Sherlock - BBC [4]

I really liked the "hit me with your lovliest hand and get over it" part.

It's a perfect parody of Johns reaction to Sherlock returning in the series.   

That is art. Love love it!

Continuity, my dear Watson!

I had forgotten they actually did this in the series too.   

first 17 seconds can be skipped.

^ There is a "me" though.

{{{I didn't actually watch the video so I have no idea if this is relevant.}}}

watch the goddamn video!

Okay, that was really good.

i know

 

This is my normal reaction to seeing Benedict in something.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPGVZmng0bc&feature=youtu.be&t=28m51s

I noticed the other day that "A Scandal in Pink" had recently-ish been recorded by our DVR, so I watched it on a whim (even though it's 90 minutes) and it still holds up really well. I've never been totally sold on the serial killer's big secret, though. I've personally assumed since the first time I saw the episode that he was pulling a Vizzini (from The Princess Bride) and both pills were poison. I have no idea if that's what Moffat intended or not.

But yeah, it was a lot of fun to revisit one of my favorite episodes of the show. Makes me remember why the show is/was one of my all-time favorites. Shame about series three though.

it's " a study in pink" and "a scandal in belgravia" i was bit confused there....
but yeah, true, it does hold up and i love that they made the choice to confrot holmes with the choice too (unlike in the books).

Haha, thanks for correcting me on that, Norc.  I blame lack of sleep (and too much stress).

It's quite a neat concept, like most of Moffats ideas.

With the

Spoiler:

Not sure it always holds up to scrutiny, but that certainly shocked me the first time round.   

Actually. You might have inspired me to give one of those early Sherlock episodes a go, Eldo.  

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-05-20/sherlock-makes-the-dictionary-in-new-definition-of-ship

if anyone wants to start up the discussion again whether or not Sherlock is  a sosiopath/psychopath, then take a google search on James Fallon. He's a scientist and did brain research on altzheimers and psychopath and by "accident" he realised he had the brain of a psyco, just like the most brutal and insane criminals. he is on the border of being dangerous.  he says that he has no limits and that he struggles with empathy, though he can function in a normal life, he has a wife and kids. it's very interesting

If you can have a "psychopath brain" and never realize it until you look at a brain scan of yourself, then I think that's a fairly convincing piece of evidence in the "nurture" side of the nature vs. nurture debate.  I'm highly skeptical of genetic determinism in general, though. Obviously your physical brain has an effect on your psychology (Phineas Gage being the most famous example of that), but the idea that you can construct a portrait of someone and/or determine their likelihood to commit crimes just by looking at their brain reeks of bullshit.

no, there is something in it. let me explain more thoroughly.. he scanned the brains of the people who had done the worst crimes you can imagine, mass murderers, wife and kid murderers, paedophiles and torturers and basically maniacs and compared them to brain scans of "normal" people meaning people who had never done any crime at all. he found that the psychopaths (many of them having this title from a medical standpoint) had lower activity in certain areas in their brains, where empathy and sympathy lies. he then found his brain looked a lot like the ones of the criminals. now, he is on the border of being dangerous. he didn't know until his wife pointed it out that he liked to manipulate people, not to gain anything but their focus and such, like he would enjoy just having the power over them. he also tells he has problems feeling empathy, he udnerstands what people need in given situations, but he has trouble feeling with them and yeah, seeing it. he also likes taking risks, he would take his kids waterskiing but instead of doing it near the shore, he took them out where there are sharks, because it gave him a kick, he didn't understand the danger and what the kids might feel.. he even admits that perhaps if he had grown up needing stuff, money or whatever, he might have turned out quite differently.

i suggest u google him or something, eldo, it is actually very interesting.

I've read about his research before and I'm still not convinced. We have a limited understanding of lots of brain related stuff anyway, so "lower activity" in certain areas could mean a lot of things. Interestingly, Fallon himself says that this research has shaken his belief in the importance of genetics on personality.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271/

Also, from a moral, cultural, or legal perspective, I think it's incredibly dangerous to perpetuate (even unintentionally) the notion that people can be "born" as criminals or that some people are "beyond saving" and thus rehabilitation is worthless. These ideas are common enough as they are and are part of the reason why the American criminal justice system is as thoroughly fucked as it is. I can't speak to other countries' systems, but Fallon is an American so I feel it's a relevant point to bring up.