Sherlock

[Jamba]

Well people were always going to question whether he was really dead, and they'd undoubtedly look at John. If they saw him not grieving then it would have given it away. His genuine reaction would convince people that it was real.

 

 

If I'm going to be very, VERY cynical it's that not telling John is better dramatically, particularly if he didn't tell anyone else. The audience lives the story through John and from a storyline point of view the writers want you to get a bit annoyed/enamoured with him again to refresh you with that feeling of being lovingly frustrated with Sherlock and that he is a dick most of the time. Notice how the audience doesn't know that Sherlock has told anyone else until John does so the audience feels that betrayal as well.

 

 

 

Having read a little more, I'm now unsure about Mycroft. Contrary to what I originally believed, he is actually a long running Holmes character and his wiki page is worth a read. I still wouldn't put it past the writers to turn him evil. Moriati has a number of criteria, one of which is being equally if not more intelligent than Holmes and to have something that makes them opposite sides of the same coin. Their relationship, heritage and difference in philosophy would account for that.

 

As a side note, the Queen draped in Wellington's jacket in his office was a bit much.

 

[MoogleViper]

If I'm going to be very, VERY cynical it's that not telling John is better dramatically, particularly if he didn't tell anyone else. The audience lives the story through John and from a storyline point of view the writers want you to get a bit annoyed/enamoured with him again to refresh you with that feeling of being lovingly frustrated with Sherlock and that he is a dick most of the time. Notice how the audience doesn't know that Sherlock has told anyone else until John does so the audience feels that betrayal as well.

 

I did think that, but hoped against it.

[Agent Gibbs]

Forgive me I'm posting from a phone while I wait for a film to start at the cinema....

with John morriarty the he said in the episode he was just an actor paid to play a role which has in the episode is said to be him bluffing to discredit Holmes.... But it's going to have been a triple bluff, he was actually an amazing actor craving the role of a lifetime, he plaid the morriarty the actor and the bluff all in one, but he was just an actor, and glasses guy will be the real morriarty.... Or perhaps the two sides of the same coin thing is taken a step further, Sherlock and Mycroft are one side of a coin and John and his older smarter sibling are the other side of that coin

 

 

 

As for the episode it crammed a reunion an explanation and two plots into one so it was a bit light on detail but it worked... Besides Sunday we get more!

 

[Rummy]

Forgot it was on this eve, but kinda forgot I was working late anyway. Managed to just catchup on it, cracking episode all round. Recommend catching up ASAP if you didn't see it...then giving your thoughts :p

[The Peeps]

Oh yeah I also forgot. That came around quick

[Agent Gibbs]

it was an enjoyable episode and great fun but i spent a lot of the episode thinking is this some sort of teaser episode and then it all made sense by the end!

good writing made me think it was a poor episode right until the last bit!

Really love the series but knowing next week is the last episode again is not fair....

[The Peeps]

I may be mistaken but it didn't really make sense to me that Holmes had no idea who John's commander was at the wedding but in the flashback it showed he had been researching him already =\

[Cube]

I think part of that was because John hadn't spoken about him. So he knew who he was, but still wanted to make a point that John hasn't told him about this supposedly important person.

[The Peeps]

I guess he was surprised that John had told Mary all about the commander but had never confided in him, rather than actually not knowing anything about the commander. I'd re-watch that part but it's effort :p

[Rummy]

I may be mistaken but it didn't really make sense to me that Holmes had no idea who John's commander was at the wedding but in the flashback it showed he had been researching him already =\

 

He's discussed before the wedding - at the invitations point when Mary sends them out on the Bloody Guardsman case - I presume his investigations are post this, maybe given John and Mary's interaction around his name/RSVP being mentioned.

 

I've seen 2 people on facebook saying this series isn't up to it, being fanservice and stuff. Tbh I thought yeah, last night's episode left a bit wanting during, but I felt it was a brilliant episode by the end. A genuine case, related to another, with a good murder. Did find the whole drunk scene a bit silly, but oh well. Ending crushed me a little, especially given Hudders' conversation earlier on. Very interested to see what they do with it next week.

[The Bard]

I can't figure out where the grenadier guard fits into the plot?

Why was he stabbed? Why did the Photographer just go "Oh yeah, it was totes me" instead of denying the absurdly nonexistent evidence against him? Derp.

[Serebii]

I can't figure out where the grenadier guard fits into the plot?

Why was he stabbed? Why did the Photographer just go "Oh yeah, it was totes me" instead of denying the absurdly nonexistent evidence against him? Derp.

Rehearsal.

[The Bard]

Considering that guy's motivation was "this dude got a bunch of innocent people killed," I find "rehearsal" to be just an itsy bit inadequate.

[jayseven]

wait what I though the episodes were 3 weeks apart for some reason - to iplayer!

[dazzybee]

I can't believe anyone thinks this series is any good in any way, I think it's atrocious.

 

The first episode, absolutely bottled it not telling us how he did it, YES pretty much anything they said would be a disappointment, but they backed themselves up into this corner, and it needed an amazing idea/script to really surprise us. They bottled it.

