Mrs. Sherlock Holmes on Timeless

As I mentioned yesterday, this weeks episode of Timeless was called 'Mrs. Sherlock Holmes'.

And since the show likes to blend fact with fiction I was not expecting the show to have come up with another fictional character to add to its leads.

Instead this episode focused on the abilities of Mary Grace Humiston.
An early 20th century woman who made her name known as a lawyer and part time detective.

While we will never know if Ms. Humistons personality was indeed Sherlockian, they played that for all it was worth in the episode.
Enough so that you could see a show built around 'Mrs. Sherlock Holmes' and the very Sherlockian way she was played.
Well done.
One thing I like about shows the blend fact in fiction is that they make me want to go find out how much of the fact is actually fact and how much is fiction.

Timeless - Mrs. Sherlock Holmes

Although I haven't watched it yet, the latest episode on the NBC TV show 'Timeless' is called 'Mrs. Sherlock Holmes'

I gonna have to check it out.

Well, if he says it's okay. . . .

Benedict Cumberbatch Supports Female Sherlock Holmes

Benedict Cumberbatch is open to having a female Sherlock Holmes in the future. The British actor, who has played the contemporary version of the iconic character for four seasons now in the hit BBC TV series Sherlock, has made it clear that he has no problem whatsoever with the thought that a gender switch might be executed for the fan-favorite detective in the future.

Coming off of the huge announcement that long-running British series Doctor Who has tapped Jodie Whittaker to take over Peter Capaldi’s spot as the next reincarnation of the eponymous Time Lord, discussions about gender-swapping popular roles in mainstream media have become more frequent than ever. After years of campaigns for a female time-traveling doctor, the Broadchurch star was finally announced to be the Thirteenth regeneration of the character. Admittedly, not everyone was very receptive to the change, with some questioning the decision made by the BBC. Cumberbatch, however, is among those who are thrilled to see Whittaker’s take on such a pop culture icon.

Speaking to Variety while promoting his upcoming drama The Child In Time (which is the first venture from his new production company, SunnyMarch), the Oscars-nominated actor leapt to Doctor Who‘s casting shake-up’s defense and expressed his excitement to see Whittaker’s version of the Doctor:

“It’s an alien. Why can’t it be a woman, why can’t it be any gender? It doesn’t matter to me. I don’t speak as someone who has the right as a fan to have an incredibly strong opinion. I just speak as someone who wants to see Jodie Whittaker’s performance as the Doctor. I think she’s an extraordinary actress and we’re lucky, culturally, to have got her to agree to do it, let alone any debate ensuing about whether it’s right or wrong.”

Given his approval of a female Doctor, Cumberbatch was then asked about his thoughts of possibly also having a female version of his sassy detective role, Sherlock Holmes. Similar to his thoughts on Doctor Who, Cumberbatch does not see any problem with having a female Sherlock Holmes appear on either the small and/or big screen in the future. “Why not? I don’t care. ‘Sherlockina’ is coming to you soon,” he said.

While Cumberbatch does have a point regarding Doctor Who‘s gender swap, it might be a bit more complicated to do a similar change with Sherlock. The eponymous Time Lord’s regeneration every few years (or seasons, with regard to the show itself) provides the series with an opportunity to easily execute the lead modification without having to get into the nitty-gritty of what happened to the other iterations of the character and how come the new one is suddenly female after a slew of men playing the role. Sherlock’s various incantations, on the other hand, are all rather independent of one another. As such, should a female Holmes eventually makes her debut on the big and/or small screen, it would presumably be a separate entity from Cumberbatch’s version.

source

North of the Border, up Canada way. . . . Elementary S5 -E's 13 & 14

These latest two episodes involved our friends to the North, and focused, as it has a habit of doing, on issues that have been in the headlines lately, either on a small scale, black market maple syrup, or a large scale, global warming.

Well, maple syrup at thirteen hundred dollars a barrel, maybe it isn't such a small crime after all.

This is a real photo of Global Strategic Maple Syrup reserves in Quebec.

