US fans - Sherlock Tonight

[Christopher]

And yet they covered it up.

See, there you get into the gray area between what's legal and what's moral. Watson acted to save Holmes's life, but under the circumstances, it would be difficult to prove that to the satisfaction of the police and the legal system. Thus, Holmes did what he often did in the original stories -- placing what's right (in his judgment, at least) above the strict letter of the law.

No, this was plainly presented as Red Herring followed by revelation. We were led to assume that he was suffering from PTSD, but then were given the character insight that this healer thrives on war.

I wish you'd stick to the facts instead of twisting everything. It was never shown that Watson thrived on war. I mean, come on, it's ludicrous to say he thrives on war when what got him over his psychosomatic leg pain and trembling hand was chasing a cab through the city streets. Does that constitute warfare in your book? No. That's rubbish. We were shown that Watson thrives on excitement. On adventure. On danger. "I said dangerous and you came anyway."

Moffat has said it himself -- "Other detectives have cases, Sherlock Holmes has adventures." The point was to show Watson as someone who craved adventure and excitement, to show the two men bonding through shared adventure -- much the same way the Doctor bonds with his companions through shared adventure.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I disagree. They specifically brought up the PTSD as a Red Herring and then turned it upside down.

As for the cover up, there was a confrontation between the "consulting detective" and a known serial killer. It had to be pretty iffy for them to cover it up. Or, again, the writers just wanted the "edgy" effect for the modernization.

 

[Christopher]

I disagree. They specifically brought up the PTSD as a Red Herring and then turned it upside down.

That's not disagreement, because it has nothing to do with the falsehood I was calling you on. Of course the PTSD was a red herring, but the truth was that he craved adventure, not that he craved war.

As for the cover up, there was a confrontation between the "consulting detective" and a known serial killer. It had to be pretty iffy for them to cover it up. Or, again, the writers just wanted the "edgy" effect for the modernization.

I don't even know what you're talking about. I thought you were referring to Holmes keeping quiet about the fact that Watson was the shooter. I'm not aware of anything else being covered up.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I disagree. They specifically brought up the PTSD as a Red Herring and then turned it upside down.

That's not disagreement, because it has nothing to do with the falsehood I was calling you on. Of course the PTSD was a red herring, but the truth was that he craved adventure, not that he craved war.

No, I don't think so. There was an exchange between Holmes and Watson-- and I've taped over it now, so I can't get the exact words-- where Watson had a little dramatic speech about having had enough of the horrors of war, there was a pregnant pause, then Holmes said, "Want more?" and Watson said, "God, yes."

As for the cover up, there was a confrontation between the "consulting detective" and a known serial killer. It had to be pretty iffy for them to cover it up. Or, again, the writers just wanted the "edgy" effect for the modernization.

I don't even know what you're talking about. I thought you were referring to Holmes keeping quiet about the fact that Watson was the shooter. I'm not aware of anything else being covered up.

That's what I'm talking about. If there was nothing wrong with Watson killing the killer to save Holmes' life, why are they covering it up?

And I forget if I mentioned this, but I was just reminded of it: Wouldn't the police be able to easily trace the bullet to Watson's gun? Or is forensics in this AU not up to that because the original Holmes never existed?

 

[Australis]

It is like you didn't understand what you saw.

I understood exactly what I saw, thanks.

 

[Christopher]

No, I don't think so. There was an exchange between Holmes and Watson-- and I've taped over it now, so I can't get the exact words-- where Watson had a little dramatic speech about having had enough of the horrors of war, there was a pregnant pause, then Holmes said, "Want more?" and Watson said, "God, yes."

And you're being deliberately obtuse about what that actually meant because you want to justify your prejudices.

That's what I'm talking about. If there was nothing wrong with Watson killing the killer to save Holmes' life, why are they covering it up?

I answered that five posts ago, but your mind is completely closed so you didn't listen. Which means there's absolutely no point in continuing to debate this with you.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

No, I don't think so. There was an exchange between Holmes and Watson-- and I've taped over it now, so I can't get the exact words-- where Watson had a little dramatic speech about having had enough of the horrors of war, there was a pregnant pause, then Holmes said, "Want more?" and Watson said, "God, yes."

And you're being deliberately obtuse about what that actually meant because you want to justify your prejudices.

That's what I'm talking about. If there was nothing wrong with Watson killing the killer to save Holmes' life, why are they covering it up?

I answered that five posts ago, but your mind is completely closed so you didn't listen. Which means there's absolutely no point in continuing to debate this with you.

It seems like RJD had made his mind up that this was not Sherlock Holmes from the second he heard it was being made. He's entitled to his opinion but it's not worth the debate it seems.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, I don't think so. There was an exchange between Holmes and Watson-- and I've taped over it now, so I can't get the exact words-- where Watson had a little dramatic speech about having had enough of the horrors of war, there was a pregnant pause, then Holmes said, "Want more?" and Watson said, "God, yes."

And you're being deliberately obtuse about what that actually meant because you want to justify your prejudices.

That's what I'm talking about. If there was nothing wrong with Watson killing the killer to save Holmes' life, why are they covering it up?

I answered that five posts ago, but your mind is completely closed so you didn't listen. Which means there's absolutely no point in continuing to debate this with you.

It seems like RJD had made his mind up that this was not Sherlock Holmes from the second he heard it was being made. He's entitled to his opinion but it's not worth the debate it seems.

There's no seems about it. Check out the original threads back when it was broadacast in the UK. This thread is like Deja Vu all over again.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

And you're being deliberately obtuse about what that actually meant because you want to justify your prejudices.




I answered that five posts ago, but your mind is completely closed so you didn't listen. Which means there's absolutely no point in continuing to debate this with you.

