The twist is that the hero says "I have poisoned one of these cups, pick which one you want to drink," but then it turns out that he poisoned both of them, so the bad guy dies and the hero lives, because he's built up an immunity to the poison.
Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty dark move for a hero, but there you go.
I was thinking it must either be an immunity, or that in A Study in Pink, the bad guy would take an antidote. But an antidote would seem like cheating. If the poison was a medication-- some meds are fatal to some people and not to others. I was disappointed that it was never explained.
Yeah. In the original story, it really is one poison pill and one harmless pill, but it only works once-- the second time the 'cabbie' character tries it, his victim fights back and he has to stab him to death instead. So that's less implausible, I guess.
I kind of think that what we are *actually* supposed to believe is that the cabbie in "A Study In Pink" really is as amazingly brilliant as Sherlock, which means he can actually subconsciously manipulate and/or read people well enough to survive the choice of pills multiple times... But it would have been nice if that were actually supported in text. *g*
No, it's almost completely different. He wasn't a super genius, and he wasn't killing random people, but specifically seeking revenge on two guys who were responsible for forcing the woman he loved into an unwanted marriage and therefore causing her to die of being too sad. (Also they killed her father, iirc). The pill game was his way of letting "Providence" decide if his actions were just. He does have an aneurism, but it's not his motivation-- it's just a plot device to wrap up the story. He dies of it in police custody after padding the word count explaining his motives.
Moriarty doesn't actually show up in original Sherlock Holmes canon before "The Final Problem"... although iirc there is one story that was written later that tries to retcon in some past suspicions of Moriarty on Holmes' part. Though I can't remember which story it is now. (And of course that story conflicts with Watson's account of "The Final Problem," where he says Holmes tells him about Moriarty for the very first time ever, but whatever. *g*)
Well, to be fair, at that point of the film we don't know he's the hero. He's still the Dread Pirate Roberts, scariest of all villains, for all we know.
This Princess Bride comparison came up for us when we watched A Study in Pink as a group the other night, and I think at some point one of us just decided that if Sherlock didn't think the distinction was important, we shouldn't either -- he could easily have taken both pills and figured them out in his Sherlock Lab -- which is admittedly a lazy writing trick. (Though after that the discussion came back around, and people started working out the probabilities on whether or not he could have survived 4 prior attempts strictly through chance, or whatever.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 05:34 am (UTC)Nope!
Sherlock has apparently never seen The Princess Bride.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 05:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 05:39 am (UTC)The twist is that the hero says "I have poisoned one of these cups, pick which one you want to drink," but then it turns out that he poisoned both of them, so the bad guy dies and the hero lives, because he's built up an immunity to the poison.
Which, now that I think about it, is a pretty dark move for a hero, but there you go.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 05:43 am (UTC)I was thinking it must either be an immunity, or that in A Study in Pink, the bad guy would take an antidote. But an antidote would seem like cheating. If the poison was a medication-- some meds are fatal to some people and not to others. I was disappointed that it was never explained.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 05:51 am (UTC)Yeah. In the original story, it really is one poison pill and one harmless pill, but it only works once-- the second time the 'cabbie' character tries it, his victim fights back and he has to stab him to death instead. So that's less implausible, I guess.
I kind of think that what we are *actually* supposed to believe is that the cabbie in "A Study In Pink" really is as amazingly brilliant as Sherlock, which means he can actually subconsciously manipulate and/or read people well enough to survive the choice of pills multiple times... But it would have been nice if that were actually supported in text. *g*
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 07:01 am (UTC)No, it's almost completely different. He wasn't a super genius, and he wasn't killing random people, but specifically seeking revenge on two guys who were responsible for forcing the woman he loved into an unwanted marriage and therefore causing her to die of being too sad. (Also they killed her father, iirc). The pill game was his way of letting "Providence" decide if his actions were just. He does have an aneurism, but it's not his motivation-- it's just a plot device to wrap up the story. He dies of it in police custody after
padding the word countexplaining his motives.Moriarty doesn't actually show up in original Sherlock Holmes canon before "The Final Problem"... although iirc there is one story that was written later that tries to retcon in some past suspicions of Moriarty on Holmes' part. Though I can't remember which story it is now. (And of course that story conflicts with Watson's account of "The Final Problem," where he says Holmes tells him about Moriarty for the very first time ever, but whatever. *g*)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-17 12:49 pm (UTC)This Princess Bride comparison came up for us when we watched A Study in Pink as a group the other night, and I think at some point one of us just decided that if Sherlock didn't think the distinction was important, we shouldn't either -- he could easily have taken both pills and figured them out in his Sherlock Lab -- which is admittedly a lazy writing trick. (Though after that the discussion came back around, and people started working out the probabilities on whether or not he could have survived 4 prior attempts strictly through chance, or whatever.)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-18 04:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-19 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-19 07:46 pm (UTC)