PDA

View Full Version : Sherlock [BBC's contemporary adaptation]



Pages : [1] 2

Fallen
07-26-2010, 10:07 PM
Oh my lord... Sherlock Holmes is back on the BBC in 'Sherlock'-- and what a contemporary ride!!!

You can tell it's done by the writers of Doctor Who. Dark, full of suspense, mystery, and just damn well hilarious in parts.

I loved the contemporary twist on the traditional 'it's three pipe case', now, with Sherlock trying to kick the habit, 'It's a three patch case.'. And it has twists on many of Doyle's past novels.

But in all of it, with how dark (and young) Sherlock is himself -- loved it. Really, really loved it.

Annnnnd hate it -- really, really hate it because the concept isn't mine.

scarletpeaches
07-26-2010, 10:08 PM
I LOVE THIS.

To quote misaditas, "I wish it was next week already."

Fallen
07-26-2010, 10:10 PM
SP, I don't think I've been this excited in a long time. The whole family loved it.

scarletpeaches
07-26-2010, 10:12 PM
My attitude was, "Ugh. Why do they have to fuck about with classic books? If they want to adapt them, why not stay true to the original?"

But, with this 'n' that, I had nothing else to do, thought, "Give it a chance," and was very glad I did.

I may go so far as to buy the box set when the DVD comes out.

DeleyanLee
07-26-2010, 10:12 PM
Wonder if it'll come to BBCA. I hope so.


ETA: Apparently it'll be on Masterpiece Theater at some point this fall. That's promising. :D

Fallen
07-27-2010, 01:23 AM
De, you'll love it!!!

SP, they get you like that, don't they!!!! :D

Shadow_Ferret
09-15-2010, 09:10 PM
Anyone know if this has hit American airwaves yet?

I'm not a fan of modernizations, but this does seem interesting.

veinglory
09-15-2010, 09:39 PM
It will not be in the US for some time but the DVD is available. Also it has been renewed for more episodes.

DeleyanLee
09-15-2010, 10:05 PM
It will not be in the US for some time but the DVD is available. Also it has been renewed for more episodes.

Is that the American/Candian format DVD or the European one?

veinglory
09-15-2010, 10:18 PM
You can preorder region 1, it will ship November 9th.

Shadow_Ferret
09-15-2010, 10:21 PM
There are different formats?

DeleyanLee
09-15-2010, 10:24 PM
Thanks, Vein! Much appreciated. I'll put it on my wishlist as a reminder.

And, yes, Ed, there's two different formats.

veinglory
09-15-2010, 10:36 PM
I am sure you can get region 2 right away from amazon.co.uk. New Zealand is region 5--and a lot of things never even get made in that format :(

sailor
09-18-2010, 06:16 AM
I just watched the second installment of Sherlock, unfortunately missed the first one. I liked modern twist. The suspense and comedy were well done in my opinion. I'll definitely be watching the next one. I read the books when I was a kid and enjoyed the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce movies. Funny, later tonight the Robert Downey version is on and I'll check that out, to compare. I understand that one is updated a tad as well. It must be karma, I watched a documentary on Joseph Bell earlier in the week.

rugcat
09-18-2010, 06:57 AM
Much jealousness that's it's not in the states. Hopefully, it will be, just when i run out of things to watch

veinglory
10-25-2010, 04:32 AM
For the yanks, it's on PBS in half an hour :)

childeroland
10-25-2010, 05:39 AM
I love that they introduced all three of my favorite elements of the Holmes mythology (Moriarty, Mycroft, and Lestrade) so quickly.

EDIT: Should have watched the whole episode first. LOL

veinglory
10-25-2010, 06:40 PM
Overall, I liked it. Looking forward to next Sunday. The depiction is a bit annoyingly similar to the current Dr Who IMHO.

DavidZahir
10-26-2010, 02:50 AM
Watched it on Masterpiece Mystery last night and loved it! Friend of mine had been going on, then another sent me an email noting "A Study in Pink" was airing.

Totally faked me out about the mysterious guy (you'll know who I mean). Adored the fact that so many people immediately wondered in Holmes and Watson were a couple! All those lovely twists on "A Study in Scarlet". Don't agree with some critic who characterized Holmes as high-functioning sociopath. He seems a very odd duck, but far from an evil or cruel or even heartless one. Makes perfect sense to me to make increasingly clear why these two men are destined to be such close friends--how, in other words, they are alike (which is actually in quite a few crucial ways). This follows the books, in that Watson was an intensely bright man who eventually started picking up on some of Holmes' ways.

Eagerly looking forward to more!

mirandashell
10-26-2010, 10:20 PM
Sociopaths aren't necessarily evil, cruel or heartless. It's about how they relate to other people and to society. A high-functioning sociopath can do well in society. A lot of the leaders of big businesses have these tendencies.

veinglory
10-26-2010, 10:22 PM
Sherlock himself says he is not a psychopath, but a high functioning sociopath. I liked the bit of a bond they had at the end.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
10-27-2010, 03:01 AM
Watched it on Masterpiece Mystery last night and loved it!Same here. I had never heard anything about it (hadn't even read this thread). Stumbled on it in the listings and was pleasantly surprised.
Totally faked me out about the mysterious guy (you'll know who I mean). I completely fell for that too, altho I wondered how Watson was going to pursue the gal if she was evil.
Adored the fact that so many people immediately wondered in Holmes and Watson were a couple!How great would it be--since they've updated so much already--if they just took that last extra step and made them a couple? It'd be my new appointment tv!

DeleyanLee
10-27-2010, 03:08 AM
How great would it be--since they've updated so much already--if they just took that last extra step and made them a couple? It'd be my new appointment tv!

Sorry, I'm not with you on that. It's pretty much the only thing they can do to that pairing that will guarantee that I'll never watch it again. Not that my one viewer count will matter, but, frankly, I'm just not into slash.

Why do people always want to take close same-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them? I just don't get it. What's wrong with just being friends? (or is this a different thread?)

backslashbaby
10-27-2010, 03:33 AM
Ah! It's in the States now? I'm looking it up :)

childeroland
10-27-2010, 03:36 AM
Sorry, I'm not with you on that. It's pretty much the only thing they can do to that pairing that will guarantee that I'll never watch it again. Not that my one viewer count will matter, but, frankly, I'm just not into slash.

Why do people always want to take close same-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them? I just don't get it. What's wrong with just being friends? (or is this a different thread?)

They play with the notion in the first episode, but only, it seems, to put it to rest.

veinglory
10-27-2010, 03:44 AM
I think they will play with the ambiguity and have it both ways. But I would hope that in a post-Torchwood age it wouldn't be a big deal if they did go all the way.

Kate Thornton
10-27-2010, 04:09 AM
Ah, but Watson marries at least once...
They may not explore that in this series, or they may go completely in a different way with it, or this Watson may find he can have it all.

Whatever they do, I am completely hooked on this.
.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
10-27-2010, 04:11 AM
It's pretty much the only thing they can do to that pairing that will guarantee that I'll never watch it again.Dang, I wish I could adopt a reciprocal criteria for the shows I would watch (as in, same-sex pairing is pretty much the only thing they can do that will guarantee that I will watch it again)--but heck, what would I do with all my free time?

Why do people always want to take close same-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them? I just don't get it. What's wrong with just being friends? (or is this a different thread?)Other than taking exception to the word always I get your point. But a logical follow up question might be: Why do people want to take close opposite-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them--at least on tv? And I'm interested in the fact that despite all the other changes to the Holmes mythology, this is where you choose to draw your line in the sand. But, yeah, that's a completely different thread. (Psst!--Meet me there!)

As childer stated, they joked with the perception but mainly to emphasize again and again that it was not the case.

DeleyanLee
10-28-2010, 05:55 AM
Dang, I wish I could adopt a reciprocal criteria for the shows I would watch (as in, same-sex pairing is pretty much the only thing they can do that will guarantee that I will watch it again)--but heck, what would I do with all my free time?

Write a book? ;)


Other than taking exception to the word always I get your point. But a logical follow up question might be: Why do people want to take close opposite-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them--at least on tv? And I'm interested in the fact that despite all the other changes to the Holmes mythology, this is where you choose to draw your line in the sand.

I'll give you the exception, since it was an emotional reaction. It just seems that the few movies/TV things I really enjoy always seem to get slashed--but I don't enjoy that many of them, so it almost seems personal after a decade or so of repeat "offenses".

Renee Collins
10-28-2010, 06:56 AM
LOVE THIS SHOW!

Also, in regards to Holmes and Watson as a couple, I wondered during that scene in the restaurant, if they would go there. I wouldn't have really minded. It's been done. (The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, 1970) But I actually like the idea of Holmes as basically asexual. "Married to his work," as he said.

Either way, though, I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment!!

Parametric
10-28-2010, 01:42 PM
Sorry, I'm not with you on that. It's pretty much the only thing they can do to that pairing that will guarantee that I'll never watch it again. Not that my one viewer count will matter, but, frankly, I'm just not into slash.

Why do people always want to take close same-sex friendships and immediately throw sex into them? I just don't get it. What's wrong with just being friends? (or is this a different thread?)

As an LGBT viewer, I'd like to see characters and storylines that reflect my life - I don't think that's unreasonable. But I never do. Ever. A show can have a cast of dozens, even hundreds, and all will be straight. I could watch a dozen shows and none would feature an LGBT character of any importance. I honestly can't think of a single LGBT character or pairing on any show that I currently watch. I'm forced to try and interpret same-sex friendships as having LGBT subtext, because there just is no actual text anywhere. It's pretty sad, to be honest. Are we LGBT people really so other that we have to be hidden away where straight folks can't see us? :(

edit: Let me put this another way. Imagine that TV audiences are majority LGBT. 99% of all TV shows you watch are exclusively LGBT. All the characters are LGBT. All the relationships are LGBT. The shows will go to absurd lengths to ensure that the majority LGBT audience never has to see any heterosexual content. (This is partly a function of the fact that straight TV writers have to only write about LGBT characters, otherwise they're accused of having a "straight agenda".)

As a straight viewer, you might naturally see hints of opposite-sex attraction between characters, but if you ever mention it or God forbid the show ever acknowledges it, LGBT viewers will complain that you're ruining the show. Because straight romance is icky, and nice normal LGBT viewers don't want that stuff shoved under their noses on TV. LGBT viewers will actively stop watching a show and start complaining about it if it doesn't stay pure.

I suggest that you might find that situation somewhat frustrating and upsetting. :tongue

(Of course, this parallel isn't really complete unless you're socially and legally persecuted for being straight, and you live in absolute terror of your family finding out that you're straight, and you can't hold hands with your opposite-sex partner on the street, and you don't dare even post about it on Facebook in case your employer googles you, and generally you feel like society is stamping on your head at every opportunity.)

Zoombie
10-28-2010, 02:15 PM
Everything Para said is true.

Also, we've spent about two hundred years waiting for Holmes to just say that he loves Watson, the anti-social goof.

A.R. Starr
10-28-2010, 02:27 PM
I love this show so very, very much. Nice twist on an old favourite of mine.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
10-29-2010, 04:38 AM
At the risk of :deadhorse (and can I just mention how much I love this emo?):

Before we dismiss the idea, let's look at all the movies that were improved by changing the characters' from straight to gay:

Fried Green Tomatoes
Troy (vs., say Homer's Illiad)
The Children's Hour (vs. the stageplay)
The Martian Child (one of my all-time favorite examples!)
The 19th Wife (a current one)

Hey! Wait a minute... I think I got that backward. Those movies didn't change straight characters into homosexuals... Dang! Now I have to start all over. Okay, a list of movies that turned straight characters gay:

Sorry, can't think of one.:Shrug:

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
11-01-2010, 03:33 PM
I think I enjoyed the second episode better than the first. I'd prefer it if Watson wasn't quite such a bungler however.

nevada
11-01-2010, 05:05 PM
Grrrr only three episodes. Now I remember, again, why British shows suck for the same reason they rule. Short series. Really, really short series. On the upside, the next season will air next fall. *sigh* I guess all I have to fill in that long space is Being Human and Torchwood. Neither of which will air till next year I think. I should stop watching TV all together and save myself this agony.

I loved everything they did with this series. I'm not a great Holmes aficionado. I loved the Jeremy Brett series but didn't read many of the stories, saw a part of one of the Basil Rathbone movies and detested it. So maybe I came into this with different expectations. Because I LOVED it. I thought it was close to perfect.

veinglory
11-01-2010, 05:20 PM
It was great. But watching the 5th series of Dr Who at the same time is very jarring. There are numerous close similarities in the characterisation, dialogue etc.

DeleyanLee
11-02-2010, 01:41 AM
I think I enjoyed the second episode better than the first. I'd prefer it if Watson wasn't quite such a bungler however.

Well, do remember that he's just starting in this business and Holmes doesn't run a very military-style operation. ;) By the next series/season, he could be an old pro.


I loved everything they did with this series. I'm not a great Holmes aficionado. I loved the Jeremy Brett series but didn't read many of the stories, saw a part of one of the Basil Rathbone movies and detested it. So maybe I came into this with different expectations. Because I LOVED it. I thought it was close to perfect.

Jeremy Brett is a fantastic Holmes and that interpretation was very close to the original, so I came to this one with high expectations. I still LOVE it. It's great. Holmes and technology--natch. It's fantastic.

My hardest thing to grasp is that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit movie.


It was great. But watching the 5th series of Dr Who at the same time is very jarring. There are numerous close similarities in the characterisation, dialogue etc.

Then I'm ahead of the game--I've never watched the newest version of Who. ;)

nevada
11-02-2010, 02:42 AM
It was great. But watching the 5th series of Dr Who at the same time is very jarring. There are numerous close similarities in the characterisation, dialogue etc.

apparently matt smith auditioned for Watson, didn't get it and was then invited by MOffat to audition for Doctor Who. It's a small world.

MaryMumsy
11-02-2010, 02:44 AM
I've seen both eps (as well as all the Jeremy Bretts, the Basil Rathbones, and some other stray old time versions). I liked them very much. One wonders why they would go through all the expense etc of setting up production to only do 3 eps.

In a similar vein, I'm waiting anxiously to see if there will be more Inspector Lewis. I love the by play between him and his cheeky Sgt.

MM

veinglory
11-02-2010, 02:44 AM
Cumberpatch also seriously considered going for Dr Who. I am not convinced the two shows have fully separate identities.

veinglory
11-02-2010, 02:45 AM
More episodes have ben approved. The local ratings pretty much guaranteed that and I bet the US audience was good too. I do wonder that it showed on PBS not BBC America.

schadenfreude
11-02-2010, 04:08 AM
My hardest thing to grasp is that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to play Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit movie.

Oh, no no no.

