# Elementary 5/16/13 "The Woman/Heroine"



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I had it all figured out pretty early in the first hour. Irene was Moriarty; the big reveal would be the season cliffhanger; next season will be the big showdown between Sherlock and Moriarty.

Good thing they had a better idea!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I do not know if they will go this way, but it is conceivable that Irene is not really Moriarty (I keep wanting to call her Margaery). If not, then an explanation is that the former CIA psychological pressure-tactics guy, Isaac Proctor, could have had about a year and a half to work on her and give her an alter-ego which thinks it is Moriarty. I hope that is not the way they go (because it is too implausible), but Isaac's involvement, considering his specialty, seems so coincidental otherwise.

And what is Sherlock without Moriarty as a nemesis? So either Moriarty has to escape or Irene is not really Moriarty. Hopefully the former.


----------



## JMikeD (Jun 10, 2002)

john4200 said:


> And what is Sherlock without Moriarty as a nemesis?


Holmes in the books did very well without Moriarty. I hope Moriarty is gone, gone, gone in the TV series. I have little patience for continuing villains.

Mike


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JMikeD said:


> Holmes in the books did very well without Moriarty. I hope Moriarty is gone, gone, gone in the TV series. I have little patience for continuing villains.


I think she'd be a great villain in prison. That is, not actually DOING anything, not actually appearing on the show, just...existing.

Then she can escape a few seasons from now when the show needs a jolt.


john4200 said:


> (I keep wanting to call her Margaery)


To me, she'll always be Anne Boleyn.

Oddly, the thing that gave her away for me was the accent. It was just...OFF. Over-the-top in a non-specific way, and Natalie Dormer is one of the least over-the-top actors around. I figured it had to be fake, because it SOUNDED fake, and if they didn't want it to sound fake they would have either had her do a non-fake accent (which she can do, if I recall Captain America correctly) or hire somebody else to do it. I just kept hearing a fake accent, and in this day and age there's no excuse for that...unless it's supposed to be fake.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

JMikeD said:


> Holmes in the books did very well without Moriarty.


I don't think that is true. Although Doyle did not introduce Moriarty until the last several stories he wrote about Holmes, Doyle did a sort of ret-con to make Moriarty and his criminal empire a longtime concern of Holmes.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

For being such a criminal mastermind, she sure was pretty stupid in letting herself get captured like that. A fake overdose and catching her when she comes to gloat seems a bit prosaic. It was a definite letdown.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> For being such a criminal mastermind, she sure was pretty stupid in letting herself get captured like that. A fake overdose and catching her when she comes to gloat seems a bit prosaic. It was a definite letdown.


I didn't mind. The thing about Moriarty is that, although (s)he is a genius, (s)he is also arrogant. The trap Watson and Holmes set counted on that arrogance (and for this particular show, her feelings for Holmes).


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

Azlen said:


> For being such a criminal mastermind, she sure was pretty stupid in letting herself get captured like that. A fake overdose and catching her when she comes to gloat seems a bit prosaic. It was a definite letdown.


Did I miss something? I thought Moriarty gave Holmes the address so he could find Irene. I don't remember anything suggesting that she is Moriarty.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

SleepyBob said:


> Did I miss something? I thought Moriarty gave Holmes the address so he could find Irene. I don't remember anything suggesting that she is Moriarty.


Did you watch the second hour, or just the first? My system recorded it as one show, but perhaps you have two, "The Woman" and "Heroine", and you did not watch "Heroine"?


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

SleepyBob said:


> Did I miss something? I thought Moriarty gave Holmes the address so he could find Irene. I don't remember anything suggesting that she is Moriarty.


Yep, you missed something


----------



## SleepyBob (Sep 28, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Did you watch the second hour, or just the first? My system recorded it as one show, but perhaps you have two, "The Woman" and "Heroine", and you did not watch "Heroine"?


Maybe I'm on the wrong episode. 
Holmes and Watson just walked into a room in a big mansion, and Holmes said "Irene. Irene."


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

SleepyBob said:


> Maybe I'm on the wrong episode.
> Holmes and Watson just walked into a room in a big mansion, and Holmes said "Irene. Irene."


