S05.E02: Worth Several Cities

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quote

When the leader of a local street gang abducts Holmes to compel him to find the person responsible for a hit on his men, Holmes and Watson get caught in the middle of an international hunt to recover a centuries old, priceless artifact. Watson debates whether a personal favor Shinwell asks of her is outside her comfort zone.

Promo:

[paigow]

Arvin Clone!!! 

[MisterGlass]

I liked this one more than the season opener.  Twisty but not too tangled.  It was entertaining to see the various additional parties that kept showing up in pursuit of the seal.  Of course Sherlock kept one of the stamp impressions as a memento.

I'm not sure where the plot with Shinwell is headed, but I'd rather not see Joan suckered. 

I do not understand the 'high-waisted shorts with a tucked in blouse' concept.

[threebluestars]

Just about died when I realized the baddie that hired Sherlock was Esposito from Castle.

[shapeshifter]

10 minutes ago, arieswriting said:

Just about died when I realized the baddie that hired Sherlock was Esposito from Castle.

I totaly missed that!

 

The Chinese guy who did most of the talking when they came to Sherlock and Joan's place had such a disarming, electric smile! I imagine the Chinese government sent him for that reason. IMDb doesn't have the full list of the cast for this episode yet, but I'm curious to see what else the actor has been in. 

[thuganomics85]

Oh, Elementary!  Of course the killer was going to be Ron Rifkin!  Arvin Sloane would totally have a few guys murdered for a priceless artifact! Only this time it was to help secure a deal with China in order to get him out of debt, as oppose to trying to find immortality!

The entire guest cast in this one though was filled with a lot of people I knew.  I'm pretty sure the diplomat/college professor was Annie Chang from Shades of Blue.

I'm hoping Shinwell is on the up and up, and isn't playing Joan (and I certainly don't want to start disliking a Nelsan Ellis character), but I do think something is going to end up happening.  I'm still leaning towards him being legit with trying to reform and live a normal life, but I have a feeling something in his past will come back to blow back on all of them.

Clyde!!!

[MaryHedwig]

Quote

I'm hoping Shinwell is on the up and up, and isn't playing Joan (and I certainly don't want to start disliking a Nelsan Ellis character), but I do think something is going to end up happening.  I'm still leaning towards him being legit with trying to reform and live a normal life, but I have a feeling something in his past will come back to blow back on all of them.

Is Shinwell the new Kitty?

[fastiller]

I'm thinking that they're setting up Shinwell to be one of Joan's 'Irregulars".

[Clanstarling]

9 hours ago, MisterGlass said:

I'm not sure where the plot with Shinwell is headed, but I'd rather not see Joan suckered.

This episode gave me hope that she isn't. Shinwell's restraint with his daughter bodes well. It doesn't mean something won't happen, but at least (it seems to me) to suggest that he's trying, rather than suckering Joan.

[sjohnson]

Don't believe a murderous "billionaire" couldn't afford to hire cops to kill the gang. It's not like it would take fifty million cash. The secretly broke part is a bit of a stretch too. 

Holmes is smart, really smart, the probability of the murder of the lethal dope dealer had to occur to him, unless he didn't want it too. The writer of this episode, Wolfe, was part of that idiotic Trek that thought heroes had to do bad things to be heroic, because reasons, so I guess he's slipping that nonsense in.

[DeLurker]

11 hours ago, MisterGlass said:

I'm not sure where the plot with Shinwell is headed, but I'd rather not see Joan suckered. 

I do not understand the 'high-waisted shorts with a tucked in blouse' concept.

I don't want to see Joan suckered either so I was glad to see the ending where he sounded like he was on the up and up.  But then I thought "Hey!  That was wrapped up too easily and quickly!" so now I am nervous agaiin.

The outfit was a bit odd, but if I was in wardrobe and got to play dress up on Lucy Liu I can't say I would not push the limits...

[Primetimer]

Sarah Beckham ranks Sherlock and Joan's helpers!

View the full article

[orza]

10 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

The Chinese guy who did most of the talking when they came to Sherlock and Joan's place had such a disarming, electric smile! I imagine the Chinese government sent him for that reason. IMDb doesn't have the full list of the cast for this episode yet, but I'm curious to see what else the actor has been in. 

Francis Jue also plays the Chinese Foreign Minister on Madam Secretary.