In 2012 540,000 barrels were stolen, 12.5 percent of the reserve. A street value of 13.4 million dollars. (this heist is currently being planned as a movie).

So, yes, 'Over a Barrel' is a timely topic.

And 'Rekt in Real Life' is also a big money topic; the world of gaming.

I am enjoying this season a lot. Elementary has seemed to find a more comfortable format that is skipping some of the crazy of the first few years.
A couple of fun discussion points of these last couple of weeks could be the mention of cases Holmes was involved in that Watson did not record.
And perhaps collateral damage of cases Holmes did not take.

The Shinwell story line is getting a little tiresome, and I hope it resolves itself before next season.

And yes, I still think 'Elementary' is better than 'Sherlock'.

'There's something about Mary'- Sherlock, the end.

Well, here we are. After all this waiting and anticipating we have what appears to be the end of 'Sherlock'.
Not Sherlock Holmes, just Sherlock.

For better or worse, there it is.

And over the last week our so we have had a bunch of "Sherlockians" telling us if it was good or bad. Most just stating their own opinion, others telling us we are wrong if we don't agree with them. And if not telling us we are wrong, they at least try to but us in that 'old school' 'closed mind' category of Sherlockian.

We have been told that the key people involved are "Artists". And that 'Sherlock' was art.

Well, like with all art, and many artists (whether other people claim them as such, or it is a self given title) there is good art and bad art and using the often used quote, "Art is in the eye of the beholder."

While not being 'bad' art, it is not museum worthy.

For me 'Sherlock' is a show that did not meet up to its potential, nor do I think it achieved what it set out to do or could possibly have done. (It is not good when before you see they final episode they have to have a piece telling you why it was made the way it was.)

The first year suggested hope and potential, and while there were a few bright spots along the way it never dazzled as it should have. All the makings were there, but the light never came on all the way.
Wonderful actors playing the key roles. Wonderful sets and locations. The budget to go along with it.
Source material with infinite possibilities, and what at first appeared to be writers who loved the source.

As I said way back in 2010 when it all started, Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch are two of the best things to happen to Sherlock Holmes in a very long time. Their talents and skills can not be over looked as very good choices to play Holmes and Watson whether in a modern era of 1895.
They had the theatrical flare to pull off the larger than life characters they were asked to play.
And time after time they did that. But they were never allowed to complete that portrayal throughout the series run, at least not for me.
These remain two of my favorite actors in this day and age and I look forward to seeing their other works.

But when it really comes right down to it we have to decide if these portrayals of Holmes and Watson come close to matching the images we have created in our, using a much over used phrase of late, 'brain attic'.
If we take a still photo of these two actors as Holmes and Watson it is easy to imagine both as those to Canonical individuals.
But once Cumberbatch's Holmes goes into his 'highly functional sociopath' portrayal the bubble bursts for me.

The enjoyment of the Canon for me is the individual cases that Holmes is asked to solve, with just little pieces of back story thrown in to create a bigger image for us over time.

While many of the Canon based cases are mentioned in 'Sherlock' most it seems,  just like 'Elementary' is accused of doing, are thrown in as Canonical bait to keep us biting.

I don't want my Sherlock Holmes to be a murderer or a high functioning sociopath.
I don't want my Mrs. Hudson to be the ex-wife of a drug dealer.
I don't want my Mary Morstan dying in this show just so she can compete with Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible Six or what ever.
I don't want my Mycroft to be as dumb as he turned out to be.
I don't want my Holmes to be related to James Bond.
I don't want my Sherlock Holmes to come from a family more dysfunctional than the Adam's family.

Unfortunately for all that was great, yes I said great, about 'Sherlock', there was just as much that wasn't.

We hardly ever witnessed Sherlock doing good. And, again for me, Canonically Holmes in the end was about doing good.

While we are all left to decide for ourselves what is good art we must also realize that we get to chose who we think good artists are.
And please artist's either use brushes or finger paints, not both.

Why did I title this essay 'There's something about Mary."? Well because I thought she delivered the best line of the whole series, all four years.

