johntfs April 10, 2017 Share April 10, 2017 I figure the overall point of the beating was that it was suppose to look worse than it was. Link to comment
basil April 10, 2017 Share April 10, 2017 Quote I figure the overall point of the beating was that it was suppose to look worse than it was. I'm sorry, can you clarify what you mean by that? Who was it supposed to look worse to? We, the audience? Someone watching Shinwell (possibly)? We don't yet know how severe the beating was, or how severe it was supposed to be. It looked to me that Shinwell was pulling his punches (erm, kicks). Sherlock was definitely down, but conscious and still able to talk. While Sherlock was not doubt in pain, he's taken vicious beatings before (he refers to being frequently beaten in school in earlier episodes). I don't think Shinwell intended to do any kind of permanent damage or he would have done so. Link to comment
jhlipton April 15, 2017 Share April 15, 2017 I find it a little ironic that after all Shinwell has done (being a gang-banger, which involves shooting people and selling drugs to kids), beating Sherlock is the like he shouldn't have crossed... 2 Link to comment
johntfs September 23, 2017 Share September 23, 2017 On 4/2/2017 at 2:08 AM, basil said: Much later, Joan asks Sherlock why wants to "get a confession out of Shinwell now?". Sherlock seems to acting very much out of character, imo. It wouldn't be the first time Sherlock has let a killer walk free, either because the murdered person was a horrible person (as in the father who molested his child) or otherwise for the greater good. He's even almost framed a man for murder when he couldn't prove his guilt. True, but it takes some fairly special circumstances for that to occur. While he certainly sympathized with the killer in "To Catch a Predator Predator" that killer still went to prison (though Sherlock took pains to ensure that the one who'd made the killer into a victim also suffered a suitably severe punishment). At this point in the series, Sherlock was of the belief that he had fundamentally misjudged Shinwell. He'd thought Shinwell was a flawed but basically decent person trying to turn his life around by making up for his previous crimes by bringing down his former gang. Instead, Sherlock finds that Shinwell was a bad guy who murdered a person he considered to be his best friend (and somewhat ruined the life of that guy's younger brother, who was a child at the time). Instead of taking responsibility (and punishment) for that crime Shinwell is blaming SBK and is bringing them down to punish them for his own choices, as Sherlock sees it. Now, again as Sherlock sees it, he and Watson have no choice but to back Shinwell as the lesser of two evils, but Shinwell is still very much an evil. At this point he'll bring down SBK and then disappear into witness protection to start a new life without paying for the sins of his past. 2 Link to comment
John Potts October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 I've seen the "marine salvage leads to murder" plot at least twice (in New York both times too!) in CSI:NY and Forever. Admittedly, I didn't see The Producers twist coming. Also, liked the acknowledgement that most pirates were legitimate, at least part of the time. Indeed, licensing captains to prey on your enemies was very common (a "Letter of the Marque"). Whether the pirates actually kept to the agreement to only attack the right targets was another matter. On 28/03/2017 at 5:45 PM, racked said: Do the investors tend to go on the expedition so they'd be there to see the gold? Or was he afraid his crew would tell them? And why would this many people invest in an expedition to a wreck it seems was well known for NOT having any gold? Treasure hunting is (I suspect) a bit like buying a lottery ticket: there's the possibility you can strike it (very) rich, but you're mostly just throwing away your money. No idea why this particular salvage was so strongly funded, however. On 31/03/2017 at 3:14 AM, roseha said: I can't see a ten year old brother killing Jamal unless it was a tragic accident, which seems very unlikely to be three shots in the back. How about - 10 year old hears Shinwell discussing with somebody how SBK had ordered him to kill the older brother, shoots this mystery individual in the back and only then realises it actually IS his brother. ...it's not very likely, but Sherlock has come across less plausible scenarios! Link to comment
johntfs October 4, 2018 Share October 4, 2018 7 hours ago, John Potts said: Treasure hunting is (I suspect) a bit like buying a lottery ticket: there's the possibility you can strike it (very) rich, but you're mostly just throwing away your money. No idea why this particular salvage was so strongly funded, however. Likely the killer captain went to several different investors with the "I found some secret info that there's really treasure down there, want to get in on the ground floor?" story. Repeat multiple times. He was looking to trade his reputation for a huge score that would let him fully finance his own treasure hunts in the future, I'd say. His problem was that somebody else found a real piece of secret info that there really was treasure down there and so murder. Link to comment
Recommended Posts