Martin Freeman is playing Bilbo.

As much as I love Benedict, he should never play a hobbit.

DeleyanLee
11-02-2010, 04:11 AM
Oh, no no no.

Martin Freeman is playing Bilbo.

As much as I love Benedict, he should never play a hobbit.

I adore it when my best friend is wrong. It happens so rarely. :D

Grazie!

donroc
11-02-2010, 06:44 AM
***** Wife and I love it.

We get short-changed on our PBS channels. Regarding Inspector Lewis, we might see 1/4 to 1/2 of a season's 10-12 episodes. In many instances, we may miss whole seasons of Masterpiece mysteries.

ChronicSelfEditor
11-02-2010, 05:24 PM
If you are in the US, the episodes are airing on PBS and BBCA. I was talking to my anti-modern-Sherlock-Holmes friend last week and she said another friend of hers has viewed it on BBCA. It's also viewable on PBS's website along with some interesting interviews with the directors and cast.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
11-08-2010, 06:49 PM
Episode 3, 11/7/2010, "The Great Game". Reichenbach Falls is moved to an indoor swimming pool. Did he shoot or not? I really like this show!

Calla Lily
11-29-2010, 07:57 AM
I hate-hate-hate PBS!!! They broke ep 3 up THREE TIMES to cry for money!

LaceWing
11-29-2010, 02:01 PM
http://video.pbs.org/ -- I overdosed by watching both episodes in one night. Good stuff!

Lady Ice
11-29-2010, 08:04 PM
Loved Sherlock :)

dirtsider
02-07-2011, 11:29 PM
Just watched the first ep. Loved it. I'm kinda bummed the first season is only 3 eps, although the first ep was an hour and a half. I did figure out that the serial killer was the cabbie from the description "who can hunt in a crowd", even before the cab pulled up in front of the restaurant. And I thought Mycroft was Moriarty at first.

Manuel Royal
02-08-2011, 03:10 AM
I hadn't seen the show until now (girlfriend got the DVDs).

The actors are perfect. It's hard for me to get used to Holmes and Watson calling each other by their first names, but that reflects the change in culture.

Lot of nice little jokes for people familiar with Doyle's 60 Holmes stories.

What I don't like is that it doesn't take into account the advances in police work that have taken place since 1890. This is a fault common to any of the tv shows in which a brilliant amateur solves a police case: they have to make the police unrealistically obtuse. Several times I was thinking, "Well, the coppers should be at least keeping up with Holmes at this point."

Any good modern investigator uses small bits of evidence to create a probable model. He may not be able to take in as many details at a glance as Holmes does, or have as broad a personal knowledge base, but then that's why modern police investigation is done by teams.

But it's the personalities that are more intriguing than the mysteries, really; that's always been the appeal of Holmes.

As many have noted, the main character in the show House M.D. is partly based on Holmes. (They occasionally drop clues to that effect.) An important characteristic of both is that, although they're capable of caring about people, and they deal with life and death, they know they're most effective if they work without the distraction of emotion. Makes sense; I'd do the same.

DeleyanLee
02-08-2011, 03:46 AM
The next season starts shooting in May, per an interview with Benedict, and will air in the UK this fall.

Maybe we'll get it in the States by the spring.

backslashbaby
02-08-2011, 10:09 AM
Thank y'all SO MUCH for this thread, btw. It made a great Xmas gift for a hard-to-buy-for fellow.

It's friggin awesome, too. Very modern and yet true to the orginal, I've been told.

I love the 'homosexual' parts. It's mostly funny :D And it's certainly not done as anything like a big deal, an emphasis of the plot, etc. Very amusing and shows a touch about the characters' personalities is all, imho.

There is a continuity issue I noticed about that, though. Spoiler alert:

** In the second episode, the landlady knew Watson was into the redhead girl. Yet she acts like Sherlock and he are a couple in the third. Maybe she thinks he's bi and the relationship is open, but I'm figuring it was a mistake. **

eta: I should say that I would not mind the two being a couple, at all. I'm mentioning 'big deal' above to say that the emphasis of the story has not been changed. As it's a remake, I figure folks want to know how much has been changed.

Calla Lily
02-08-2011, 06:47 PM
The next season starts shooting in May, per an interview with Benedict, and will air in the UK this fall.

Maybe we'll get it in the States by the spring.

*pours a libation to the TV gods*

Manuel Royal
02-08-2011, 10:58 PM
Holmes and Watson being a couple would be ridiculous. It would ruin the dynamics of one of the greatest non-sexual relationships in literature.

DeleyanLee
02-09-2011, 01:12 AM
Calla: I chalked up your spoiler to Mrs. Hudson being something of a ditz and left it at that.

Little Ming
01-24-2012, 01:54 AM
Come on now, I know there are others who have seen this. Series two just ended and again I thought the second episode was the weakest, still liked it though. Episode one was fantastic, just loved it. Episode three... wow, I'm still trying to digest. Any speculations on how he pulled it off?

veinglory
01-24-2012, 02:03 AM
If anyone has review of the last series I am in the market [1c/w], esp. with coverage of gay/slash angles.

Velma deSelby Bowen
01-24-2012, 05:00 AM
Veinglory, have you checked the reviews on Tor.com?

MaryMumsy
01-24-2012, 06:03 AM
Our local PBS is re-running the first batch. I hope that means the new ones will be coming soon.

MM

veinglory
01-24-2012, 06:05 AM
Veinglory, have you checked the reviews on Tor.com?
I am looking for reviews, in full, for my site.

zahra
01-24-2012, 11:22 PM
Come on now, I know there are others who have seen this. Series two just ended and again I thought the second episode was the weakest, still liked it though. Episode one was fantastic, just loved it. Episode three... wow, I'm still trying to digest. Any speculations on how he pulled it off?

Has to be something about the way he kept telling Watson not to move (ie not come near the 'landing site'). Also the girl in the lab, and the way they moved Watson off so quickly when he tried to check the pulse. (Don't want to spoiler). Put them altogether and you have my theory! Also, check the different views when Sherlock was on the roof...

mirandashell
01-24-2012, 11:24 PM
I've opened a spoiler thread for discussion of the ending.

zahra
01-24-2012, 11:33 PM
I've opened a spoiler thread for discussion of the ending.
Oh, right, so you have. H'OK, see you there.

Grrarrgh
01-26-2012, 06:12 PM
I haven't read through this thread in case of spoilers, so this may have been mentioned, but does anyone know when season 2 will air in the US?

Little Ming
01-26-2012, 10:04 PM
I haven't read through this thread in case of spoilers, so this may have been mentioned, but does anyone know when season 2 will air in the US?

I think PBS will air it in May.

Grrarrgh
01-27-2012, 03:02 AM
May????? May???? As in not for another 4 months????????? I call bullshit!!!

Little Ming
01-27-2012, 03:41 AM
:chair

http://www.pbs.org/about/news/archive/2011/winter-spring-2012/

*runs away*

DragonHeart
02-06-2012, 08:15 AM
I absolutely love this show. I've watched it (both seasons) about three times in the past two weeks. I was rather leery about it being a modern update and the Netflix teaser image is pretty generic, but absolutely worth every minute.

Yes, Netflix only has the first season. Yes I found *ahem* an alternate method of viewing. I had to, I couldn't not know what happens. And now I'm super psyched, can't wait for the next season.

Little Ming
02-07-2012, 04:02 AM
There's a US-modern-day-Sherlock-Holmes-TV series in the making.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16642189

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s129/sherlock/news/a360768/elementary-cbs-develops-modern-day-sherlock-holmes-pilot.html

:Headbang:

DragonHeart
02-07-2012, 04:23 AM
Now that's just wrong.

Paul
02-07-2012, 04:28 AM
Thank y'all SO MUCH for this thread, btw. It made a great Xmas gift for a hard-to-buy-for fellow.

It's friggin awesome, too. Very modern and yet true to the orginal, I've been told.

I love the 'homosexual' parts. It's mostly funny :D And it's certainly not done as anything like a big deal, an emphasis of the plot, etc. Very amusing and shows a touch about the characters' personalities is all, imho.

eta,

I should say that I would not mind the two being a couple, at all. I'm mentioning 'big deal' above to say that the emphasis of the story has not been changed. As it's a remake, I figure folks want to know how much has been changed.

? not sure what you mean. i think the gay thingy is hugely understated, and is really an attempt to reference the structure of their living arrangement which would have been deemed acceptable in Conan Doyle's time and was therefore not an issue then.

eta: ok gotcha, you're saying ti's not a big deal - scriptwise, which i agree with. to me, it's used as a tongue in cheek humour thingy. thankfully it's low key, it adds to the chemistry between the two without rewriting Doyle's work to the point of non-recognition.

i will say however speaking in general terms that the script can be a tad infantile and obvious at times. still, i enjoy watching this prog

The_Ink_Goddess
02-16-2012, 01:58 AM
? not sure what you mean. i think the gay thingy is hugely understated, and is really an attempt to reference the structure of their living arrangement which would have been deemed acceptable in Conan Doyle's time and was therefore not an issue then.

eta: ok gotcha, you're saying ti's not a big deal - scriptwise, which i agree with. to me, it's used as a tongue in cheek humour thingy. thankfully it's low key, it adds to the chemistry between the two without rewriting Doyle's work to the point of non-recognition.

i will say however speaking in general terms that the script can be a tad infantile and obvious at times. still, i enjoy watching this prog

It's funny that you say the sexuality issue is understated. In the second series, I found that to be one of the most annoying things. Absolutely no problem with gay references/subtext/whatever, it seemed like they'd stopped acknowledging the fourth wall and were well and truly hanging onto it. It seemed like every five seconds they met someone who made a gay joke or mistook them for a gay couple. It was endearing as a more understated running gag, now it's turning into one of those "God, this was amusing the first fifty times..." things.

veinglory
02-16-2012, 02:04 AM
I think that non-derogatory gay references etc are pretty much the norm with contemp British TV (Dr Who etc)-- I wonder more way it is largely missing in the US. But then i run a blog called Gay Sherlock Holmes--so probably not neutral on the issue.

JQTrotter
03-25-2012, 05:35 AM
I loved this show. The acting is amazing. The drama is fantastic. The mysteries are great. I just love everything about the show and can't wait for the next season. Spoiler of last season: I can't wait to see how he faked his own death and how Watson will react to Sherlock doing that to him. I know that Jim M can't be dead, either.

Calla Lily
05-21-2012, 06:28 AM
Please, please, please all you lucky folks in Great Britain--tell me that there's a third season!

Parametric
05-21-2012, 02:26 PM
Yes, it's been renewed for a third season (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16573066). :)

Calla Lily
05-21-2012, 03:34 PM
:yessmiley

kkbe
05-21-2012, 05:06 PM
After Jeremy Brett. . .

Nobody can touch Jeremy Brett.

But Cumberbatch is excellent as Sherlock. We like it and look forward to more.

Calla Lily
05-21-2012, 05:11 PM
True. Jeremy Brett is the ultimate Sherlock.

But everything about this reboot is amazing. I don't see it competing with Brett's series at all.

knporter
08-28-2012, 11:52 AM
Sorry to bring up an old topic but I absolutely LOVE BBC's adaptation of Sherlock. I would have to say that best acting in my opinion comes from Andrew Scott who plays Moriarty. I am very much looking forward to Season Three.

angeliz2k
12-29-2013, 06:09 PM
Aha! I figured there must be a thread about this show. It took me a while to find it.

I finally got around to watching this show--I rented it from the library. I don't know what the hell took me so long. The show is great. Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing. (Martin Freeman is very good, too, but he isn't as flashy, is he?) The mysteries are okay, but there are moments when it's obvious to me (uh, it was/is a cabbie! uh, the code is "S-H-E-R"!). Still, more than enough fun is had along the way to make that okay.

What makes it work for me is the mixture of untouchable and messed-up that is Sherlock Holmes. He's a genius but he's also vulnerable because he doesn't really know how to make nice. Plus, I have a major weakness for Cumberbatch.

I'm definitely looking forward to season 3, which premieres here in the US (on PBS's Masterpiece Mystery) in a few weeks (Jan 19).

CrastersBabies
12-30-2013, 03:50 AM
I just finished season 2! Can I play, too? :D

Love love this show. :)

ULTRAGOTHA
12-30-2013, 04:06 AM
I hate it. I am used to watching mindless TV and reading a book or doing the internet at the same time. Multitasking! I can't do that with Sherlock. It's too quick and makes the viewer think too much and one has to watch the screen, not a book, or one misses half the jokes. :(

;)

angeliz2k
12-30-2013, 05:42 AM
I just finished season 2! Can I play, too? :D

Love love this show. :)

Please, please, please play! I think all my friends will think I'm crazy if I gush over this show to them like I can do here.

I think the strongest episode was A Scandal in Belgravia (S2 episode 2). And that is NOT just because we see a bit of Cumberbatch's bare bum. Okay, maybe it is. Aside from that, the episode revealed a lot about how Sherlock Holmes ticks and how he copes, which is the most interesting part of the show. He is capable of being attracted to a woman, even if his chilly mind overrules those feelings.

As for the end of season 2: Obviously, it's very important that Sherlock told John to stand in a particular spot, that there was the corner of a building between him and John, and that John got knocked down as he rushed over. I think that it was Sherlock lying on the ground all bloody. Either his fall was broken or he was injured but not killed. Also obviously, Molly helped cover it up in her role at the morgue. Again, the "who done it" or "how'd he do it" part aren't the heart of the show. It's the whys and the reactions.

And all you Brits, no spoilers on how he did it.

Cyia
12-30-2013, 06:46 AM
And all you Brits, no spoilers on how he did it.


I wish I could find the link to the mock interview some of the show-runners did a few days ago where they "spilled" the big secret.

Sherlock's a wizard. He did it by magic, therefore no explanation is necessary because... magic.

It was really funny.

angeliz2k
12-31-2013, 07:04 PM
I wish I could find the link to the mock interview some of the show-runners did a few days ago where they "spilled" the big secret.

Sherlock's a wizard. He did it by magic, therefore no explanation is necessary because... magic.

It was really funny.

I like that. I've seen "because . . . reasons" and "because . . . stuff", but "because . . . MAGIC!" works, too.

That should be the solution to one of Sherlock's mysteries: magic. It could be a magician or something. That would be so awful!

Grrarrgh
12-31-2013, 07:06 PM
I wish I could find the link to the mock interview some of the show-runners did a few days ago where they "spilled" the big secret.

Sherlock's a wizard. He did it by magic, therefore no explanation is necessary because... magic.

It was really funny.

Is the show still written by Steven Moffat? Because that sounds more like a leaked Moffatt script than a mock interview.

