468 replies to this topic

[Marian Schedenig]

Indeed. I saw that last week. I enjoyed the first movie, but found the sequel truly horrid. But thanks to Sherlock I'm nevertheless on a Holmes kick right now.

PS: Now here was an Irene Adler that deserved to be called The Woman.

[Stefancos]

Stunning episode. At times tragic, at times hilarious. Cumberpatch and Freeman are once again great. Gattis is actually very good as Mycroft and Lara Pulver is rather stunning.

The script by Steven Moffat shows all the hallmarks of his writing on Doctor Who. Fast pacing, characters talking across purposes (saying one thing, meaning something else) a non-linear structure. With Doctor Who in the last series he often overpowered a 45 minute episode. At 90 minutes there is just enough breathing room....just.

Holmes does care about people. He deduced Mrs Hudson was beaten by the CIA agent and dropped him from a window in retaliation.

I love the look of the series. Whoever said digital camerawork looked ugly?

Good music, somehow fits the show like a glove.

[Stefancos]

The Hounds Of Baskerville.

Bloody hell!

[Jason LeBlanc]

Can't wait to watch it tonight!

[Stefancos]

Watch in HD if you can.

[Jason LeBlanc]

Duh

[Chaac]

Godamnit. I wanted to read these things first before seeing the second season. But right now I feel more like seeing the show first. Well, if it's good, it's good.

[Stefancos]

Duh

Also see it in the dark....

[Stefancos]

Am I the only one watching?

[fommes]

Nope, I'm watching it too. Great television again, but I didn't think the plot was as strong as some of the previous episodes. The whole thing was pretty obvious, and in this kind of series, it's not good if we viewers are miles ahead of Sherlock. But I guess there's only so much you can do with the Baskervilles story. They should do some original stories!
In comparison to last week, it had some decent narrative drive this time, too bad the plot was too run-of-the-mill.
All in all, the second season keeps all the strong elements of the first season, especially the character interaction and the writing. I was kind of disappointed in the music this time around, in that most of it is a repeat of the season 1 highlights, instead of fresh compositions.

Already on to the last episode again...

[Chaac]

A Scandal in Belgravia is my favourite script by Steven Moffat since The Big Bang. I disliked some excessive music in some scenes. I also dislike when they go with Sherlock as if he had superpowers, like when he discovers the numbering of the seats in a plane.

The Hound of Baskerville had a less interesting story that seemed to be going in circles. Great atmosphere in a pair of scenes, though.

[Marian Schedenig]

Baskerville was good. Not as fascinating as the previous episode, but then I've never quite been able to know what to think of the original story to begin with.

[Stefancos]

Baskerville was great, even though i read the book several times this ep kept me guessing. Very atmospheric.

[davros72]

I did enjoy Baskerville, but not as much as Scandal. Partly because I cannot stand the actor that played Henry (I think that was his name), just cannot stand him. But also because the story did seem more run of the mill. There's just something about a Steven Moffat script that sparkles whereas non-Moffat scripts just don't.

There was also some bad movie/TV cliched writing that I hate. "We're looking for something possibly very scary and dangerous in a dark forest at night... Gee, I heard something over there, I'll go investigate by myself and I better not tell the other people with me, because that would make sense..." Stuff like that I loathe.

Looking forward to next episode immensely, though. (Wish there were a few more new episodes to watch right away, too!)

[Stefancos]

What I liked about Baskerville is that the tempo and dialogue was a little more manageable then Moffat's script. The story featured some clever nods to the original story (love the dogging site)

[Jason LeBlanc]

I liked it, but was dissapointed by the end.

What I mean was, the entire time I was really into it. I liked every part of the investigation, following along with them, trying to figure it all out. Then when it was all revealed at the end, I felt let down. Like it didn't live up to the hype of the preceding 80 minutes. Overall still very very good, just not mind-blowingly good from start to finish like the season premiere.

I think I pegged what it is about this show that makes it special. It's that they do EVERY aspect of it differently than any other show. The directing is unique, the writing is unique, the editing is unique, the acting is unique, the music is unique. They take CHANCES with everything - and it all comes together and actually works, brilliantly.

---

Oh, one more thing. What was UP with that final scene with Moriarty? For most of the episode I quite liked how it was a standalone story and not tied to the ongoing Moriarty arc. When Moriary appeared in Sherlock's gas-induced vision I was fine with though, I thought that was a great touch. But what did the final scene mean? Was it from the show's present? The future? The past? Since it had NO connection to ANYTHING else seen in the episode, I think I would have preferred it to not be included, maybe have it be the cold open to next week's episode. It didn't make a good cliffhanger because there was no build up to it, it had no connection to anything. And I was already pumped for the season finale without needing an extra hook. I dunno.

