Oh well, never mind. Moff has already come close to ruining Who, I'm not going to miss having the p--- taken out of me on two shows (which is all Moff seems to do)
Try watching all of it before dismissing the entire episode. If you still don't like it, that's fair enough. But to judge a show before the credits have even rolled is somewhat premature ...
I've already posted a link to my episode review (quite a bit) further up in this thread, but some of you may also find this interesting. I've compared The Empty Hearse to the original adventure The Empty House and traced similarities, points of difference and references to other Sherlock adventures (and in one case a non-Sherlock story which has nothing to do with either Moffat or Gatiss). Enjoy, hate or ignore as you see fit.
And before anyone points it out, I realise I didn't include either the Christ references (Sherlock's beard, tortured in crucifix position) or the Gatiss/Who/Lazarus thing. I was over my word count already ... :-)
Oh well, never mind. Moff has already come close to ruining Who, I'm not going to miss having the p--- taken out of me on two shows (which is all Moff seems to do)
I`m no fan of his (the Xmas Who ep was abysmal) but he definitely makes more of an effort with Sherlock (or maybe Gatiss makes him!) and the ep last night was fine TV indeed. I strongly suggest you catch the repeat or iPlayer it.
I`m no fan of his (the Xmas Who ep was abysmal) but he definitely makes more of an effort with Sherlock (or maybe Gatiss makes him!) and the ep last night was fine TV indeed. I strongly suggest you catch the repeat or iPlayer it.
Agreed. Whether you like the stories or not, you only have to read the originals or listen to Moffat and Gatiss being interviewed to realise that they are both huge fans of the books. It's clearly something they both love and are hugely knowledgeable about. It's fair enough that some people don't like them, but I struggle to see how they can be called charlatans.
"The writers are too clever for their own good" - I agree with that sentiment because too often in that episode rather than being gripped by the plot I was led along into a state of muttering "oh you are joking". The bonfire scene was all Batman and Robin from the 1960s for me and the bomb a plotline in James Bond from the Moore era (Octopussy to be exact)
Underwhelmed to be honest and whilst I did detect an effort to make Sherlock's character a bit more human I am wagering it will all change again in the next episode.
And I know its been said countless times but the fake death scene narrative is a complete distraction and I got bored with it in the end - and all rather like what is happening with Dr Who. No co-incidence.
My verdict was disappointing. The best part for me is the guess the scenes in London where the filming takes place.
Of course the Moriarty kiss version could still be the "real" one with Moriarty using a fake gun, a blood bag (and a squash ball).
Unlikely. Sherlock should be able to tell the difference. And even if Moriarty was using a real gun with blanks, a point-blank range shot can still easily kill you, as the explosive is still there, just not the shell.
People change character, or rather reveal new aspects to their character all the time in real life. So I have no problem with imaginary people doing the same. Is not being unable to accept or cope with change one of the symptoms of Aspergers?
I ask because near the beginning just after the detective tells the reporter he's talking bollocks we see a montage of news reports , one of which is Moriarty being arrested .
if he really is dead , did they ever say what happened to the body etc.?
.
The arrest scene was from an earlier episode but they had to let him go because there was no proper evidence against him and he made it look as though Sherlock had framed him.
As far as we know, he is dead, but I don't think they did ever say what happened to his body.
"The writers are too clever for their own good" - I agree with that sentiment because too often in that episode rather than being gripped by the plot I was led along into a state of muttering "oh you are joking". The bonfire scene was all Batman and Robin from the 1960s for me and the bomb a plotline in James Bond from the Moore era (Octopussy to be exact)
Underwhelmed to be honest and whilst I did detect an effort to make Sherlock's character a bit more human I am wagering it will all change again in the next episode.
And I know its been said countless times but the fake death scene narrative is a complete distraction and I got bored with it in the end - and all rather like what is happening with Dr Who. No co-incidence.
My verdict was disappointing. The best part for me is the guess the scenes in London where the filming takes place.
I have great sympathy with this view.
Before its meaning changed last year, I'd happily call Moff a troll. He's purposely subverting a programme to satisfy himself, not the audience, and as you rightly say, the result is underwhelming.
When the only good thing about a programme is the scenery, you know you're in trouble.