Filigree
12-31-2013, 11:58 PM
I know that tomorrow night, at least someone in my circle of friends will be hitting the Tor servers. The BBC America version is always months late and edited down for American schedules/tastes, which is no good to us.

angeliz2k
01-01-2014, 12:29 AM
I know that tomorrow night, at least someone in my circle of friends will be hitting the Tor servers. The BBC America version is always months late and edited down for American schedules/tastes, which is no good to us.

I feel like I should know what that is, but I don't.

The local library has the BBC version--it seems like only a few minutes (5 at most) were edited out of "A Scandal in Belgravia". That's not too bad. PBS is absolutely amazing and offers lots of great BBC programming. I'm sure they do their best but of course have to make modifications here and there to accommodate their format.

angeliz2k
01-02-2014, 06:20 AM
'Kay, I managed to watch the first episode of the new season/series. I am going to single-handedly keep this thread alive.

My thoughts: I enjoyed it most the way through, but there was too much slapstick and fan service for my tastes. I was a little disappointed that they gave in to the urge to be so goofy. However, I understand why they did so, given how heavy the last episode was. This one could have been, too, if they hadn't added levity. And, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch pulled off all the goofy moments very well. Also, I loved seeing Cumberbatch's parents as . . . Sherlock's parents.

Ah, and regarding "how he did it": there seems to be some confusion, but I think the story Sherlock told Anderson was meant to be false. It's similar to one idea I was considering: that Sherlock jumped onto something soft and then they staged the death. I think that's out now. My new theory: Sherlock just jumped. He calculated the height and figured he might live. I like the idea of Sherlock being willing to make that sacrifice but coming out of it alive.

I'm going to assume the next two episodes will be a lot more serious. That'd be fine by me.

Nualláin
01-03-2014, 08:53 AM
I enjoyed that, but it wasn't up there with the best of the previous two series. Thought it got a bit pulled apart between the pressures of Sherlock's return and the mystery plot, the latter of which felt really rushed and almost an afterthought.

The resolution to "how'd he do it!?" was probably always going to be a slight disappointment after the brilliance of the last episode of the second series. I'm more keen on seeing the next two episodes, as the last thirty seconds or so of the opener were the most intriguing bits by far. Those who have seen it will know who/what I mean without mentioning spoilers here.

mirandashell
01-03-2014, 02:33 PM
I thought the whole bomb plot was unnecessary, TBH. It just seemed to be a way of getting them together but was ill thought out and superfluous. Should have concentrated on the new Super Villain.

Once!
01-03-2014, 06:40 PM
Last night's episode wasn't perfect, but a very enjoyable 90 minutes all the same. Sassy, intelligent, thought-provoking - grown up entertainment.

I loved the way that the writers were toying with us as much as Sherlock loves to play with Watson and Lestrade. Very clever stuff.

MsDashwood
01-04-2014, 11:17 PM
I watched the first episode of the 3rd season yesterday.
Liked it a lot!

Netz
01-04-2014, 11:30 PM
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned before on this thread, but all you fans are aware of John Watson's blog (http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/), aren't you? I love reading the comments on his posts. :D

Lady MacBeth
01-04-2014, 11:32 PM
Love this show. Just watched first 2 seasons over the holidays.

angeliz2k
01-05-2014, 01:23 AM
The resolution to "how'd he do it!?" was probably always going to be a slight disappointment after the brilliance of the last episode of the second series. I'm more keen on seeing the next two episodes, as the last thirty seconds or so of the opener were the most intriguing bits by far. Those who have seen it will know who/what I mean without mentioning spoilers here.

I think we are meant to not take any of the scenarios as truth, including the one Sherlock told to Anderson. I think it's supposed to still be up in the air. If it remains up in the air, that's fine by me.


Love this show. Just watched first 2 seasons over the holidays.

Me, too! They got me hook, line, and sinker. In the space of a week I became a massive fan.

Cyia
01-05-2014, 02:43 AM
I love this show. I especially love the scenes between Sherlock and Mycroft.

ETA, having watched it:

1 - I love that Operation was a bit of foreshadowing for the "don't touch the rails" bit in the tunnel.

2 - Poor Molly, she can't win with men. Sherlock's look says something's up with the fiance.

3 - Was that Mycroft at the end? My eyes aren't always great at picking up details, so I couldn't tell.

I know the villain is meant to be Moran, but is it possible that the show is going with a Mycroft is Moran angle. That would actually be a cool twist. Pit the Holmes boys against each other and see which one comes out on top. (Or, maybe Mycroft is simply trying to understand human connections and emotion.

And I definitely agree that none of the explanations were meant to be true. It looks like the writers decided not to explain the escape at all, which is kind of cool on its own.

Witch_turtle
01-05-2014, 08:54 AM
'Kay, I managed to watch the first episode of the new season/series. I am going to single-handedly keep this thread alive.

I love this show as well, and have to say I really like your theory that there was no "trick" to it at all--that seems far more impressive than any slight of hand he might have pulled off :)

firedrake
01-06-2014, 02:21 AM
Well, I enjoyed tonight's episode. Though, judging from the self-righteous indignation on my Twitter feed, the armchair critics did not.
It's entertainment, FFS.

Or maybe I'm just simple-minded and easily pleased.

mirandashell
01-06-2014, 02:25 AM
I loved it! Way way way better than last weeks. Spoiler It was funny and romantic (in a weird Sherlock way) and sad (in the old sense) and dramatic and just ..... brilliant.

firedrake
01-06-2014, 02:27 AM
Lordy, if you saw some of the bitchers and whiners on my Twitter feed, you'd think Sherlock needs to be flushed down the toilet.

I'm glad someone else loved it! I'm not the only simple-minded soul out there!

mirandashell
01-06-2014, 02:37 AM
It has definitely divided people on POV as well. But who cares? I loved it. It was mad and brilliant and just...mad.

To our American friends, it won't be what you expect. Seriously. Have no expectations and you'll be fine.

angeliz2k
01-06-2014, 03:14 AM
Lordy, if you saw some of the bitchers and whiners on my Twitter feed, you'd think Sherlock needs to be flushed down the toilet.

I'm glad someone else loved it! I'm not the only simple-minded soul out there!

Hm, I can see why. I enjoyed these two episodes, but they really laid the goofiness on thick without much of the real meaty stuff from previous seasons. Don't get me wrong, I loved it but was hoping for . . . more?

I streamed the first two episodes but I think I can manage to wait for the third episode until it comes on PBS. I have to try to stretch out the enjoyment!

Netz
01-06-2014, 03:35 AM
I think it went on a bit too long. The middle third was losing my interest and I looked at my watch (do people still wear these things??) once I'd worked out whodunit and who the victim was only to discover there were still 30 more mins to endure. Glad it picked up in the end, but I think it could have been trimmed.

Cyia
01-06-2014, 04:54 AM
I didn't realize the 2nd one had already aired. What's the new episode called?

Once!
01-06-2014, 12:57 PM
The sign of three.

EMaree
01-06-2014, 01:18 PM
I enjoyed it, though like Netz I found the pacing dragging in the middle (the long, loooong speech). So far it's been a great season. Very different from the previous two seasons but hugely enjoyable.

Cyia
01-07-2014, 03:10 AM
The speech was ridiculously long, though I'll assume it was meant to be shorter in "Real" life for the characters, and only drawn out in detail inside Sherlock's head for the audience. I think they sacrificed too much of the set-up and characterization for the sake of it.

It was nice to see Irene back, but I wish there had been a way for her to show up in the flesh at the end when Sherlock was searching for a dance partner.

And the "high functioning sociopath, with your number" scene has got to be one of my all-time favorite moments on any show, ever.

This episode was like watching a hyper terrier turn into an over-protective bulldog.

Parametric
01-07-2014, 03:16 AM
I really like that Sherlock was totally supportive of John and Mary's wedding. They could easily have gone in a much more jealous and unpleasant direction - which is why I stopped watching House, but still watch Sherlock.

Kashmirgirl1976
01-07-2014, 08:50 AM
Hi. I am new to the board. I wanted to say how much I love the show and I'm quite active in the fandom (Don't burn me!).

phantasy
01-07-2014, 09:26 AM
I'd just like to say that I'm worried this show is going the way of Doctor Who. I worry Moffat is letting the popularity get to his head and he's going to start writing sloppy, everything-is-easy-and-happy mush.

For instance, why does everyone suddenly like Sherlock? First ep- Oh look how clever and handsome and perfect he is! No no no.
He was much more interesting when half who met him hated him. Now he's like this omnipresent superman...eh, it better stop. This better get dark and back to somewhat being about the mysteries. I have yet to see the second episode of this season so I hope my fears are unfounded. I just dislike Moffat so much.

angeliz2k
01-07-2014, 05:40 PM
I'd just like to say that I'm worried this show is going the way of Doctor Who. I worry Moffat is letting the popularity get to his head and he's going to start writing sloppy, everything-is-easy-and-happy mush.

For instance, why does everyone suddenly like Sherlock? First ep- Oh look how clever and handsome and perfect he is! No no no.
He was much more interesting when half who met him hated him. Now he's like this omnipresent superman...eh, it better stop. This better get dark and back to somewhat being about the mysteries. I have yet to see the second episode of this season so I hope my fears are unfounded. I just dislike Moffat so much.

Gotta warn you: it doesn't get less goofy, at least in episode 2.

You're absolutely right, though. I think they're banking on the good work they did in the first two series. It is a bit lazy. Don't get me wrong, I was entertained, but the first two episodes of this series (for me) don't live up to the first two series (damn hard to do, to be fair).

I have to disagree a bit about the "suddenly" part. Here is what I see happening in the first two episodes: we're seeing that Sherlock has improved and made friends during the first two series (in no small part due to John's influence) and that it really, really is difficult for him to handle certain "normal person" situations (like a wedding toast). There may have been too much fawning over Sherlock, but he's earned some of that, I think.

But overall, I agree: instead of a nice mixture of clever humor, danger, and seriousness, this series has been mostly silly humor (with only hints of cleverness). They should have combined the first two episodes into one, done away with more than half the silliness, and added a bit more psychological nuance. I guess I have high standards for this show.

And yes. I used "series" instead of "season". I speak British. Sometimes.

EMaree
01-07-2014, 06:34 PM
Moffat's been stirring up ire again by assuming that all the female viewers are watching Sherlock because Cumberbatch is a sex god, rather than, I dunno, because ladies like watching interesting TV shows too?


It’s interesting. Also, it’s got such a huge female following. The original [Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] stories had a huge female following, which I’d never forgotten, and that’s because the Victorian ladies liked the way Sherlock looked. (Laughs.) So I thought, use this massively exciting, rather handsome man who could see right through your heart and have no interest … of course, he’s going to be a sex god! I think we pitched that character right. I think our female fanbase all believe that they’ll be the one to melt that glacier. They’re all wrong, nothing will melt that glacier.

(SOURCE (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sherlock-season-3-preview-steven-667990))



And yes. I used "series" instead of "season". I speak British. Sometimes.

You're doing better than I am! I default to 'season' now because it gets too confusing if I use series around here. :)

Cyia
01-07-2014, 06:42 PM
The difference here is that Moffat isn't in control of the show, Mark Gatiss is the head writer.

People liking Sherlock really isn't a new one. He had fans in the first two series, too, just not with the police or people he'd met in person. The ones who followed John's blog loved him, then hated him when the press soured, but now they love him again. Those are mainly the people you see him interacting with in these two episodes, rather than the police who can't stand him.

He's also *trying* to play nice. He's trying to understand his own humanity (the point of the "human nature" quip between him and Mary, I think.)

If anything, this series of shows is about the difference in him and his brother. He's always taken the tack that there might be something "wrong" with him and Mycroft, making him the more self-aware of the two. Calling him a sociopath is dead-on in that regards, and like a sociopath, he's trying out other aspects of "normal" human behavior to better blend.

Mycroft, on the other hand, has no desire to act like a "goldfish," nor does he want to understand them. (even though he's got some astute observations of his own). He's very much the "iceman" that Moriarty pegged him as, which serves him well in his career choice.

I'm actually looking forward to the third episode because it looks to be an actual head-to-head conflict between the Holmes boys, and that would be a mindgame worth watching.

Max Vaehling
01-07-2014, 11:08 PM
I liked the goofiness and the fact that the speech wasn't just comedically bad, but actually quite awful. And all about Sherlock. Takes some chuzpah to "waste" a third of a season/series on that amount of comedy. I never got these three-episode seasons. Wouldn't want them to drag on for 24, but three?
I also liked the flashbacks. "How's your boyfriend?" - "Not a socipopath." - "Still? Good."
It did drag on a bit, though, occasionally.

I wouldn't idealize the first two series(-es?) too much. They had their flaws, too. I think they've been discussed extensively in this thread. Some twists always seemed to have been thrown in for smartness' sake rather than being necessary.

EMaree
01-08-2014, 12:40 AM
A longer series would be nice, particularly for series 3 where the tone is noticeably sillier than the previous. I think series 1 and 2 benefited from the punchiness though.

AVS
01-08-2014, 03:54 AM
I'm looking forward to when he meets Amy Farrah Fowler.
That aside, would have enjoyed more plot, but loved it for the sheer cleverness and comedy.

angeliz2k
01-08-2014, 05:43 PM
So, theories abound that in episode three, it'll be revealed that Sherlock is back on the drogas (cocaine is the top choice, though no one has said what drugs he was once on). That would make sense of the oddness of the first two episodes, but I am a bit skeptical.

EMaree
01-08-2014, 06:06 PM
So, theories abound that in episode three, it'll be revealed that snip. That would make sense of the oddness of the first two episodes, but I am a bit skeptical.

Interesting theory, though I don't recall him being mentioned as being on hard drugs before. Must have slipped my mind, al; I remember is the cigarettes. I would like a logical explanation for the tone change but I'll be extremely surprised (and delighted) if we get one.

Ah, wait, I just checked http://bakerstreet.wikia.com/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_(Cumberbatch) and it confirms that drug hints have been dropped. I remember them now! To me honest I never imaged them being hard drugs though. Johnny Lee Miller's Sherlock and Robert Downey Jr are my idea of druggie Sherlocks -- quite unapologetic about it, seeing them as a means to an end. BBC!Sherlock is more surprising!

angeliz2k
01-08-2014, 07:24 PM
Interesting theory, though I don't recall [snip]!

Yeah, in the very first episode, Lestrade is there on a "drugs bust", and he wouldn't be expecting to find tobacco.

I don't know much about Johnny Lee Miller, but Robert Downey, Jr's Sherlock is set in a time period before drugs were criminalized and when cocaine and heroine were taken casually. In the 21st century world of this Sherlock, that would be . . . strange. Also, the tone of Sherlock is very different than the Downey Jr. movies.