[Stefancos]

It's a build up to next week if the episode title of the last one is any indication.

[Jason LeBlanc]

I also thought it was was weird that the "morse code" Watson saw really turned out to be nothing. I thought for sure it would be revealed to actually mean something by the end

[Stefancos]

The morse code was just the car lights. A red herring just like in the book.

[Jason LeBlanc]

Well it was more than a red herring, it got Sherlock to thinking that HOUNDS could be an anagram

I've never read the book or any other Sherlock story

[Stefancos]

I think Baskerville was in many ways more faithful then the other ones so far. Though in as many other ways it was completely different.

[Jason LeBlanc]

I don't think they should focus on making faithful adaptations, I think they should just make the best show they can

[Stefancos]

They are. None of that army base stuff was in the book, most of the characters are different. Thats why I had no idea how the ep would turn out even though I know the book so well.

So far all the episodes are very radical reworkings of Conan Doyle stories, with a lot of clever references to them.

[Chaac]

I've only read the first book and I was hooked right at the start of the show with such a creative rewriting.

[gkgyver]

To those owning the Sherlock season one BluRay:
did you also have the problem that the second disc in the box was missing? I bought it last week, and much to my surprise, only found one disc in there.

[Marian Schedenig]

Oh, one more thing. What was UP with that final scene with Moriarty? For most of the episode I quite liked how it was a standalone story and not tied to the ongoing Moriarty arc. When Moriary appeared in Sherlock's gas-induced vision I was fine with though, I thought that was a great touch. But what did the final scene mean? Was it from the show's present? The future? The past? Since it had NO connection to ANYTHING else seen in th episode, I think I would have preferred it to not be included, maybe have it be the cold open to next week's episode. It didn't make a good cliffhanger because there was no build up to it, it had no connection to anything. And I was already pumped for the season finale without needing an extra hook. I dunno.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't think they should focus on making faithful adaptations, I think they should just make the best show they can

Well... when comparing Scandal to the original story, pretty much the only thing that's similar is that Holmes gets hired by "a government" and that he uses a fire alarm to find out where Irene Adler hides her evidence. I suppose much of the remaining material is culled from various other Holmes stories, but what I'm getting at is that while their adaptations are exceedingly faithful, they're still totally different from the originals and stand very much on their own. In fact I love how they manage to sneak in all these faithful bits and pieces in an otherwise totally modern story (like the name "Baskerville" or Sherlock's hat).

[Stefancos]

Indeed. Baskerville is probably closer to the book then any of the stories so far though.

I loved the change of scenery. Getting away from London to Those creepy moors.

Oh, one more thing. What was UP with that final scene with Moriarty? For most of the episode I quite liked how it was a standalone story and not tied to the ongoing Moriarty arc. When Moriary appeared in Sherlock's gas-induced vision I was fine with though, I thought that was a great touch. But what did the final scene mean? Was it from the show's present? The future? The past? Since it had NO connection to ANYTHING else seen in th episode, I think I would have preferred it to not be included, maybe have it be the cold open to next week's episode. It didn't make a good cliffhanger because there was no build up to it, it had no connection to anything. And I was already pumped for the season finale without needing an extra hook. I dunno.

My thoughts exactly.

Moffat does that on Doctor Who a lot too. Actually none of Sherlock's eps have been completely stand alone.

I'm not sure about the actor playing Moriarty. He either plays the role as a camp Josh Whedon/Russel T. Davies villian or as a psychopatic monster, almost inhuman. Sometime shifting within seconds.

[Jason LeBlanc]

That's why it's brilliant!

Though admittedly, he was much more terrifying at the end of Season 1 than he has been so far in Season 2

[Stefancos]

Well in Ep 2 he only looked menacingly at the camera a few times.

I was kind of disappointed in the music this time around, in that most of it is a repeat of the season 1 highlights, instead of fresh compositions.

This is not unusual for BBC TV shows. Unlike American TV they don't require new music to be written for a new episode, so they track and reuse a lot from previous episodes or seasons.

[InTheCity]

Big holmes fan. I read adventures, returns and memoirs as a teenager. I caught the first season on Netflix, how do I watch the second season. I am stuck in the USA.

