Sherlock - The Great Game

[fitchersvogel]

Of course I loved it, will watch it again 300 times, pre-ordered the DVD and already unconciously started imitating The Cumb's hand movements (my boss, sitting next to me "What was that?"; really happened, haha).

Comments

Here's a bit more...

[pythia_delphi]

As regards canon references, did you notice they merged the Bruce-Partington storyline with that of the Naval Treaty in that they had the fiance's brother steal the state secrets (Joe Harrison, who was Joseph Harrison in NAVAL). Sherlock's recognising a piece of handwriting as a woman's was also from NAVAL, although the allusion was linked to 'Bohemian' notepaper and therefore to SCANDAL. And we never found out who that woman was, did we? *ponders* The exchange and one-upmanship between Mycroft and Sherlock at 221B (when they discuss John's sleeping on the sofa) was taken from The Greek Interpreter when they deduce stuff about a widower with children by observing him from a window of Diogenes club. Another reference is the deductions Sherlock makes from the swimmer boy's shoes, and his asking for John's opinion- I thought it was an allusion to Henry Baker's hat in The Blue Carbuncle, but another fan thought it was Dr. Mortimer's walking stick from HOUND. I suppose they both fit. As for the undetectable poison, I immediately recalled The Speckled Band, but Dying Detective seems more apropos. Another teeny thing (if you squint sideways) is Mycroft telling John that Sherlock's 'business is booming' due to John's blog. That seems to be taken from Thor Bridge when that rich American businessman that he will ensure that Holmes' business will boom if he helps Grace Dunbar. Oh, and that reminds me: Sherlock's quip: 'I'm lost without my blogger.' Terrific!

(Btw, I did warn you about Connie Prince, but that was only coz I'd read a spoiler on the BBC's website.)

Re: Here's a bit more...

[fitchersvogel]

NAVA, that's clever, didn't get that :)! I didn't even notice that they said his name? Must be more observant in the future!!

I think it was implied that the woman was the gallery owner, who was told to send the phone by Moriarty (without knowing what this was about).

So many references! It's heaven :). I know there must be some (or many) I didn't catch on my first viewing (hadn't time to rewatch it completely, it's terrible!!). I saw on the comm that someone compiled a list of all the Canon references - I will check that out when I have the time.

Yeah, Connie Prince - but it would have fit!! It was of course much better the way they did it, there's a reason I'm not a scriptwriter :)... That reminds me of one thing I didn't like: her brother. The whole story with him, her, his lover, the way he was portrayed - maybe I have to watch it again, but it annoyed me. But this is very minor, of course.

Re: Here's a bit more...

[pythia_delphi]

Oh yes, the gallery owner- hadn't thought about her. Makes a lot of sense, but I kinda hope they've left that bit open so as to introduce Irene Adler in the next season. *prays*

In re canon references, you know what would have made me really worship the writers? When Sherlock is watching crap TV, if he hadn't said 'he's not the father, look at the turn-ups of his jeans,' which doesn't make much logoical sense, if you stop and think about it, but instead had said something along the lines of 'look at his earlobes.' Neatly references The Cardboard Box, and is also a great observation and deduction as the shape of the pinna (and whether earlobes are attached or detached) really is genetically determined.

Oh yes, I contributed some stuff to that list. I think between us, we've covered it all, actually. :-)

Re: Here's a bit more...

[pythia_delphi]

Ooh, almost missed mentioning another easter egg I adored- The Baker Street Irregulars are now the homeless network. :-)

Re: Here's a bit more...

[fitchersvogel]

It's so logical, isn't it?
Now, another thing I'm looking forward to is disguises (the gallery one doesn't count, really) and undercover investigation in the dangerous parts of the city!

Re: Here's a bit more...

[pythia_delphi]

That would be awesome! Maybe BC could cross-dress too; I believe he's done that in one of his previous roles. :-)

I remembered another couple of things. Yes, I'm incorrigible, so please tell me to shut up if you've had enough. I really won't mind at all! The fact that in each episode, they have John eating in a restaurant (and never being allowed to finish) while Sherlock doesn't ever eat ('eating slows down my digestion'- haha, Sherlock, you crack me up!). And whenever Sherlock introduces john as his friend (bless him!) John immediately says colleague (I think in canon, Holmes always used to introduce Watson as 'my friend and colleague' or was that Brett?)

Re: Here's a bit more...

[fitchersvogel]

Nonono don't shut up :). Don't take my late replies as a sign to shut up please - I love reading your thoughts!

It's these little things (Sherlock not eating, ect) that really make it so special for me. Oh, I can't wait for the DVD to arrive - even if tehre's no real new stuff, it's the brilliant stuff from a different angle!

And I think Sherlock deveops his introductions in the books over time - he goes from colleague to friend to partner, sometimes combining two. I'd have to look that up, though.

Re: Here's a bit more...

[fitchersvogel]

Oh, I so hope they get Irene right! I'm sure she'll turn up soon :). But I don't think she's connected with the stationary from Ep.3. I think that the writers, not knowing whether there'd be more episodes after 3, crammed in a lot of references in insignificant scenes which are a bit wasted, now that there's more to come.
I wonder how they're going to update Irene, though. What would an opera singer/adventuress be today?

Haha, you're great, that reference would have been absolutely brilliant!

Re: Here's a bit more...

[pythia_delphi]

I suspect you're right as regards that letter. Irene is going to be so difficult to cast, isn't she? I'm sure every fan has something specific in mind when they imagine her. I just hope they don't go for the superficial pretty young thing/romantic-interest for Sherlock like they did in last year's movie. I mean, why even call her Irene when she wasn't an opera singer but a thief?! I just want her to be a mature (in her 30s maybe), attractive woman who outsmarts Sherlock and thereby garners his admiration, but without any romantic interest on either side. I think, however, that general public expectation being what it is, it's pretty unlikely that I'll get my wish.

Re: Here's a bit more...

[fitchersvogel]

Everything you said, as usual :). Except that I think that Moffat and Gatiss will get her right. I have great faith in their dedication to the books, they've shown only minor slip-ups in the first 3 Eps; they won't give Sherlock a romantic interest, I think I even read an interview with Moffat where he explicitely stated that they have this out of the way with the "not really my area" conversation.

One thing I never really understood is how can anyone read SCAN and not get it? Yes, I know, there are certain "rules" in the movie world, bla bla, but the fans? There are so many dedicated Sherlockians, forever debating timelines and first names, and when it comes to Irene they all completely ignore poor Watson's writings :).
I think with Molly Hooper (and, to a degree, Sarah) we have seen how Sherlock can be around females he doesn't respect - this would be a great setup for Irene to change his perceptions about women. I really, really hope that we get a more mature, self-assured Irene as well, someone who he could imagine as a partner, if he wasn't, well, Sherlock Holmes. That's what I always saw in the "The Woman" thing: Sherlock's idea of what could have been in an alternate world, where he was interested in the "softer emotions", and she wasn't married :). But of course, only in theory!