so anyway back to my original question Is Sherlock in Love with Molly as he kept saying that Moriarty had overlooked the most important person to him or did he just mean she was important in that she waskey to the plot succeeding
Do you remember that back in S2 Moriarty and Molly dated briefly? When Molly introduced Sherlock and Moriarty in the lab Sherlock was his usual dismissive, rude self to Molly - he showed absolutely no indication that he felt anything towards her. Therefore when Moriarty threatened Sherlock's friends he never even considered going after Molly because as far as Moriarty had seen she was insignificant to Sherlock. She didn't count (Molly says it herself). Sherlock knew that Moriarty would think this - and so Molly suddenly became the most important person because Moriarty discounted her as if she was nothing and he would never predict that Sherlock would go to Molly for help.
Like someone else has said - I don't think Sherlock really gets 'love' especially 'romantic love' but he certainly feels... whatever the most Sherlock can feel is - some sort of friendship I guess towards Molly.
As for the Jack the Ripper bit - yes, I too took it to mean that Anderson and his little fan club had created it in order to try and draw Sherlock out. The little minisode shows how excited Anderson is at the prospect of Sherlock making his way closer to home and how much he has looked into possible Sherlock cases around the world - I think he and his little club set that up to try and get him to return.
Haven't read the whole thread but... for me a good plot is really important. The Conan Doyle stories are masterpieces of intelligent plotting. Sherlock isn't. The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned in favour of just finding out what happens, and that's not good enough.
It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.
I think that one of the weaknesses of this episode was the terrorist plot.
It was just a MacGuffin of an idea with no background exploration as to who, what or why.
I understand, and agree with people, that this episode needed to focus on re-establishing the relationship between Holmes and Watson, but I do agree with you that the story is important as well.
If they didn't feel that they had enough time in the episode to devote to the terrorist bomber storyline then maybe they should have replaced it with another story which was easier to handle.
But then again, it was about an hour and a half which is feature film length, so it does suggest that they should have had ample time to handle the bomber story. They probably crammed in too much stuff that they didn't need to such as the fan stuff and Watson's fiance.
All the possible explanations for Holmes' death revolved around fooling Watson into thinking he was dead whereas the actual reason for Holmes jumping was to make Moriaty's henchmen think he was dead. All the proposed scenarios would have allowed unknown observers who could have been anywhere to see exactly what was going on.
2) Who played the major part in stopping the bomb?
It was the rail enthusiast. Had it not been for him Holmes would have had no idea.
3) Absurdities with the underground
If you detach the 'rear' carriage from an underground train, someone will notice it very, very, quickly. At the very latest when someone tries to drive the train in the other direction.
Also did the rail enthusiast explain how he knew that the villain was not on the train and not just out of view?
The whole episode seemed incredibly badly thought out, to me.
all very good points , especially the first one . when we eventually get the explanation I hope it explains how the various spotters didn't see it .
It did feel way too self aware and self referential than it usually does for my liking.
It felt like the show was saying 'look at how popular we are. Look at how everyone is talking about us. Look at how everyone is speculating about our last show'. Which is probably true, but I don't think I liked that aspect of it. It felt like the show was preening itself and smugly patting itself on its back.
It's a long time since I read the original Conan Doyle books, but isn't the above just a continuation and a bringing-up-to-date of that exact point? John Watson's popular journal was how the stories of SH were presented to the public, and this is what's happening here in the Moffatt/Gatiss version. Isn't it?
I think the opposite. Focussing so much on the relationships/dynamics between all of the characters makes it soap-like. The first two series were focussed on solving self contained stories/mysteries and were nothing like soaps.
Some nice gags in there, especially a notable Apocalypse Now visual gag.
But beyond that a rather poor episode that perfectly demonstrated that as long as the writer/s tip their hats to online fandom they can get away with the most thread bare and frankly amateur fan w*nk imaginable. An episode that firmly shoved it's head up its own backside at the expense of believable structure and drama meant to be set in a 'real world'
If a show jumps up and down 'shouting look how clever we are' then it needs to pull it off in an adult way and not so with half arsed writing that makes CBBCs look like Steinbeck. I've never been one for the phrase 'dumbed down'' but if the cap fits.