I will do my best to quote the whole thing here at the end.

She said;

"A junky who gets high on solving crime.
A doctor who never came home from the war.

Well you listen to me.
Who you are doesn't really matter.
It's all about the legend, the stories, the adventures.
The last refuge for the desperate, the unloved, the persecuted.
There is a final court of appeal for everyone.

When life gets to strange, to impossible, to frightening there is always one last hope.

When all else fails, there are two men sitting arguing in a scruffy flat, like they have always been there and they always will be the best and wisest men I have ever known.

My Baker St. Boys.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson."

This should have been the guide lines for 'Sherlock' all along.
This is the path they should have gone down modern era or not. Using cell phones, the patch and texting.

Elementary Review - Season 5, Episodes 103 & 104

#103 - 'Bang, Bang, Shoot, Chute"

So far this episode has been one of my least favorite of what I think is the shows best season to date.

One of two risk taking base-jumpers is shot while free falling from a tall building. Which proves to be unnecessary, since his chute had been messed with anyway.

Which leads Holmes to suspect that two people had intended to murder the jumper.
  For me, this episode fell back on what had been its problem last year; an over complicated story line and not enough Sherlockianisms.
The jumpers wife wants him dead because he had an affair, and a partner wants him dead for other reasons.

While the storyline for episode #104 had some big holes in it, it was at least a fun episode because of Sherlockianisms and some available good discussion points.

Biggest storyline flaw was the sausage shop owners part in the story.
We are lead to believe that the shop owner is really on top of his business. The only one that has total access to the workings of his business.
Yet, a; he doesn't notice that there is more ground meat the next morning than he ground the night before. B; where are the bones? C; How did the murderer know about the sausage shop? Had he been a customer, which surely the owner would have known, or a connection could have been made by Holmes in the storyline (which may have made it to easy).
Once again, instead of just a good storyline or mystery, the writers had to make it overly complicated for no reason.

However! We do get a mention of the Six Napoleons, Musgrave, and the Beryl Coronet with Mr Holder.

A good discussion point is Holmes' arrogance and how it my relate to how he handles cases (and people).

I had fun watching this episode, so I can fairly give it;

and if it is fun, well, that's the whole point isn't it?

Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - the Man from Uncle edition - Robert Vaughn

With the death of the last of the Magnificent Seven (1960), Robert Vaughn was best known for his time as an international spy in The Man from Uncle. For those of us in the 60's not mature enough for Bond, this was a great show.

Robert Vaughn 1932 - 2016

He had a very (very) small role in The Ten Commandments (1956)

Which we all know starred Charlton Heston who was in many Sherlock Holmes stories.

Charlton Heston (1923-2008)

Heston was Sherlock Holmes in stage and in film in The Crucifer of Blood.

Howard, thanks for the additional info.

Robert Vaughn at least once played Holmes on The Hollywood Palace.

Vaughn was Holmes, Phyllis Diller was Moriarty and Charlie Manna played Watson.

Bringing Robert, as Howard suggests, within One Degree of Sherlock Holmes.

Elementary - S5E4 (#100) - 'Henny Penny the Sky is Falling", finally one to write about this season.

This episode opens with Holmes doing a good 'how deep the parsley sank in the butter' explination to Marcus on why a suspect could not have done what he said he did. The tools he used was a bowl of water and a 'poop' emoji.

Holmes of course thinking the 'poop' emoji was an ice cream emoji add a good piece of humor.

While still at the police station Holmes spots Gregsons boss having a conversation with the inspector which makes Holmes think he may be in trouble again with Gregsons boss.

This prompts Holmes to go back and investigate some of his past cases looking for something he/they may have done wrong.

Watson of course is less worried than Holmes knowing that Gregson "has their backs".

While having this discussion the duo get a call from Marcus about a murder. 

The victim, a Quantitative Analyst, is found in his apartment, pinned to the wall (like in Black Peter) with a fireplace poker. It is determined that the victim must have known his assailant, (also in Black Peter.)

