Author Topic: Sherlock 2  (Read 11033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline largeham

  • Dirty Pinko
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Gender: Male
  • The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2012, 02:00:37 am »
Sherlock 2 wasn't a perfect movie by a long stretch, but I had a blast watching it. The only thing that really stuck in my craw though was the very very last scene - it only works from that one specific angle, and so wouldn't fool the characters in the scene (just the audience).

Yeah, that was weird, any person sitting there would have immediately noted that something is on the chair.

Also, anarchists who drink wine from 1789 and proclaim that year as they year of our great revolution? Anarchists who get married? Do the writers know anything about anarchism? Or do they just not care?

My Little Comrade
My Little Comrade
Ah ah ah aaaaah!
(My Little Comrade)
I used to wonder what socialism could be!
(My Little Comrade)
Until you all shared its materialist dialectic with me!

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2012, 02:25:12 am »
Here's a question: if they had all this artillery pre-laid and zeroed and everything, why didn't they just blow up the train?
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline largeham

  • Dirty Pinko
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Gender: Male
  • The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2012, 03:01:20 am »
The whole artillery scene was weird. He shoots at a tower with a person hanging off it, and that person survives? The main characters survive a mortar/artillery barrage while running through woods?

P.S. http://exiledonline.com/sherlock-holmes-2-fine-whatever/

My Little Comrade
My Little Comrade
Ah ah ah aaaaah!
(My Little Comrade)
I used to wonder what socialism could be!
(My Little Comrade)
Until you all shared its materialist dialectic with me!

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2012, 06:25:28 am »
Surviving shrapnell from impacts that are uncomfortably close is very common in Hollywood movies, it even happens in movies and series that are otherwise realistic. (Atleast once in Band of brothers, although I haven't seen much of the series.)

Lets review that scene throrougly:

But most of it is a spoiler so:
(click to show/hide)
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline largeham

  • Dirty Pinko
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Gender: Male
  • The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2012, 06:45:27 am »
No no, I get it. They can't have most of the main characters dying, but they could have done it better maybe. Or changed the scene somewhat.

Also, machine pistols weren't invented until the end of WW1.

My Little Comrade
My Little Comrade
Ah ah ah aaaaah!
(My Little Comrade)
I used to wonder what socialism could be!
(My Little Comrade)
Until you all shared its materialist dialectic with me!

Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8358
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2012, 07:09:47 am »
Correction:
Mauser C96 went to production 1896 so it was available before WW1.

On the other hand the movie is supposed to be during 1892 so it still is an anachronism. (and the type of Mauser used in movie went to production in 1923)
(click to show/hide)

Anyway, since the whole point is that
(click to show/hide)


Anyway. I would rather see a more realistic description of artillery in movies anyway. Having the shells land few hundred meters off target would have been
a) more realistic
b) equally dangerous
c) less impressive for the moviegoers

Bah. This is just one of my pet peeves. I did like Holmes vs Moriarty mind games in the movie and I also liked that
(click to show/hide)
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2012, 07:17:19 am »
Also, machine pistols weren't invented until the end of WW1.

That's not quite true. The Mauser C96 that they were using was brought into service in 1896. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they might have had working test examples a few years in advance (though 1891 is probably pushing it).

Unless you mean the sub-machine guns. Which I understand to just be regular box-fed machine guns that Watson uses himself because he's just that manly.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline lighthorseman

  • Argumentative Contrarian
  • On Probation
  • Bishop
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Proud Y chromosome owner
    • Company of the Wolf
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2012, 07:39:18 am »
If you could maintain suspension of disbelief, it was a fun movie.
Let me make it real easy... if anyone is interested in my actual opinion, please ask, I'd love to talk to you. If you are interested in trying to catch me out in some sort of "gotcha, before you said 'many', but now you're saying 'lots', you totally shifted goal posts", then, I'm not playing.

Offline largeham

  • Dirty Pinko
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
  • Gender: Male
  • The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2012, 08:47:46 am »
Ah, I was wrong about machine pistols then. Were Mauser C96s built in large quantities at first? IIRC Germany armed 10,000 soldiers with machine pistols/sub-machine guns by the end of WW1, so I'm not sure how many machine pistols were produced as arming troops with a completely new weapon in peacetime is different to doing so in war.