It seems like RJD had made his mind up that this was not Sherlock Holmes from the second he heard it was being made. He's entitled to his opinion but it's not worth the debate it seems.

There's no seems about it. Check out the original threads back when it was broadacast in the UK. This thread is like Deja Vu all over again.

Yeah, I remember that thread.

 

[RJDiogenes]

No, I don't think so. There was an exchange between Holmes and Watson-- and I've taped over it now, so I can't get the exact words-- where Watson had a little dramatic speech about having had enough of the horrors of war, there was a pregnant pause, then Holmes said, "Want more?" and Watson said, "God, yes."

And you're being deliberately obtuse about what that actually meant because you want to justify your prejudices.

Prejudices? Everything I'm saying is taken right from the episode. These characters were deliberately painted "darker and edgier" than the originals. I don't know why this is controversial for you. If you asked the writers, they'd probably say so.

That's what I'm talking about. If there was nothing wrong with Watson killing the killer to save Holmes' life, why are they covering it up?

I answered that five posts ago, but your mind is completely closed so you didn't listen. Which means there's absolutely no point in continuing to debate this with you.

Well, your answer doesn't convince me. If he looked across the alley and saw the serial killer about to shoot or stab Holmes, there would be no problem; but all he saw was Holmes looking quizzically at a pill. Since this was unquestionably the serial killer and since Holmes is a known quantity to the police, and since Watson presumably has a good reputation with the military, this is obviously a highly questionable action for them to cover it up.

It seems like RJD had made his mind up that this was not Sherlock Holmes from the second he heard it was being made. He's entitled to his opinion but it's not worth the debate it seems.

There's no seems about it. Check out the original threads back when it was broadacast in the UK. This thread is like Deja Vu all over again.

Why would my opinion change? We knew the concept as well then as we do now.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Seems to me that you were determined to find fault before you saw a single frame, and whether it was the best Sherlock Holmes adaptation you'd ever seen or the worst you would have said it wasn't Sherlock Holmes. So actually seeing it was never going to change your position, and you're bound and determined that every thing now is "Dark and Edgy" regardless of whether it's actually light and fun or depressing and thoughtful to you it is all "Dark and Edgy" so it seems a pointless discussion because you're not going to move from your position regardless of how many people weigh in.

You're welcome to your opinion and I didn't actually mean to get in to this discussion because I see very little point since we've discussed it previously, so I will leave it there.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I didn't find fault with it. I said it was pretty good. I just said it's not Sherlock Holmes, which I stand by.

And if I find "dark and edgy" elements almost everywhere, that's because they are almost everywhere. It's the fashion, so it's to be found in a lot of places, even shows I like, like Lost and Firefly.

 

[Pingfah]

Well, your answer doesn't convince me. If he looked across the alley and saw the serial killer about to shoot or stab Holmes, there would be no problem; but all he saw was Holmes looking quizzically at a pill. Since this was unquestionably the serial killer and since Holmes is a known quantity to the police, and since Watson presumably has a good reputation with the military, this is obviously a highly questionable action for them to cover it up.

At that point, although it was patently clear to Watson that this man was the killer and that Holmes' life may be in danger, all they really had him on was kidnapping, considering the victims took their own lives.

I suppose Watson felt he had no choice but to shoot him to save Holmes, but that ultimately it might be viewed as murder, since the "killer" might not be technically guilty of homicide, and in fact a court may consider that Watson killed a man to prevent Holmes from killing himself.

 

[stj]

^^^Sorry, you're still wrong.

It's almost like it were a matter of opinion or something.

No, this isn't. It is a matter of opinion whether the movie artistic success hinges on a valid treatment of Watson. Curiously no one has disagreed with me, but vainly tried to argue facts instead, like Watson murdered the cabbie, or ignored facts, like Watson could not have made the shot anyhow.

On reflection, it occurs to me that no one should disagree with me about the importance of the Watson character, since this movie is largely about how Watson and Holmes become "friends." Frankly, I think the cynics who don't believe Watson could be a friend because he's a good man should have just left out Watson completely. That would have been both bolder and more honest.

Frankly, praising a movie that depends upon a physical impossibility shows a blinkered determination to join the chorus.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^ever thought no one has disagreed with you because they start skipping your posts after you start acting like your opinion is the one valid truth about the show?

 

[Pingfah]

^^^Sorry, you're still wrong.

It's almost like it were a matter of opinion or something.

No, this isn't. It is a matter of opinion whether the movie artistic success hinges on a valid treatment of Watson. Curiously no one has disagreed with me, but vainly tried to argue facts instead, like Watson murdered the cabbie, or ignored facts, like Watson could not have made the shot anyhow.

On reflection, it occurs to me that no one should disagree with me about the importance of the Watson character, since this movie is largely about how Watson and Holmes become "friends." Frankly, I think the cynics who don't believe Watson could be a friend because he's a good man should have just left out Watson completely. That would have been both bolder and more honest.

Frankly, praising a movie that depends upon a physical impossibility shows a blinkered determination to join the chorus.

Your mistake is to assume that Australis only thought it was good only for the reasons that you didn't. Regardless of what you think it hinged on, I certainly found there to be many other praiseworthy elements to the show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

On a totallty unrelated note, I just spotted Martin Freeman in Shaun of the Dead.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

On a totallty unrelated note, I just spotted Martin Freeman in Shaun of the Dead.

In the alternate group?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, standing behind the woman Shaun is talking to.

 

[Pingfah]

That is such a classic moment. I imagine it's funnier if you know British comedy well and know that they could easily have been the actual cast as opposed to the cameo actors.

To the unfamiliar I guess I might just look like two random groups of people meeting for no apparent reason.