It is first suspected that Russell Cole, the victim, may have been murdered by his boss, Mitch Barry, for matters to do with their shared interest in Barry's business, or Coles affair with Barry's wife.

Discovering that Cole was having an affair with Barry's wife, Holmes and Watson discover that Cole had a cabin in upstate New York where he worked on many of his projects. 

It is also discovered that Cole had also written a paper on asteroids that was shaking up the current theories on the size of asteroids and the effect they could have on earth should one hit earth.

Cole had been trying to get more money from his partner, a Congresswoman's right hand man, who was using the paper to make money on investments in asteroid mining companies. 

That is a very simple recap of the episode.

This episode was very well done, keeping my interest for the whole show.

The episode once again found Holmes and Watson comfortable in their arrangements and content with their jobs.

The episode also had well done Sherlockian 'skills' throughout.

-The first was the opening scene with Holmes and Marcus with the emoji and bowl of water.

-This was followed by Cole being pinned to the wall with the poker. Very 'Black Peter'. Although the Canon goes on to explain how some one would have to have had experience with a harpoon to be able to do that, while the 'harpooner', Len, in this episode seemed a little smaller framed and inexperienced too be able to attach Cole so firmly to the wall with his feet actually up off the floor. (And did you notice no blood was on the poker where it went into the other apartment?)

-Holmes lack of knowledge about astronomy was also used in this episode.

-His knowledge of botany as it pertains to poisons. 

-As was his disdain for attention and public recognition. He not only mentions that he does not want credit in the public eye, but he also brings up how that recognition could bring on hard feelings with people they are having to work with. We see that over and over again in the Canon about how some of the police and officials resent Holmes' involvement. 

-In association with the asteroid part of the show we meet Julius Kent, who like Victor Trevor in Gloria Scott was an old school mate of Holmes'.  The exchange of remarks between Kent and Holmes was also very well done.

The show is still very good at exploring the relationship between Holmes and Watson.

The season so far for me has lacked much of what I had hoped would continue to grow once the show found its place; the introduction of Canonical Holmes like habits.

Thankfully this one-hundredth episode measured up and hit its mark.

This was one of the best episodes in the series for me.

Elementary - Season 5, E2 (#98) - 'Worth Several Cities'

With the centenary episode fast approaching I almost chose not to review this episode.
'Worth Several Cities' fell into what seems to becoming a habit for this show; overcomplicated plot with little Sherlockian substance.

We open with Joan showing Shinwell an apartment and Holmes being kidnapped by a gang.
Holmes has been kidnapped by the gang to help the gang leader find who killed one of his smugglers.
For me, this element of the story took Holmes way to far out of his comfort zone to make for a good plot. While we must always realize Holmes is just human and is as susceptible to the pit falls of all men, we should never, fictionally, see Holmes in a situation where we don't feel he could be in control, at least by the end. The gang kidnapping scene left me feeling that people like the gang leader only leave Holmes free because he can't harm them and he is no threat to them and that he is just a minor irritation. "Let Holmes play in his sandbox, we have the whole playground."
While Canonically we find that a little in the realationship with Moriarty, we learn that in the end Holmes proved to be more than a minor irritation.
I don't however think that will be the case with this gang.
The exchange also left me feeling like Holmes was making a deal with the devil. While Canonically we accept the fact the Holmes will allow fate to handle some situations, this aspect of this episode was a little over the line, for me.
Nor did we get the sense that Holmes ended up having anything on the gang leader that would keep Holmes and Joan safe in the future.
And he just "convinced" the leader that the outcome should be acceptable to the gang.
While it is acceptable to see Holmes fail, he should not been seen as out of control in the end.

We also once again see Millers Holmes unable to find a Holmesian way to bring down the real murder and he resorts to standing outside with a bull-horn. Too much of Millers Holmes from season one.

Once again the story got too big for the conclusion and was too much of the same.

Millers Holmes is not a strong enough character to carry the show if you do away with any connection to the Canonical Holmes and have a too repeated storyline.