[Stefancos]

Either grab a download or wait for it to air in the USA.

[publicist]

HOUNDS OF BASKERVILLE i liked very much, although it didn't touch the first episode. It was a bit too mechanic in its plot machinations, but Cumberbatch (and Freeman, to a lesser degree) were on a high, so it moved effortlessly. Cumberbatch surely can deliver is quips with some acid.

*SPOILER ALERT* What i didn't understand was the final appearance of the hound: first there was the hoax one, then the 'real' one which was brought how often? 2 times? Didn't it interfere with the hoax one earlier? To achieve what? A mass fear hallucination? What for? The mist in the gorge somehow limits the possibilities of elaborate schemes and it all seems a bit too silly on further thought...but well, it was entertaining nevertheless.

[KK.]

I liked the episode, but like others, I didn't think it was very close to the greatness of the season premiere of season 2. But the show continues to maintain a high standard of writing and great acting on Cumberbatch's part. Although I wonder how ridiculous it must have seemed to film the "Mind Palace" scene

*SPOILER ALERT* What i didn't understand was the final appearance of the hound: first there was the hoax one, then the 'real' one which was brought how often? 2 times? Didn't it interfere with the hoax one earlier? To achieve what? A mass fear hallucination? What for? The mist in the gorge somehow limits the possibilities of elaborate schemes and it all seems a bit too silly on further thought...but well, it was entertaining nevertheless.

SPOILER ALERT:
Yes, there were some plot holes. But wasn't the "hound" in the hollow always the dog (just seen as a vicious hound)? The hound at the lab was induced by Sherlock's noises and such. Also, I could see the smoke unleashed upon enemies as a weapon of mass fear.

- KK

[Blumenkohl]

I've finally hopped on this bandwagon. I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, having read every story Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has written at least twice if not thrice, and I consider myself a purist, so this show sort of rubbed me wrong on the face of it. But having seen the first few episodes, this is the real Sherlock Holmes just with the scenery changed.

Wonderful!

[Stefancos]

I felt the same way before i started watching. I must have read every one of the stories in my teens. This series makes me wanna read them again.

[Jason LeBlanc]

*SPOILER ALERT* What i didn't understand was the final appearance of the hound: first there was the hoax one, then the 'real' one which was brought how often? 2 times? Didn't it interfere with the hoax one earlier? To achieve what? A mass fear hallucination? What for? The mist in the gorge somehow limits the possibilities of elaborate schemes and it all seems a bit too silly on further thought...but well, it was entertaining nevertheless.

Moriarty wasn't really there either. We saw what the characters saw, and then we saw what was really there

[KK.]

I've finally hopped on this bandwagon. I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, having read every story Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has written at least twice if not thrice, and I consider myself a purist, so this show sort of rubbed me wrong on the face of it. But having seen the first few episodes, this is the real Sherlock Holmes just with the scenery changed.

Wonderful!

I myself am a big fan of Doyle's Holmes stories as well (own every short story and novel he wrote based on the character). Similar to you, I didn't really like the first episode (thought it kind of "dumbed down" the first novel) and it took me a while to get my head to accept that Cumberbatch was Holmes. But as the show progressed, I fell in love with Cumberbatch and the interpretations. A friend of mine introduced it to me and tried to get me to like it, after some hesitancy, I now am truly in love with the show.

[Incanus]

Saw the Hounds of Baskerville two days ago. A great episode even though not quite up to par with the previous ones. Cumberbatch's Holmes kept it afloat admirably and the story had some excellent moments of suspence and character development. Although I am a Sherlock Holmes purist and a huge fan of the original stories the modernization works very well in my opinion. The acting and the handling of Doyle's material which is often quite wittily inserted into the show and used as a starting point for a modern day spin on the old stories really sold the series to me.

P.S. Moriarty in this show was a let down. Too much Joker styled schizophrenic shouting-laughing-crying-ranting going on in the performance. A more of a Holmes styled cool and composed evil genius would have been much better.

[KK.]

P.S. Moriarty in this show was a let down. Too much Joker styled schizophrenic shouting-laughing-crying-ranting going on in the performance. A more of a Holmes styled cool and composed evil genius would have been much better.

Bingo! Thats what I felt. Joker-style doesn't suit Moriarty well. He is far more intimidating as a more composed figure and makes a more interesting character really.

[Jason LeBlanc]

I love the television version. He's unlike any television villian I've ever seen before. It makes no difference to me if he's faithful to the books or not. He' s a good foil for Holmes because he can't be predicted