Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S06.E12: Meet Your Maker 2018.07.23


Recommended Posts

(edited)

This case went everywhere.  InCels, FinDommes, Maker Faires, a transfer to the Federal Marshal's office, making untraceable weapons...yet it all seems to work.  So much for me using a joke about Stefon from Saturday Night Live writing this episode.  

ETA: I kind of wish things wouldn't happen off screen.

Edited by EAG46
  • Love 9

I had no clue that financial domination was a thing, but I guess I really can't be too surprised over it.  Also, while I have heard all about "incels" and the general idea about what it means, I never knew what it actually stood for, so I learned quite a lot in this one.  Thanks, Elementary!  I did feel kind of proud that I knew Sherlock was actually making a trebuchet and not just a catapult.

Bell's potentially going to the Marshals does smack of an endgame set-up incase this was the final season, so since it isn't, I wonder how they're going to walk it back?  I did like Gregson's talk with him.

It was a little weird how the case pretty much got wrapped up off screen, but I did like that both of the kidnapped victims survived.  Certainly allowed the show to save on their "fake blood and actors pretending to be corpses" budget!
 

  • Love 6
5 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

It was a little weird how the case pretty much got wrapped up off screen, but I did like that both of the kidnapped victims survived.  Certainly allowed the show to save on their "fake blood and actors pretending to be corpses" budget!

The case got wrapped up once Sherlock revealed to the brother how they knew (and could prove) he was one of the kidnappers.  The rest of it is the cops rescuing the victims and arresting the other kidnappers.  Sherlock and Joan play no part in that so there's no real need to show it. 

I get a kick out of how much Sherlock gets a kick out of screwing over somebody (in this case the In-Cel guy) who truly deserves to get screwed over.  I thought it was also weirdly funny the way the would-be mass shooter was truly concerned for the safety of "Queen Marisol" despite otherwise planning to murder several women at that gym.  Just more of people are not of a piece.

We also learned that Sherlock has accumulated a good deal of pull within the US federal law enforcement bureaucracy.  

  • Love 4

At last, a story I could follow! I have been having trouble with that lately. I don't know if it's the writing, or my attention span, or a combination of both, but this time I was actually able to keep up with the thread from start to finish despite the fact that it went everywhere. 

I have never heard of Maker Faires before. I can understand the purpose of an expo for tech stuff and the like, but do they really dress up in costumes? Why? If it weren't for that, I think I would really enjoy visiting one. Probably a lot of super cool gadgets. 

I think it will be easy enough to stall Marcus's change of careers for next season, unless they wrote and filmed the finale with him leaving the police department before they found out there would be another season. 

I did enjoy Sherlock screwing over that incel guy and telling him since he didn't seem to enjoy the company of women it wouldn't be a problem for the next 10-15 years.

  • Love 3
58 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I have never heard of Maker Faires before. I can understand the purpose of an expo for tech stuff and the like, but do they really dress up in costumes? Why? If it weren't for that, I think I would really enjoy visiting one. Probably a lot of super cool gadgets. 

It probably intersects a lot with Steam Punk where you make retro high tech gadgets from metal, where aesthetics is way more important than function.

  • Love 4

Completely agree with many post above, especially re: Joan's dress, wrapping up stories, and a complex yet follow-able plot. But a point that hasn't been mentioned:

The traditional Sherlock/Watson couple, complete with deerstalker cap, in line at the convention! I only wish Sherlock had had a meta line like, "who are they trying to be?"

  • Love 9
2 hours ago, Novel8 said:

This is the way the studio's get rid of some key players. They either kill them off or send them away, in this case as a promotion. I read somewhere that he is getting a new show

Really? This (recent) interview makes no mention of a new show, and the last question/ answer makes it sound like he's a part of season seven.

I would be really upset if JMH leaves!

  • Love 1
(edited)

The frustration of this season is I want half of Joan's clothing except it was filmed almost a year and by the time we see them, they're sold out!  

https://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/Jason-Wu-Sleeveless-Houndstooth-Jacquard-Dress-Black-Chalk/prod119220005_cat80001__/p.prod?ecid=BGAF__ShopStyle+CPC&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=BGAF__ShopStyle+CPC  (thank you Worn On TV!) 

 

Interesting that they brought up the man who opened fire on female engineers in Montreal except I felt they sort of implied it was recent.  That happened in 1989. 

Edited by mtlchick
  • Love 1

It's obvious the writers didn't think they were getting more than half a season, huh? But I'm thrilled for Bell, and I really hope they come up with some sort of delay so that Bell sticks around for season 7, before he goes off to be the amazing marshal we know he will be.