So Sherlock's character development it to be an absolute c** t to his closest friend, really.
Each series has had a weak one, the somewhat Scooby Doo Chinese one, the tepid Baskervilke one and now this frankly intelligence insulting mess. Some nice gags yes but..er....yes...that's about it.
I don't think it was poor, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying.
I did feel it was veering way too far into a territory where it kept making a point of reminding us of itself being a TV show.
I don't recall the transition between series one and series two being so cartoony and being so aware of itself. It felt like a genuine continuation 'set in that world', not continually giving nods and winks to the viewer like it was set on a pantomime stage reminding us of the relationship between the viewer and the show.
Stop messing us about with "what ifs" either tell us what happened or we'll have no choice but to conclude you have no answer and a making a show with no substance.
As for the "bomb plot" - how utterly boring and poorly done.
This episode had none of the qualities of the previous series.
I suspect those involved have got way too far up their own luvvie arses.
All the possible explanations for Holmes' death revolved around fooling Watson into thinking he was dead whereas the actual reason for Holmes jumping was to make Moriaty's henchmen think he was dead. All the proposed scenarios would have allowed unknown observers who could have been anywhere to see exactly what was going on.
My thoughts: Whilst being shaved in Mycroft's office Sherlock talks about how he has been undercover dismantling the rest of Moriarty's gang or whatever - so obviously the threat was still out there somewhat. It's plausbile that John needed to be fooled in order for him to act appropriately in case he was being watched (which he probably would have been). Whereas no-one was going to look into all of those 'random' passers by who were actually on the scene when 'the fall' took place.
Just on that point anyway - I saw a bunch of plotholes and issues too, I just don't think that makes the top 5. Haha.
Yes, I agree with you. If that last theory of How Sherlock faked his death is to be the right one, then it was nothing new. Fans had already given that scenario quite early on from the Reichenbach Fall episode. I was under the impression given by Steven Moffat that nobody online had cracked the theory, that we were all missing it; and that it would be resolved by Moffat et al in the new series. It didn't happen. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, though, as they may still tell us how over the next two episodes, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until after I've watched the next two episodes. Should they leave it hanging in the air, then I think I might be disappointed with that.
I got the feeling that he wanted to make out that nobody had cracked it and all anybody could come up with were crackpot theories.
So picked out the most unrealistic outlandish theories as if that's what conclusions the fans had come to.
Even if he had seen it online I think he still wanted to create the illusion to the mainstream viewers that nobody had worked it out.
This was one of the elements of the episode which I didn't like as it was patting itself on its own head for something which isn't a true representation.
It was worked out very early on, and even some of the other theories I read online were reasonably plausible and not as rubbish as this episode made out.
twice now Derren Brown has been referenced in a Moffat show , in the DW 50th and now Sherlock . I have to wonder if Moffat enlisted him to come up with the 'magic trick' ...
I'd agree with that. The Moriarty/Sherlock near kiss scene seemed like a nod to the hardcore fanbase, what with all their "fanfiction". There were plenty of others that I didn't catch.
Yes, even though I thought there was too much reference to Sherlock fans in the episode, that was a very funny scene.:D
I don't think Sherlock knows *love*, certainly the Sherlock of s1 and s2 knows nothing of it. I think part of that was he knew how much it would mean to Molly for him to say it, but she was the most important part of the plan. I don't think he's in love with her but I wish he was!
I'm not sure because I see Sherlock as being a probable psychopath.
Mycroft too.
It's a long time since I read the original Conan Doyle books, but isn't the above just a continuation and a bringing-up-to-date of that exact point? John Watson's popular journal was how the stories of SH were presented to the public, and this is what's happening here in the Moffatt/Gatiss version. Isn't it?
I don't know, that may be true as I haven't read those books.
But it still doesn't mean that it worked for me or that I was that keen on that angle.