[shapeshifter]

The best part for me was when face-tattooed not-Esposito called Sherlock "Homes" and Sherlock questioned whether it was a salutation using Sherlock's last name or an implication that Sherlock was now a home boy to the drug dealer, and rather than answering the question, he just kept calling him "Homes" rather than "Holmes."

[MaryHedwig]

From the recap

Quote

One of the reasons I dig this week's case a lot more than last week's is that Holmes seems a lot more Holmes-y -- knowing and noticing lots of minutiae, looking adorably rumpled post-kidnapping, etc. But he doesn't do all the solving alone, of course. Let's count down how helpful the other characters were at both bringing down Vachs and keeping the plot moving.

You forget to mention the contribution of C. Love Jane Alexander. What I would give to read those letters.

[Eliza422]

14 hours ago, arieswriting said:

Just about died when I realized the baddie that hired Sherlock was Esposito from Castle.

omg! I knew the voice, but I just couldn't place him. Wow!

[withanaich]

The best part for me was when face-tattooed not-Esposito called Sherlock "Homes" and Sherlock questioned whether it was a salutation using Sherlock's last name or an implication that Sherlock was now a home boy to the drug dealer, and rather than answering the question, he just kept calling him "Homes" rather than "Holmes."

That cracked me up because I was wondering that too. But of course the way Holmes asked it was particularly witty.

[HawaiiTVGuy]

Don't believe a murderous "billionaire" couldn't afford to hire cops to kill the gang. It's not like it would take fifty million cash. The secretly broke part is a bit of a stretch too. 

Holmes is smart, really smart, the probability of the murder of the lethal dope dealer had to occur to him, unless he didn't want it too. The writer of this episode, Wolfe, was part of that idiotic Trek that thought heroes had to do bad things to be heroic, because reasons, so I guess he's slipping that nonsense in.

I think the fact he used a man directly connected to him, and not some outside thug/contractor to kill and frame Densham makes me think he doesn't out-source his killings too much. Finding new mercenaries to hire, and get the necessary intelligence to hit a criminal organization as big as Mara Tres which has probable international reach wouldn't be the easiest thing to do.

[sinkwriter]

Quote

You forget to mention the contribution of C.

I loved seeing her return! I wonder if they're still exchanging letters, or if that got ruined by the loss of anonymity.

Quote

Just about died when I realized the baddie that hired Sherlock was Esposito from Castle.

Absolutely no offense meant to actor Jon Huertas, but the minute he walked into frame, I started laughing. Not because he was playing a bad guy (and I'm used to seeing him as Esposito on Castle), but because of all the fake tattoos all over his face. They distracted, rather than established his credibility as a big bad gang leader.

Edited October 17, 2016 by sinkwriter

[shapeshifter]

32 minutes ago, sinkwriter said:

...Absolutely no offense meant to actor Jon Huertas, but the minute he walked into frame, I started laughing. Not because he was playing a bad guy (and I'm used to seeing him as Esposito on Castle), but because of all the fake tattoos all over his face. They distracted, rather than established his credibility as a big bad gang leader.

I thought maybe the distracting tattoos were to keep Castle audience/fans from recognizing him as "Esposito," the good guy. If so, it totally worked for me.

[sinkwriter]

It didn't help. I knew who he was.  *GRIN*

[threebluestars]

His gang was a takeoff on Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). If you google them, it's all face tattoos, all the time lol.

[tennisgurl]

I really hope Shinwell turns out to be an alright guy. It seems like he is on the up and up right now, but I have been burnt before. 

I always crack up at how often Sherlock and Joan just stumble into major possible diplomatic issues. How many representatives of major nations have the bumped into at this point? 

Looks like Sloan is still up to his murderous, ancient artifact stealing ways. But, wait, shouldn't this be followed by a ridiculously convoluted possibly mystical conspiracy?!?!

[kay1864]

On another note...has the show addressed his romance with the autistic woman? (forgot her name)  It looked promising at season's end, but we haven't heard a thing this season, right?

[Morrigan2575]

I mised episode 1 and the comments on the episode didn't seem to cover this. Sherlock made a deal with the Drug Gang because he wanted the name of a deal selling heroine that resulted in a woman he knew/cared about death.

Who was the woman? 

[MaryHedwig]

Quote

I missed episode 1 and the comments on the episode didn't seem to cover this. Sherlock made a deal with the Drug Gang because he wanted the name of a deal selling heroine that resulted in a woman he knew/cared about death.

