|
Post by Witchie on Jan 18, 2012 1:05:01 GMT -4
I wasn't surprised Lestrade was threatened and Mycroft wasn't. Mycroft is too high-profile. Lestrade is a police. His death could easily be dismissed as part of the job.
I was surprised Moriarty didn't consider Molly as an alternate. Regardless of Sherlock's treatment of her, she was important enough to use to get to Sherlock the 1st time. Though, I kinda love that mousy, mistreated Molly was instrumental in messing up the genius' plan. It's always the quiet ones.
|
|
|
Post by Malle Babbe on Jan 18, 2012 1:11:18 GMT -4
Then again, Moriarty dated Molly, and probably dismissed her from that experience.
During the first series, their was some fan speculation that Molly was Moriarty. Which would have been brilliant; while being glamorous like Irene is a great way of getting crucial info from folks running their mouths, no one sees the mousey chick and she can hide in plain sight.
|
|
robneville
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 321
Nov 19, 2006 11:53:44 GMT -4
|
Post by robneville on Jan 18, 2012 1:11:50 GMT -4
For Life On Mars I was mostly referring to the original unaired pilot, which was more along the lines of what Kostgard was getting at. Kelly completely threw out what made the original wonderful. Skinny, quirky, ordinary looking British guy who continually got pounded by his new boss becomes hunky, good looking american alpha male who doesn't take shit from his new boss. Beautiful, but to american eyes plain, slightly plump, looking female cop who doesn't get respect from coworkers becomes stunning, voluptuous, beautifully dressed, big haired red head who is already a detective, etc.
The pilot stunk so bad that they canned it and did another one in which- surprise- they went back and made it closer to the original. That's what eventually aired but their first intention was to get rid of everything quirky and original and make it just another homogenized american cop show with everything we've already seen a million times over.
If they really want to do something interesting with Sherlock Holmes in New York maybe they should do a series version of They Might Be Giants.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 6:10:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 2:27:23 GMT -4
Ahhh, thanks for the background, robneville. I recall trying to get that "LoM" pilot but never pursued it beyond that first try. Have you seen the unaired "Sherlock" pilot, from the DVD? It's good but, compared to the longer and more resonant & dynamic version which made it to air, really pales.
And thanks for the reminder about "They Might Be Giants", one of my fave George C Scott roles.
|
|
robneville
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 321
Nov 19, 2006 11:53:44 GMT -4
|
Post by robneville on Jan 18, 2012 2:53:29 GMT -4
Ahhh, thanks for the background, robneville. I recall trying to get that "LoM" pilot but never pursued it beyond that first try. Have you seen the unaired "Sherlock" pilot, from the DVD? It's good but, compared to the longer and more resonant & dynamic version which made it to air, really pales. And thanks for the reminder about "They Might Be Giants", one of my fave George C Scott roles. You're better off not watching that LOM pilot, if you love the original it's cringe inducing and kind of depressing. And yeah I've seen the unaired Sherlock. It's really instructional, in that you see how those changes, like the text messages or the foot chase tracking the cab made the final version so much better.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 6:10:06 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 20:31:00 GMT -4
For what it's worth, a buddy in London reports seeing and interview with Moffat today in which he says he's been reading all kinds of theories online and everyone seems to be missing one crucial point. Fact or more misdirection to keep the mystery bubbling for another year?
|
|
|
Post by Augustus on Jan 18, 2012 20:54:16 GMT -4
Yup, that's what he's saying. Radio Times[/color], of course now you have loads of people scouring through the episode. Well played, Steven Moffat, well played!
|
|
|
Post by Malle Babbe on Jan 18, 2012 21:07:45 GMT -4
For what it's worth, a buddy in London reports seeing and interview with Moffat today in which he says he's been reading all kinds of theories online and everyone seems to be missing one crucial point. Fact or more misdirection to keep the mystery bubbling for another year? Moffat has enough of a reputation of being a troll that I totally picture him typing up scripts underneath a bridge...
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Jan 18, 2012 21:38:51 GMT -4
Yeah, he's saying that the big clue is that Sherlock did something very out of character that people should have caught.
The only theory I've seen has to do with the crying during his conversation with John -- they said that at some point in the episode (when talking about other cases he's solved) there was some mention of a drug derived from a rhododendron that slows the heart rate (like the "Juliet" drug someone here has mentioned) and that the side effects are a runny nose and watery eyes. I don't remember that mention, but I've only watched the episode once, so I probably missed it. And I guess the crying could very well be out of character for someone who told John in the previous episode that he tries to divorce himself from emotion.
Others have mentioned Sherlock shaking Moriarty's hard or something to do with the ball he was bouncing around down in Molly's lab, but I have no idea what that connection could be.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCatHead on Jan 19, 2012 0:21:09 GMT -4
And perhaps he's just fucking with us to keep us interested?
(No problem there! I am very glad we get another season)
|
|