, and although his wife knew about it she doesn't participate. Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 While I'm nervous going up against Nikki on textual evidence, I think some of it has to do with changes in language over time. "What should I do?" is "What would I do?" in modern English and a rhetorical way of saying Holmes and Moriarty think the same way, and he would do what Holmes would do in his position. You can force a psychological explanation into it, and it doesn't take much force to do so. It all fits, but it doesn't fit especially better than the straight story. As an intellectual exercise it's fine. As a reader, you can read it however you find it most enjoyable and argue about it endlessly. —Alorael, who tends to dislike psychological shell games on principle. For one thing, they tend to be carried out poorly, with little resemblance to the actual psychology of the putative disorder. Dissociative identity disorder is rare, does not work the way it's often portrayed, and tends not to involve striving against a Jungian shadow self or antithetical counter-identity. Holmes is an unusually good candidate for pathology, though, so you can make it fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice ex post slarto Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Hmm. Given all that, Alorael, I'm curious to know what you think of Lufia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 The Seven Percent Solution was a non-canon novel that had Moriarty as Holmes's innocent former math tutor, with the whole arch-criminal gig a fantasy concocted by Holmes, that had something to do with his cocaine addiction (which is canon). Watson calls in Sigmund Freud to straighten Holmes out, because of Freud's own successful battle with cocaine (which is also canon). I read it as a kid and remember it as being okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Khoth Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Despoilered because Holmes is way past the statute of limitations on spoilers. Originally Posted By: kafkaesque / kafkan Moriarty had never been seen, and Holmes is seemingly the only person to know about him, for starters. Holmes's description of him doesn't just make him sound similar in appearance to Holmes, he makes him the same as Holmes; 'His appearance was quite familiar to me' seems an odd choice of words. Holmes is the only one who believes that he's a master criminal. But apart from that, he has an established public life as a maths professor and author of a book (and Final Problem starts off with a reference to Moriarty's brother (another person with a public life, he's a colonel) defending his name). Lestrade even talks to him. Quote: when Holmes and Watson "give him the slip" by getting off their train early, all we see is another train speeding past. Trains are, I imagine, wont to use the same lines as trains that have passed before. It'd be impossible to see Moriarty on the train, so how does Holmes know he's there? Because it wasn't a regularly scheduled train. Moriarty hired a special train, and Holmes would know it was too soon for the next real train to have arrived. Quote: But, I think, my favourite line, in favour of this argument is possibly when Holmes says '"your memoirs will draw to an end, Watson, upon the day that I [...] capture [...] the most dangerous and capable criminal in Europe."' They'll draw to an end, because there'll be no more far-fetched and fancy crimes, because there'll be no Holmes, hiding under a guise, committing them. Either that, or the suicide note he leaves - he seems awfully sure that he'll take Moriarty with him, and yet, how could he be? Most of Holmes's cases clearly have nothing to do with Moriarty. In any case, if Holmes really is Moriarty, it would be terrible writing to have about fifty stories about Holmes and then have one short story where a master criminal is introduced and he's secretly been the criminal behind all his cases all along. (It was bad enough as it was, introducing a criminal mastermind just to have an excuse to kill off Holmes). The TV series can get away with this sort of thing because it had Moriarty in it from the beginning, so it's not just out of the left field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Tyranicus Originally Posted By: DINTIRADAN Great. Now I'm imagining Holmes as Samuel L. Jackson and Watson as Bruce Willis. Someone needs to make this. Now. Alan Rickman as Moriarty? Don't get me wrong, I love the TV series still, just as I loved the Conan Doyle books I've read, and maybe I'm presenting myself as being a bit too earnest; if Moriarty is a separate identity, I'd still enjoy the books. It's just that, for me, this story kind of throws that into doubt. Right at the beginning, we're led to question the veracity of the story because we learn that Watson is only telling it in response to Colonel Moriarity defending the name of his brother (presumably by saying that Holmes was a nut and just randomly picked Moriarity for the grin of it). From then on, it's all rather vague as to who this guy is (apart from a distinguished professor). (I guess that means I concede that Moriarity was a person, but I still don't think he necessarily has to be the person Holmes says he is. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S Hmm. Given all that, Alorael, I'm curious to know what you think of Lufia. I've only played the sequel. I tried the first and found that it aged terribly, but from the spoilers I've gotten in bits and pieces I think that's it's probably a terrible psychological case that's forgivable for involving magic, non-human "super beings" and not being a serious drama so much as a plot that moves a dungeon crawler forward. —Alorael, who can just grumble a bit about poor use of psychology when it isn't a psychological drama. He grumbles a lot and stomps around when it is a psychological drama. And he gets downright tetchy when it doesn't have to be a psychological drama and turning it into one turns a good story into a bad case study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: kafkaesque / kafkan I dunno, I just find the idea of two geniuses, one good and one evil, much less interesting than one genius who is flawed and multi-faceted. well that certainly explains some things about end of days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Lauren CW Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Did someone mention Lufia...? Interesting. I thought I was the only one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Originally Posted By: Beer and Motor Oil Did someone mention Lufia...? Interesting. I thought I was the only one... yes. you are the only human being on Earth who purchased a game that's had multiple sequels. because selling a series of games to one person is a sustainable business model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 It depends upon the price point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyshakk Koan Lauren CW Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Well that's just snarky... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Aran Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Nah, if it were snark it wouldn't have any punctuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 oh so thats how you tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity oh so thats how you tell it doesn't work when you do it. maybe you're just not cool enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 it might be that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Wait a minute.. I just had a thought:: does the opposite happen when you double your punctuation?? ((The double colons make me think I''m writing C++ code,, though..)) EDIT:: CURSES!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 It just makes you have typos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.