Have you been asleep for a week, SleepyBob?


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

SleepyBob said:


> Maybe I'm on the wrong episode.
> Holmes and Watson just walked into a room in a big mansion, and Holmes said "Irene. Irene."


Yep, last week's episode...


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I didn't mind. The thing about Moriarty is that, although (s)he is a genius, (s)he is also arrogant. The trap Watson and Holmes set counted on that arrogance (and for this particular show, her feelings for Holmes).


Even Admiral Ackbar could see the potential for a trap here. But even if she didn't see the potential trap, going to a hospital room is just stupid. There is no easy way to exit and there was a definite possibility that even if it wasn't a trap that the police could be there given Sherlock's relationship with them. 
Then when she saw that he was alone, it definitely should have alerted her to the potential trap. Don't create a character who is supposed to be super intelligent and have her act really really dumb at a critical moment like that. 
I would have preferred a much more elegant trap where her arrogance was still her downfall. Faking an overdose and catching her when she visits the hospital seems more appropriate to catching a common street thug and even they would probably act a lot more suspicious of it being a trap.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Azlen said:


> ... that the police could be there given Sherlock's relationship with them.


well there were police guards at his door, but she got rid of them somehow, 
I didn't hear what she said though


----------



## Edmund (Nov 8, 2002)

jamesl said:


> well there were police guards at his door, but she got rid of them somehow,
> I didn't hear what she said though


I think she said he was detained somehow, giving the impression he wasn't hurt.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Edmund said:


> I think she said he was detained somehow, giving the impression he wasn't hurt.


I think the word was "Distracted". I just finished watching it.


----------



## jehma (Jan 22, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think she'd be a great villain in prison. That is, not actually DOING anything, not actually appearing on the show, just...existing.
> 
> Then she can escape a few seasons from now when the show needs a jolt.
> 
> ...


What is the actress"s real accent?

Her American accent sounded off to me too. There was something hard about the sound of the words and it didn't sound natural. It didn't occur to me that it was an intentional plot device, though. I just thought it was a bad accent.

She's so interesting looking - very feline, somehow. I love her in GOT.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

jehma said:


> What is the actress"s real accent?


She's Irish, so none-of-the-above.

And as I said, I've heard her do American before without noticing anything, so I suspect that whatever she was doing here was intentional.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I was totally caught off guard. I thought the big reveal would have his father as Moriarty.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

JMikeD said:


> Holmes in the books did very well without Moriarty. I hope Moriarty is gone, gone, gone in the TV series. I have little patience for continuing villains.
> 
> Mike


This. If you read the entire works, moriarity is not that important.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She's Irish, so none-of-the-above.
> 
> And as I said, I've heard her do American before without noticing anything, so I suspect that whatever she was doing here was intentional.


Reading is in Ireland? She is not Irish.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> If you read the entire works, moriarity is not that important.


I've read most of what Doyle has written about Holmes, and Moriarty is certainly important. Holmes has one woman who ever interested him. And one villain who ever really challenged him. Other than Watson, those two are the most important people in Holmes' life.

Interesting that _Elementary_ has combined them into one.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Reading is in Ireland? She is not Irish.


Oops, for some reason I always get Natalie Dormer and Sarah Bolger mixed up...which is weird, because they're not really similar at all.

I guess all of Henry VIII's wives look alike or something. And daughters. And stuff.


----------



## frombhto323 (Jan 24, 2002)

Azlen said:


> Even Admiral Ackbar could see the potential for a trap here. But even if she didn't see the potential trap, going to a hospital room is just stupid. There is no easy way to exit and there was a definite possibility that even if it wasn't a trap that the police could be there given Sherlock's relationship with them.
> Then when she saw that he was alone, it definitely should have alerted her to the potential trap. Don't create a character who is supposed to be super intelligent and have her act really really dumb at a critical moment like that.
> I would have preferred a much more elegant trap where her arrogance was still her downfall. Faking an overdose and catching her when she visits the hospital seems more appropriate to catching a common street thug and even they would probably act a lot more suspicious of it being a trap.


