Sherlock

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1960

Carnationlilyrose

And, while I'm on a roll, this is his dad:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1961

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by Amwazicles

Holy ~~mother of~~ moley.

I'm really not sure how I feel about this. I don't even....

Is that a current picture? How old is she??

And do we know who his dad is? :tongue:

I imagine she wishes it were current, but she was born in 1935... She's an actress called Wanda Ventham who was on a lot of telly in the 60s and 70s, as was his dad, who's called Timothy Carlton. I'm so old I remember his parents first, not him.... :redface:

Reply 1962

dizzeedollee

Original post by carnationlilyrose

Brilliant! Now I can do it, here's my contribution to this cheekbone discussion. If you want to know why BC looks like he does, this is his mum:

And I very much believe that that's a pre-breast-implant era bosom she's sporting.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1963

Watch Key Phone

Original post by carnationlilyrose

And, while I'm on a roll, this is his dad:

Crap.

I really don't know where to put myself now.

Reply 1964

Luceria

Benedict's parents. Wow. He really looks like his mother.

For a more recent picture of Wanda Ventham

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1965

Carnationlilyrose

This is them now. I'm really getting into this picture thing!

Reply 1966

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by Amwazicles

Crap.

I really don't know where to put myself now.

To be fair, I think it's mainly the hair. And the suit. And the background.

Reply 1967

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by Luceria

Benedict's parents. Wow. Definitely looks like them.

For a more recent picture of Wanda Ventham

Time is such a cruel bitch.

Reply 1968

Luceria

Original post by carnationlilyrose

Time is such a cruel bitch.

It is.

Is this Benedict?

Edit: It is Benedict. More readable version here
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq85/cornershop15/WandaVenthamarticle2TVT28-7-79-1.jpg

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1969

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by Luceria

It is.

Is this Benedict?

Yup. An 'energetic handful'. Apparently... And no adenoids or tonsils, poor little bugger.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1970

Watch Key Phone

Original post by carnationlilyrose

This is them now. I'm really getting into this picture thing!

As I looked at that pic, I completely saw Benedict in his dad for several seconds! So alike :eek:

Original post by carnationlilyrose

To be fair, I think it's mainly the hair. And the suit. And the background.

*coughcoughcough*

Reply 1971

Placebo101

Original post by carnationlilyrose

I quite agree it makes for a better story to have him do it for his friends, on many levels. I'm going to be a bit contentious here, which I'm sure I'll regret, but I don't think Conan Doyle was that good a writer in terms of characterisation. He's more driven by plot and I think that's a bit unsophisticated these days. We tend to demand a bit more. I think Moffat and Gatiss have enriched the character of Sherlock considerably, and because they are such buffs, they are doing it in a spirit of reverence which makes their alterations acceptable. The 21st century reader demands more justification for Sherlock's 'oddness' than his/her 19th century counterpart because we have had a century of psychology/psychiatry inbetween, hence the debate raging earlier on in this thread about Asperger's. However, because they are reverent about the canon, I think it would be impossible for them to dumb down Mycroft and make him guilty of being so foolish as to play into Moriarty's hands. It wouldn't even be consistent with the character of Mycroft which they themselves have written about.
:redface:

*takes off English teacher's hat.*

Interesting point. At the risk of sounding rather sexist I'll note that it's mainly the girls here commenting on the character of Sherlock, Watson, Moriarty ect (their tumblr-esq sepia gifs of particularly emotional parts of the series with accompanying dialogue and their 'cheekbone' and asberges discussions) and the boys are talking about the plot and logistics of the episode.

I think that our emphasis on pathos (not just in drama, but in politics, celebrity and sites like Facebook asking us "what's on your mind?") has come about because of the empowerment of women over time.

I'm not a literary scholar, but I don't think that personality and characters are the key features of a story. Rather, it's the plot twists, the logistics and the moral dilemmas that make a book interesting to read. Even in a highly emotional story like Wuthering heights or Romeo and Juliet, the puzzles and implications about what's right and wrong and best for the characters that keep us reading. Even the inferences that can be made from writing style or camera angles lead us to question "what does this mean?".

