Tag: gatiss

myladylyssa:

devoursjohnlock:

the-7-percent-solution:

monikakrasnorada:

doomsteady:

So. It’s been a while.

Anyone else still wondering why they had to “read the script backwards for it to make sense”?

@monikakrasnorada @the-7-percent-solution @waitedforgarridebs

I entertain the thought that it was read backwards because what we are ‘shown’ is actually Sherlock’s recollection. It’s the recurring dream he tells Ella about, so the show is actually Sherlock’s ‘version’.

@doomsteady @the-7-percent-solution @waitedforgarridebs

I have no fucking clue and I’ve come to terms with that

I still think this is a clue to missing footage. Reading it backwards or forwards shouldn’t have made a difference if what we were shown were the entire story, except to spoil the Norbury plot. And besides the E storyline, the episode we saw actually suffers from being too straightforward: on the surface, it’s action-driven, without much nuance.

I’m still leaning towards John having been shot at the end of TST; if they started with the shooting, then seeing the cover-up story unfold afterwards would make more sense. We only got to see it forwards, with no reveal at the end; that’s exactly why it made no sense to us.

Also, they may have had to explain the structure of the entire 4th series at that readthrough.

The actors get the scripts beforehand, and read them at home. If they were suddenly asked to read them backwards at the table reading, that indicates to me that the content and context were different from what was on the pages they received initially.

I interpreted Mark to mean that they did the week backwards, that they started filming before they had the read-through. That was what was backwards. No?

I think they really read just the script backwards. Filming 1st without a read through is unheard of, especially for Sherlock. Sources:

Reddit Thread

Posts from around the time Mark said they read it backwards: 1, 2 

I can’t find the original place where Mark said they read the script backwards, but, if we take Mark’s word as gospel, they did. 

tendergingergirl:

therealmartinsgrrrl:

meanmisscharles:

isleofapplepies:

Doctor Who writer uncomfortable with historical “inaccuracy”, that in itself is a joke. In other news Mark Gatiss remains a racist piece of trash.

His stans will make all kinds of foolish excuses for this

my god he is a piece of garbage

“PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION In 1964 the release of the film Zulu, starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine, and in 1965 the publication of the book The Washing of the Spears, written by Donald Morris, generated a popular interest in the Anglo-Zulu War which has endured to the present day. Numerous books and television documentaries have appeared, and at the time of the centenary another movie, Zulu Dawn. By this time the Anglo-Zulu War is probably the best known of Queen Victoria’s small wars of empire. Zulu has attained iconic status. The Journal of the Anglo-Zulu War Historical Society is in its seventeenth year…The war was short – just eight months long – and the course of it was simple: British invasion, defeat, invasion again, victory (and the reverse, of course, for the Zulu). There were half a dozen short, pitched battles, and a dozen or so attractive or intriguing personalities to reckon with. It was a case of imperialism (or colonialism) against an indigenous people defending their independence, Europe against Africa, white against black. The average reader easily grasps the outline and main features and then fits in the dramatic details. Yet in all the literature on the war simplification has resulted in an omission. The war was not simply one of white against black, colonial against native. Over half of the fighting men in the invading British army were blacks from the Colony of Natal, and they served the Queen willingly. They have not fared well at the hands of popular or scholarly writers.” X

What in God’s name is wrong with Mark Gatiss? Does he ONLY know about the history of horror films, because he already just proved how little he actually knows or respects ACD, now THIS?

may-shepard:

kimbiablue:

Alright guys, I asked Mark and Steven about Garridebs!

Mark, very sincerely and personably (make of that what you will), agreed with me about the moment’s emotional importance, and expressed that he had really hoped to include the scene. He said that they (I can’t remember his wording exactly) either tried it or he ran through some possible scenarios and it wouldn’t have fit anywhere (this depends on the different opinions of “was Johnlock intended to be fulfilled or not”). He mentioned the writing phenomenon of “kill your babies” when saying how much he wanted to do the scene. He even called it “throttle the nursery” because it was such a big blow to him.

Steven said that there have been plenty of scenes where Sherlock and John’s care for each other has been shown (his exact emphatic words were “yes yes they would just say wow this is my favorite person!”) and so the Garridebs scene would not be a revelation of that care, as it was in the novels in Victorian times. He said the moment itself is “a retelling of The Red Headed League, but not as good”. I could tell that this is a question he’s been asked before or has thought on a lot, because he delivered the answer very straightforward and with an air of, he’s tired of explaining this and finds it very obvious.

So, interpret all this however you want, I mean shit I still have my strong opinions in this. But I’m just very glad to have been able to ask them both, and in a more private and informal setting, and actually get answers.