She is truly in love with him. She also could not pass up the opportunity to gloat.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I've read most of what Doyle has written about Holmes, and Moriarty is certainly important. Holmes has one woman who ever interested him. And one villain who ever really challenged him. Other than Watson, those two are the most important people in Holmes' life.
> 
> Interesting that Elementary has combined them into one.


When a character only appears in 2 of 60 stories, no matter how important the author says he was, he was not integral to Holmes success as an iconic character nor his commercial success. Holmes was popular without Moriarty. The character and the stories don't need him. I maintain he was relatively minor. And, personally, not my favorite aspect of Holmes. The twist of him actually being. Irene was cool but if the show becomes Holmes versus Irene, I won't like it as much. Repetitive villains are boring.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Oops, for some reason I always get Natalie Dormer and Sarah Bolger mixed up...which is weird, because they're not really similar at all.
> 
> I guess all of Henry VIII's wives look alike or something. And daughters. And stuff.


I understand. You don't know how many times I'm about to post something I am sure I know but look it up anyway to make sure I'm not confusing facts. Still get thinks bollocksed up sometimes.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> When a character only appears in 2 of 60 stories, no matter how important the author says he was, he was not integral to Holmes success as an iconic character nor his commercial success.


Moriarty is also mentioned in five other stories, and Doyle did a ret-con to make Moriarty a longtime concern of Holmes. Although Sherlock Holmes stories sold well before Moriarty was mentioned, you are only speculating when you claim that the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes (one hundred years later) would have been the same without Moriarty. There are plenty of examples of stories selling well but fading into obscurity after ten years.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Moriarty is also mentioned in five other stories, and Doyle did a ret-con to make Moriarty a longtime concern of Holmes. Although Sherlock Holmes stories sold well before Moriarty was mentioned, you are only speculating when you claim that the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes (one hundred years later) would have been the same without Moriarty. There are plenty of examples of stories selling well but fading into obscurity after ten years.


I'm sure the most filmed (probably) Holmes story, the Hound of the Baskervilles would be much worse and less popular without Moriarty. Oops.

Mentioned doesn't sell books. And the ret con is just that. A ret con. Had nothing to do with the success or the quality of the stories.

You are claiming that one major and one minor story made the rest all popular when the two were at the end?

You have a right to your opinion. I don't agree with it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> You are claiming that one major and one minor story made the rest all popular when the two were at the end?


Again you have it wrong. Moriarty appeared in or was mentioned in 7 different Sherlock Holmes stories written by Doyle.

And yes, it does appear the Moriarty played a part in the enduring popularity of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Look at how many of the most popular subsequent adaptions of Sherlock Holmes have Moriarty as an important part of the story.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Again you have it wrong. Moriarty appeared in or was mentioned in 7 different Sherlock Holmes stories written by Doyle.
> 
> And yes, it does appear the Moriarty played a part in the enduring popularity of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Look at how many of the most popular subsequent adaptions of Sherlock Holmes have Moriarty as an important part of the story.


Appeared or mentioned does not mean being a part of. I am not wrong. He appeared in two stories. Period. Mentions do not rate worth anything. Nobody ever said "Oh! Did you read the latest Sherlock Holmes story? He mentioned Moriarty. It was so exciting!"

"Does appear?" Why because newer writers are incapable of writing something without a "big bad?" Ignore all the remakes and retellings of non-Moriarty stories.

Holmes did and does quite well without Moriarty. In fact, even Elementary did well without her. And hopefully she is done now. Good story. Good twist but if the series becomes nothing but Holmes and Moriarty, it loses a lot of its charm.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

TonyD79 said:


> When a character only appears in 2 of 60 stories, no matter how important the author says he was, he was not integral to Holmes success as an iconic character nor his commercial success. Holmes was popular without Moriarty. The character and the stories don't need him. I maintain he was relatively minor. And, personally, not my favorite aspect of Holmes. The twist of him actually being. Irene was cool but if the show becomes Holmes versus Irene, I won't like it as much. Repetitive villains are boring.


I agree.

I only read a few of the Sherlock Holmes short stories(a long long time ago) - I think they were early pre-Moriarty, and I don't think Moriarty would have improved them. I kind of worry that "Moriarty" really has too much weight in the Holmes mythos and they're playing the card too early. (Like Batman was around for like 50 years before Bane, but every modern tv version feels the need to pull him out in the first season, and both of the recent movie series need to pull out some version of him in movie 3)

On tv shows, I don't mind a "big bad" as a secondary story, and I prefer that it doesn't go on for more than one season.