Who was the woman? 

I saw the first episode and did not know what woman was being referred to. I wonder if they had a scene about her and cut it.

[Clanstarling]

7 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I mised episode 1 and the comments on the episode didn't seem to cover this. Sherlock made a deal with the Drug Gang because he wanted the name of a deal selling heroine that resulted in a woman he knew/cared about death.

Who was the woman? 

 

3 hours ago, MaryHedwig said:

I saw the first episode and did not know what woman was being referred to. I wonder if they had a scene about her and cut it.

I assumed I'd just forgotten the detail. I vaguely remember someone dying from bad heroin, but I don't remember anyone connected to Sherlock dying.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

 

I assumed I'd just forgotten the detail. I vaguely remember someone dying from bad heroin, but I don't remember anyone connected to Sherlock dying.

He said it was someone from his NA group, but I too missed a bit, which might have included more details.

[Eneya]

We don't know yet, this is not yet explained. :)

[AnnieBeez]

He was with Joan when it was explained that it was someone from his group. I think it was toward the very end of the episode.

Edited October 20, 2016 by MischaMouse

[snarktini]

Joan doesn't have to be "suckered" for this to end badly. This show has been honest about how the best of intentions are not enough. I believe Shinwell is earnestly trying to turn his life around. But can he escape his demons (not to mention his associates) and overcome his past? Many people don't. I hope he does!

[Clanstarling]

55 minutes ago, snarktini said:

Joan doesn't have to be "suckered" for this to end badly. This show has been honest about how the best of intentions are not enough. I believe Shinwell is earnestly trying to turn his life around. But can he escape his demons (not to mention his associates) and overcome his past? Many people don't. I hope he does!

Absolutely true. Things can end badly with the best of intentions. I think most of us who talked about Joan being "suckered" were worried that it would go badly due to intentional bad actions on the part of Shinwell, which would, in some ways, be more hurtful to Joan (assuming emotional rather than physical distress).

[snarktini]

7 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Absolutely true. Things can end badly with the best of intentions. I think most of us who talked about Joan being "suckered" were worried that it would go badly due to intentional bad actions on the part of Shinwell, which would, in some ways, be more hurtful to Joan (assuming emotional rather than physical distress).

Agreed, that's still a risk! 

[johntfs]

On 10/17/2016 at 8:52 AM, sjohnson said:

Holmes is smart, really smart, the probability of the murder of the lethal dope dealer had to occur to him, unless he didn't want it too. The writer of this episode, Wolfe, was part of that idiotic Trek that thought heroes had to do bad things to be heroic, because reasons, so I guess he's slipping that nonsense in.

New York is a state with the death penalty.  If Sherlock had a choice between catching a murderer who would get that penalty or letting him go free, which would he likely choose?  Even if Sherlock personally disagrees with the death penalty(and he likely does, given the occasional fallibility of the American criminal justice system), I can't see him letting a murderer go free even if that person might ultimately be executed because Sherlock caught him.  In the same way, figure Sherlock was more concerned with finding/stopping the guy slinging the poisoned heroin than he was about the risk to said murderous dealer from involving Mara Tres.  Twelve (relatively) innocent people were already dead because of the poisoned heroin and figure victim 13 was just around the corner. 

Honestly, I think Sherlock was more upset that he wasn't able to confront and arrest the dealer than the fact that Mara Tres dismembered him.  For my part I've never seen Sherlock get that broken up when bad things happen to bad people who deserve it.  Sherlock wanted to stop the flow of poisoned heroin and the flow got stopped.  Maybe it wasn't stopped in the most moral or ethical of ways, but it won't be killing more people and I can see Sherlock being mostly satisfied with that result.

Edited September 23, 2017 by johntfs

[Ailianna]

On 9/23/2017 at 7:03 PM, johntfs said:

New York is a state with the death penalty. 

No it's not.  It hasn't been since 2004 when the Court of Appeals ruled that the current death penalty statute was unconstitutional, and it's never been replaced.  No death penalty in NY.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Ailianna

[johntfs]

3 hours ago, Ailianna said:

No it's not.  It hasn't been since 2004 when the Court of Appeals ruled that the current death penalty statute was unconstitutional, and it's never been replaced.  No death penalty in NY.

Serves me right for not keeping up with Law and Order.