Now we can argue that that is one of the strong points of 'Elementary', that Holmes is only human, it allows to much for the character to stray to far from Canon. (Which many argue it already has.)

Canonically we do hear about monographs, and his observation of some of the clues is good.

The Joan/Shinwell story was a little too co-dependent this week.

Hoping to really like this season, I can only fairly give this episode;

'Elementary' Season 5 - Episode 1 (97) - 'Folie a Deux'

This episode started with a bang and then kind of went into a slow sizzle or maybe fizzle.

Once again it has been proven that the point the actual case has less to do with making the show good than does the character stories.

The cases lack any "wow!" factor or any idication that Holmes will or can spot clues that no one else is likely to see.

The solution of this case basically involved following a paper trail and making an observation at the scene of the crime (the first bombing) that should now be standard procedure at any public crime scene (spotting a suspicious individual at a bombing or arson).
After all, that is what Sherlock Holmes is all about; spotting things others will miss.

It may be a sign of the times that coming up with Holmesian traits in the modern era is too difficult to incorporate into 'Elementary', so that the characters around Holmes become more important than the personality of Holmes. Miller's Holmes still lacks the ability to convince us that he can be good representing an image of Sherlock Holmes. While we all have our own images of Holmes, there are certain individual traits we expect Holmes to have.

While we may have given up on that ever happening in 'Elementary' it doesn't mean we still can't have some Canonical fun with the show.

A new face was introduced this season in the character of Shinwell Johnson (actor Nelson Ellis). Bearing many similarities to the Caonical Shinwell, former criminal, willing to do the dirty work, informer, etc., he should be a welcome addition to the show. Just like in the Canon, at least in this episode, Shinwells involvement keeps him clear of actually having to deal with the police.

Also explored in this episode is Watson's possible need to be involved with something other than Sherlock Holmes. Canonically we see Watson okay with following Holmes around for a while after his return to London. His healing process needs a distraction. Than eventually he needs something more. He needs once again to be involved with something that makes him feel helpful before it's to late to help. Let's face it, some of the best lines and/or scenes in the Canon involve Watson being summoned to or dropping by Baker St. I don't think we come away from the Canon thinking of the relationship between Holmes and Watson as co-dependent (at least I don't), and perhaps 'Elementary' is making that even more clear than 'Sherlock', but the seperation of the two will become important at some time.

Lucy Liu's Watson has also reached that point. While Miller's Holmes tries to convince her she is doing good, she needs more than just helping to clean up a mess after a crime.
Part of that it seems maybe to involve Shinwell Johnson and his relationship with Joan and her once again helping someone heal. I doubt that we will see Joan moving out and moving on to other things besides detective work any time soon, but maybe we will she her taking up other pursuits.

While once again I find the exploration of character backstories the most interesting thing about 'Elementary', it's lack of any really good Holmes habits or interesting case keeps this episode in too comfortable a routine for me to give it more than

But I do believe it was a good start for the season.

Elementary Season Five has started. . . .

 . . . . but I didn't get to watch it yet. So. . . look for my thoughts tomorrow.

It's a bust!

It's speculation time.
I must admit I am not one to follow closely the news about upcoming episodes of 'Sherlock'. Feels to much like watching the news and the info you really want is not till the very end of the broadcast.

That doesn't mean I don't catch some of what is going on.

Two of the upcoming episodes have supposedly been named and the names released to the public.

They are; "The Lying Detective" and "The Six Thatchers".

While the web site, The Blog of John Watson has already done a piece on a broken statue mystery, we probably should not expect that to be the same story coming to us as "The Six Thatchers".

And, it would be very un-"Sherlock" to allow 'The Six Thatchers" to follow to closely the story line of "The Six Napoleons."

So what else could it mean?

Are Thatcher look-alike's being knocked-off?
Are roofing thatchers being knocked-off? Perhaps due to a thatcher strike.
Is there really something hidden in statues of the former Prime Minister? Probably something like a flash-drive or clues to who Moriarty really is.
Or maybe clues to when Natalie Dormer is coming back to 'Elementary'? (Oh, please, Oh, please, Oh, please!)
Or are six people being targeted, belonging the an organization called 'The Thatchers'?
Or (which is more than likely) am I not even close to what it could be?