Perhaps that format lends itself better to a novel format than for a TV series where time restraints of what you can do can be limiting.
Although I may be wrong, I think the point of the fake body double was to buy Sherlock enough time to get down from the top of the building to where he was supposed to end up.
Surely he got to the bottom of the building very quickly - by jumping.
It's a long time since I read the original Conan Doyle books, but isn't the above just a continuation and a bringing-up-to-date of that exact point? John Watson's popular journal was how the stories of SH were presented to the public, and this is what's happening here in the Moffatt/Gatiss version. Isn't it?
I would say the blog Watson writes in this series is the modern-day equivalent of his journal.
The writers 'talking' to us would be like Arthur Conan Doyle leaving little footnotes.
Only person I don't care about, or like ir watsons on screen girlfriend/ real life fiancé. Stick to selling maltesers love.
She would never have got this part on her own merit. I dislike her with a passion.
I don't think it was poor, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. I did feel it was veering way too far into a territory where it kept making a point of reminding us of itself being a TV show.
I don't recall the transition between series one and series two being so cartoony and being so aware of itself. It felt like a genuine continuation 'set in that world', not continually giving nods and winks to the viewer like it was set on a pantomime stage reminding us of the relationship between the viewer and the show.
Doctor Who has done exactly the same since Moffat took over e.g. the endless repetitions over the last 18 months of the words 'Doctor Who? Doctor Who? Doctor Who?' appearing in numerous episodes. Geddit? Did ya? The show is called Doctor Who and someone is saying 'Doctor Who' within the episode itself! Pure genius...genius writing there from the Moff...
There's only so much ironic, Postmodern bulls*** I can stand and last night's 'Sherlock' was full of it e.g. having Freeman's partner playing Watson's fiance, having Cumberbatch's parents playing Sherlock's parents, the endless references to fandom, the fetishisation of Sherlock's coat after it became a bestseller in real life, etc. etc. All we need now is for Cumberbatch to look at the camera and wink at the viewer and you feel it's this far away from happening.
Comments
Do you remember that back in S2 Moriarty and Molly dated briefly? When Molly introduced Sherlock and Moriarty in the lab Sherlock was his usual dismissive, rude self to Molly - he showed absolutely no indication that he felt anything towards her. Therefore when Moriarty threatened Sherlock's friends he never even considered going after Molly because as far as Moriarty had seen she was insignificant to Sherlock. She didn't count (Molly says it herself). Sherlock knew that Moriarty would think this - and so Molly suddenly became the most important person because Moriarty discounted her as if she was nothing and he would never predict that Sherlock would go to Molly for help.
Like someone else has said - I don't think Sherlock really gets 'love' especially 'romantic love' but he certainly feels... whatever the most Sherlock can feel is - some sort of friendship I guess towards Molly.
As for the Jack the Ripper bit - yes, I too took it to mean that Anderson and his little fan club had created it in order to try and draw Sherlock out. The little minisode shows how excited Anderson is at the prospect of Sherlock making his way closer to home and how much he has looked into possible Sherlock cases around the world - I think he and his little club set that up to try and get him to return.
I think that one of the weaknesses of this episode was the terrorist plot.
It was just a MacGuffin of an idea with no background exploration as to who, what or why.
I understand, and agree with people, that this episode needed to focus on re-establishing the relationship between Holmes and Watson, but I do agree with you that the story is important as well.
If they didn't feel that they had enough time in the episode to devote to the terrorist bomber storyline then maybe they should have replaced it with another story which was easier to handle.
But then again, it was about an hour and a half which is feature film length, so it does suggest that they should have had ample time to handle the bomber story. They probably crammed in too much stuff that they didn't need to such as the fan stuff and Watson's fiance.
all very good points , especially the first one . when we eventually get the explanation I hope it explains how the various spotters didn't see it .
.
It's a long time since I read the original Conan Doyle books, but isn't the above just a continuation and a bringing-up-to-date of that exact point? John Watson's popular journal was how the stories of SH were presented to the public, and this is what's happening here in the Moffatt/Gatiss version. Isn't it?