 

Mary... don't like her, they're almost making her out to be equally as good as Sherlock and John, we don;t need (and I don't want) a third character of this importance and skill. The baddy theory makes more sense of it, but like someone else said, that's some serious Sherlock rewriting.

 

There wasn't a story, no mystery really, it ended up being tacked on but it had no weight really, it wasn't developed like all the episodes in the first two seasons and meant to we don't care, focussed to much on the character/relationship love in. No villain, no emotion, no use of Shewrlocks skills.

 

The comedy was PAINFULLY forced and badly written - the Watson attacking him skit, the game of operation, the flashbacks, the "truthers"... just painful

 

Episode 2. And to think I didn't think it could get worse. It did. This wasn't a murder mystery, it was a shit sit com. It's masterbating now, focussing on their relationship but sacrificing all story and mystery, which is what makes Sherlock great. Again they tacked on a painfully predictable crime half way through, but again it had no weight as there was no connection to the victim and there wasn't really a villain, just a scooby do styled villain. Which was caught in the most ridiculous way, a woman said "Hamish" For one AS IF she would've done this, just a cheap cheap way to get Sherlock to solve it, and two, AGAIN Sherlock doesn't use his skills, he's meant to be a genius but in this season he comes across as a fucking idiot.

 

I find the whole thing really weird. It's so poorly written, it doesn't make any sense. Luckily, the third episode is written by Mofat who created it so hopefully it'll pull itself together. But with only 3 episodes, they've absolutely wasted 2 of them...

[Agent Gibbs]

he was testing the technique would work and go unnoticed on a soldier, one made to not react, if it could pass unnoticed on that one then it would work on the main target

 

Although it does lead to the question of why that particular soldier? surely any soldier would work? was something cut where it was mentioned he was one of the surviving recruits in the main targets unit?

[jayseven]

As Rummy said, and something I mentioned about the first episode, there's a higher level of fan-service this series than what I remember of the previous six episodes, but in a way I do appreciate that this isn't simply an altered version of Jonathan Creek, and that there seems to be a desire this series to make the episodes a bit more stand-alone - hence why the 'over-arching' storyline isn't really present.

 

What do we have? The guy with the glasses in e01 and the bank robbers in e02. e03 will wrap these together in its own plot and, no doubt, provide a decent conclusion to the series.

 

I think that if we're to have episodes down the line where the relationship between Dr and Mrs Watson are crucial to the plot then it is well worth spending the time to build the relationship now whilst having a bit of fun with the formula, rather than shoe-horning occurring en-masse later on.

 

I enjoy the show having unanswered questions - both in how sherlock survived the leap as well as the passing comment of "an elephant in the room" (whether that's a canon mystery or not, I have no idea) - alongside the glasses man and bank robbers it can help enrich subsequent episodes -- the anticipation of potential reveals is always going to grab the audience!

 

... to end an overlong comment; not my favourite series so far - but only 3 eps per season is always going to be too few.

[Rummy]

Considering that guy's motivation was "this dude got a bunch of innocent people killed," I find "rehearsal" to be just an itsy bit inadequate.

 

You've got one chance. Just one chance to kill a guy, a guy you've wanted dead for years(or moreso, a guy you want punished). One. Single. Chance. Do you waste that chance on potentially getting it wrong, or ensure you're up to the job beforehand? Had to be a royal guardsman because of the belt/uniform thingy.

 

Ofc, it's all drama, and silly, because you're trying to kill him at a wedding Sherlock Holmes is at - it was almost a given that he'd never succeed :p

[Happenstance]

Ofc, it's all drama, and silly, because you're trying to kill him at a wedding Sherlock Holmes is at - it was almost a given that he'd never succeed :p

 

Or, he realised that Sherlock didnt manage to solve it during his trial run so theres no reason to give up on the main thing when its most likely his only chance.

[Rummy]

Or, he realised that Sherlock didnt manage to solve it during his trial run so theres no reason to give up on the main thing when its most likely his only chance.

 

True, true. Tbh I'm arguing the point just for the sake of it, whilst I've found Sherlock so far remarkable to watch I've never really held it up as as bastion of gritty realism and you could probably find plenty holes if you wanted to look hard enough. I find the outrage of some people now somewhat amusing - at the end of the day I enjoyed the episode so I'm happy at least!

[Happenstance]

Oh yeah of course. I think this series has felt different so far but im still enjoying it. I think its just more focused on the characters than the cases this time around thats all.

[Cube]

I actually prefer more individual stories for Sherlock.

[MoogleViper]

Personally I thought episode 2 was pretty shit.

 

Season 3 has been pretty disappointing so far.

 

Considering that guy's motivation was "this dude got a bunch of innocent people killed," I find "rehearsal" to be just an itsy bit inadequate.

 

I can't believe anyone thinks this series is any good in any way, I think it's atrocious.

 

The first episode, absolutely bottled it not telling us how he did it, YES pretty much anything they said would be a disappointment, but they backed themselves up into this corner, and it needed an amazing idea/script to really surprise us. They bottled it.

 

Mary... don't like her, they're almost making her out to be equally as good as Sherlock and John, we don;t need (and I don't want) a third character of this importance and skill. The baddy theory makes more sense of it, but like someone else said, that's some serious Sherlock rewriting.