I liked the first two series, but the moment I saw the face-swap/backwards jump/celeb cameo thing in the first three minutes, I turned off and refuse to watch it
Moffat is urinating all over Doctor Who, but to empty his bladder over Sherlock is a crime against television drama. I lasted until Derren Brown turned up to collect a pay-cheque, then switched over to enjoy Blackadder on Dave.
I won't be watching Sherlock again unless and until Moff leaves.
As the start unfolded, and particularly as I saw the thickness and "obviousness" of the rope/fall arrester, I assumed they were doing a take off of one of the old weekly adventure dramas - the sort where the hero is seen going over the cliff with the stage coach at the end of one week, but as the next episode starts, you see a different film where he jumps off before the drop.
I then saw Derren Brown, and sort of knew that I ought to know him but didn't actually know his name but knew he was a performer.
I thought the start was excellent. Nothing new in having a false start - usually done with an action scene which then ends in "CUT!" and we discover it was a film set and not part of the actual story. I thought this was all done well. Ditto for the later Moriarty and Holmes kissing - even more far fetched, but immediately burst by being seen as even too far fetched by the rest of the fan group.
I liked the whole fan group (reminded me of a Jonathan Creek episode). I think the idea of a fan group fits in well with Watson's blog - an entirely up to date replacement for JW's writing in the Strand. The whole popular detective with a fan group idea seems entirely appropriate. Because of that, the writers including teasing with the real public is fine. I don't see it as any sort of betrayal. It just adds to the fun.
A bit of an aside - I wonder how much of the alternative explanations were filmed at the same time as the original, 2+ years ago? ie, did they respond to the fans on line and add the alternative ideas while they were filming this new series, OR, had they always had the alternatives in mind (because they expected people to speculate on the real method), and so filmed them at the same time as the original. I presume some people might know when actual outside filming took place, so would know if the Sherlock team went back to create the alternatives.
I presume there are records when roads are closed etc to allow this sort of filming. Does anyone know any links to find this sort of thing out?
Exactly. I applaud you for lasting half-way through. I turned it off within three minutes and refuse to watch it again.
Moff is far worse than Gattiss on this. Moff actually hates fans, he only writes for himself, it's infuriating.
I'm concerned that this show may be going the same way as Dr Who (of which I'm not a card-carrying fan anyway), but I am willing to suspend disbelief and give it a chance.
The first 3 minutes or so were a game and the rest of the episode was much better. I'm glad I watched all of it. I'm deciding to keep my powder dry and hope that Sherlock will return to his old ways - I like his sociopath image and he was too friendly in that episode.
Having said that, there was a lot of loose end tying to do, now they have done that (albeit not telling us what really happened definitively), so hopefully the other episodes might be substantive. If not, I will belatedly agree with you.
Underwhelmed to be honest and whilst I did detect an effort to make Sherlock's character a bit more human I am wagering it will all change again in the next episode.
I do hope so. I like Sherlock. The new character (surely an impostor?) would be unlikely to render either Ms Adler or myself "Sherlocked". ;-):D
People change character, or rather reveal new aspects to their character all the time in real life. So I have no problem with imaginary people doing the same. Is not being unable to accept or cope with change one of the symptoms of Aspergers?
The first 2 "solutions" were immediately quashed by showing them to be just ideas from fans. The context of the third was completely different. Firstly as a cut-away from the underground bomb scene, and secondly as it actually involved Sherlock himself giving the explanation. At the time, though, I thought it was the researcher halucinating and thinking Sherlock was there - why else would Sherlock disappear. But it still doesn't sit right with being shoe-horned into the middle of the bomb scene - that would only make sense if Sherlock was remembering it as playing a trick on the researcher OR telling him the truth. Who knows? No doubt we will get some further explanantions (along with more red herrings and teasers) in the other episodes.
I agree. One reason I want to believe the third explanation is that it was my own explanation (which I came up with before reading anyone else's, honest!
I expect we will find out more, but if we don't I'll stick to this conclusion. Better that the producers don't overdo the explanations anyway.
