s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

It's not awful. David Thewlis is much better than the material. Alas,
Blu Hunt is not.

Need a ruling here: If you grew up in the suburbs, can you truly claim
your native heritage? Her hair is gorgeous. She was 28 during production
and looks much much younger.

My complaint about the Amelia character is that she's barely
investigating. She's largely following instinct, then encounters
something by coincidence that advances the plot. She's a plot device,
not a character. In fact, Sherlock said so in a line of dialogue.

The writers are lazy.

Nice to see Ivana Milicevic again. I miss her (slightly covered) nude
scenes in Banshee. Her body was lithe and tight thanks to all the fight training she had.

Did I miss an explanation for how the hell Clara met Charlie? Also, if
her father went bust in a railroad scandal (it's two decades too late to
have been Jay Gould and the Erie scandal, and if this is 1898, it's too
late for the Panic of 1893 which sunk a lot of railroad stock), there's
no fucking way he'd be ambassador as he'd be subject to foreign
influence.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the idea of a chop shop for
carriages, but can't. There's pretty much as much labor involved in
chopping them up and re-assembling them as there would be in building
new carriages.

Why has Amelia failed to tell Sherlock of her two encounters with the
bobbie on patrol? Obviously he tipped off the crooks. Hell, he's
watching Sherlock's house.

The size of the house bothers the hell out of me. It's a great house,
and I guess we're supposed to think Belgravia except the house facades
being used in Dublin are from a century earlier, 1760s. The whole thing
is illusion. The real street is much narrower. She's crossing a 60 foot
wide earthen street on tv, then in a separate shot, we see the facade of
the houses, so I assume there's an outdoor set with the muddy street.

Sherlock was comfortable (he certainly didn't overspend on lodging) but not wealthy, and could not possibly afford the lease on such a house. Sherlock never had servants. Since when do servants question their employer? And
the kidnapped Mrs. Hudson is also a servant?

I guess I'll stick with it; it's just 8 episodes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

It's not awful. David Thewlis is much better than the material. Alas,
Blu Hunt is not.

Need a ruling here: If you grew up in the suburbs, can you truly claim
your native heritage? Her hair is gorgeous. She was 28 during production
and looks much much younger.

My complaint about the Amelia character is that she's barely
investigating. She's largely following instinct, then encounters
something by coincidence that advances the plot. She's a plot device,
not a character. In fact, Sherlock said so in a line of dialogue.

The writers are lazy.

Nice to see Ivana Milicevic again. I miss her (slightly covered) nude
scenes in Banshee. Her body was lithe and tight thanks to all the fight training she had.

Did I miss an explanation for how the hell Clara met Charlie? Also, if
her father went bust in a railroad scandal (it's two decades too late to
have been Jay Gould and the Erie scandal, and if this is 1898, it's too
late for the Panic of 1893 which sunk a lot of railroad stock), there's
no fucking way he'd be ambassador as he'd be subject to foreign
influence.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the idea of a chop shop for
carriages, but can't. There's pretty much as much labor involved in
chopping them up and re-assembling them as there would be in building
new carriages.

Why has Amelia failed to tell Sherlock of her two encounters with the
bobbie on patrol? Obviously he tipped off the crooks. Hell, he's
watching Sherlock's house.

The size of the house bothers the hell out of me. It's a great house,
and I guess we're supposed to think Belgravia except the house facades
being used in Dublin are from a century earlier, 1760s. The whole thing
is illusion. The real street is much narrower. She's crossing a 60 foot
wide earthen street on tv, then in a separate shot, we see the facade of
the houses, so I assume there's an outdoor set with the muddy street.

Sherlock was comfortable (he certainly didn't overspend on lodging) but not wealthy, and could not possibly afford the lease on such a house. Sherlock never had servants. Since when do servants question their employer? And
the kidnapped Mrs. Hudson is also a servant?

I guess I'll stick with it; it's just 8 episodes.

I can answer all your questions, but you wouldn’t listen to me anyway.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-04-27 12:47 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

It's not awful. David Thewlis is much better than the material. Alas,
Blu Hunt is not.

Need a ruling here: If you grew up in the suburbs, can you truly claim
your native heritage? Her hair is gorgeous. She was 28 during production
and looks much much younger.

My complaint about the Amelia character is that she's barely
investigating. She's largely following instinct, then encounters
something by coincidence that advances the plot. She's a plot device,
not a character. In fact, Sherlock said so in a line of dialogue.

