Sorry, I have not traweled back through the 100+ pages to see if this has been mentioned.
I watched the episode on New Years Day and have to say did not get very far before both hubby and I fell asleep. Its on sky+, so can re-watch but not sure if I want too. I thought the episode was a little dull and not as good as the previous series'.
Also I got confused when they kept putting forth different versions of how Sherlock survived his fall. Did they ever settle on what was the correct version?
It's open to interpretation. The first two versions were fans' interpretations - I think we cans safely dismiss the second one (where Sherlock & Moriarty kiss), but elements of the first one *may* have some merit (probably not the Derren Brown bit though).
The version told by Sherlock at the end *may* be true but it's left ambiguous. It could also be Sherlock winding Anderson up. Opinion on this is divided - some believe it to be true, personally I believe some of it is true but that Sherlock is deliberate toying with him.
As the episode itself hints, what matters is not so much how Sherlock survived, but that the fact he did and didn't tell John had had a damaging effect on their relationship.
In an interview after the BFI preview, Gatiss called the final scenario "a very plausible solution". So, again, very ambiguous.
Interesting thing I noticed: when Mary gives Sherlock and John the thumbs up before they go to solve a case, there are decorative horns positioned directly behind her on the wall and the way the scene is shot makes it look she's wearing them.
You don't think that could be some kind of symbolism or anything? Like, it could turn out that she's actually working with the big bad of this series? Either that or I'm looking too much into it.
They are doing something quite daring and controversial which is about breaking out of the crime show format.
I dont know any other crime show where an episode is basically a best mans speech and where the crimes are anecdotes.
Its brilliant.....but its not easy.
Episode 1 was similar,focusing on the relationship between characters and not on the crime.
I like the idea of THREE,of Sherlock and watson and wife being a unity instead of the usual twosome we get in crime shows,of the baby making three, and of the fact it was written by three writers instead of the usual one or two.
This series the crimes are secondary. Some will like that, some wont. But whatever, its a daring approach to a jaded genre.The final episode might put them back on track and steady them for a more conventional season 4.
Felt episode two was an improvement on episode 1, but I still miss the crime-solving/mystery. I can't deny that the dialogue and interaction between the characters is witty and funny, but it's all the show has been about so far in series 3. Where's the substance? If that's the way the writers are going then perhaps I'll give it a miss next series.
My only issue with this element of the story is that it would make no difference if someone took the belt off or not. If you've receieved a fatal wound the belt isn't going to somehow hold it in.:D
I know what they were trying to do, and it's quite a nice idea. It just doesn't quite work.
It could if it was more like a fantasy set thing, like some Wuxia film, but this is based in the real world.
The belt thing where you only die when you take your belt off reminded me very much of The Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique from Kill Bill where the victim only falls down dead after taking 5 steps.:D
I like the idea of what they were trying to do, it's just that it doesn't really work.
Surely anyone who reads detective fiction, like ACD or Christie is used to new, inventive and possibly slightly implausible ways of people being made the dreaded deaded?
I mean, I've never thought that having someone die of fright to order is a particularly reliable but it seems very popular.
Loving or hating everything someone does is just blind. I don't care who wrote it during watching, i appreciate episode by episode.
In the case of a reboot, i give two notes. One for the televisual piece of entertainment, one for the respect of the original creation.
First 2 series, both notes averaged 9 out of 10(with 8,9 and 10s)
Third series so far:
-Empty Hearst tv entertainment 8.5 original respect 6
-Signs of three tv entertainment 8 original respect 4
Loved the comedy but it should have been a separate special episode to my taste. Almost no mystery. And the explanation, seems to a non-medical person like me, to be far fetched. My first reflex is to think, i would feel being 'stabbed' after a while. I had a cut (blade was stopped by a bone), and it's true that during the happening, there's no pain. But not long after, it's hard not to feel something. The thight belt would have stopped the bleeding, not the pain.
Before some of the replies, why do i keep watching it? I gave high notes for entertainment and i have to watch it to know if i like it
Will keep watching of course, even if the show has changed a lot.