Unless you mean the sub-machine guns. Which I understand to just be regular box-fed machine guns that Watson uses himself because he's just that manly.
That pissed me off to no end. Sure Watson was in the army, but that gun would have been difficult to handle.

Also, branching out a bit, Moriarty asks Holmes why the British government did nothing, implying that the government turned a blind eye and or gave tacit approval to Moriarty's activities and wouldn't mind a war. However, a war would have destroyed all the trade networks built up and even if the British government wanted one, they did not want one on the scale of WW1. Also, they would not want someone supplying their enemies (assuming they knew that Moriarty was supplying everyone).

My Little Comrade
My Little Comrade
Ah ah ah aaaaah!
(My Little Comrade)
I used to wonder what socialism could be!
(My Little Comrade)
Until you all shared its materialist dialectic with me!

Offline Eniliad

  • Sword And Shield Of The Innocent
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Gender: Male
  • Perpetually horny cock-slave
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2012, 10:43:41 am »
Well, gotta satisfy the CTSTDT crowd.
<Miles> "If dildoes are outlawed then only outlaws will have dildoes."
Quote from: Mlle Antéchrist
Yeah, gays cause hurricanes, tits cause earthquakes, and lack of prayer causes tornadoes. Learn to science, people.
Quote from: Mlle Antéchrist
Porn peddlers peddling pedal porn? My life is complete.

Offline Lithp

  • Official FSTDT Spokesman
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2012, 01:57:34 pm »
Moriyarti was implying that, whether they admit it or not, everyone subconsciously wants violence. To him, "closing the negotiations would just trigger war faster" was just an excuse. You could just chalk it up to Evil Cannot Comprehend Good.

I wasn't big on the whole shootout in the woods scene anyway. But speaking of stuff blowing up, what exactly was Holmes planning with the tower? He kind of dodged the question when Watson asked, & I couldn't figure it out either.

Also, what happened to the remote-controller thing from the first film?

Still in development?

Offline MaybeNever

  • Got His Red Wings
  • Pope
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Gender: Male
  • Possessed of a proclivity for prolixity
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2012, 02:37:18 pm »
One nice touch is that the end scene is almost exactly how Doyle originally ended things.

(click to show/hide)

Moriarty was a great character. Cast just right, which is nice since I don't think I'd seen that actor before. I felt like there was a bit of a copout with the reveal near the end that Holmes had

(click to show/hide)

It could've used a few comments or bits here and there to give more background to Holmes figuring it out. It wasn't entirely out of the blue, but I think a couple more bread crumbs for the viewers would've been nice. On the other hand, the adrenaline was an obvious Chekov's Gun. Maybe it balances out.

And what was with the scene talking about the Holmes brothers' secret code in messages? Did that come up anywhere else? I'm hoping it's a setup for the next film, which is supposed to be out in December 2013. Otherwise, beyond the "naked fat man haha" angle of that scene it seems a bit pointless. They could've cut it without losing anything if Mycroft had told Watson in Switzerland, "Oh, your wife is doing great also she saw my flaccid penis and I have a really old butler."

In fact I may have preferred that, if only for the magic and whimsy of that line appearing on Youtube forevermore.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:30:56 am by MaybeNever »
"Great Britain's two most senior military officers added to the uneasiness. [...] Lord Wolseley, Adjutant General, thought that it might be possible for an enemy to invade without waiters and pastrycooks."
-Robert K. Massie, Dreadnought

Offline Lithp

  • Official FSTDT Spokesman
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
Re: Sherlock 2
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2012, 02:44:41 pm »
I noticed that too, but he was supposed to have

(click to show/hide)

Honestly, as far as actually solving the mystery goes, the 2nd movie was boatloads better than the first. The first relied on (A) bizarre symbology that was either rather obscure, completely made up, or both & (B) things the audience might have a general knowledge of, but wouldn't know how to recognize. For instance, I figured out that Blackwood had drugged himself, that doesn't mean I knew what all of those shots of dead plants were about. But, then again, the second was too straightforward, so they still haven't really got that idea right.