We'll see. I'm going to wait until episode 3 comes on PBS to watch it. I'm going to force myself to wait (and to turn off the interwebs in the meantime).

EMaree
01-08-2014, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I've learned not to put too much stock in good fan theories because they're almost always better than what actually happens.

(Wait, I just looked online and PBS isn't showing the Series 3 episodes until the 19th. THE 19TH? What madness is this?)

Cyia
01-08-2014, 08:13 PM
Cocaine was always Sherlock's drug of choice (though I think he shot up, rather than snorting). IIRC, there was an occasional mention of morphine or opium, but it was usually coke. It was part of the character - he'd get high, and then solve the crimes in some chemically induced haze. That's why they hooked House on Vicodin.

Cumberbatch's Holmes started smoking cigarettes to get off the hard stuff, didn't he? That's why his brother gave him the cigarette when they though Irene Adler was dead. He knew he had to do something to take the edge off, or Sherlock would head for worse outlets.

Kashmirgirl1976
01-09-2014, 12:43 AM
I'm glad to see discussion on Sherlock. I love this show!!

angeliz2k
01-09-2014, 02:30 AM
Cocaine was always Sherlock's drug of choice (though I think he shot up, rather than snorting). IIRC, there was an occasional mention of morphine or opium, but it was usually coke. It was part of the character - he'd get high, and then solve the crimes in some chemically induced haze. That's why they hooked House on Vicodin.

Cumberbatch's Holmes started smoking cigarettes to get off the hard stuff, didn't he? That's why his brother gave him the cigarette when they though Irene Adler was dead. He knew he had to do something to take the edge off, or Sherlock would head for worse outlets.

Yep, everyone's assuming cocaine, which is fair enough, but it has never been said explicitly that this Sherlock was hooked on cocaine. And yes, regarding the single cigarette.

Something about the tone of this show and the fact that it's set in the 21st century makes me think that if they go there, they won't treat the subject off-handedly.

We'll see. I always assumed it would come up eventually.

Cyia
01-09-2014, 05:42 AM
Now I'm wondering if the drug angle is why they've set Mrs. Hudson up as a cartel baron's wife/widow. Maybe they're planning to tie Sherlock's addiction to that thread somehow.

EMaree
01-09-2014, 12:17 PM
That would be some impressive forward planning. I like to hope they'd bring Molly in to it somehow and give her some agency back, as well. She needs a moment of awesome in this series, and I'm holding out hope we might get one in Ep 3 since Ep 3 of S2 also had Molly becoming crucial.

Tempest
01-12-2014, 09:25 PM
I feel like there isn't much of the thrill of the hunt in S3 as in the previous seasons. Perhaps it's due to "killing off" Irene and the younger Moriarty, who were both very strong characters. If Irene is returning and the new villain is any good that might change, but ho hum. Hopefully E3 S3 will be good.

firedrake
01-13-2014, 02:09 AM
What.The.Fuck?

EMaree
01-13-2014, 02:34 AM
I enjoyed that to no end and thought it was flawless.

If the 'meta'/self-aware aspects of the show bother you, though, then you might dislike S3E3. It continues with the rising self-awareness, but I view that as the natural progression route for a show that began as ACD fanfiction.

firedrake
01-13-2014, 02:35 AM
I enjoyed that to no end and thought it was flawless.

If the 'meta'/self-aware aspects of the show bother you, though, then you might dislike S3E3. It continues with the rising self-awareness, but I view that as the natural progression route for a show that began as ACD fanfiction.

I loved every minute of it. In fact, I wish I'd recorded it so I could watch it again.

Needless to say there are plenty on Twitter who are baying for blood.

Netz
01-13-2014, 02:36 AM
@ firedrake. Is that a comment on Moriarty, or the episode as a whole?

I thought this episode was a vast improvement on the last one. :D

EMaree
01-13-2014, 02:39 AM
I loved every minute of it. In fact, I wish I'd recorded it so I could watch it again.

Needless to say there are plenty on Twitter who are baying for blood.

Haha, from your initial reaction I thought you hated it! Glad you enjoyed it too firedrake. :)

firedrake
01-13-2014, 02:39 AM
The episode as a whole, but with a special WTF reserved for Moriarty.

Netz
01-13-2014, 02:52 AM
Haha, from your initial reaction I thought you hated it! Glad you enjoyed it too firedrake. :)

Yeah, I thought that, too! :)

Netz
01-13-2014, 02:54 AM
I loved every minute of it. In fact, I wish I'd recorded it so I could watch it again.

Needless to say there are plenty on Twitter who are baying for blood.

I think it's repeated on BBC3 later on in the week.

mirandashell
01-13-2014, 03:25 AM
I prefered last weeks but I think they wrapped it up pretty well. But I am disappointed in the whole Moriarty thing

angeliz2k
01-13-2014, 04:02 AM
What.The.Fuck?

My reaction exactly, and I knew what you meant.

I loved this episode. I thought it was much better than the last two because there was, you know, an actual plot line. So many great moments. I was kept off-kilter through the whole episode (in a good way).

Things that didn't surprise me: Sherlock in the drug den, Mary having a checkered past, Moriarty's return. Somehow, when I saw The Reichenbach Fall, I thought, "No way that's the end of Moriarty." I just didn't see any way around the bullet-through-the-head thing.

Things that surprised/delighted me: everything else.

Since I only just got into this show, I don't know what it's like to wait two years for the next three episodes. But I will know soon . . . . Maybe "soon" is the wrong word?

ETA: Also, Moriarty might not be alive. It might be something he triggered before he died, or triggered by someone else.

EMaree
01-13-2014, 04:07 AM
ETA: spoiler snipped

Discussed that with a few of my friends. It's a sensible possibility in story/Sherlock-verse logic but I'd be very surprised if they do that to the viewers. Making us wait through the hiatus just to pull the rug out would be a risky move.

Cyia
01-13-2014, 05:29 AM
Have they confirmed another 2 year hiatus, or will the show's production possibly pick up schedule since the audience is expanding so quickly. It's not only a risk of losing viewers, but they're aging their characters, too.

angeliz2k
01-13-2014, 05:29 AM
Discussed that with a few of my friends. It's a sensible possibility in story/Sherlock-verse logic but I'd be very surprised if they do that to the viewers. Making us wait through the hiatus just to pull the rug out would be a risky move.

I wouldn't put it past Gatiss and Moffat to eff with us. Your point, however, is well taken, and you're probably right.

EMaree
01-13-2014, 12:27 PM
Have they confirmed another 2 year hiatus, or will the show's production possibly pick up schedule since the audience is expanding so quickly. It's not only a risk of losing viewers, but they're aging their characters, too.

I heard some chatter on Twitter that the showrunners have said the gap wouldn't be as long this time round.

As, here's the source. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10562814/Sherlock-fourth-series-coming-quickly.html) A bit vague though. "A fourth and fifth series of Sherlock have been planned, with co-creator Steven Moffat promising to make them "as quickly" as possible."


I wouldn't put it past Gatiss and Moffat to eff with us. Your point, however, is well taken, and you're probably right.

It's a tough one! I wouldn't be surprised, exactly, if it happens... but I think the odds are more towards them playing it straight.

I might just be rationalizing it to myself because I'm a shameless shipper of a certain pairing.

_Sian_
01-13-2014, 02:07 PM
I think everyone is a shameless shipper of at least some sort of pairing in Sherlock. How could you now be?

*whistles to herself, ignoring her personal bias*

dragonjax
01-13-2014, 05:04 PM
**sigh** Waiting patiently until Sherlock S. 3 comes to America. January 19. Waiting, waiting. **sigh**

EMaree
01-13-2014, 05:05 PM
It is a very long time to wait. I can't believe they're taking that much time to broadcast it.

angeliz2k
01-13-2014, 05:17 PM
I heard some chatter on Twitter that the showrunners have said the gap wouldn't be as long this time round.

As, here's the source. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10562814/Sherlock-fourth-series-coming-quickly.html) A bit vague though. "A fourth and fifth series of Sherlock have been planned, with co-creator Steven Moffat promising to make them "as quickly" as possible."

They said that about the gap between series 2 and series 3, apparently, and that gap was bigger than the first . . .



It's a tough one! I wouldn't be surprised, exactly, if it happens... but I think the odds are more towards them playing it straight.

I might just be rationalizing it to myself because I'm a shameless shipper of a certain pairing.Agreed. I don't know what to think. They said flat-out that Moriarty was dead-dead after The Reichenbach Fall. So either they were lying then or they're faking us out now. Pick your poison.


I think everyone is a shameless shipper of at least some sort of pairing in Sherlock. How could you now be?

*whistles to herself, ignoring her personal bias*

I am not. :D Please don't change, Sherlock.


**sigh** Waiting patiently until Sherlock S. 3 comes to America. January 19. Waiting, waiting. **sigh**


It is a very long time to wait. I can't believe they're taking that much time to broadcast it.

Actually, I consider two and half weeks a pretty decent turn-around. There are plenty of shows that don't cross the pond for months and months.

Apparently, the ratings have been very good in the UK, and Twitter basically exploded. Lots of love for this show.

Rachel77
01-13-2014, 08:15 PM
It is a very long time to wait. I can't believe they're taking that much time to broadcast it.

As I recall, Season Two aired in the UK in January, and on PBS in May. I still don't understand why they won't do simultaneous airings, but three weeks is better than five months.

Hyperminimalism
01-13-2014, 11:48 PM
I've never watched this show before, but for some reason I'm beginning to want to watch it. I just don't know where it's available. Netflix? I'll have to check it out. :)

Cyia
01-14-2014, 10:23 PM
I *LOVED* this episode.

The dialogue was much improved, and I loved what they did with John. The following is a bit stream of consciousness, but I've put all of the spoilery quote parts in white.

John To junkie: I'm a doctor, I know how to sprain people

John To Mycroft, upon threat: I think we'd both find that embarrassing

Sherlock to Myroft, upon threat: Don't appall me when I'm high

Not impressed by Magnussen's evil Google-glass or fireplace marking his territory (though he would have gotten points for having a superior tech design that doesn't require him to look up and sideways at all times, if it had been real. Frankly Sheldon Cooper is a far more terrifying owner of an eidetic memory.)

Sherlock to John, in regards to the girlfriend: Human error -- perfectly sociopathic plan (coincidence of her employment aside)

Loved the gunshot scene.

(It took me far too long to realize that Anderson was the same Anderson from the first and second series. He looks so different.)

Most awesome breakup scene ever.

Sherlock and Mycroft's mother calling him: "Mikey." Hahahahaha

John to Sherlock: Is everyone - I've ever met - a psychopath?

Umm... yes.

John to Sherlock, while annoyed: Sherlock, one more word, and you will not need morphine...

Mrs. Hudson, about her hubby: It was husband's cartel! I was just typing!

Gotta love the Sherlock Holmes marriage counselling service.

Here be Dragons would make a great title for the next episode.

John, post Christmas dinner: Did you just drug my pregnant wife?!

John: Bit it's Christmas!
Sherlock: I feel the same w- Oh, you mean it really is Christmas. Did you bring your gun?

John: Why would I bring my gun to your parents' house for Christmas dinner?

Sherlock: Is it in your coat?

John: ... yes.

Magnus: I'm in news, you moron. I don't have to prove it; I just have to print it.

Sherlock is really a girl's name :D

Love Sherlock's annoyance at being recalled.

Things I didn't like.

Face flicking -- very weird. Also, the phrase "mind palace" needs to die before it goes the way of Timey-Wimey and Spacey-Wacey.

The kill shot seemed a bit, I don't know - cowboy, or something. Yes, an unemotional kill goes with the sociopath bit, but it still seemed strange.

And the only thing I don't get/buy is the laptop. Mycroft is such a stickler for rules and regulations; I can't see him bringing that to his parents' house in the country. (and how did he wake up and grab a helicopter so fast?!)

Having seen the end, I don't think it's actually Moriarty. He would have used his own voice. I think it's a copycat, possibly and even probably Moran. They've already established him on the show, but did a terrible job of utilizing a character who should be basically the Anti-John Watson.

I also think this is plausible because of the repetitive nature of Moffat's writing, and that theory lines up with the one I have about the last episode of Doctor Who. I think it was actually The Master who answered the Doctor, and leaving both shows with a similar pseudo-epic "twist" is exactly the sort of thing Moffat would do.

mirandashell
01-14-2014, 10:51 PM
I still can't work out why Mary Sue Watson would shot Sherlock but delibrately not kill him and not shoot Magnusson. Ok, she may have been trying to frighten M into giving her the paperwork but then why shoot Sherlock? None of that made any sense. And why did Magnusson bring security to Baker Street but have none at Appledore? Why was he so stupid to tell Sherlock, who he knows is a sociopath, that the info is all in his head?

It was entertaining but it was damn stupid.

Cyia
01-14-2014, 10:54 PM
She didn't kill Magnus because it would have implicated John. That's why she wanted to know if he'd come with Sherlock. Two men shot, one fatally, and John being a crack shot who helped break into the building would be pretty conclusive to most law enforcement. Without a gun to be found, there'd be no way to disprove the theory. (Except for the fact that John would never intentionally shoot Sherlock.)

Actually, taking Mary's former employment into consideration, another possibility is that she's the one who broadcast the Moriarty message to save Sherlock from being shipped off to certain death. (The same could be said for Mycroft or Sherlock himself, actually.)

mirandashell
01-14-2014, 10:59 PM
But hold on..... forensics is far enough developed now that it would be easy to prove John didn't shoot either of them. And that doesn't explain why she shot Sherlock.

Cyia
01-14-2014, 11:02 PM
Honestly, the only explanation I can think of for shooting Sherlock is that it was in the script, so she did it. There really was no reason for it, other than to showcase the "mind palace" scene wherein he worked out the particulars of how to fall, and the "East Wind" was established so John could have that final line.

Forensics aside, all test have to go through Molly, and she'd never implicate John or Sherlock, anyway.

mirandashell
01-14-2014, 11:05 PM
Ah! That's what I thought. God bless Moffat and his holes with the occasional plot! :tongue

angeliz2k
01-14-2014, 11:48 PM
I think Mary said she shot Sherlock and not Magnussen because she didn't want to implicate John. (Or did someone else say it?) If that's the case, she wants the police to think someone other than John broke in. John would NOT shoot Sherlock, so that's consistent with her efforts to make it look like John was NOT involved. That seems like an extreme way to make sure John doesn't get in trouble (especially considered what I mentioned below). Also, if there's theoretically some other person breaking in to Magnussen's office, why did this theoretical person not shoot Magnussen, too? Why just shoot Sherlock? It's possible there's some answer in the episode, but I'd have to re-watch it.