 

There wasn't a story, no mystery really, it ended up being tacked on but it had no weight really, it wasn't developed like all the episodes in the first two seasons and meant to we don't care, focussed to much on the character/relationship love in. No villain, no emotion, no use of Shewrlocks skills.

 

The comedy was PAINFULLY forced and badly written - the Watson attacking him skit, the game of operation, the flashbacks, the "truthers"... just painful

 

Episode 2. And to think I didn't think it could get worse. It did. This wasn't a murder mystery, it was a shit sit com. It's masterbating now, focussing on their relationship but sacrificing all story and mystery, which is what makes Sherlock great. Again they tacked on a painfully predictable crime half way through, but again it had no weight as there was no connection to the victim and there wasn't really a villain, just a scooby do styled villain. Which was caught in the most ridiculous way, a woman said "Hamish" For one AS IF she would've done this, just a cheap cheap way to get Sherlock to solve it, and two, AGAIN Sherlock doesn't use his skills, he's meant to be a genius but in this season he comes across as a fucking idiot.

 

I find the whole thing really weird. It's so poorly written, it doesn't make any sense. Luckily, the third episode is written by Mofat who created it so hopefully it'll pull itself together. But with only 3 episodes, they've absolutely wasted 2 of them...

 

he was testing the technique would work and go unnoticed on a soldier, one made to not react, if it could pass unnoticed on that one then it would work on the main target

 

Although it does lead to the question of why that particular soldier? surely any soldier would work? was something cut where it was mentioned he was one of the surviving recruits in the main targets unit?

 

As Rummy said, and something I mentioned about the first episode, there's a higher level of fan-service this series than what I remember of the previous six episodes, but in a way I do appreciate that this isn't simply an altered version of Jonathan Creek, and that there seems to be a desire this series to make the episodes a bit more stand-alone - hence why the 'over-arching' storyline isn't really present.

 

What do we have? The guy with the glasses in e01 and the bank robbers in e02. e03 will wrap these together in its own plot and, no doubt, provide a decent conclusion to the series.

 

I think that if we're to have episodes down the line where the relationship between Dr and Mrs Watson are crucial to the plot then it is well worth spending the time to build the relationship now whilst having a bit of fun with the formula, rather than shoe-horning occurring en-masse later on.

 

I enjoy the show having unanswered questions - both in how sherlock survived the leap as well as the passing comment of "an elephant in the room" (whether that's a canon mystery or not, I have no idea) - alongside the glasses man and bank robbers it can help enrich subsequent episodes -- the anticipation of potential reveals is always going to grab the audience!

 

... to end an overlong comment; not my favourite series so far - but only 3 eps per season is always going to be too few.

 

You've got one chance. Just one chance to kill a guy, a guy you've wanted dead for years(or moreso, a guy you want punished). One. Single. Chance. Do you waste that chance on potentially getting it wrong, or ensure you're up to the job beforehand? Had to be a royal guardsman because of the belt/uniform thingy.

 

Ofc, it's all drama, and silly, because you're trying to kill him at a wedding Sherlock Holmes is at - it was almost a given that he'd never succeed :p

 

 

SPOILER TAGS!!!

 

I put your quotes in spoiler to show you how it's done.

[Rummy]

Personally I thought episode 2 was pretty shit.

 

Season 3 has been pretty disappointing so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPOILER TAGS!!!

 

I put your quotes in spoiler to show you how it's done.

 

Yeaaaaaaah, I did consider spoilering but then I thought surely people wouldn't be coming in here if they haven't seen it!

[Grazza]

Personally, I loved Mark Gatiss' opening episode. There were a few bits I didn't like, such as Watson physically attacking Holmes (how many times has Gatiss been headbutted, I wonder? Was it funny?), but overall it was extremely impressive.

 

There were two problems I had with the 2nd episode (written by all three?) Firstly, it was incredibly convoluted. I know it's easier said than done, but good plotting is about one bit causing the next to happen, not suddenly bringing many disparate threads together at the end. Yes, it all made sense, but there was no satisfaction of following the story.

 

Secondly, whether it's sci-fi, fantasy or whatever, your characters have to be believable. Benedict Cumberbatch is sheer dynamite, but much of the time I simply couldn't believe it was Sherlock on screen. We know Sherlock respects Watson, but why did he have to be so sentimental, and so many times too? Holmes is a good person, but he's also a sociopath. At the same time, his vast intelligence should have allowed him to easily construct a speech, even if he just analysed other speeches in a technical way.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do like humour in Sherlock, but only when you can believe the character. The way he ordered Mrs Hudson to go and get him biscuits was obnoxious, rather than simply lacking social skills, as was they way he urgently summoned Lestrade for something trivial. Come on, he's an intelligent man; he should know how to phrase things so that they don't mislead and distract a police detective from an important case.

 

I suspect this was a blip rather than the series having "jumped the shark". If all three writers contributed, maybe it was a case of "Too many cooks"? Until now the programme's strength has been how much it felt like the Arthur Conan Doyle stories, which were quirky but not sentimental.