A bit of an aside - I wonder how much of the alternative explanations were filmed at the same time as the original, 2+ years ago? ie, did they respond to the fans on line and add the alternative ideas while they were filming this new series, OR, had they always had the alternatives in mind (because they expected people to speculate on the real method), and so filmed them at the same time as the original. I presume some people might know when actual outside filming took place, so would know if the Sherlock team went back to create the alternatives.
I would imagine that the method of the fall would be storyboarded at the same time of the fall. The solutions to having a suicide-that-isn't in a busy area of a city, even allowing for pre-planning and a whole host of extras, aren't that many really.
It could be that the 2 year gap between the fall and the landing was a double edged sword - on the one hand it gave fans time to come up with all sorts of solutions and on the other hand it gave fans time come up wth all sorts of solutiions. I wonder if the presumed answer would have been so flat to people if it had follwed immediated after the fall episode?
I would imagine as well <crazy conspiracy theory alert> that the PR and media management around the show is such that if fans/on line forums/whatever weren't going in the right direction that there would be someone about who would be able to steer discussion/speculation in the appropriate direction.
Before its meaning changed last year, I'd happily call Moff a troll. He's purposely subverting a programme to satisfy himself, not the audience, and as you rightly say, the result is underwhelming.
When the only good thing about a programme is the scenery, you know you're in trouble.
I prefer it when a writer/creator produces work to "satisfy himself". That is much better than a sort of programming by numbers to serve an imagined average audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the better writers/creators, they produce something that appeals to other people as well.
In this case, I think it worked well, and I enjoyed the ride. If the next episodes continued in the same vein with lots of supposed explanations each with a reveal afterwards, it would soon become boring, but so far I think it works well.
I realise its not to everyone's taste - but that would happen regardless of what type of show they produced. Overall I've enjoyed all of the Sherlock's produced by this team - my favourite was episode 1 of series 1, mainly because of the way they updated Sherlock to the modern world, and showed how he operated, both in an analitical as well as a human way.
Guilty as charged! I have heard of him many times but have never sat down and watched him in anything - illusions/magic not my thing at all. I wouldn't know him if I fell over him!
Derren Brown has changed his image - shaven head and stubble rather than elegant grooming and goatee. I spotted him because I have been a DB fan since the beginning, and his appearance in Sherlock was amazing - that was the point at which I twigged that we were being teased however.
I highly recommend DB - he's not a magician, his live shows are excellent and his TV work was great.
Comments
Spoilery, naturally.
http://slouchingtowardstv.com/2014/01/02/sherlock-the-empty-hearse-11-references-you-may-have-missed/
And before anyone points it out, I realise I didn't include either the Christ references (Sherlock's beard, tortured in crucifix position) or the Gatiss/Who/Lazarus thing. I was over my word count already ... :-)
I`m no fan of his (the Xmas Who ep was abysmal) but he definitely makes more of an effort with Sherlock (or maybe Gatiss makes him!) and the ep last night was fine TV indeed. I strongly suggest you catch the repeat or iPlayer it.
"The writers are too clever for their own good" - I agree with that sentiment because too often in that episode rather than being gripped by the plot I was led along into a state of muttering "oh you are joking". The bonfire scene was all Batman and Robin from the 1960s for me and the bomb a plotline in James Bond from the Moore era (Octopussy to be exact)
Underwhelmed to be honest and whilst I did detect an effort to make Sherlock's character a bit more human I am wagering it will all change again in the next episode.
And I know its been said countless times but the fake death scene narrative is a complete distraction and I got bored with it in the end - and all rather like what is happening with Dr Who. No co-incidence.
My verdict was disappointing. The best part for me is the guess the scenes in London where the filming takes place.
It's happened before in real life (to an actor who was messing around with a blank-loaded gun), with tragic results ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_erik_hexum
The arrest scene was from an earlier episode but they had to let him go because there was no proper evidence against him and he made it look as though Sherlock had framed him.
As far as we know, he is dead, but I don't think they did ever say what happened to his body.
I have great sympathy with this view.
Before its meaning changed last year, I'd happily call Moff a troll. He's purposely subverting a programme to satisfy himself, not the audience, and as you rightly say, the result is underwhelming.
When the only good thing about a programme is the scenery, you know you're in trouble.