The writers are lazy.

Nice to see Ivana Milicevic again. I miss her (slightly covered) nude
scenes in Banshee. Her body was lithe and tight thanks to all the fight training she had.

Did I miss an explanation for how the hell Clara met Charlie? Also, if
her father went bust in a railroad scandal (it's two decades too late to
have been Jay Gould and the Erie scandal, and if this is 1898, it's too
late for the Panic of 1893 which sunk a lot of railroad stock), there's
no fucking way he'd be ambassador as he'd be subject to foreign
influence.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the idea of a chop shop for
carriages, but can't. There's pretty much as much labor involved in
chopping them up and re-assembling them as there would be in building
new carriages.

Why has Amelia failed to tell Sherlock of her two encounters with the
bobbie on patrol? Obviously he tipped off the crooks. Hell, he's
watching Sherlock's house.

The size of the house bothers the hell out of me. It's a great house,
and I guess we're supposed to think Belgravia except the house facades
being used in Dublin are from a century earlier, 1760s. The whole thing
is illusion. The real street is much narrower. She's crossing a 60 foot
wide earthen street on tv, then in a separate shot, we see the facade of
the houses, so I assume there's an outdoor set with the muddy street.

Sherlock was comfortable (he certainly didn't overspend on lodging) but not wealthy, and could not possibly afford the lease on such a house.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I *know* I've read passages in novels
about people from very humble backgrounds who received an inheritance
that seems impossibly small to us - like five pounds - who were able to
lease property in Belgravia as a result and still have money left over
for food, servants and the like.

We've had so much inflation in the intervening years that it's
practically impossible to imagine 5 pounds going that far but apparently
it did. (Or maybe the novels were not accurate on that detail.)

I wish I could remember the novel(s) where I read that....

Sherlock
never had servants. Since when do servants question their employer? And
the kidnapped Mrs. Hudson is also a servant?

You have to remember that servants were dirt cheap in those days. I
remember reading that censuses from around 1900 defined working class as
having only two or fewer servants, with the middle class beginning at 3 servants. Of course almost everyone was agricultural in those days so
the two servants would have been the hired man and his wife (if he were married).

Karl Marx was notorious for mooching money off his friends, especially
his co-author Friedrich Engels (the son of a wealthy factory owner),
because he was constantly in debt yet even Marx had a couple of servants
to help his wife and tend himself and his family.

I guess I'll stick with it; it's just 8 episodes.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-27 12:47 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

. . .

The size of the house bothers the hell out of me. It's a great house,
and I guess we're supposed to think Belgravia except the house facades >>being used in Dublin are from a century earlier, 1760s. The whole thing
is illusion. The real street is much narrower. She's crossing a 60 foot >>wide earthen street on tv, then in a separate shot, we see the facade of >>the houses, so I assume there's an outdoor set with the muddy street.

Sherlock was comfortable (he certainly didn't overspend on lodging) but not >>wealthy, and could not possibly afford the lease on such a house.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I *know* I've read passages in novels
about people from very humble backgrounds who received an inheritance
that seems impossibly small to us - like five pounds - who were able to
lease property in Belgravia as a result and still have money left over
for food, servants and the like.

Belgravia (according to that tv series) was a popular community among
newly rich families. There were cheaper parts of London, but not the
brand new areas.

We've had so much inflation in the intervening years that it's
practically impossible to imagine 5 pounds going that far but apparently
it did. (Or maybe the novels were not accurate on that detail.)

I wish I could remember the novel(s) where I read that....

Mycroft was, what, in two short stories, none of the novels. He was
rich. The only time I recall the father being wealthy (I recall no
references to the family in the stories) is the Elementary tv series
with Sherlock living in a house his father owned and the father paying
Joan Watson's salary.

Sherlock
never had servants. Since when do servants question their employer? And
the kidnapped Mrs. Hudson is also a servant?

You have to remember that servants were dirt cheap in those days. I
remember reading that censuses from around 1900 defined working class as >having only two or fewer servants, with the middle class beginning at 3 >servants. Of course almost everyone was agricultural in those days so
the two servants would have been the hired man and his wife (if he were >married).

Agreed. If I could accept that he was wealthy enough to lease the house,
then I've already suspended disbelief that he can also afford that many servants.

. . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)