And it looks like the next episode will be a bit baby-centric, which leads to my next wish for the finale -- that Watson gets an adorable baby, and Sherlock gives her an entire floor of the brownstone kept safe and baby-proofed for them, and he's the eccentric uncle downstairs/upstairs. I really want Watson to have a life beyond Sherlock. I know babies aren't popular on shows and can be a pain to work with, but I wouldn't need to see it -- just a reference here and there to the nanny watching it, or a developmental milestone, etc. (Although I kind of like the idea of Watson and Sherlock on the street interviewing witnesses, with the baby in a carrier on Joan.)  What I suspect they'll do is have the adoption process drag out through season 7, which is certainly realistic -- it can take years, sometimes -- but I hope she gets one in the end.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm thrilled that the show is continuing. But the wrapping-up plotlines in the last few episodes have me thinking about the end.

Oh, yeah, I liked the mystery, although I was disappointed to have predicted the brother's involvement. The structure of the cases tends to be the same, and I'd like to see that upended every once in a while.

  • Love 4

Clearly I've missed some episodes because I remember an entirely different girlfriend. Definitely seems like she was more into him than was her so I'm not putting too much emphasis on that. I would hate for him to leave too especially since we don't get Alfredo anymore.

I have no interest in a baby story line and yes I also predicted from as soon as he was on the screen that the brother was involved.

Is it just me or is Gregson  not on as much anymore

(edited)
10 hours ago, Xantar said:

It was a little weird that the Incel guy ran a place called Black Pill 4 U when the actual term used among Incels is Red Pill. Were they afraid of a defamation lawsuit?

From The Wikipedia page on Incel

Quote

Black pill

The black pill is a set of beliefs that are commonly held amongst members of incel communities, such as genetic determinism, fatalism and defeatism for unattractive people.[52] Someone who believes in the black pill is a black piller.[31]

The concept of the black pill distinguishes incels from the men's rights movement and their popular reference to the red pill, an allusion to the dilemma in the movie The Matrix where the protagonist must choose to remain in a world of illusion (taking the blue pill) or to see the world as it really is (taking the red pill).[53] In the context of men's rights activism, "taking the red pill" means seeing a world where women hold power over men.[54] The black pill, on the other hand, refers to hopelessness.[34] It also holds that one's personality isn't very important.[55] Sam Louie, in an interview with WBUR-FM, defined "taking the black pill" as meaning "I will now espouse violence, hatred and misogyny."[56]

So, Elementary pretty much got it right.

Edited by johntfs
  • Love 4
13 hours ago, mtlchick said:

Interesting that they brought up the man who opened fire on female engineers in Montreal except I felt they sort of implied it was recent.  That happened in 1989. 

I also found it weird that it was sort of implied it was connected to the incel thing, because it was very specifically targeting women for their professional success in male-dominated fields.

  • Love 2
Quote

Oh, yeah, I liked the mystery, although I was disappointed to have predicted the brother's involvement. 

I didn't, because I was under the impression Sherlock was talking to the victim's sister and her husband, not the victim's brother and sister. In fact I thought that was poorly written because I wasn't entirely sure who either of them were until they walked out of the interrogation room and Sherlock said "her sister." 

  • Love 5
20 minutes ago, wellread said:

Bell's one-liner should be noted:

When hearing Strider's name, Bell comments that it is the second stupidest first name that he has ever heard!  Great!

That was great! And Sherlock's reaction was hilarious!

I really hope there is a placementdelay from the Marshall's side because I want Bell back next season. I also hope that it will take years for Watson to finally adopt a child. I love the Sherlock/Joan dynamic - no need to add a 3rd wheel. 

  • Love 2
23 hours ago, mtlchick said:

Interesting that they brought up the man who opened fire on female engineers in Montreal except I felt they sort of implied it was recent.  That happened in 1989. 

I remember that day like it was yesterday.  I was attending a different university than where it happened and my friend was a friend of one of the victims.

There were definitely no incel websites back in those days.

  • Love 4
(edited)
9 hours ago, theatremouse said:

I don't remember the exact exchange, but for some reason I didn't think they were referring to the real event in 1989. I thought they were referring to a fictional more recent event in-show universe that was based on the real event in 1989.

If they wanted to indicate it was a different [fictional] event, they could have and should have added details that marked it as different. It didn't have to be Montreal and engineers. Also weren't the other events they mentioned also specific real incidents? 

Edited by SomeTameGazelle
  • Love 2
39 minutes ago, Trey said:

No, but if there were, he would definitely have belonged to one.

You could be right, but he seemed to be angry towards women in general, not about the fact that he couldn't get a date. 

At any rate, the show is usually much better about getting their facts straight.  This was such a huge deal when it happened - and still has a trickle down effect to this day - that for them to just manipulate the incident into a throwaway statement that wasn't even correct felt cheap to me.

Quote

I knew that was a trebuchet!

Northern Exposure featured a trebuchet in at least two episodes. Beauriful slo-mo recording of it in action.

Quote


The traditional Sherlock/Watson couple, complete with deerstalker cap, in line at the convention! I only wish Sherlock had had a meta line like, "who are they trying to be?"