@teaandqueerbaiting @northray @isitandwonder @the-blue-carbuncle @skulls-and-tea @themanandthemachine @sherlock-overflow-error @marcespot @monikakrasnorada @thedepthsofmyshame @missmuffin221

Thank you for asking and reporting!

branmuffinist:

I just met Mark Gatiss and I showed him my Sherlock tattoo and he touched his heart and awwwed and shoot my hand and his hand was warm and firm and then he tried to read my skirt to figure out which Sherlock Holmes story it was from and he couldn’t figure it out but he said it’s “definitely from the Adventures of” and then I asked him who his favorite character to write is and he said “Sherlock, of course” and I said “of course, he’s your brother” and he said “of course, he’s my brother!” But loud and snippy like Mycroft and it gave me life

Sherlocked secrets Ssshhhhh

valeria2067:

jeremiebrett:

friskykatt:

First day of Sherlocked LA, and lots of interesting tidbits! Got to do one of those meet and greet over wine deals, where we got to ask questions. I asked Mark if he was going for an “unreliable narrator” thing with the set things changing within episodes, e.g. The 221 hallway light. He was surprised and said he hadn’t noticed it, and no it was just a mistake. He said any differences were just mistakes. Someone asked him about the lighting if the skull picture, and he said it was a lightbox behind the pic, and that in some scenes it was just too bright so they dimmed it in post. So absolutely no meaning behind it, and he seemed quite sincere about that and even commented that people read too much into things like that, and that they don’t aim for that (meaning subtle meta meanings). Later I brought the same thing up to Arwen, and he said one of the lights had gotten broken and they couldn’t find an identical one, so they just threw a similar one up. Then he explained that there were 2 sets for the stairs, split by the landing, so that’s why you see both different lights in the same scene. Really kind of sad about all the meta we make up that is absolutely not there at all.

The saddest thing is that they don’t care about continuity at all? I mean meta or not, even if you don’t hide stuff in your background PLEASE make it look coherent and the same set even if it isn’t. Good lord.

Remember the comment Moffat made about “Hell mend you” if you didn’t catch the clues in Series Three? Remember him repeating Sherlock’s line “You see but you do not observe” when asked about possible hints or holes?

EVERY TIME, and I do mean every time, a new meta piece was highly circulated, it hurt my heart. I stopped reading meta, and I stopped believing in anything like tj*c very soon after S3.

That’s not because I thought the theories were impossible, but because I suspected Mofftiss were either cowards or not as talented as we thought, or both.

Remember, this was a detective show about the powers of acute observation.

You don’t produce sloppy continuity mistakes like that in this kind of show, just as you don’t have characters using 21st century slang or showing obvious Velcro closures in Downton Abbey.

And it may have started as their own little AU fanfic, but is became a very well-paid, long-term, highly-promoted source of income for a lot of people at a major television network.

Can’t find that prop lamp again? You have TWO YEARS between each series – you could MAKE one that looks enough like it to be passable.

Can’t find your way out of the corner you’ve written yourself into into? GET AN OUTSIDE OPINION OR THREE.

Step up, or get someone to help you who will.

1895-doyle-and-bronte-obsessed:

thelostsmiles:

love-in-mind-palace:

loveinthemindpalace:

holmesianscholar:

221bloodnun:

What??? @monikakrasnorada @welovethebeekeeper @yorkiepug @holmesianscholar @swimmingfeelsinajohnlockianpool @mrskolesouniverse @intersexmycroft

what in the actual fuck bruh

Yeah, right. Good one, Mark.

when the con news start to get downright scary with that lunacy

Mark fucking Gatiss actually gave birth to the Mydson ship, I think that’s about the only ship I hadn’t heard about before

There was originally dialogue after that Sherlock series 4 finale montage…

glenmoresparks:

monikakrasnorada:

gosherlocked:

“But what could that dialogue have been? Was it between Sherlock and John? Given that Rathbone Place is a reference to an earlier incarnation of Sherlock Holmes, could it have echoed that and given us some kind of classic Holmes reference? And would it have told us any more about what happens next to our partners in crime solving?
Sadly, Gatiss is staying tight-lipped about that but he did point out that as the duo leap from Rathbone Place into their futures “we don’t know if they made that last step”.

What exactly does he mean by “that last step”?

This is a-grade trolling, in my opinion. The closing montage is a clod of lazy, predictable tropes that tell us precisely nothing, and reeks of a pair of writers who lost interest in their story years ago. What kind of dialogue could they have written? John threatening to beat Sherlock if he doesn’t baby sit? Mrs Hudson reciting Sweet Child of Mine to her kitchen appliances? Molly squeaking “Okay!” about the telephone scene,  like she did in series one when Sherlock orders her to get him some coffee? Lestrade asking why he didn’t get some more substantial scenes? The ghost of Mary reminding then that she can access courier services from the afterlife?

There was never any closing dialogue. This is just another ham-fisted attempt by two mediocre male writers desperate for the last word, desperate to maintain control over their (largely female) fandom who they resent and envy in equal measures. Mofftiss need to get some hobbies.

There was originally dialogue after that Sherlock series 4 finale montage…