As the start unfolded, and particularly as I saw the thickness and "obviousness" of the rope/fall arrester, I assumed they were doing a take off of one of the old weekly adventure dramas - the sort where the hero is seen going over the cliff with the stage coach at the end of one week, but as the next episode starts, you see a different film where he jumps off before the drop.
I then saw Derren Brown, and sort of knew that I ought to know him but didn't actually know his name but knew he was a performer.
I thought the start was excellent. Nothing new in having a false start - usually done with an action scene which then ends in "CUT!" and we discover it was a film set and not part of the actual story. I thought this was all done well. Ditto for the later Moriarty and Holmes kissing - even more far fetched, but immediately burst by being seen as even too far fetched by the rest of the fan group.
I liked the whole fan group (reminded me of a Jonathan Creek episode). I think the idea of a fan group fits in well with Watson's blog - an entirely up to date replacement for JW's writing in the Strand. The whole popular detective with a fan group idea seems entirely appropriate. Because of that, the writers including teasing with the real public is fine. I don't see it as any sort of betrayal. It just adds to the fun.
A bit of an aside - I wonder how much of the alternative explanations were filmed at the same time as the original, 2+ years ago? ie, did they respond to the fans on line and add the alternative ideas while they were filming this new series, OR, had they always had the alternatives in mind (because they expected people to speculate on the real method), and so filmed them at the same time as the original. I presume some people might know when actual outside filming took place, so would know if the Sherlock team went back to create the alternatives.
I presume there are records when roads are closed etc to allow this sort of filming. Does anyone know any links to find this sort of thing out?
9.2 million people watched.
I really enjoyed the opening scene. The entire episode had me gripped throughout
I'm concerned that this show may be going the same way as Dr Who (of which I'm not a card-carrying fan anyway), but I am willing to suspend disbelief and give it a chance.
The first 3 minutes or so were a game and the rest of the episode was much better. I'm glad I watched all of it. I'm deciding to keep my powder dry and hope that Sherlock will return to his old ways - I like his sociopath image and he was too friendly in that episode.
Having said that, there was a lot of loose end tying to do, now they have done that (albeit not telling us what really happened definitively), so hopefully the other episodes might be substantive. If not, I will belatedly agree with you.
I do hope so. I like Sherlock. The new character (surely an impostor?) would be unlikely to render either Ms Adler or myself "Sherlocked". ;-):D
What?
I agree. One reason I want to believe the third explanation is that it was my own explanation (which I came up with before reading anyone else's, honest!
I expect we will find out more, but if we don't I'll stick to this conclusion. Better that the producers don't overdo the explanations anyway.
I would imagine that the method of the fall would be storyboarded at the same time of the fall. The solutions to having a suicide-that-isn't in a busy area of a city, even allowing for pre-planning and a whole host of extras, aren't that many really.
It could be that the 2 year gap between the fall and the landing was a double edged sword - on the one hand it gave fans time to come up with all sorts of solutions and on the other hand it gave fans time come up wth all sorts of solutiions. I wonder if the presumed answer would have been so flat to people if it had follwed immediated after the fall episode?
I would imagine as well <crazy conspiracy theory alert> that the PR and media management around the show is such that if fans/on line forums/whatever weren't going in the right direction that there would be someone about who would be able to steer discussion/speculation in the appropriate direction.
I prefer it when a writer/creator produces work to "satisfy himself". That is much better than a sort of programming by numbers to serve an imagined average audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the better writers/creators, they produce something that appeals to other people as well.
In this case, I think it worked well, and I enjoyed the ride. If the next episodes continued in the same vein with lots of supposed explanations each with a reveal afterwards, it would soon become boring, but so far I think it works well.
I realise its not to everyone's taste - but that would happen regardless of what type of show they produced. Overall I've enjoyed all of the Sherlock's produced by this team - my favourite was episode 1 of series 1, mainly because of the way they updated Sherlock to the modern world, and showed how he operated, both in an analitical as well as a human way.
Derren Brown has changed his image - shaven head and stubble rather than elegant grooming and goatee. I spotted him because I have been a DB fan since the beginning, and his appearance in Sherlock was amazing - that was the point at which I twigged that we were being teased however.
I highly recommend DB - he's not a magician, his live shows are excellent and his TV work was great.