Sorry if it sounded like that - I take it that you must be a Dr Who fan, but you are being, in my opinion, rather too sensitive about it. I admit that I don't 'get' Dr Who, or indeed any science fiction type stuff at all, but the one thing I am sure of, is that it requires you to be happy to completely enter into fantasy land. I'm not, and that's that.
Yes, I watch DW as well as Sherlock, but contrary to your sweeping generalisation where you go on to admit not even watching the programme, I enjoy complex plots, story arcs and complex characters rather than "leave your brain at the door" action and special effects.
Sweeping generalisations are hardly the best way to make a point or to win an argument, neither is a snobbishness or a condescending, dismissive attitude about others who enjoy science fiction (an attitude that still seems to be apparent in your reply).
Can I just ask you whether you have read any of the books or had any interaction with other incarnations of Sherlock Holmes?
What difference does it make? Or are you asking if you can only enjoy this series if you haven't read the books or seen other adaptations?
If it makes any difference, I've read the books, watched Rathbone and Brett and enjoy Elementary (and House). If I want the pure story and to exercise my imagination, I'll read the books. If I want to see a moving book, I'll watch Brett. If I want to watch a Sherlock-that-isn't-Sherlock I'll watch this.
The very fact of taking it out the era it was written and placing in it 'today' means that it's going to change - and it certainly isn't the worst adaptation of a book to tele that I've seen (that goes to the Elizabeth George Inspector Lynley stories which were completely miscast and adapted with a rusty can opener, in my opinion, although the more recent ITV Marples run them a close second. Always baffles me that a channel that had Piorot so right can get Marple so wrong every time, but anyway).
Any programme that has to live up to 2 years worth of over-the-top hype is never going to live up to expectation. It would have been interesting to see how these episodes were met if they had run on from the end of the last series or with a more 'normal' series break.
1. I deliberately withheld mentioning a couple of *major* clues that appeared in this episode for the finale, because I didn't want to spoil the surprise for people who didn't spot them - which, given that nobody has mentioned either anywhere on this thread, seems to be most people.
One of the telegrams for Mary was from someone called Cam basically saying what a pity her family couldn't be there. I presume this is Magnussen and he knows something about her family and is/will be blackmailing her.
Whatever happened to critical judgement? It seems that many people are determined to like it regardless of its many shortcomings. Hearing Sherlock sing the praises of his doctor was exactly like hearing one or Dr Who's companions singing the praises of that particular doctor! Whatever the title the format and the behaviour of the leads is exactly the same in both shows. There was nothing Sherlock said or did last night that one couldn't imagine Matt Smith's Dr Who saying or doing! That's a major problem. Sherlock Holmes and Dr Who are not interchangeable. Dr Who is essentially a kiddy show for kiddies of all ages, Sherlock isn't or shouldn't be.
My only issue with this element of the story is that it would make no difference if someone took the belt off or not. If you've receieved a fatal wound the belt isn't going to somehow hold it in.:D
I know what they were trying to do, and it's quite a nice idea. It just doesn't quite work.
It could if it was more like a fantasy set thing, like some Wuxia film, but this is based in the real world.
The belt thing where you only die when you take your belt off reminded me very much of The Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique from Kill Bill where the victim only falls down dead after taking 5 steps.:D
I like the idea of what they were trying to do, it's just that it doesn't really work.
Surely the belt is a proxy for applying pressure to the wound (as Sherlock had to do for the first soldier).
does it occur to all those people who are being so damned condescending that just because you don't like it and think it was no good , doesn't actually mean the rest of us who enjoyed it are wrong, it just means what we look for in the programme may be different from what you look for .
And the fact you are coming over as disgruntled DR Who fans projecting your dislike of the way Dr Who has gone isn't making your argument look remotely balanced
Sherlock couldn't work out quickly who the target was despite them being dressed in full military uniform and Holmes recently saying 'he gets more death threats than you do'? Also the belt explanation was about as stupid as last week and their ACME bomb with the off switch. Like being decapitated and you're fine as long as you don't take your turtleneck off.