I thought having an adversary with similar powers has ruined a couple shows(Joan of Arcadia, Tru Calling) for me in the past that I really enjoyed season one, but season two turned the show into a completely different dynamic.

(Hopefully I haven't spoiled Batman, Joan, or Tru for anyone...)


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

TonyD79 said:


> Good story. Good twist but if the series becomes nothing but Holmes and Moriarty, it loses a lot of its charm.


I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. It's CBS, so most episodes will be your standard self contained procedurals. She will probably escape at some point in the future because as we have learned from television, when you have a vast criminal empire, escape is easy, but she'll only appear during an occasional special episode. She may get mentioned on other occasions but it won't be the dominant storyline.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Mentions do not rate worth anything.


Wrong again. The fact that Holmes is thinking about Moriarty and he gets mentioned in the story because of it is quite significant. It shows how important Moriarty is to the character development of Holmes.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. It's CBS, so most episodes will be your standard self contained procedurals. She will probably escape at some point in the future because as we have learned from television, when you have a vast criminal empire, escape is easy, but she'll only appear during an occasional special episode. She may get mentioned on other occasions but it won't be the dominant storyline.


Right. It will probably be the typical separation into the more common villain of the week episodes and the occasional "arc" episode with Moriarty.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Having an unbeatable antagonist isn't exciting or fun, it's just dreary. I'm really happy that they caught her in Elementary, and am hoping she stays caught, at least for some time.

Using Moriarty in the future would just be an indication of lazy writing.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

alpacaboy said:


> I thought having an adversary with similar powers has ruined a couple shows(Joan of Arcadia, Tru Calling) for me in the past that I really enjoyed season one, but season two turned the show into a completely different dynamic.


I much prefer to see the hero challenged by someone who is his equal (or near equal). And I don't think I am in the minority in this. Having the hero always be the smartest or strongest tends to get boring. Also, the hero character development is usually more interesting when there is an ongoing nemesis.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

john4200 said:


> I much prefer to see the hero challenged by someone who is his equal (or near equal). And I don't think I am in the minority in this. Having the hero always be the smartest or strongest tends to get boring. Also, the hero character development is usually more interesting when there is an ongoing nemesis.


In the case of Joan, I liked Season 1 in that it was about her family, dealing with her brother's accident, and the powers or whoever she saved week to week was incidental, and to me, it was about her putting her family back together. Season 2 felt like it focussed more about the powers and the adversary.

In Tru, I liked the puzzle, where the info she got was incomplete. So it was her against time, and trying to figure it out. Adding the adversary increased the time pressure, but I think it was unnecessary.

Just to be clear though, I'm not making any claim anyone else thinks like me. I'm just saying those are what ruined it for me, and I hope they don't do that in Elementary. And even if they do use Moriarty, I think season one was too early to play the mention/existence of Moriarty card, let alone reveal the identity.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Mars Rocket said:


> Having an unbeatable antagonist isn't exciting or fun, it's just dreary. I'm really happy that they caught her in Elementary, and am hoping she stays caught, at least for some time.
> 
> Using Moriarty in the future would just be an indication of lazy writing.


you really have no idea who Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes are, do you ?


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Mars Rocket said:


> Having an unbeatable antagonist isn't exciting or fun, it's just dreary.


Wait, are we talking about Moriarty on Elementary or Red John on The Mentalist?


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

justen_m said:


> Wait, are we talking about Moriarty on Elementary or Red John on The Mentalist?


Yeah, same thing. That's what I'm afraid this could turn into.

And yes, I am very familiar with Holmes and Moriarty - but the original characters were written over 100 years ago, and I don't think they translate well in modern times exactly the same way. For one thing, modern supervillains in TV and movies tend to be enormously wealthy and have huge resources at their disposal before we ever meet them, invariably leading to the ability to escape from captivity or never get caught in the first place or somehow trick the protagonist. That's not entertaining. It's just a deus ex machina in human form. Maybe mainstream America likes that kind of thing, but I don't.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I'm afraid of it turning into moonlighting. They should never get horizontal.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Wrong again. The fact that Holmes is thinking about Moriarty and he gets mentioned in the story because of it is quite significant. It shows how important Moriarty is to the character development of Holmes.