Also, Mary didn't go for the kill shot according to Sherlock (she could have just shot him in the head). BUT, and it's a big but, he DID die. TWICE, by my count. The paramedics had to revive him. So no points for that, Mary. If you were going for the not-kill shot, she should have not killed him.

Cyia
01-15-2014, 12:07 AM
Incidentally, who was "the other one" that Mycroft referenced toward the end. One of the men accused him of showing favoritism due to familial sentiment, and he (of course) denied, saying he doesn't do that sort of thing. "You know what happened to the other one."

I may be forgetting something, but I don't remember another Holmes son in the books or the series.

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 12:09 AM
Someone on the POV board did mention a Sheringham Holmes but he may have been making that up.

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 12:11 AM
There is this:

http://thenorwoodbuilder.tumblr.com/post/27839382394/so-how-many-siblings-had-canonical-sherlock-holmes

SapphireGuardian
01-15-2014, 01:58 AM
I didn't like Season 3. The first episode was great, but the second and the third was filled with out of nowhere ideas and solutions, meaningless events, fillers and gaps. And the main evil was a joke, so as two out of the three cases in the three episodes (One of them, the second is possible, regardless how strange it seems as a similar one was in the reality, back in 1898.). Unfortunately Sherlock is starting to show the signs what most shows used to have these days; the creators don't know when to stop and to keep up the interests, they're changing the full atmosphere and dynamics of the series to grab a wider audience. This wouldn't be a problem if there would have been any problem with the first two seasons. But there were none.

Right now, Sherlock acts like a clown in many scenes, the cases are more or less very simple, unintelligent and ridiculous. Nothing compared to the cases and twists of the previous episodes. While 3x01 was relatively good, there were also problems with it, mostly that trivial elements got plenty times, while the meaningful ones got close to zero. 3x02 and 3x03 mostly was weak and not just because of the out of nowhere solutions and the scenes where the series is started to remind me to a sitcom, but unfortunately most of these two episodes didn't have any real atmosphere, similar to the weakest episode, Baskersville (2x02).

The only thing which was really great is the acting of Martin Freeman, mostly in 3x03 after a certain twist. But the acting of Benedict Cumberbatch is also a pale shadow in many scenes, comparing to the previous seasons. Like if he couldn't find his own character. And maybe he is right, as the writing is not for the old Sherlock. This is something new. Something what I didn't like. And the ending "twist" of 3x03 was a really desperate and lame attempt to grab the attention for Season 4. In my opinion, Sherlock has stepped to the worst possible path with Season 3.

phantasy
01-15-2014, 02:00 AM
It was certainly the best episode of this season. The rest of the season was all character building, not that I mind, it was kind of a complete waste drama-wise and I came for that.

I'm one of those people that enjoys the story more and more the more they tighten the noose and up the stakes. High stakes, high mystery, much better! Yes, I didn't understand any of the shootings, I mean they try to explain it but still...not too plausible. I'm also glad Sherlock's still a non-romantic liar, makes him loads more interesting.

Cyia
01-15-2014, 03:13 AM
You know, the more I think about 3x03, the wider the plot holes rip.

If they'd said Mary was formerly homeless or something, that would have been one thing, but: given everything the show has established about Mycroft Holmes and his ability to ferret out information, added to the particular protective streak that comes out when his brother is involved, does it really track that the man who basically kidnapped John Watson off the street for moving into Baker Street wouldn't be one of the first to know that "Mary" was a former CIA wetwork specialist? He'd definitely run a background check on her, which would show zilch for anything further than 5 years out, and that would raise its own red flags for a man whose job is to avert terrorist threats. If nothing else, he'd run a face recognition search.

Seriously think about the implications of Sherlock hiding the fact that she's not only a foreign national using the stolen identity of a dead child, but that she's a sanctioned international assassin.

angeliz2k
01-15-2014, 05:02 AM
I agree with folks' prognosis that this series/season didn't quite live up to the first two. But to be honest, that's hard to do. IMO, the first two series were the best television I've ever seen (even with the flaws). This season wasn't as crisp (there were plot holes, as people have noted), clever (the plots were plot-less and predictable), or incisive (it lacked the wonderful, whip-smart character sketches). It was, however, still fun and witty ("deaded") and had its clever moments. The quality is still high, but not tippy-top.

I just really, really hope they can put series/season 4 on the air by Christmas like the BBC wants them to.


You know, the more I think about 3x03, the wider the plot holes rip.

If they'd said Mary was SNIP.

Well, think about the fact that he didn't tell the police that John shot the cabbie in episode 1. Or that he just murdered Magnussen . . . He has never really cared about the law or conventional morality. Sociopath, remember? Also, he went pants-less to Buckingham Palace, so national pride might not be high on his list of priorities either.

And to be fair, Mycroft may have bigger fish to fry and/or he knew all along about Mary but for reasons of his own didn't tell Sherlock or John.

James D. Macdonald
01-15-2014, 06:05 AM
How about this? Mycroft was Mary's handler. He wanted her near Sherlock, and he wanted to put a bodyguard on Watson. She was acting on Mycroft's orders to kill Charles Augustus Magnusson when the unexpected arrival of Sherlock and John forced her to improvise.

EMaree
01-15-2014, 02:09 PM
Re: Sherlock acting clown-ish and out of characte in this season, I subscribe to the fan theory that it's because he's back on hard drugs. I'm disappointed S3E3 didn't really cover whether he was or not -- the test was clear, but we (and all the characters) know that doesn't prove anything with Sherlock Holmes.


I've never watched this show before, but for some reason I'm beginning to want to watch it. I just don't know where it's available. Netflix? I'll have to check it out. :)

It's definitely on Netflix US! Give it a watch and join us here in the Sherlock-watching club. :) It's only two three-episode seasons on Netflix so far so it's easy to get through.

Don't think there's an easy legal way to view S3 in the US yet though unless PBS is showing reruns. PBS doesn't do on-demand streaming, does it?

Once!
01-15-2014, 03:03 PM
It's very high class entertainment. Not perfect, but very well done and much more intelligent than most things on television.

What I think is happening is that the writers have largely finished mining their homage to Conan Doyle and are now allowing the characters to develop, even though that might be taking the characters (especially Sherlock) further away from the original.

I have always thought that the original stories had their focus set mostly on the crime and the solution. This was the Victorian era where the public were fascinated by science and discoveries of the natural world. The flipside of this is that Holmes and Watson did not develop much throughout the books - for instance we hardly see Watson's wife. Their relationship is mostly fixed from the beginning and does not change much through the years.

The BBC's modern treatment has shifted the focus. We still have the core of the stories - the seemingly impossible crime solved by Sherlock's intellect. But in tune with modern tastes we have more about the characters this time around. I feel we understand this Sherlock more than Conan Doyle's. This time, the story is secondary to the characterisation. In the original, it was the other way around.

There are a couple of potential problems here. The first is that the modern series seems to be going overboard to give increasingly complicated and overly dramatic back stories to each of the characters. It as if the characters have become the puzzles, as we try to work out who someone really is and where they have come from.

And whilst that is an interesting approach, for me it seems as if they are trying too hard. These surprising reveals are all very well but it is beginning to stretch credibility. Ah, so X is really Y! Darth Vader is Luke's father. Gasp! And he built C3PO. Gosh!

The second potential problem I see is the "casebook phenomenon". For me the last collection of Conan Doyle stories (The casebook of Sherlock Holmes) shows Doyle running out of steam. He tries to stretch the concept as far as it will go, with stories written by Holmes, stories where Holmes makes mistakes, commits crimes, and so on. I do hope the writers can keep up the pace with the current Sherlock and not overplay it.

Still when all is said and done, this is still brilliantly done and compulsive viewing.

Calliea
01-15-2014, 05:33 PM
I am not convinced by Mary's actions in the least. Especially the shooting - it was said in the show that she didn't want to kill Sherlock and that she saved his life, but if I were to go by his whole memory-palace scene, then he barely survived it. Even using all of his mind-techniques, analyzing the mirror etc, he barely made it through.

Logically, Mary couldn't just assume that he would if the margin on error was this tiny. I call bullshit here.

Secondly, it got quite exciting when it was revealed that she was there to shoot Magnussen and I got very curious as to how they would handle the consequences. Then, in the end, it went the very predictable route of 'Mary's actually good, she didn't do anything wrong (because, you know, she KNEW Sherlock would live, magic) etc.' and John just went ahead and accepted it all. I don't know, I guess I'm just a drama junkie, I expected a far greater consequences of the whole thing and counted on the John's Evil Wife plot to go in some more interesting direction than a simple 'past is the past, I love you regardless' thing. Especially with the aforementioned fishy shooting.

All in all, I did enjoy the season, but it didn't leave me in an awe I expected after the previous ones. It was still wonderfully made when it came to audio and visuals, which I have always found to be one of the things that made this show stick out.

The problem for me is mostly that I feel that most of the plots and scenes were done in a very sketchy way and left a feeling of dissatisfaction. They needed more depth and complexity. I enjoyed the whole character-building and drama fillers, they were made in an entertaining way and they even gave some background to Mary's Mary Sueness, but I expected more from Sherlock :)

That being said, I'm still going to be there for season 4.

Parametric
01-15-2014, 05:40 PM
I'm puzzled that everyone seems to think Mary Watson is a Mary Sue. Isn't Sherlock a thousand times more special and amazing and extraordinary and unique than Mary?

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 05:42 PM
Yes. But that doesn't stop Mrs Watson also being one.

It's Moff's Mary Sue fixation. Exactly the same as Dr Who's companions. Mary Sues, everyone of them.

Parametric
01-15-2014, 05:49 PM
You keep stating that she's a Mary Sue as if it's an obvious fact, but I'm not really clear on why you think so. :Huh:

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 05:58 PM
Because she's not just a woman that John met and fell in love with. No, she has to be an extremely well-trained efficient hired killer. She has to be 'special'. She can't just be normal, like the Mary in the original story. No, she can sneak in and out of highly secured buildings wearing CIA surplus without a person or a camera or a motion sensor noticing. She can shoot a hole through a 50 pence piece. She can recognise a code in a series of random numbers without even trying. She can shoot someone in the stomach and just know they aren't going to die. She has a eidetic memory. She's a Mary Sue.

EMaree
01-15-2014, 05:58 PM
I have to admit, I'm not seeing Mary Watson's Mary Sue-ness either. She has some fairly big weaknesses: her love for Watson, her pregnancy, her need to keep her identity secret at all costs, the ownership C.A.M. has over here. She's definitely a highly skilled character but far less infallible than Sherlock or C.A.M.

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 06:00 PM
Who is C.A.M?

EMaree
01-15-2014, 06:02 PM
Who is C.A.M?

Spoiler: Charles Augustus Magnussen


Because she's not just a woman that John met and fell in love with. No, she has to be an extremely well-trained efficient hired killer. She has to be 'special'. She can't just be normal, like the Mary in the original story. No, she can sneak in and out of highly secured buildings wearing CIA surplus without a person or a camera or a motion sensor noticing. She can shoot a hole through a 50 pence piece. She can recognise a code in a series of random numbers without even trying. She can shoot someone in the stomach and just know they aren't going to die. She has a eidetic memory. She's a Mary Sue.

Hm. Okay, I can see it, but I'm still resistant to the idea... partly because Mary Sue is such a gendered term, and I dislike Mary being highlighted for this when Sherlock isn't (see also: Clara the Mary Sue, but the Doctor's Gary Stu-ness isn't mentioned).

(EDIT: That's not directed at you, mirandashell, I know you've spoken out against Moff's Gary Stus before. I'm stating a general hatred of the term.)

I mean, why not have Mary be a crack spy? It serves the plot much better, gives her character agency, goals and secrets to protect, and it means we won't get viewers hating her for not being interesting enough. The last point is an odd one, granted, but there was so much hate online when Mary's character was announced that I think the writers had a real struggle on her hands to make her accepted.

Parametric
01-15-2014, 06:04 PM
Weren't there three separate hypercompetent super-geniuses with eidetic memories and staggering brainpower in the last episode? Sherlock, Mycroft and Magnussen? But Mary Watson is singled out as a Sue?

Cyia
01-15-2014, 06:07 PM
I think the problem with Mary is one with the show's structure, rather than the character.

You can't really stretch a storyline out over several episodes if you're limited to three. Everything has to be resolved quickly, and that's going to lead to thin veneers and shoddy corners in the construction.

You get 90 minutes to lay the foundation, do the construction, and tear down, all while the main focus of the show is on the mystery. And with Mary, you don't get the advantage of the audience having her fairly well constructed in their minds before the first episode.

People *know* Sherlock is a broody, brash junkie with a huge sense of ego.

People *know* John Watson is a former military doctor who serves as Sherlock's grounding wire.

People *know* Mary is married to John. Maybe.

There were several opportunities to showcase some of Mary's past, but this being written by its writer, they were all missed opportunities because that's what he does. Why actually show her as a character when you can have the male villain rattle off an imaginary grocery list about her past at the end?

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 06:09 PM
This relates to the major problem I have with Moffat.

Both the Doctor and Sherlock have long histories of being Mary Sues. (I'm gonna leave the whole gender thing aside for a minute). We know what we are going to get when we watch them. We expect it. But Moffat wants his characters to be bigger and better than the characters who are meant to be the focus of the story. No, his 'girls' have got to be the main thing. They've got to be special. I mean.... the Impossible Girl? The girl who went right through history telling the Doctor what to do and keeping him out of trouble and just generally being his guardian angel cos she's just so special?

And Mrs Watson is an example of the same kind of thinking. Moffat's women can't be normal, they aren't interesting when they're normal. No they have to be special.

I'm starting to think Moffat has some issues with real women.

mirandashell
01-15-2014, 06:11 PM
Weren't there three separate hypercompetent super-geniuses with eidetic memories and staggering brainpower in the last episode? Sherlock, Mycroft and Magnussen? But Mary Watson is singled out as a Sue?

No, by those criteria Magnusson is also a Sue. It's just we were talking about Mary.

Cyia
01-15-2014, 06:14 PM
Sherlock is a genius.

Mycroft is a savant.

Magnussen is an idiot with total recall.

(And I'll just go ahead and point out "that writer's" predilection for repetitive dialogue. "high-functioning sociopath" is not a catchphrase. It was a good touch the first time used, and it was nice the second, but STOP making it Sherlock's go-to punchline."

EMaree
01-15-2014, 06:27 PM
(And I'll just go ahead and point out "that writer's" predilection for repetitive dialogue. "high-functioning sociopath" is not a catchphrase. It was a good touch the first time used, and it was nice the second, but STOP making it Sherlock's go-to punchline."

Some of my favourite tweets on that subject were these ones by @emmajanedavies (http://storify.com/EMaree/sherlock-is-not-a-sociopath/).