Well to defend the negative posters I have noticed that they do tend to illustrate exactly what they didn't like quite specifically. And I have noticed that many positive posts are a bit more vague, saying that they thoroughly enjoyed it in a general way, but not really going into as much detail.
I may be wrong but it just seems that way.
And no I'm not including anyone who has said that they didn't really watch it.
One thing which I liked a lot in this episode was the obligatory Sherlock thinking scene. Where he appears in a kind of court room in his mind. Very imaginative and one of the things the show still does very well. Sherlock thinking. In fact that is probably an aspect that has gradually developed and become more visual as the series have gone along.
I agree that some of the Sherlock thinking scenes are quite well done. It saved the need to bounce off a side-kick like some do.
Whilst this might seem like a funny story - which indeed it was - I didn't recognise it as good old, reliable Sherlock. It was a great – stand-alone play about another person, but this just wasn't Sherlock.
To me, It was like having a new script writer, who hadn't read or seen the previous Sherlock stories.
For example, Sherlock's meticulous palette would have tasted the spirit in his drinks,,, & he would realise what was going on.
Even if he didn't, he would have realised something was amiss when he started to lose the plot. He wouldn't allow himself to lose his marbles - that's the whole core of his very being (I'm assuming he isn't into opium now ?).
Nor would he act so slushy at the wedding - it just isn't in him.
I will concede - it was a touching moment revealing the pregnancy, & the few lines following that.
Like most interlopers, I initially thought Mary was a bad ‘un, working for one of the Worlds worst groups, & would meet a grizzly end. But then, Sherlock did give her ‘the once over’ when they first met.
Great acting by all concerned, but I hope it returns to the real Sherlock now though.
If Mr Gatiss wants to write funny stories - that's fine - he does a damn good job of 'em, but please, not with our hero.
Sherlock couldn't work out quickly who the target was despite them being dressed in full military uniform and Holmes recently saying 'he gets more death threats than you do'? Also the belt explanation was about as stupid as last week and their ACME bomb with the off switch. Like being decapitated and you're fine as long as you don't take your turtleneck off.
That's the thing, though - is it more or less plausible than using phosphorescent dog to scare someone to death?
Ways of killing people in detective fiction can tend towards the inventive and unusual. Being donged on the head by an antique urn tends towards the banal, really.
It reminded me of a particularly self-indulgent episode of Supernatural in which the director, writers and actors appear to be having a very good time at the expense of continuity and character integrity. Too much bromance not enough suspense.
As an aside, Dr Watson (Martin Freeman) seemed to look smaller than ever. I was half expecting Gandalf to turn up at his wedding.
Comments
The version told by Sherlock at the end *may* be true but it's left ambiguous. It could also be Sherlock winding Anderson up. Opinion on this is divided - some believe it to be true, personally I believe some of it is true but that Sherlock is deliberate toying with him.
As the episode itself hints, what matters is not so much how Sherlock survived, but that the fact he did and didn't tell John had had a damaging effect on their relationship.
In an interview after the BFI preview, Gatiss called the final scenario "a very plausible solution". So, again, very ambiguous.
Hope that helps.
You don't think that could be some kind of symbolism or anything? Like, it could turn out that she's actually working with the big bad of this series? Either that or I'm looking too much into it.
I dont know any other crime show where an episode is basically a best mans speech and where the crimes are anecdotes.
Its brilliant.....but its not easy.
Episode 1 was similar,focusing on the relationship between characters and not on the crime.
I like the idea of THREE,of Sherlock and watson and wife being a unity instead of the usual twosome we get in crime shows,of the baby making three, and of the fact it was written by three writers instead of the usual one or two.
This series the crimes are secondary. Some will like that, some wont. But whatever, its a daring approach to a jaded genre.The final episode might put them back on track and steady them for a more conventional season 4.
"Who knows?"
Surely anyone who reads detective fiction, like ACD or Christie is used to new, inventive and possibly slightly implausible ways of people being made the dreaded deaded?