I think that our system emphasises the non-logical points of media, to make it as different as possible as it's supposed 'polar opposite' -- mathematics and the sciences. This detracts a lot of readers/viewers and I think that this bias in the education system is why boys are less inclined to read (they get the impression from school that 'books are boring' from having love stories forced into that at school).

Anyway, aside from my Pseudo-intellectual ramblings, what's the consensus on how Sherlock survived? I think that Molly place a similar body to Sherlock's in that rubbish wagon that's visible for a few seconds when we see Sherlock on the ground. Sherlock timed his jump so that he'd land in there at the same point that Watson would be knocked over by a bike and wouldn't be able to see the body switch. His disorientedness might explain why he didn't recognise it was Sherlock and Molly (who worked in the St Bartholemew's) could have taken the body away.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1972

Watch Key Phone

Original post by Luceria

It is.

Is this Benedict?

OH.MY.GOD.

My brain can't cope with this anymore. :woo:

Reply 1973

ormaybeitsjustnarcissism

good lord stop leaking eyes please

LOVED Moriarty. LOVED. The beginning, he's so suave. All of his bits really but especially the beginning. He still resonates with me a lot more than some of the others, I'm more hooked on his crazy fluctuating than Sherlock's casual genius boredom. Hence I think not really being tooooo sad when Sherlock did his death thing, cos like...it is what people do. I was sad for John but I wasn't like omg imagine a world without Sherlock please be fine, etc. idk. I think this is basically why suicidal feelings dilutes the impact of Reichenbach somewhat :tongue:

Not much Mycroft love either, he was well great in Belgravia. Shame to see him all cold(er) and unlikeable.

also I feel obligated now to add some sort of theory as to how things might be done etc. But actually I don't care how they resolve it, it's the psychology/character interactions/crazy effects that keep me watching.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 1974

ily_em

Why does Moriarty care so much about killing Sherlock? So much so that he's willing to kill himself over it? :s-smilie:

Also, the family stalking thing is getting weird :p:

Reply 1975

dothestrand

Is it wrong to be so attracted to a psychopath?

Reply 1976

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by Placebo101

Interesting point. At the risk of sounding rather sexist I'll note that it's mainly the girls here commenting on the character of Sherlock, Watson, Moriarty ect (their tumblr-esq sepia gifs of particularly emotional parts of the series with accompanying dialogue and their 'cheekbone' and asberges discussions) and the boys are talking about the plot and logistics of the episode.

I think that the emphasis on pathos (not just in drama, but in politics, celebrity and sites like Facebook asking us "what's on your mind?") is because women have become increasingly prominent over time.

I'm not a literary scholar, but I don't think that personality and characters are the key features of a story. Rather, its the plot twists, the logistics and the moral dilemmas that make a book interesting to read. Even in a highly emotional story like Wuthering heights or Romeo and Juliet, it's the puzzles and implications about what's right and wrong and best for the characters that keep us reading. Even the inferences that can be made from writing style or camera angles lead us to question "what does this mean?".

I think that our system emphasises the non-logical points of media, to make it as different as possible as it's supposed 'polar opposite', which is mathematics and the sciences. This detracts a lot of readers and I think that this bias in the education system is why boys are less inclined to read (they get the impression from school that 'books are boring' from having love stories forced into that at school).

Anyway, aside from my Pseudo-intellectual ramblings, what's the consensus on how Sherlock survived? I think that Molly place a similar body to Sherlock's in that rubbish wagon that's visible for a few seconds when we see Sherlock on the ground. Sherlock timed his jump so that he'd land in there at the same point that Watson would be knocked over by a bike and wouldn't be able to see the body switch. His disorientedness might explain why he didn't recognise it was Sherlock and Molly (who worked in the St Bartholemew's) could have taken the body away.

Doesn't that rather imply that the narrative has to have characters we care about?

My experience leads me to agree that men and women read things differently, but also that scientists and arts oriented people do as well. These may or may not be the same people of course. I don't know if you've read the rest of this thread, but there has been a lot of discussion of the logistics of the ending and some of the things you've suggested have been chewed over at some length. You just happen to have stumbled on a page or two when a few of us are having the online equivalent of a girls' night in.