 

Yes, and we see them right after Watson had asked if they should attend in costume. No need for a line - that shot was plenty meta all by itself. It's a classic old gag. You get Watson's line about costumes and the next shot you see it "Holmes and Watson" in costume, filmed from behind - then pass them to see it isn't our Holmes and Watson, who immediately walk into the frame. Also, in the Elementary world, Holmes and Watson don't dress that way (though I think we did see a deerstalker once), and in canon, Watson is, of course, a man. That shot was almost breaking the fourth wall. Any comment would have been gilding the lily.

  • Love 11
19 hours ago, AEMom said:

I remember that day like it was yesterday.  I was attending a different university than where it happened and my friend was a friend of one of the victims.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

I thought they were referring to a fictional more recent event in-show universe that was based on the real event in 1989.

 I live in Montreal and it happened the day after 12th birthday so it's seared into my memory.  I wouldn't have minded it as much if it was said as to when it happened.  I felt they tried to shoehorn it into to fit this story line, especially when it occurred at a time where there was no Internet.   

Quote

 I live in Montreal and it happened the day after 12th birthday so it's seared into my memory.  I wouldn't have minded it as much if it was said as to when it happened.  I felt they tried to shoehorn it into to fit this story line, especially when it occurred at a time where there was no Internet.   

Why would you mind it at all? It was true and germane to the episode. It wasn't shoe-horned in - the year it happened in is irrelevant.

  • Love 1
1 hour ago, basil said:

Why would you mind it at all? It was true and germane to the episode. It wasn't shoe-horned in - the year it happened in is irrelevant.

As I said earlier, for me I felt they were implying it was a fairly recent event.  Not to veer that off topic, but how many viewers would readily remember a mass shooting in Canada from 30 years ago unless they decided to google Montreal and female engineer students?

 

Back to topic: I need more Clyde.  Why does the show deny me airtime of the tortoise?

3 hours ago, mtlchick said:
3 hours ago, mtlchick said:
  12 hours ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

I thought they were referring to a fictional more recent event in-show universe that was based on the real event in 1989.

 

Forgive me for mentioning it, but the quote is attributed incorrectly. I was quoting @theatremouse.

1 hour ago, basil said:

Why would you mind it at all? It was true and germane to the episode. It wasn't shoe-horned in - the year it happened in is irrelevant.

In context, Sherlock was accusing the site admin of the black pill message board of being disingenuous when he claimed that specific appallingly misogynistic comments on the site were jokes. There is no way that the 30 year old Montreal massacre was connected to this guy's site. It struck me as off as well.

23 minutes ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

In context, Sherlock was accusing the site admin of the black pill message board of being disingenuous when he claimed that specific appallingly misogynistic comments on the site were jokes. There is no way that the 30 year old Montreal massacre was connected to this guy's site. It struck me as off as well.

I saw it more as the idea that the hatred and misogyny were real instead being "jokes" and had had real world fatal consequences.  The guy was playing "den mother to a group of would-be rapists and mass shooters."

  • Love 3
(edited)
Quote

Why would you mind it at all? It was true and germane to the episode. It wasn't shoe-horned in - the year it happened in is irrelevant.

Quote

In context, Sherlock was accusing the site admin of the black pill message board of being disingenuous when he claimed that specific appallingly misogynistic comments on the site were jokes. There is no way that the 30 year old Montreal massacre was connected to this guy's site. It struck me as off as well

 

Yes, I understood that the timing of the event wasn't accurate, but writers take literary license all the time. I suppose they could have made up an event, or used a more recent ones like Elliot Rodger's, or Alek Minassian's, but the Montreal massacre victims were all women, murdered because they were women, so I can see why they used that one, even though the timeline was incorrect. I remember it as well, but sadly, outside of Montreal, I doubt all that many people do. I saw the inclusion of the massacre in this episode as a kind of tribute to them. An acknowledgement that they are not forgotten.

Quote

I saw it more as the idea that the hatred and misogyny were real instead being "jokes" and had had real world fatal consequences.  The guy was playing "den mother to a group of would-be rapists and mass shooters."

Exactly. They used a real event, just changed its place in time for purposes of clarity. Thngs like this happen in tvland quite often. Of course you have every right to "mind" this, or feel that it's "off", I just trying to understand why it would bother anyone, aside from the difference in the time the event happened.

Eta: I just rewatched the scene in question. The Black Pill guy claims that posters on his site are joking. In response, Sherlock says "then how to you explain that one of your members went on a rampage at his college who went on a rampage, killing 12 people, mostly women, or the person who opened fire on a group of female engineers in Montreal?". I read that as Sherlock was refering to it in historical context, that it was something that has happened in the past and was not fodder for "jokes".

Edited by basil
  • Love 3
×
×
  • Create New...