I mean, I've never thought that having someone die of fright to order is a particularly reliable but it seems very popular.
In the case of a reboot, i give two notes. One for the televisual piece of entertainment, one for the respect of the original creation.
First 2 series, both notes averaged 9 out of 10(with 8,9 and 10s)
Third series so far:
-Empty Hearst tv entertainment 8.5 original respect 6
-Signs of three tv entertainment 8 original respect 4
Loved the comedy but it should have been a separate special episode to my taste. Almost no mystery. And the explanation, seems to a non-medical person like me, to be far fetched. My first reflex is to think, i would feel being 'stabbed' after a while. I had a cut (blade was stopped by a bone), and it's true that during the happening, there's no pain. But not long after, it's hard not to feel something. The thight belt would have stopped the bleeding, not the pain.
Before some of the replies, why do i keep watching it? I gave high notes for entertainment and i have to watch it to know if i like it
Will keep watching of course, even if the show has changed a lot.
Yes, I watch DW as well as Sherlock, but contrary to your sweeping generalisation where you go on to admit not even watching the programme, I enjoy complex plots, story arcs and complex characters rather than "leave your brain at the door" action and special effects.
Sweeping generalisations are hardly the best way to make a point or to win an argument, neither is a snobbishness or a condescending, dismissive attitude about others who enjoy science fiction (an attitude that still seems to be apparent in your reply).
What difference does it make? Or are you asking if you can only enjoy this series if you haven't read the books or seen other adaptations?
If it makes any difference, I've read the books, watched Rathbone and Brett and enjoy Elementary (and House). If I want the pure story and to exercise my imagination, I'll read the books. If I want to see a moving book, I'll watch Brett. If I want to watch a Sherlock-that-isn't-Sherlock I'll watch this.
The very fact of taking it out the era it was written and placing in it 'today' means that it's going to change - and it certainly isn't the worst adaptation of a book to tele that I've seen (that goes to the Elizabeth George Inspector Lynley stories which were completely miscast and adapted with a rusty can opener, in my opinion, although the more recent ITV Marples run them a close second. Always baffles me that a channel that had Piorot so right can get Marple so wrong every time, but anyway).
Any programme that has to live up to 2 years worth of over-the-top hype is never going to live up to expectation. It would have been interesting to see how these episodes were met if they had run on from the end of the last series or with a more 'normal' series break.
But 100% better than Atlantis,which bored me so I stopped watching it.
Surely the belt is a proxy for applying pressure to the wound (as Sherlock had to do for the first soldier).
And the fact you are coming over as disgruntled DR Who fans projecting your dislike of the way Dr Who has gone isn't making your argument look remotely balanced
I agree that some of the Sherlock thinking scenes are quite well done. It saved the need to bounce off a side-kick like some do.
To me, It was like having a new script writer, who hadn't read or seen the previous Sherlock stories.
For example, Sherlock's meticulous palette would have tasted the spirit in his drinks,,, & he would realise what was going on.
Even if he didn't, he would have realised something was amiss when he started to lose the plot. He wouldn't allow himself to lose his marbles - that's the whole core of his very being (I'm assuming he isn't into opium now ?).
Nor would he act so slushy at the wedding - it just isn't in him.
I will concede - it was a touching moment revealing the pregnancy, & the few lines following that.
Like most interlopers, I initially thought Mary was a bad ‘un, working for one of the Worlds worst groups, & would meet a grizzly end. But then, Sherlock did give her ‘the once over’ when they first met.
Great acting by all concerned, but I hope it returns to the real Sherlock now though.
If Mr Gatiss wants to write funny stories - that's fine - he does a damn good job of 'em, but please, not with our hero.
This is a very valid point.
That's the thing, though - is it more or less plausible than using phosphorescent dog to scare someone to death?
Ways of killing people in detective fiction can tend towards the inventive and unusual. Being donged on the head by an antique urn tends towards the banal, really.
As an aside, Dr Watson (Martin Freeman) seemed to look smaller than ever. I was half expecting Gandalf to turn up at his wedding.
Oh hat's definitely the way I want to go