Yeah, right.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I much prefer to see the hero challenged by someone who is his equal (or near equal). And I don't think I am in the minority in this. Having the hero always be the smartest or strongest tends to get boring. Also, the hero character development is usually more interesting when there is an ongoing nemesis.


Why? Because the only thing that can challenge someone is a big bad? Again, Holmes existed for dozens of stories without a big bad and he did fine.

Oh, right, mentions. They were a big challenge.

Holmes is flawed. He is more interesting when his flaws are of his own making. That, rather than just having a powerful adversary, is more imaginative and more interesting. That plus difficult challenges, cases.

It is a copout to blame everything on a single big bad. It is lazy. It is boring.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Why? Because the only thing that can challenge someone is a big bad?


If the hero is larger than life, then it takes a larger than life villain (rather than an ordinary villain) to really challenge the hero, to put him to the test. See what the hero is really capable of when he is operating at his absolute peak.

Obviously not every villain the hero encounters needs to be a super villain, but for an extraordinary hero to develop in an interesting way, he needs to occasionally be put in a situation where he is likely to fail, and we get to see how he handles such a situation. Especially for an extraordinary hero, such a situation is interesting to observe since it is so unusual for the hero to encounter a real challenge -- it may be the first time in the hero's life where things don't go easily for him.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> If the hero is larger than life, then it takes a larger than life villain (rather than an ordinary villain) to really challenge the hero, to put him to the test. See what the hero is really capable of when he is operating at his absolute peak.


And yet Sherlock was successful without Moriarty. Besides, especially as CBS has portrayed him, he is fundamentally flawed. Larger than life does not mean perfect. Roseanne Barr is larger than life (not a fat joke), for example.

Many Sherlock portrayals are not very good. The Downey Jr movies reek. Elementary is well done and does not need a big bad. As neither did Doyle until he wanted to kill off Sherlock.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> And yet Sherlock was successful without Moriarty.


You keep saying that. And yet Sherlock Holmes only achieved enduring success and immense popularity after Moriarty.

Holmes is certainly flawed. He has low points. But he also has a high gear that is higher than just about anyone else's. And he needs someone like Moriarty to get him to shift into that high gear.

Roseanne Barr is definitely not an extraordinary hero, which is what I meant by larger than life hero. She is hardly a hero at all. She is an ordinary Jane.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

While I hate to give any ammo to either side of this argument, and particularly one that wants more Moriarty, I have to say that the question of whether Moriarty was important in Doyle's time, or whether his part is responsible for why Holmes is still popular now, is beside the point. There's no question that people nowadays, particularly the millions who have heard of Holmes but not actually read Doyle, consider Moriarty to be a key part of the story. Tastes have changed since Doyle's time. So even if Doyle's time didn't need a nemesis, and even if the popularity of Holmes owes little or nothing to Moriarty, modern incarnations of Holmes are still almost certain to have and feature one, because of modern tastes.

For the record, I don't mind if they keep going with the pattern they have now, with standalone stories interrupted by the occasional arc, but I wouldn't mind if this ends up being the end of Moriarty's story, too. I was surprised to see how they handled it and glad of it; I expected an unsatisfying cliffhanger. I'm even more glad that they didn't throw Holmes back into the addiction pit; I don't recall ever seeing a story of a now-sober addict losing it and getting back into the addiction that didn't feel like a negative turn in the story to me.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> You keep saying that. And yet Sherlock Holmes only achieved enduring success and immense popularity after Moriarty.


Sorry. That's a silly argument. Doyle also killed Holmes, so I guess that "proves" Holmes was immensely popular after he died. Or that the Brady Bunch was immensely popular in reruns, *after* Cousin Oliver joined the show, so Oliver is a reason for popularity. I see nothing in any history of Holmes that shows any drop off in interest prior to Moriarty showing up. And plenty of non-Moriarty stories told over and over again.

