@princearagorn1 said:
@killemall:
They actually are just interpreting the book stuffs for Sherlock. They hired a couple of writer who would translate the actual events from the book, into a story more fitting of the modern age. Every episode thus far in Sherlock, is actually a chapter in the book, written different so anyone who read the book wouldnt know what is going to happen the moment the episode starts, and with a twist.
I have not read the book, but Sherlock homes had a old series in the 90s , which was exactly word to word from the book, i have watched that.
Make sure you do read it. There are a lot of adaptations of the book, but none compares to actually reading the book..
Sherlock has the whole London Map memorised with every turning, every light and what times the light turn red and green, as shown in first episode.
Which at least to me seems just as impressive.
Of course it's equally impressive. I'm just saying jane doesn't have any notable disadvantage in the memory department.
Goldfinch: How exactly tracking people is impressive?
Sherlock identified a Guy to be gay, looking at him, but then shame it turns out Moriarity was playing him
Patrick did the same thing, in the very first episode. Except that they guy was dead, and there were about no clues left after doctors had examined him. And of course he didn't slip patrick his number :p
which is actually in line with the book, where Moriarity could see exactly what Sherlock would see on a scene, which allowed him to plant evidence that would make Sherlock see what Moriarity wanted him to see as opposed to what actually happened, he later lost because of his own ego because he was too bored with Sherlock seeing him so easily duped
Actually that's not in line with the books. The book confrontation was quite different, but I won't spoil it for you. Too awesome to do so..
You mean the Final problem story, sure!
Sherlock also identified a guy as a military man looking at him, even deduced his entire details, in the first episode
That's a feat replicated almost every alternate episode.. (A pizza guy, a casino guy, a teacher..and so on) Except the person is generally dead, removing the aspect of how he stands, or behaves..
he looked at a guy and knew he was going to die soon and stuffs like that. But i suppose Patrick is going to have had done a whole lot of stuffs then him, given his various appearences.
Yes, patrick has a lot more screen time than sherlock, hands down. But he also has the feats to keep up the intensity.. he understands minds better than anyone. And he tends to keep it funny:
Goldfinch: The only one who matches Mentalist in that department is Poirot!
I mean.. how is that even possible 0_0
So yeah more or less with Patrick having more feats, but i dont know, personal preference, me being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, i still sort of see Sherlock as smarter :p
The point is, even if sherlock is smarter, patrick isn't any less smart. And he has huge host of other skills, bordering on pseudo reality warp..
I have never chosen anyone over sherlock, not shawn spencer, not spencer reid, not hercule poirot, not will graham, I like him to the point I consider him a rival to cal lightman (ok, that'll be pushing it a little). But mentalist gives so many insane feats to patrick, it's too hard to go against him.
Goldfinch: No Holmes is not smarter than Hercule Poirot, and Poirot is the only one matches Mentalist in all abilities, especially psychology! Mentalist and Hercule Poirot are the smartest and the best when it comes to psychology!
I need you to prove me everything that I written so far, and would Hercule Poirot detect Moriarty as criminal mastermind?
He will, because he detected and defeated the Big Four!
Would Patrick Jane be able to detect Moriarty as the criminal mastermind, since he was invisible?
You're 100% wrong!
And, you still need to prove that Sherlock Holmes is smarter than Hercule Poirot!
But you can't, because it's the opposite, Poirot is brighter and smarter than Holmes; Poirot through conversation and psychology knows who the killer is, while Holmes needs to visit crime scenes, observation and science (clues, evidences, fingerprints, footprints, chemistry, biology, geology, botany, anatomy and etc.), Poirot solves crimes without anything mentioned, read the Cornish mystery, read the Curtain, and there are many, many other stories/novels where Poirot solves crimes without using Holmes' methods-Poirot is much brighter than Holmes, Poirot by this category beats all other fictional detectives, including even Mentalist.
Even Mentalist needs few clues to know if someone is the killer, but Poirot does not need anything all he has to do is to make several conversations with people and that's it!
Unlike Mentalist, Poirot does not use his tricks and his mental traps too often (but he does from time to time), what Poirot does is that he makes other people underestimate him, and he makes people to talk to him and he makes people/criminals to confess him the crime they committed; unlike Holmes who underestimates criminals and because of that he had his failures, Poirot is perfect he has never made a single mistake, and never failed to solve any crime whatsoever!
And you still need to prove that Mentalist is superior to Poirot when it comes to psychology-read the Curtain: The Last Poirot's story.
Right now I'm reading all the stories/novels of original Sherlock Holmes, and I have still not found what's the big deal about all of Holmes' abilities-nothing big deal, it's all average, if you ask me.
Sure Holmes, is extremely observant-more observant than other mentioned fictional detective including Adrian Monk, and his deduction and knowledge of pretty much everything is truly awesome, but Poirot solves crimes without visiting crime scenes, without using science, Poirot just makes several conversations, and Poirot thinks and solves the crime.
In that area Poirot is superior to Holmes, plus this very fact 100% proves that Poirot is much smarter than Holmes, smarter than even Mentalist, because Mentalist can be fooled, while Poirot cannot be fooled.
Log in to comment