What do you think?

Can 'Sherlock' survive without B.C.

Usually I cut and paste pieces at times here and link a credit to the source.
But this one was so badly written I thought I would just post the question brought up in the piece instead.
With all the talk that the principles are all to busy to continue their output for 'Sherlock', the question was asked; "If Benedict Cumberbatch does not return again, can the series survive without him?"

While replacements have at times worked, such as Batman, Jack Ryan and our own Watson from the Granada series, Capt. Kirk, etc., it hardly, to me, seems likely that another actor could take over from the fantastic job Benedict Cumberbatch has done. His performance is so nouanced that I can't imagine a replacement

What do you think?

What does the future hold?

Benedict Cumberbatch talks future of 'Sherlock'

Series 4 of BBC show is expected in 2017

LUKE MORGAN BRITTON, 4TH AUGUST 2016

Benedict Cumberbatch has addressed uncertainty over the future of Sherlock.

Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman started shooting the new series in May, joined once again by Amanda Abbington as Mary Morstan, as well as by a new villain played by Toby Jones. 

Cumberbatch joined Abbington plus the show's co-creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss for a panel at Comic-Con in San Diego last month (July 24), when he was asked how long the show could keep going for.

"We’ll see. We’ll see how this series lands," Cumberbatch responded, as reported by Collider.

"It’s been great fun to come back and do it. How it will continue in the future, who knows? It’s not just about what any of us want. It’s about what’s actually right for the show, to be honest, and that has to be judged very carefully."

Cumberbatch continued: "Think about the very limited but classic British output of certain shows, and there aren’t that many of them. It’s a painful thing to say, but maybe Series Four is it. Who knows? I don’t know. I don’t want to say this is it because we have too much fun doing it. But generally, we have to see how this lands."

"And the actors aren’t the only ones who are busy," he added. "Mark and Steven are pretty tied up. Mark is an actor, as well as a producer and writer. It’s all of us being stretched in different directions. Also, this has run longer than most American series. You don’t want to compromise it by continually doing it, just because we could carry it on. There’s lots of stuff to weigh. It’s not just about what we want to do. It’s about what’s right. We’ll see. Really, we will have to see. No one has decided on it, so there’s no yes or no to an end or a beginning."

Steven Moffat went on to say: "We have to take it one season at a time. We don’t know what the future will be, and it’s not entirely down to us. Hopefully, we’ll do more. I find it hard to imagine that we won’t. But in terms of a specific plan, there are ideas that we haven’t gotten to yet."

During the panel, Abbington told fans of the new series: "It's really dark. It's the darkest Steven and Mark have written."

The BBC has previously revealed that series four will begin with Cumberbatch's title character "back once more on British soil as Doctor Watson and his wife, Mary, prepare for their biggest ever challenge - becoming parents for the first time".

Cumberbatch and Freeman returned in a one-off special, Sherlock: The Abominable Bride, on New Year's Day this year. The special attracted an audience of 11.6 million viewers, making it the most-watched programme of the 2015-16 festive season.

The show's last series, which also consisted of three episodes, aired in 2014. Cumberbatch and Freeman first played Doyle's iconic characters in 2010 and each actor has won an Emmy for his performance.

source

I just couldn't do it. . . .

I was going to post some recent pictures of Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock for the up coming season.
But I chose not to get drawn into all the tease that goes on with each upcoming season, however far apart they are.
I am going to wait for something definite. Or maybe not.

Houdini and Doyle - I'm not sure if I have given up completly on it, but I may have. . . .

Now I don't mind a little artistic license in the handling of shows about times or characters I like and follow. Rarely does any movie or TV show completely follow facts or history.

My main motivation, besides being entertained, in watching shows like this is that they make me want to learn more about the actual facts behind the story or people portrayed. I will go look up details on things taking place in the story to see how far astray the artistic license went.

But for some reason Houdini and Doyle has not done that for me.