Albedo
01-15-2014, 06:38 PM
Making Watson's wife into the next villain, and Danish Rupert Murdoch a mere pawn, the episode after their relatively blissful wedding, would have been the best rug-pull in television history. But they didn't go the way I was thinking they would.

Once!
01-15-2014, 07:51 PM
For my money, Sherlock (old and new) avoids Mary Sue-ness by virtue of his inability to deal with anything which isn't central to his logical approach to crime-solving. Not to mention his addictions, eccentricities and drama queen tendencies.

Likewise Mycroft who is Sherlock squared. Where Holmes only has one friend, Mikey doesn't have any. Brainy but a Billy-no-mates.

Mary Watson was Mary Sueish in the original books because she never complained when Watson went off on a case and conveniently died so he could do it more often.

The new Mary Watson? Some elements of Mary Sue, some hints of more complexity. Too soon to tell.

The bit I am struggling with is that everyone seems to be developing super-powers - even John Watson. Lestrade must be feeling very lonely as just about the only ordinary person left in the cast.

Rachel77
01-15-2014, 08:09 PM
Someone on the POV board did mention a Sheringham Holmes but he may have been making that up.

I vaguely remember a "Sherrinford Holmes" brother (or Sheringham, or whatever his name was), but wasn't he just a Baring-Gould invention?

Rachel77
01-15-2014, 08:10 PM
How about this?

I love this theory!

Edit to snip out the quote, because the white text was too visible in the quote box.

EMaree
01-16-2014, 12:57 PM
Lestrade must be feeling very lonely as just about the only ordinary person left in the cast.

And Molly! Poor Molly gets easily forgotten, and she definitely got the short shrift in this series, but she did benefit from more screentime than Lestrade (and a moment of badassness inside Sherlock's 'falling' mind place. I don't think I mentioned how much I *loved* that Sherlock's mind chose Molly to save him (again).).

Cyia
01-16-2014, 04:48 PM
Speaking of Molly, she fell prey to another of that writer's quirks. Her fiance (and ring) disappeared without explanation. He doesn't actually do relationships, just the aftermath of the get together or the break-up, with the assumption that the viewer will follow along.

( Or, maybe her ex is the one who put Moriarty's picture out there, so Molly can keep her psychopath streak. :tongue )

Myrealana
01-16-2014, 06:41 PM
I think Sherlock genuinely showed tendency toward genuine sociopathic/psychpathic behaviors early on, and that he certainly thinks of himself that way - however technically inaccurate it might be.

I never thought he was a sociopath, but it's probably easier for him to categorize himself that way than to face the consequences of his genuine emotions.

EMaree
01-16-2014, 06:54 PM
Speaking of Molly, she fell prey to another of that writer's quirks. Her fiance (and ring) disappeared without explanation.

Nah, they didn't. White text ahoy, and recalled from memory only so expect inaccuracies..

(Immediately after Molly slaps Sherlock, while Sherlock is shaking it off and pulling the usual faces.)

Sherlock: I'm sorry about the breakup.
Molly: Don't.
Sherlock: But I'm glad you weren't still wearing your ring...
Molly: Sherlock, don't.

angeliz2k
01-16-2014, 09:09 PM
Speaking of Molly, she fell prey to another of that writer's quirks. Her fiance (and ring) disappeared without explanation. He doesn't actually do relationships, just the aftermath of the get together or the break-up, with the assumption that the viewer will follow along.

( Or, maybe her ex is the one who put Moriarty's picture out there, so Molly can keep her psychopath streak. :tongue )

Yeah, as pointed out above, it was explained that the engagement was broken off. Hey, they can't spend tons of time on every single story-line. This was one that had to be tied up with a short-cut. It's not like Molly's previous boyfriends ("Jim" excepted) were given much story space.


I think Sherlock genuinely showed tendency toward genuine sociopathic/psychpathic behaviors early on, and that he certainly thinks of himself that way - however technically inaccurate it might be.

I never thought he was a sociopath, but it's probably easier for him to categorize himself that way than to face the consequences of his genuine emotions.

Hm, I'm not an expert, but he seems to definitely be missing something. He really doesn't care about most people. It's only a select few he cares about, and even then he doesn't care like other people do. He happily kills people for his friends' sake . . . . Not exactly healthy. He does, at least intellectually, seem to be much better now (than at the beginning of the show) at figuring out what other people must be "feeling". I don't know that he understands. So, whatever that makes him, it's something that's probably diagnosable [ETA: if he were a real person, that is].

But Jesus Christ do they need to lay off the sociopath line.

onesecondglance
01-16-2014, 10:00 PM
Am I the only one that thought Magnussen was an idiot? The only power he had was while everyone thought he had all this information somewhere safe, and as soon as he revealed it was only in his head he set himself straight up to be assaulted / killed. This is like IT 101: data does not exist unless it is in more than one place. A single source creates a single point of failure.

I just plain did not get John letting Magnussen flick him in the face, when he knew full well that taking him out would resolve the whole thing. I know he's supposed to be the moral centre of the show, but the guy was threatening his wife (and by extension his unborn child). He had the skills to "deal" with Magnussen.

I think it would have been a lot more emotionally satisfying to have John break Magnussen's finger, then have Sherlock shoot him while Magnussen is reciting all the ways in which he's going to destroy the Watsons in the press.

Just my two p worth. It was an entertaining series overall, but I don't think it justified the hype.

Cyia
01-16-2014, 11:40 PM
I think it would have been a lot more emotionally satisfying to have *spoiler*

I agree with the bit about John that was in the spoiler, not so much Sherlock.

John's got a temper. We've seen it come out when he's pushed, even to the point of killing to protect those he cares for (like the cabbie in Study in Pink). He's retaliated against Sherlock on more than one occasion, when pushed too far, and the spoilered ending would have made for a nice book end to the "I know how to sprain people." bit at the front.

Personally, given Magnussen's MO, I could have seen an awesomely chilling ending wherein: John, who has demonstrated use of a choke hold before, incapacitated Magnussen, then coolly described to him what was happening inside his brain as the oxygen deprivation took hold. Something along the lines of ticking off the point his thought processes get hazy, then the point his memory will be affected, etc. He needed a line that turned the pressure points Magnussen was so fond of on their head. Sort of a "You aren't the only one who knows where to apply pressure to get what you want." kind of thing.

For a man like Magnussen, being choked into a vegetative state, where he can't control his own mind or body would have been a far worse, and more darkly fitting end than death. They could have shown him in the hospital, unresponsive, with Watson as his doctor ;)

onesecondglance
01-17-2014, 01:48 AM
Now that would have been an ending!

Honestly, anyone would think professional writers hang out here :D

EMaree
01-17-2014, 02:41 AM
Oh my god, Cyia, that's the perfect ending. A hundred times better than the show. Has anyone every told you you should write a book? ;)

My thoughts on C.A.M: I'm just really disappointed he wasn't a cyborg. When he tooks off his specs I was hoping for it -- the show's tech-savvy enough that I could have easily accepted an augmented human being introduced.

That probably would have upset a lot more fans but DAMMIT, CYBORGS. =(

Cyia
01-17-2014, 05:12 AM
I'm just really disappointed he wasn't a *****(

:roll:

Did you ever see the cartoon version of Sherlock from the late 90's? "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century?" It was an American cartoon, so it may not have shown in the UK, but it involved either a cloned or cryo-preserved Sherlock, the great-however-many-granddaughter of Inspector LeStrade, and a Watson that you'd probably love, given the above. :D

EMaree
01-17-2014, 12:11 PM
I've seen the opening of that, but I've never actually watched it! Now I need to. :D

Pyekett
01-17-2014, 03:58 PM
Parametric, have you run across this?

http://adventuresofcomicbookgirl.tumblr.com/post/13913540194/mary-sue-what-are-you-or-why-the-concept-of-sue-is

Good read.

I am not sure where Moffat et al are going with this. It wasn't what I expected. I'll watch the next episode, but I want Mary to make sense, and I want John and Mary as a couple to make sense. Right now they don't anymore, not to me.

Rachel77
01-17-2014, 07:14 PM
Am I the only one that thought

No, you're not the only one. I had issues with that, too.

Nualláin
01-18-2014, 04:10 AM
So I thought, use this massively exciting, rather handsome man who could see right through your heart and have no interest … of course, he’s going to be a sex god! I think we pitched that character right. I think our female fanbase all believe that they’ll be the one to melt that glacier.


H--....

Wh--...

Un--....

...

What the hell is wrong with that man??



I'm starting to think Moffat has some issues with real women.

Based on the above, I'm not sure if he's actually ever met any real women.


* - (SOURCE (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sherlock-season-3-preview-steven-667990) with credit to EMaree)

williemeikle
01-18-2014, 04:31 AM
Based on the above, I'm not sure if he's actually ever met any real women.


Apart from his wives of course...

I kind of knew him at Glasgow University where he ran the student TV station at the time. There was no shortage of real Scots women around, I can assure you of that.

mirandashell
01-18-2014, 07:32 PM
Apart from his wives of course...

Uh huh......

Calla Lily
01-20-2014, 05:05 AM
We here in Buffalo apologize for all the screaming you've been hearing today. Our local PBS station has chosen to be the only PBS station in America NOT to air Sherlock tonight. They claim it's because they think it deserves a better timeslot than late Sunday night. (Can you say: We want to beg for money in a slot we prefer?)

They're not going to show it till after the DVDs release--Feb. 13.

Fortunately, we may be able to stream it from PBS.org tomorrow.

Many of us have expressed our anger and displeasure on their FB page, Twitter feed, and customer contact form.

:rant:

angeliz2k
01-20-2014, 06:41 AM
We here in Buffalo apologize for all the screaming you've been hearing today. Our local PBS station has chosen to be the only PBS station in America NOT to air Sherlock tonight. They claim it's because they think it deserves a better timeslot than late Sunday night. (Can you say: We want to beg for money in a slot we prefer?)

They're not going to show it till after the DVDs release--Feb. 13.

Fortunately, we may be able to stream it from PBS.org tomorrow.

Many of us have expressed our anger and displeasure on their FB page, Twitter feed, and customer contact form.

:rant:

Well . . . it is a weird time slot, but SERIOUSLY? They're going to have a mutiny on their hands, making their viewers wait that long.

Do you not have more than one PBS station in Buffalo? Perhaps I've just been spoiled, but I've always had multiple PBS affiliates. Here in DC, we have three . . .

Calla Lily
01-20-2014, 06:44 AM
We only have the one, which also is used in Toronto, so we can't even try to catch it on PBS Canada.

Lots of anger coming their way, methinks.

frimble3
01-20-2014, 07:41 AM
I guess you don't want to hear that we can get it twice tonight, in Vancouver. Once on WTVS from Detroit, (on right now, in fact) later on KCTS from Seattle. The fancier cable package - sometimes it's worth it. :D

Calla Lily
01-20-2014, 07:58 AM
:gaah

ULTRAGOTHA
01-20-2014, 08:43 AM
Glad it picked up in the end, but I think it could have been trimmed.

I agree. Despite the funny poking at the fans, it was boring and mean. I was not impressed.

Calla Lily
01-20-2014, 06:27 PM
Muahahaha! Pbs.org has the ep online. Sherlock fans - 1, Local TV jerks - 0.

jvc
01-20-2014, 11:07 PM
The bbc iplayer has all three episodes. :e2tongue:

Calla Lily
01-20-2014, 11:13 PM
Dragons are such teases...

Lady MacBeth
01-21-2014, 06:45 AM
I agree. Despite the funny poking at the fans, it was boring and mean. I was not impressed.


I agree. I was so entirely disappointed with last night's episode. I came away wondering if Sherlock Holmes had jumped the shark.

Little Ming
01-22-2014, 05:06 AM
Just finished the season/series. Initial thoughts might be scattered and incoherent.

First episode - Ugh. Agree with comments: too slapstick, goofy, jumping the shark. And mean. God. Poor John. What the fuck Sherlock?

Second episode - Still too slapstick and goofy. Gets better. Figured it out before Sherlock, but still love watching him work... especially while giving a speech. :D

Third episode - Some of the best elements from the series: character development, suspense, surprises. Just the right amount of humor sprinkled into the more tense plot line. Thinking back, many plot holes; but when watching, didn't notice. Hm. ;) Wondered why John didn't shoot him? Or choked him? Or something? Bad resolution. Stupid villain. Stupider heroes. Ugh. But--Mycroft cares! Thought so. :D Think: Moriarty really dead. Who played video? Mycroft? Sherlock? John? Mary? New villain? Must wait two years to find out??? :gaah

Ha, dragons. :D

Be back later: more thought-opinion-thingies; better sentences: nouns and verbs. ;) And smilies. Yes. :tongue

angeliz2k
01-22-2014, 05:40 AM
I have to say, on second viewing, I enjoyed episode one of series/season 3 better. It seemed like a wild ride the first time around, but that was partly due to sleep deprivation (it was New Year's Day--I'd only gotten about three hours of fitful sleep the night before) and nerves. Still, it was not all I wished it could be. It was not all it should have been.

Something about the entire series/season was just a bit off. I think I know what I didn't like about it (see posts above) and why writers did what they did (the writers got big heads and got too "meta").I can see the reasoning they used but don't understand why they chose to use that line of reasoning. The episodes themselves aren't bothering me--I'm not wallowing in plot holes--but the decision making is bothering me.

I enjoyed the series, but in a very different way from the first two.

And I am done fretting and complaining . . . for now.

phantasy
01-22-2014, 08:15 AM
Just finished the season/series. Initial thoughts might be scattered and incoherent.

First episode - Ugh. Agree with comments: too slapstick, goofy, jumping the shark. And mean. God. Poor John. What the fuck Sherlock?

Second episode - Still too slapstick and goofy. Gets better. Figured it out before Sherlock, but still love watching him work... especially while giving a speech. :D

Third episode - Some of the best elements from the series: character development, suspense, surprises. Just the right amount of humor sprinkled into the more tense plot line. Thinking back, many plot holes; but when watching, didn't notice. Hm. ;) Wondered why John didn't shoot him? Or choked him? Or something? Bad resolution. Stupid villain. Stupider heroes. Ugh. But--Mycroft cares! Thought so. :D Think: Moriarty really dead. Who played video? Mycroft? Sherlock? John? Mary? New villain? Must wait two years to find out??? :gaah

Ha, dragons. :D

Be back later: more thought-opinion-thingies; better sentences: nouns and verbs. ;) And smilies. Yes. :tongue

Any advice for 'Figured it out before Sherlock'? My mind was painfully numb trying to guess. Or are you a mystery writer and used to these sorts of things?

Parametric
01-22-2014, 01:46 PM
Any advice for 'Figured it out before Sherlock'? My mind was painfully numb trying to guess. Or are you a mystery writer and used to these sorts of things?