Moriarty was simply a method for Doyle to kill off Holmes. Authors get tired if their creations. Christie wanted to kill Poirot years before she did. She had him do himself in. So, Poirot was immensely popular after he killed himself. Hmmm.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I really need to start watching shows that john4200 doesn't watch just to see what a thread on this forum would be like in that scenario...

I really enjoyed the 2 hour finale. My interest in the show was fading fairly quickly before the last few episodes. They drew me back in pretty well, even if the big reveal wasn't supremely surprising.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> I see nothing in any history of Holmes that shows any drop off in interest prior to Moriarty showing up.


The number of fans of Sherlock Holmes after Moriarty is immensely greater than the number of fans before Doyle wrote about Moriarty. You can claim that it would have been the same if Doyle never wrote about Moriarty, but that is idle speculation.

Almost all of the most popular subsequent Sherlock Holmes adaptations have Moriarty as an important part. It is blindingly obvious that Moriarty is a big part of the enduring success of Sherlock Holmes. If you cannot see that, then perhaps you are wearing blinders.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> The number of fans of Sherlock Holmes after Moriarty is immensely greater than the number of fans before Doyle wrote about Moriarty. You can claim that it would have been the same if Doyle never wrote about Moriarty, but that is idle speculation.


The number of non Sherlock fans is immensely greater too. Your point?

By the way, why the hard on for Moriarty? You a relative or something. (Standard Internet forum joke complete)


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> The number of non Sherlock fans is immensely greater too. Your point?


Moriarty is clearly important to the enduring popularity of the Sherlock Holmes stories, even though you have a strange enmity to the character. Did he kill your dog or something?

Anyway, all you have to do is look at this very show, where the discussion picked up whenever Moriarty was part of the episode.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Moriarty is clearly important to the enduring popularity of the Sherlock Holmes stories, even though you have a strange enmity to the character. Did he kill your dog or something?
> 
> Anyway, all you have to do is look at this very show, where the discussion picked up whenever Moriarty was part of the episode.


I disagree. While people (mis)quote Holme all the time and call people who analyze things "Sherlock" the name Moriarty comes up few times in casual conversation or jokes.

I have no issue with the character. I just don't want Elementary to turn into another comic book where they trot out the big bad over and over again. I love the way they handled the story but it is over. Move on to other stories. It seems you think that is impossible. And yet elementary gained a following and renewal without Moriarty except for mentions and a small trail earlier.

It is boring if a villain keeps resurfacing. What did the hero win if they come back over and over again. Usually tr stakes increase until someone has to die. If it is the hero, shows over.

She can come back but not all the time. Maybe use her like Hannibal Lector or very occasionally.

Just as the Master gets old on Doctor Who or even the Joker or Lex Luthor get old in Batman or Superman, Moriarty can get old quickly.

This is what our disagreement comes down to: I say Moriarty is not a necessity, you seem to think that he/she is needed all the time. I find that lazy and boring writing and thinking.

I'm done.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> This is what our disagreement comes down to: I say Moriarty is not a necessity, you seem to think that he/she is needed all the time.


No, absolutely wrong. I never said that Moriarty is needed "all the time". My claims were that Moriarty is important to the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes, and to the character development of Holmes. You may disagree with the latter, but the former is self-evident -- all you have to do is look at the most popular Sherlock Holmes adaptations of the last several decades, and see that almost all of them have Moriarty as an important part. Obviously Moriarty does not have to appear in every minute of every Holmes story, but he (or she) does need to be part of the story, at least in the background, for Holmes to display his full potential.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> No, absolutely wrong. I never said that Moriarty is needed "all the time". My claims were that Moriarty is important to the enduring popularity of Holmes, and to the character development of Holmes. You may disagree with the latter, but the former is self-evident -- all you have to do is look at the most popular Sherlock Holmes adaptations of the last several decades, and see that almost all of them have Moriarty as an important part. Obviously Moriarty does not have to appear in every minute of every Holmes story, but he (or she) does need to be part of the story, at least in the background, for Holmes to display his full potential.


Whatever. You got the last word. Congratulations.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Whatever. You got the last word. Congratulations.