It may be that I am not all the interested in Houdini and that I do not particularly like the portrayal of Doyle.

Or maybe it is just that they stray just a little too far away for historic fact about the times and the two main characters.

I am not sure, but this week I found myself deleting from the DVR a couple episodes I had not seen to make room for Women’s Gymnastics.

There were a few things I liked about the show, but most of that had to do with the sets and the atmosphere of the episodes.

Oh well, I can at least look forward to the start of Elementary in a few months and Sherlock in a couple of years.

I am awaiting Doyleokian's comments on this one.

Doyle's daddy issues were front and center onHoudini & Doyle this week

Houdini & Doyle just hinted at major family drama for Doyle — but did it happen in real life?

If you haven't been tuning into Fox's new series, Houdini & Doyle, well, you should be. But if you have and you're anything like me, you've likely been enjoying trying to decipher just how much of the historical crime drama is based on the real life narrative of the show's heroes.

If you're a history buff, this may be a simple task for you. For the rest of us, though, the truth can seem inextricable from the art — Harry Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle both lived lives so extraordinary and peculiar that it isn't that far-fetched to thinkall of their arcs could have happened.

Thus far, we've already seen reference on numerous occasions to Houdini's deep and abiding love for his mother. Since this was a relatively well-known fact about the illusionist, that one wasn't too difficult to slide into the historical truth column.

But when this week's gripping episode delved into Doyle's obvious daddy issues, the reality of the relationship wasn't readily apparent. This was at least partially due to the fact that Doyle was in turn drinking heavily or hallucinating every time his father popped into the picture.

So, naturally, I decided to do a little digging.

In this episode, Doyle begins to come a bit unhinged when he gets notice that someone has submitted an offer to buy his childhood home. In a moment seemingly uncharacteristic for the gentlemanly character we've come to know on the show, he began binge-drinking to deal with his emotions. He even snapped at his beloved children, Mary and Kingsley.

As he, Houdini and Constable Adelaide Stratton investigate a string of cases tied to the local insane asylum, pieces of Doyle's past start to fall into place. His own father was institutionalized for apparent delusions, aggression and perceived mental instability.

On the show, Doyle stumbles across what he believes to be a conspiracy of abuse at the asylum — the same one that housed his father. When he confronts his father's doctor, he is subdued with drugs and constraints. They were about to give him a lobotomy when Houdini and Adelaide intervene.

Unfortunately, Doyle had already been poisoned (we later find out it was by a doctor he originally believed to be an ally). Due to this, he is suffering from hallucinations and, what's worse, his body is beginning to shut down.

Thus enters the main arc about his dad. Realizing he is dying, the rational side of Doyle's psyche knows he must shock his system to counteract the poison if he wants to survive. To do so, he must induce a state of extreme euphoria.

The only way to do so is to give himself the one thing that would heal the fractured heart that plagued him from a young age: peace over his father.

A visage of his father appears. At first, they bicker just like old times. Ultimately, though, Doyle's dad admits that he was jealous and foolish. He asks Doyle if he can do the one thing he did not have the courage to do when he was alive. With that, he leans in and embraces his now weeping son.

Shortly after, Doyle awakens in the hospital room surrounded by his kids and his crime-fighting partners. He immediately calls his children to his side and directly addresses them, saying, "I was never cross with you. I was cross with myself."

The sins of the father, as they say! But how much of that backstory is based in fact? As it turns out, a good deal of it.

Doyle's father, Charles, was born in 1832. In addition to one sister, he had three brothers who all grew to be splendid successes: a revered historian, a Punch cartoonist and an art-critic-slash-painter.

Charles, on the other hand, was not nearly as successful. Although he did bear some artistic inclination, he could never make a living from his paintings. He moved to Scotland at 17, got a clerk job as an architectural draftsman and married his landlord's daughter. They had 10 children, including Doyle, seven of whom actually survived infancy.

Like the Charles portrayed in this week's episode, the real Charles was a bitter and complicated man. He was an angry alcoholic (he also had epilepsy) who quit working in his 40s, after which time he largely drifted from institution to institution. And, like his onscreen counterpart, the real Charles did die in an asylum in 1893.