The mysterious soldier who'd been receiving death threats was a dangling plot thread that had to be important in some way, so once Sherlock starts looking for an appropriate murder victim ...

onesecondglance
01-22-2014, 03:25 PM
Yeah. That was one of those "come on, script, catch up with where the audience is" moments.

Little Ming
01-23-2014, 02:30 AM
Any advice for 'Figured it out before Sherlock'? My mind was painfully numb trying to guess. Or are you a mystery writer and used to these sorts of things?

^^ What the two posters above me said. :D It's about recognizing tropes and dangling plot threads. It's also about knowing the Sherlock universe is generally tightly written, so if they spend so much time developing a character (even watching him dress) and having him be so important to John's life... you kinda figured he was going to be involved in the main case somehow, either murderer or victim. ;)

But I still loved the back and forth from the speech and Sherlock's thought-process. It also showed the character development of Sherlock: whereas Mycroft was telling him to find the murderer, looking at John reminded Sherlock to "save the life."

Little Ming
01-24-2014, 03:43 AM
*takes breath*

*warning: very long rambly post*

*loads and loads of spoilers*

So, after having time to calm down from my initial impressions, I think I can be slightly more objective about the third series/season/whateveryoucallit.

One of the problems with having a two year gap after a major cliffhanger is you're going to have over-hyped, impossibly high expectations. But thinking back, every season/series (seriously, what do I call these?), there were always some less-than-great parts. Usually they were the second episodes. The firsts and thirds were great, but the middle suffered. Overall, the third series was about the same in overall quality, but I think the quality was less evenly distributed. There were some great parts in the first and second episodes, but the whole episodes were not that great.

So, first to the "how did he do it" question. I think the writers of the show knew there was no winning this one. As Anderson said, "that's not how I would have done it." No matter how brilliant, realistic, or awesome the solution, it would never satisfy the fans. Because they've already had two years to come up with their own brilliant and awesome ideas. Which is why I don't think they really revealed how he did it. As Sherlock said to John, "you know my methods." Anything and everything is possible (maybe even the "Sherlock is a wizard" theory :tongue) But more importantly, as John said, "I don't care how you did it." Because what was important, now, is how he's going to move on with life after being gone for two years.

Which brings us to why I had so many problems with the first episode. I get that Sherlock might not be the most sympathetic of human beings, but he laughed at John. Two years John thought his best friend had killed himself, and just when he was starting to move on with his life... haha, fooled you. Even if Sherlock completely fucked up their first meeting in the restaurant, the lying and tricking John into forgiving him during the bomb scene, then laughing about it afterwards... what the fuck Sherlock? Even the John and Mrs. Hudson scene at the beginning worked better.

The actual case itself... boring. I wasn't engaged. There was no suspense or tension. It felt more like a lazy way to get Sherlock back to London.

Parts I did like, Sherlock's dialogue with Mycroft. :D Sharp, witty, quick; and you do get a sense that they care about each other. "I used to think I was stupid." "We both did. We had nothing else to go on. Until we met other children." "That was a mistake." "Ghastly. What were they thinking?" "Probably something about being friends." :roll:

Second episode started to pick up, slowly. I loved the scene when John asked Sherlock to be his best man. *Stare* "Sherlock?" *Stare* "Okay, this is getting scary..." :ROFL: The speech started out bad, as we expected from Sherlock, but then it got better. "Wait, what happened? Why are you crying? Did I do it wrong?" :ROFL:

It finally started to get great when the glass dropped. Not because of the mystery, since it was fairly obvious by that point it was the soldier, but Sherlock was never really about solving the mysteries for me. It was about the characters and watching them solve the mystery. I loved the cutting back and forth from Sherlock's thoughts and the actual real time speech. "Now... I want... to talk about... murder... Did I say murder? I meant marriage." :roll: I think it actually showed the development of Sherlock's character since he met John. In his head Mycroft is telling him to focus on finding the murderer, but that gets him nowhere because there are too many people and possibilities. But after Sherlock looks at John, he remembers to "save the life," because the murder hadn't occurred yet. He then switches to finding and saving the intended victim. And he does.

I also liked Mary's development in this episode. I was expecting a more flat character, just John's wife, but she actually did stuff.

And: Red Beard. :D

Third episode was the best. Suspense, tension, humor and surprises. As I said before, I was disappointed in the resolution, but everything before was awesome. Again, Mycroft cares. :) I do want to see more consequences of Sherlock's drug habit.

Mary's reveal surprised me. She doesn't have a big part in the cannon, and promptly dies so that Sherlock and John can go back to living together and solving crimes. So this was refreshing.

The scene(s) where Sherlock is shot/dying: fantastic.

Then the revelation of Mary to John--this was how they could have handled Sherlock's return in the first episode. John was hurt, everything changed, but damn it, be adults, sit down and figure this thing out. There were still some humors parts -- "Is everyone I meet a psychopath?" "...Yes." -- "She saved me life." "She shot you." "...Mixed message, I got you..."

The resolution... what the hell? Why didn't John just shoot him? Seriously. John has killed before to save Sherlock. This was for his wife and child. And if Sherlock and Mycroft could fake Sherlock's death for two years, surely they could cover this up for John. Or a million other things. It's just... why was John so passive? So Sherlock could "sacrifice" himself again?

I do think Moriarty is dead. Which leaves us hanging again for the next season/series. Hopefully not another two years.

My (very) wild theory: Sherlock didn't dismantle Moriarty's network. He controls them. That's right. Two years he's been going around gaining control of Moriarty's criminal network. Sherlock is Moriarty. (Which would also explain why he took the shot here: he already had a back-up plan) Not because he's "evil", but because he cares about people now. Before he was satisfied solving crimes on his own. But after Moriarty threatened his friends, Sherlock realized he cared about people, and those people were in danger just being near him. Either he had to cut ties, or he had to become more powerful. It's like a bigger homeless network. But, of course, it's a "criminal" network so bad things are going to happen. Cue: more drama. He's caught between Love is a Weakness (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoveIsAWeakness), Love Makes You Evil (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LoveMakesYouEvil), and It's Not You, It's My Enemies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ItsNotYouItsMyEnemies).

At least I can dream. :tongue

angeliz2k
01-24-2014, 06:57 AM
This post if FULL of SPOILERS (so is this thread). Read at your own risk!

Loved your post! Agreed on every count.


*snip*

One of the problems with having a two year gap after a major cliffhanger is you're going to have over-hyped, impossibly high expectations. . . . There were some great parts in the first and second episodes, but the whole episodes were not that great.

This--the first two series/seasons set the bar very high. It's easy to suffer by comparison. That may be one reason why the writers chose to take things in a slightly different direction.


So, first to the "how did he do it" question. I think the writers of the show knew there was no winning this one. As Anderson said, "that's not how I would have done it." ....Which is why I suggested that Sherlock jumped without a "safety net" and without knowing he'd live. Others have considered the same possibility.

I believe in an interview Moffatt said that the airbag scenario is the correct one (I'd have to search that interview out), but 1) he also said Moriarty was dead so he's either messing with us or a liar, either of which possibility means I don't have to take him at his word; and 2) within the episode, there seems to be ambiguity since Anderson seems to be one fry short of a Happy Meal, Sherlock "disappears" after relating that scenario, and that scenario was stuck in the middle of the muddled bomb-defusing scene. Soo . . . in spite of the writers' assertion, I reserve the right to interpret what I see on the screen by what I see on the screen instead of by what the writers say afterwards.


Which brings us to why I had so many problems with the first episode. I get that Sherlock might not be the most sympathetic of human beings, but he laughed at John...Yeah, I didn't like how they played it. John could have been angry and they could have played it for drama instead of for laughs. They could have played the entire reveal to John as dramatic instead of comic. That would have been far better, in my opinion. But, wait, I'm not supposed to be complaining. So, I actually feel that his laughter wasn't entirely out of character--as you say, he isn't very sympathetic to others. And he's been doing--whatever--for two years, so you could possibly interpret his reaction (laughter) as a symptom of being close to cracking up/breaking down.


*snip* And: Red Beard. :DSniff sniff.


Third episode was the best. Suspense, tension, humor and surprises. As I said before, I was disappointed in the resolution, but everything before was awesome. Again, Mycroft cares. :) I do want to see more consequences of Sherlock's drug habit. Yes! Sherlock barely seemed high at all. And then, almost as quickly as Molly slapped him silly, the issue was behind them (except for the morphine reference). How long was he on that bender? And he just . . . quit? Cold-turkey? He's shown craving cigarettes. I can hardly imagine how badly he must crave the harder stuff when he's off it. It's nice to say that the cases are his substitute for the drugs, but that doesn't help with things like withdrawal. Drugs mess people up, pure and simple. Sherlock shouldn't be entirely immune. However, at least he wasn't let entirely off the hook. It may come up again later.


*snip*The scene(s) where Sherlock is shot/dying: fantastic. I don't think enough attention is given to the fact that Sherlock did die. I've only seen the episode once, but I seem to remember him dying (technically) after Mary shot him and then later, after he outed Mary to John. His heart stopped, and he had to be revived. Technically: dead. So that really puts paid to the idea that she wanted to save his life...If she wanted to NOT kill him, then she failed because she DID kill him.


The resolution... what the hell? Why didn't John just shoot him? Seriously. John has killed before to save Sherlock. This was for his wife and child. And if Sherlock and Mycroft could fake Sherlock's death for two years, surely they could cover this up for John. Or a million other things. It's just... why was John so passive? So Sherlock could "sacrifice" himself again?

Well, yes. But I think Sherlock may have actually had John's gun. Again, I've only watched the episode once, but I seem to recall Sherlock asking John if he (John) had his gun in his coat. I think Sherlock may have grabbed that gun. The question about the gun in the coat is to prime us to realize that Sherlock had the gun and John was unarmed.

As Magnussen was messing with John, Sherlock was running through his options. He wasn't letting Magnussen' mess with John just becuase; he needed time to think. Then he asked Magnussen to confirm that the "files" were all in his (Magnussen's) head. When Sherlock was sure he had no choice, he offed Magnussen.


I do think Moriarty is dead. *snip* theory *snip*Hm. Interesting. Not sure I see that happening, but my own theory is that Sherlock knew or at least guessed about Mary's past and the "mind palace" long before he seemed to in the show. I think he knew Mary was hiding her past but chose not to find out what the past was. I think he guessed the files were in Magnussen's mind but had to be sure of it before putting a bullet in Magnussen's head.

And, yes, I too am hoping that we don't have to wait two years...

Cyia
01-24-2014, 07:38 AM
Yes! Sherlock barely seemed high at all. And then, almost as quickly as Molly slapped him silly, the issue was behind them (except for the morphine reference). How long was he on that bender?

He was never actually high; it was an act to make Magnussen publish a piece on him being an addict. Everyone assumed he was high because of his history, but Molly's urinalysis showed that he was clean.

The "don't annoy me when I'm high" line was to get rid of Mycroft. He was hiding a girl in his room, and didn't want Mycroft to know about him using Magnussen's assistant, so he had to "admit" to drugs being there. And the "threat" would only work high, as sober Sherlock likely couldn't / wouldn't take his brother in a fair fight as easily as he could high.



I don't think enough attention is given to the fact that Sherlock did die. I've only seen the episode once, but I seem to remember him dying (technically) after Mary shot him and then later, after he outed Mary to John. His heart stopped, and he had to be revived. Technically: dead.

More than technically.

They stopped working on him, and turned away from his body. They were putting the instruments down, and that long look at the clock was an indication of calling legal, medical death. When Sherlock's heart started beating, they rushed back to work because the staff had written him off as dead.

Mary did NOT miss. She was a crack shot and her aim was deadly. It was only because Sherlock's mental walk through gave him the best odds on how to fall, etc. that he survived long enough to make the hospital. I'm sure Sherlock knows this, even if he doesn't want to tell John; he likely believes that she was going to kill him to save John, and that keeps her on his good side.

Also, it's definitely John's gun. Sherlock takes it out of John's coat pocket.

Netz
01-24-2014, 02:03 PM
The thing that bugged me about the gun was that Magnussen's heavies made a point of frisking John and Sherlock for weapons when they came to Sherlock's flat, but the gun bypassed security measures (if there were even any) when at Magnussen's home. Internal logic/consistency went out of the window for the sake of the plot.

angeliz2k
01-24-2014, 05:19 PM
He was never actually high; it was an act to make Magnussen publish a piece on him being an addict. Everyone assumed he was high because of his history, but Molly's urinalysis showed that he was clean.

The "don't annoy me when I'm high" line was to get rid of Mycroft. He was hiding a girl in his room, and didn't want Mycroft to know about him using Magnussen's assistant, so he had to "admit" to drugs being there. And the "threat" would only work high, as sober Sherlock likely couldn't / wouldn't take his brother in a fair fight as easily as he could high.

Wait, then why did Molly slap Sherlock silly and tell him not to waste his talents, etc? I don't recall them saying clearly what the drug test found, but everyone's reaction implied it was positive for drugs. Unless that was all part of the ruse? I might be able to buy that, but they don't tell us that's the case . . .


More than technically.

They stopped working on him, and turned away from his body. They were putting the instruments down, and that long look at the clock was an indication of calling legal, medical death. When Sherlock's heart started beating, they rushed back to work because the staff had written him off as dead.

Mary did NOT miss. She was a crack shot and her aim was deadly. It was only because Sherlock's mental walk through gave him the best odds on how to fall, etc. that he survived long enough to make the hospital. I'm sure Sherlock knows this, even if he doesn't want to tell John; he likely believes that she was going to kill him to save John, and that keeps her on his good side.

Precisely what I meant. Sherlock says that Mary "saved his life", but she actually killed him. Sherlock was basically putting the best possible spin on things for John's sake, even though he knew it wasn't really true. It's also true, however, that Mary could have just shot him in the head; at least by shooting him in the chest, she gave him a slim chance of living. So she didn't do her worst, but she certainly did a number on him.

EMaree
01-24-2014, 07:05 PM
Wait, then why did Molly slap Sherlock silly and tell him not to waste his talents, etc? I don't recall them saying clearly what the drug test found, but everyone's reaction implied it was positive for drugs. Unless that was all part of the ruse? I might be able to buy that, but they don't tell us that's the case . . .

The test was specified as published, but everyone's reaction did indeed imply he was on drugs. Everyone seems to have different interpretations of that scene, but my reading of it was that everyone thought Sherlock had deliberately tricked the test and was trying to hide his addiction.

I mean, c'mon, it's Sherlock. We really think he couldn't fool the test?