Is getting the last word something that is important to you? I'm not sure why you brought it up all of a sudden, and then posted this nonsense.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Is getting the last word something that is important to you? I'm not sure why you brought it up all of a sudden, and then posted this nonsense.


Nope just following through on my promise that I'm done with the topic. As I posted before. Thought you should know I'm not ignoring you. You got to make the last point. That's all.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Speaking of archenemies....It's like everyone who's visited this thread will be able to say they were there when it first started.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> Speaking of archenemies....It's like everyone who's visited this thread will be able to say they were there when it first started.


I don't consider Tony an enemy. Can't people have a lively debate where you're from?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

john4200 said:


> I don't consider Tony an enemy. Can't people have a lively debate where you're from?


Oh come on. Considering the subject matter I thought it was kinda funny. I know that you aren't plotting any nefarious schemes against him.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Azlen said:


> Oh come on. Considering the subject matter I thought it was kinda funny.


Careful, you don't want to get on my arch enemy list, do you?


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

i never read Sherlock Holmes beyond maybe a short story a looooong time ago (and can't really remember if i actually read one or just was told about it). 

and up until this thread, i had no idea Moriarty was a in the books/stories.


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

Azlen said:


> I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. It's CBS, so most episodes will be your standard self contained procedurals. She will probably escape at some point in the future because as we have learned from television, when you have a vast criminal empire, escape is easy, but she'll only appear during an occasional special episode. She may get mentioned on other occasions but it won't be the dominant storyline.


She'll be able to run her evil empire from prison. It's been done before.
And then escape during Sweeps.


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

The ruse at the end was based on "The Dying Detective" where Holmes faked a rare illness to lure a murderer to his rooms and then gloat revealing that he did indeed murder his nephew with the illness, and sent Holmes a box with a spring loaded needle intended to kill him as well. 

I do love the gloating villain scenario.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

Honora said:


> I do love the gloating villain scenario.












--Carlos V.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Can someone explain the thing about the moles on her back?

2 years ago, Holmes saw a constellation in the moles. Present day - is one of the moles missing? Why would she do that?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scooterboy said:


> Can someone explain the thing about the moles on her back?
> 
> 2 years ago, Holmes saw a constellation in the moles. Present day - is one of the moles missing? Why would she do that?


Holmes's theory was that she had one of them removed for medical reasons, which would be unlikely to happen if she were being held prisoner.

Which happens...I had a mole which turned into some kind of growth that needed to be removed.


----------



## billypritchard (May 7, 2001)

scooterboy said:


> Can someone explain the thing about the moles on her back?
> 
> 2 years ago, Holmes saw a constellation in the moles. Present day - is one of the moles missing? Why would she do that?


Yes, she had one of her moles removed, because it was pre-cancerous.


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Holmes's theory was that she had one of them removed for medical reasons, which would be unlikely to happen if she were being held prisoner.
> 
> Which happens...I had a mole which turned into some kind of growth that needed to be removed.


Ah - ok. Thanks. I thought that Holmes thought she was playing some kind of game with him, either by adding false moles 2 years ago or removing them since.

Your explanation makes much more sense.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Ah - ok. Thanks. I thought that Holmes thought she was playing some kind of game with him, either by adding false moles 2 years ago or removing them since.
> 
> Your explanation makes much more sense.


It wasn't his explanation, Holmes said that. Weren't you watching the show?


----------



## scooterboy (Mar 27, 2001)

eddyj said:


> It wasn't his explanation, Holmes said that. Weren't you watching the show?


Yes, I just didn't understand his reaction. Maybe I had the sound too low.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

scooterboy said:


> Yes, I just didn't understand his reaction. Maybe I had the sound too low.


What? I can't hear you!

I miss stuff like this all the time and that is with me rewinding at least a couple of times per show.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Reading this thread makes me want to track down a copy of Nicholas Meyer's _The Seven-Per-Cent Solution_. 



Spoiler



The novel begins in 1891, when Holmes first informs Watson of his belief that Professor James Moriarty is a "Napoleon of Crime". The novel presents this view as nothing more than the fevered imagining of Holmes' cocaine-sodden mind; it further states that Moriarty was the childhood mathematics tutor of Sherlock and his brother Mycroft.


----------