Also mirroring Doyle's real-life history? His alleged mercurial moods around his children. It is posited that the strain of caring for his ailing wife, Louise, sometimescaused him to be curt or sharp with Kingsley and Mary (although, by most accounts, he was still a loving and lovable father).

So, in a word, yes — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the esteemed author, did have daddy issues in real life. Kudos once more to Houdini & Doyle's brilliant writers for spinning history into an immensely enjoyable arc tinged with both truth and fiction.

Source


And some other interesting insights into 'facts' in this episode.

Houdini and Doyle's nod to Paget and the Canon

Just a smart phone photo of the TV, so quality isn't all that good.
It sure looked like a nice train.

Well maybe it will finally be cleared up once and for all . . . . .

Just a snipit.  . . .

Important New Season

"Sherlock" Season 4 will become very pivotal for the entire franchise as a lot of previous characters will return along with a possible love interest for the main protagonist. Fans are curious as to who this love interest might be as Sherlock's last romantic partner, Irene Adler, appeared two seasons ago. They continue to question if Adler might also be part of the rumored characters to return this season.

While there has yet to be any official release date for the series, "Sherlock" Season 4 is expected to hit the small screens this January 2017.

Source

The case of the rugged rogue? Benedict Cumberbatch sports some heavy stubble as Sherlock Holmes in a stark contrast to the character's usual clean shaven look

By JJ NATTRASS FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 06:25 EST, 1 June 2016 | UPDATED: 06:27 EST, 1 June 2016

He's busy filming the much-anticipated fourth series of the BBC's hit-series, Sherlock.

But Benedict Cumberbatch's roguish detective appeared to have lost his razor during his latest escapade, as the cast and crew of the detective drama filmed scenes in South Wales.

Shooting scenes in Cardiff City Centre, the 39-year-old actor sported a heavy layer of stubble as he filmed scenes alongside two elder gents - presumably integral to the plot of the episode.

Whilst the actor's dark brown locks were styled into Sherlock's trademark tousled sweep, the famous detective's usually clean shaven features were coated in a heavy layer of stubble. 

Clad in full-costume, and sporting the character's well worn great coat, a navy shirt, dark trousers and black Oxford shoes, Holmes was instantly recognizable amide the hub-bub of cast and crew.

However, it seems that the latest shoot for the series sees Sherlock at his wit's end, as the appeared slightly weary and exhausted - something further emphasized by his loose stance and open-neck shirt.

Chatting away to the crew in-between takes, the actor looked to be searching for the right inspiration to take into the scene.

Clutching a bundle of pink papers in one hand, presumably his lines, it appeared that Benedict was intent on delivering a stellar performance on camera.

And it seems that the actor was facing off against one of Sherlock's numerous enemies, as he appeared to have a tense showdown with a man in a white suit.

Looking slightly insidious, the suited individual stood out from the crowd thanks to the lime green shirt and cravat that he teamed with the cream two piece.

The blonde actor was seen facing off against Benedict in Mount Stuart Square, with the two actors mirroring each other's stances perfectly.

And it seems that it was all hands on deck, as the actors were joined by numerous members of the cast and extras, as well as a heavy contingent of crew. 

Filming has continued at full-pace following Sherlock co-creators Steven Moffat and Gatiss confirmation that the show was returning in April - following the New Year's special earlier in the year.

In a statement, Steven and Mark said: 'Sherlock series four - here we go again!

'Whatever else we do, wherever we all go, all roads lead back to Baker Street - and it always feels like coming home.

'Ghosts of the past are rising in the lives of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson bringing adventure, romance and terror in their wake.

'This is the story we've been telling from the beginning. A story about to reach its climax.'

Benedict said he was 'thrilled' to be back as the detective.

He said: 'I can't wait for everyone to see season four. But you will have to wait... though not for long... And it will be worth it.'

Series four will return to BBC later this year with three feature length episodes. 

Source