Cyia
01-24-2014, 07:06 PM
Wait, then why did Molly slap Sherlock silly and tell him not to waste his talents, etc? I don't recall them saying clearly what the drug test found, but everyone's reaction implied it was positive for drugs. Unless that was all part of the ruse? I might be able to buy that, but they don't tell us that's the case . . .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzgzXJl3HPE

Here's the scene in the lab. I could be misinterpreting it, but when she tells John the sample's clean, I assumed that meant Sherlock was telling the truth and that he hadn't actually taken anything.

They're all thinking he's on the verge of starting up his habit again, and that his denials are a junkie's usual spin.

angeliz2k
01-24-2014, 07:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzgzXJl3HPE

Here's the scene in the lab. I could be misinterpreting it, but when she tells John the sample's clean, I assumed that meant Sherlock was telling the truth and that he hadn't actually taken anything.

They're all thinking he's on the verge of starting up his habit again, and that his denials are a junkie's usual spin.

OH! I missed that one little word: "clean". I didn't hear that word and just thought Molly went from the microscope to slapping Sherlock. That changes my interpretation of the rest of the episode, then (though not hugely)! *Whistles and goes along her way* Nothing to see here, folks. I didn't miss a key piece of the episode. Nope. Carry on.

ETA: Okay, on second inspection, I was wrong about being wrong. The drug test WAS positive (as far as I can tell) and Sherlock WAS high, though there is room for other interpretations/ambiguity. I'm pretty firm in my interpretation, though.

asroc
01-24-2014, 08:56 PM
More than technically.

They stopped working on him, and turned away from his body. They were putting the instruments down, and that long look at the clock was an indication of calling legal, medical death. When Sherlock's heart started beating, they rushed back to work because the staff had written him off as dead.

Mary did NOT miss. She was a crack shot and her aim was deadly. It was only because Sherlock's mental walk through gave him the best odds on how to fall, etc. that he survived long enough to make the hospital. I'm sure Sherlock knows this, even if he doesn't want to tell John; he likely believes that she was going to kill him to save John, and that keeps her on his good side.


This scene annoyed the hell out of me. Getting shot doesn't work that way. Dying of blood loss is dying from shock and you can't avoid it by calming down. Shock calms you down all by itself, and then you die. Thinking about your childhood puppy is not going to help. The entire mind palace procedure was complete bullshit.

And it doesn't matter how much of a crack shot Mary's supposed to be, everyone's anatomy is slightly different. A spot right next to the heart of person A can be the exact location of the left ventricle of person B. She had no way of giving Sherlock any chance to survive. He coded and he died. The only reason he's still alive is his self-reversing asystole, i.e. magic.

Conclusion: Sherlock is either a wizard or Jesus.

(Or Moffat isn't remotely as clever as he thinks he is and doesn't understand basic medicine.)

mirandashell
01-24-2014, 09:07 PM
I'd go for the latter.

Cyia
01-24-2014, 09:56 PM
Okay, so maybe that interview with Moffat I mentioned a few pages back (He survived because... magic! because Sherlock is secretly a wizard.) wasn't actually a joke after all. :D

Little Ming
01-24-2014, 11:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzgzXJl3HPE

Here's the scene in the lab. I could be misinterpreting it, but when she tells John the sample's clean, I assumed that meant Sherlock was telling the truth and that he hadn't actually taken anything.

They're all thinking he's on the verge of starting up his habit again, and that his denials are a junkie's usual spin.

Hang on!

I thought that was a sarcastic "clean?" Like "Clean? Are you kidding me?" That's why she slapped him.

angeliz2k
01-26-2014, 03:54 AM
Hang on!

I thought that was a sarcastic "clean?" Like "Clean? Are you kidding me?" That's why she slapped him.

At the risk of sounding like a flip-flopper: I agree with you, upon second (and third) viewing of that clip. When I watched it yesterday, I was at work and looking over my shoulder so to speak. Watching it again, yes, it seems like she's saying, "Clean?" as in, "Oh, really, you think he's clean? Well, if he were clean I wouldn't be about to do this."

Albedo
01-26-2014, 04:19 AM
This scene annoyed the hell out of me. Getting shot doesn't work that way. Dying of blood loss is dying from shock and you can't avoid it by calming down. Shock calms you down all by itself, and then you die. Thinking about your childhood puppy is not going to help. The entire mind palace procedure was complete bullshit.

And it doesn't matter how much of a crack shot Mary's supposed to be, everyone's anatomy is slightly different. A spot right next to the heart of person A can be the exact location of the left ventricle of person B. She had no way of giving Sherlock any chance to survive. He coded and he died. The only reason he's still alive is his self-reversing asystole, i.e. magic.

Conclusion: Sherlock is either a wizard or Jesus.

(Or Moffat isn't remotely as clever as he thinks he is and doesn't understand basic medicine.)

I agree. Disappointingly researched. The writers seem not to know the difference between the lay term 'shock' (acute stress reaction, a transient psychological response to truamatic events) and medical shock, i.e. inadequate perfusion, the life-threatening emergency they were going for. It's one of those very commonly misused/misunderstood medical terms, like the difference between a 'heart attack' (applied by the media and many laypeople to any cardiac arrest) and an actual heart attack, i.e. a myocardial infarction.

A show as self-consciously clever as this one should try a little harder.

dragonjax
01-27-2014, 12:21 AM
Ducking in to say I had no idea that Mark Gatiss, the co-creator and one of the writers, also played Mycroft. I am such a putz. (Ducking back out, as the US has aired only the first ep so far.)

Max Vaehling
01-27-2014, 03:28 AM
So that's why he looked so familiar in the DW making-ofs and that horror documentary he made a while back.

onesecondglance
01-27-2014, 01:52 PM
A show as self-consciously clever as this one should try a little harder.

Thing is, I've never seen this show be actually clever. It throws those shapes around, but in reality it's just misdirection and obfuscation masquerading as complexity.

It's still entertaining, though.

Little Ming
01-27-2014, 10:51 PM
Thing is, I've never seen this show be actually clever. It throws those shapes around, but in reality it's just misdirection and obfuscation masquerading as complexity.

It's still entertaining, though.

I agree with this. They've never actually convinced me Sherlock is a "genius." He's more Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy), and the writers mold the world and plot to his deductions--which is fine with me, since the mysteries themselves are secondary to the character development and dialogue. :D

_Sian_
01-28-2014, 12:53 PM
This scene annoyed the hell out of me. Getting shot doesn't work that way. Dying of blood loss is dying from shock and you can't avoid it by calming down. Shock calms you down all by itself, and then you die. Thinking about your childhood puppy is not going to help. The entire mind palace procedure was complete bullshit.

And it doesn't matter how much of a crack shot Mary's supposed to be, everyone's anatomy is slightly different. A spot right next to the heart of person A can be the exact location of the left ventricle of person B. She had no way of giving Sherlock any chance to survive. He coded and he died. The only reason he's still alive is his self-reversing asystole, i.e. magic.

Conclusion: Sherlock is either a wizard or Jesus.

(Or Moffat isn't remotely as clever as he thinks he is and doesn't understand basic medicine.)

Yeah, no, this pissed me off. Blood loss = lack of perfusion = medical shock = cell death and necrosis. The colloquial term shock = fear, panic, ect. They have nothing to do with each other.


I agree. Disappointingly researched. The writers seem not to know the difference between the lay term 'shock' (acute stress reaction, a transient psychological response to truamatic events) and medical shock, i.e. inadequate perfusion, the life-threatening emergency they were going for. It's one of those very commonly misused/misunderstood medical terms, like the difference between a 'heart attack' (applied by the media and many laypeople to any cardiac arrest) and an actual heart attack, i.e. a myocardial infarction.



And it's hardly the first place I've seen get it wrong. Nothing annoys me more than a supposed doctor saying "she's going into shock" in a book or a movie, when the character is getting faint because of an emotional response.

EMaree
01-29-2014, 03:36 PM
Moffat has officially stated that Sherlock isn't a sociopath (http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/01/sherlocks-best-man-speech-is-basically-fanfic-moffat-says-hes-absolutely-not-a-sociopath):


He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not. The wonderful drama of Sherlock Holmes is that he’s aspiring to this extraordinary standard.

I really like that they've said this, and I hope it enters the show's canon in the future. Sherlock's behavior is rarely actually sociopathic, but I like that the implications in his need/want to have an excuse for his flawed behavior.

angeliz2k
01-29-2014, 05:24 PM
Moffat has officially stated that Sherlock isn't a sociopath (http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/01/sherlocks-best-man-speech-is-basically-fanfic-moffat-says-hes-absolutely-not-a-sociopath):



I really like that they've said this, and I hope it enters the show's canon in the future. Sherlock's behavior is rarely actually sociopathic, but I like that the implications in his need/want to have an excuse for his flawed behavior.

Interesting. I still tend to think Sherlock is diagnosable with something, though I agree he isn't a hard-core sociopath (I think the "high-functioning" covers that, though). Not everything writers say about their own work squares precisely with how it comes across, so again I reserve the right to have a slightly different interpretation from Moffat.

I find it more intriguing to have a character who is trying to overcome his pathology rather than a jerk who's just trying to be less of a jerk. Although, I guess there's effectively little difference, is there?

Cyia
01-29-2014, 06:24 PM
Sounds like backpedaling to me. He's been called on the fact that his sociopath doesn't act like one, and now he's trying to say that's the point.

Sherlock's more schizoid than sociopath.

EMaree
01-29-2014, 06:51 PM
Sounds like backpedaling to me. He's been called on the fact that his sociopath doesn't act like one, and now he's trying to say that's the point.

Sherlock's more schizoid than sociopath.

I don't mind backpedaling in this fashion, where he seems to have realized he was wrong and has built a plausible reason why. It's not as good as admitting he screwed up, but hey. At least he's not pulling the usual Moffat card of 'but look how clever I am!' or 'oh no, the ladies are too busy swooning to appreciate my smartness'.

There is an element of 'Ah, but this was my plan all along! You just didn't expect my cleverness!' to it but I'm trying to be optimistic about his intentions.

Calliea
02-01-2014, 07:46 PM
I prefer the writer going with a solution like this, personally. It saves my suspension of disbelief from taking a big hit. Author saying 'oh yeah, I screwed up, this character should be written differently, I didn't do enough research' is a blow right into the head of it ;P

Albedo
02-02-2014, 06:27 AM
Sounds like backpedaling to me. He's been called on the fact that his sociopath doesn't act like one, and now he's trying to say that's the point.

Sherlock's more schizoid than sociopath.



Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder) characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, emotional coldness, and apathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathy). Affected individuals may simultaneously demonstrate a rich, elaborate and exclusively internal fantasy world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_%28psychology%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder#cite_note-1)


You might be on to something.

_Sian_
02-02-2014, 03:47 PM
I find it more interesting that he believes he should aspire to that. Once upon a time I figured it had to do with a combination of upbringing and genetics, but both Holmes brothers seem to think being devoid of empathy is a good thing. And their parents seem quite well adjusted. Yet they're both aspiring to it (some strand of sociopathy) at some level.

I wonder what prompted that, honestly. Is it just them? Or did something happen?

*goes off to her musing*

Cyia
02-02-2014, 07:05 PM
I find it more interesting that he believes he should aspire to that. Once upon a time I figured it had to do with a combination of upbringing and genetics, but both Holmes brothers seem to think being devoid of empathy is a good thing. And their parents seem quite well adjusted. Yet they're both aspiring to it (some strand of sociopathy) at some level.

I wonder what prompted that, honestly. Is it just them? Or did something happen?

*goes off to her musing*


I'd say for Mycroft it's genetic. However, for Sherlock who aspired to prove he was as good/smart, whatever as his older brother, it was emulation.

The really odd question in that scenario is in regards to Mycroft's comment about meeting other children. He and Sherlock both though Sherlock was stupid because he was less smart of the two brothers. Then they "met other children."

Mycroft is supposed to be 7 or 8 years older than Sherlock. Assume they lived on a rural estate without many people, so that the first time they met other kids was in school. Bu Mycroft would have been 11-13 by the time Sherlock was of age to start primary school, so why had he not met and interacted with other "real" kids by that point?

I know it will never happen, because others have already seen him, but it would the coolest twist ever for the show to take A Beautiful Mind twist and have Mycroft be the invention of Sherlock's fractured psyche.

Elias Graves
02-03-2014, 11:26 PM
I turned it off after the shooting.
This show has about as much in common with Sherlock Holmes as Star Trek does.
Truly awful.

I have no problem with remakes but when you simply co-opt names for your own little drama, I take offense.
Not a bad show, I guess, but Sherlock Holmes it is not.

RichardGarfinkle
02-04-2014, 12:18 AM
Finally seen the whole of season 3. PBS scheduling has a lot to answer for, but at least we didn't suffer like they did in Buffalo.

Spoilerific stuff follows.

I found the season uneven, but I'll probably go back and rewatch it as a whole. I did think Watson falling in love with another hypercompetent source of adventure made sense even if she was disguising it well. She didn't seem Mary Sueish to me. She was tough, capable, and dangerous, but not on the scale of Sherlock, Myrcroft, and Moriarty.

I really liked that Charles Augustus Magnussen is essentially a cross between the original Charles Augustus Milverton and Rupert Murdoch.

As to the Moriarty Ex Machina at the end, I have an extremely crack-brained theory:

Sherlock's mother is the real Moriarty, pulling strings to keep her sons interested in the world and active (and off drugs in Sherlock's case).

My evidence is that she's a retired mathematician as was the original Moriarty. Mary is reading a book Mrs. Holmes wrote entitled The Dynamics of Combustion. The original Moriarty wrote a monograph entitled On The Dynamics of an Asteroid. And supposedly she just gave up all her genius pursuits to have children. That seems unlikely. She's supposedly so normal that Sherlock and Mycroft are both embarrassed by her and her husband. Where did the genius go?

Finally, Moriarty's image comes out of nowhere just in time to haul Sherlock back from a suicide mission. We don't see Moriarty himself, just pictures of him. That's very convenient for someone who cares about him as his mother probably does.

Although, I'm also wondering if she's the one who killed Redbeard.

mirandashell
02-04-2014, 12:24 AM
For a cack-brained theory that's brilliant.

I hope you're right.

EMaree
02-04-2014, 02:03 AM
I want that theory to be real. PLEASE. Sherlock's super-genius mum would be the best thing ever to hit British telly.

dragonjax
02-04-2014, 10:57 PM
And now, some lighter news: Benedict Cumberbatch visits Sesame Street (http://www.tvguide.com/News/VIDEO-Benedict-Cumberbatch-Sesame-Street-1077246.aspx). (Less than three minutes; quite adorable.)

Calla Lily
02-04-2014, 11:12 PM
I want Richard's theory to be true as well.

Also: Thank god for PBS streaming the eps online the next day.