How so?
I think the opposite. Focussing so much on the relationships/dynamics between all of the characters makes it soap-like. The first two series were focussed on solving self contained stories/mysteries and were nothing like soaps.
Huge popularity isn't always a good thing.
I don't think it was poor, but I do agree with a lot of what you're saying.
I did feel it was veering way too far into a territory where it kept making a point of reminding us of itself being a TV show.
I don't recall the transition between series one and series two being so cartoony and being so aware of itself. It felt like a genuine continuation 'set in that world', not continually giving nods and winks to the viewer like it was set on a pantomime stage reminding us of the relationship between the viewer and the show.
Stop messing us about with "what ifs" either tell us what happened or we'll have no choice but to conclude you have no answer and a making a show with no substance.
As for the "bomb plot" - how utterly boring and poorly done.
This episode had none of the qualities of the previous series.
I suspect those involved have got way too far up their own luvvie arses.
My thoughts: Whilst being shaved in Mycroft's office Sherlock talks about how he has been undercover dismantling the rest of Moriarty's gang or whatever - so obviously the threat was still out there somewhat. It's plausbile that John needed to be fooled in order for him to act appropriately in case he was being watched (which he probably would have been). Whereas no-one was going to look into all of those 'random' passers by who were actually on the scene when 'the fall' took place.
Just on that point anyway - I saw a bunch of plotholes and issues too, I just don't think that makes the top 5. Haha.
I got the feeling that he wanted to make out that nobody had cracked it and all anybody could come up with were crackpot theories.
So picked out the most unrealistic outlandish theories as if that's what conclusions the fans had come to.
Even if he had seen it online I think he still wanted to create the illusion to the mainstream viewers that nobody had worked it out.
This was one of the elements of the episode which I didn't like as it was patting itself on its own head for something which isn't a true representation.
It was worked out very early on, and even some of the other theories I read online were reasonably plausible and not as rubbish as this episode made out.
Yes, even though I thought there was too much reference to Sherlock fans in the episode, that was a very funny scene.:D
I presumed it was a joke about the length of time between His Last Bow and the next one starting.
I'm not sure because I see Sherlock as being a probable psychopath.
Mycroft too.
Yes, well I'm tired, I'm trying to remember what happened, and I confused myself.
I don't know, that may be true as I haven't read those books.
But it still doesn't mean that it worked for me or that I was that keen on that angle.
Perhaps that format lends itself better to a novel format than for a TV series where time restraints of what you can do can be limiting.
Next one is this Sunday at 8.30pm (Mum and I are arguing about whether we're watching DOI or Sherlock). Don't know about the last.
Surely he got to the bottom of the building very quickly - by jumping.
I would say the blog Watson writes in this series is the modern-day equivalent of his journal.
The writers 'talking' to us would be like Arthur Conan Doyle leaving little footnotes.
Sunday 12th Jan 8:30pm : "His last vow"
That's how I interpreted it, but not with a great deal of confidence.
Thanks!:)
una Stubbs is great!
Only person I don't care about, or like ir watsons on screen girlfriend/ real life fiancé. Stick to selling maltesers love.
She would never have got this part on her own merit. I dislike her with a passion.
Doctor Who has done exactly the same since Moffat took over e.g. the endless repetitions over the last 18 months of the words 'Doctor Who? Doctor Who? Doctor Who?' appearing in numerous episodes. Geddit? Did ya? The show is called Doctor Who and someone is saying 'Doctor Who' within the episode itself! Pure genius...genius writing there from the Moff...
There's only so much ironic, Postmodern bulls*** I can stand and last night's 'Sherlock' was full of it e.g. having Freeman's partner playing Watson's fiance, having Cumberbatch's parents playing Sherlock's parents, the endless references to fandom, the fetishisation of Sherlock's coat after it became a bestseller in real life, etc. etc. All we need now is for Cumberbatch to look at the camera and wink at the viewer and you feel it's this far away from happening.