I can't believe people are saying how Sherlock survived doesn't matter. It was the whole cliffhanger, the whole drawing point for series 3, Moffat kept going on about us not having guessed it then 'revealed' it was the theory guessed immediately after the episode by countless fans online! If he doesn't explain it then he has no need to resolve any cliffhanger in the future. This is the equivalent of starting season 2 with John and Sherlock outside the pool going 'crikey, that got hairy for a moment'. It will be explained by the end of episode 3, it has to be.
The airbag theory can't be correct because as many people pointed out its full of holes, and just all very neat, not to mention involving 327 accomplices and the closing down of an entire London street, as well as Molly magically finding a Sherlock lookalike corpse to lie on the ground for 5 seconds to then switch with Sherlock anyway. As theories go, it's the worst of the 'plausible' ones and I think that was the point.
I agree with you. It does matter.
That's the whole point of a cliffhanger.
If you set up a great cliffhanger then you're effectively promising a great payoff for when people tune back in next time.
At the end of ASiB Mycroft tells Watson that Sherlock wanted to be a pirate when he was a child. So maybe "Redbeard" was Mycroft's way of telling Sherlock he was trying to be something he could never be. Or maybe Mycroft was testing to see if Sherlock really is Sherlock. Or maybe its some kind of reference to Irene Adler, (ie, Mycroft's discovered that she's still alive).
I agree with you. It does matter.
That's the whole point of a cliffhanger.
If you set up a great cliffhanger then you're effectively promising a great payoff for when people tune back in next time.
I felt satisfied with the ambiguous explanation - although that could be because I didn't actually think it was all that great a cliffhanger in the first place. Personally I think revealing Sherlock's survival at the end of s2 was a mistake, would've been stronger if the final shot of the season was the actual jump imho.
Don't know if it's been mentioned on this or the last thread but there's some sort of Q & A after the last episode on Sunday, with an opportunity to submit your own questions - https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01dmdcb/contact
I've heard it's meant to be an even bigger cliffhanger
If they don't give a more satisfactory resolution to the last cliffhanger I don't think it will matter. People will just assume that whatever cliffhanger is at the end of s3 won't get a proper resolution anyway, and lose interest.
If they don't give a more satisfactory resolution to the last cliffhanger I don't think it will matter. People will just assume that whatever cliffhanger is at the end of s3 won't get a proper resolution anyway, and lose interest.
I agree.
There was so much excitement and speculation about the cliffhanger ending of series 2, and I feel that series 3 has been far too dismissive of this.
I don't get people who say it doesn't matter. Did they say that at the end of series 2? Did they not have fun speculating about how it could have happened?
If there is another cliffhanger at the end of series 3, then I doubt people will be on here speculating about the outcome - they'll just shrug and say it's not worth it.
And I have another problem with that solution given with the airbag, etc. Its not just the logical issues that Benry Gale outlined above, its the fact that it was given to Anderson. Frickin Anderson????
Sherlock despises Anderson, for a start. In one episode he told him to shut his mouth before he lowers the IQ of the entire street. And for seconds, later in that same episode Watson asked him how he did it, and Sherlock dodged the question. If these writers are half as clever as people think they are, they know that the explanation to the viewer always comes through explaining to Watson - that's mostly the point of Watson's existence in the Sherlock Holmes stories. So when, (or if?), we get the real explanation at all it should be through Sherlock explaining to Watson.
If that doesn't happen, I suppose I'll still tune in for Sherlock s4, but then again, I watch Hollyoaks so that's not saying much.
And I have another problem with that solution given with the airbag, etc. Its not just the logical issues that Benry Gale outlined above, its the fact that it was given to Anderson. Frickin Anderson????
Sherlock despises Anderson, for a start. In one episode he told him to shut his mouth before he lowers the IQ of the entire street. And for seconds, later in that same episode Watson asked him how he did it, and Sherlock dodged the question. If these writers are half as clever as people think they are, they know that the explanation to the viewer always comes through explaining to Watson - that's mostly the point of Watson's existence in the Sherlock Holmes stories. So when, (or if?), we get the real explanation at all it should be through Sherlock explaining to Watson.
If that doesn't happen, I suppose I'll still tune in for Sherlock s4, but then again, I watch Hollyoaks so that's not saying much.
I think that's a good point. Watson should be the conduit for the stories, although the writers had already gone against this by showing that Sherlock was still alive at the end of series 2.
I would like a definitive (and better) explanation of the fall, mainly because the current explanation isn't very good. A lot of people have moaned that Moffat had promiwee something better. I'm not bothered about what he has or hasn't said outside the programme. To me, what's important is whether it hangs together as a coherent story. I'll wait until the end of series 3, to see if it feels like a gap or not. Of course, by then, there'll be another cliffhanger to worry about.
Eater, I'm specifically looking for the one in the scene in Kitty Riley's flat with Richard Brook. Perhaps someone else can provide a link with a pic? It's also in a post on one of the Sherlock threads here, somewhere.
The story is case-based from the off, blending character and relationship work in with the action. And there’s plenty of that. Break-ins, gunshots, helicopter flights… it’s a packed, visually exciting ninety minutes. Director Nick Hurran (The Day Of The Doctor) doesn’t just visit Sherlock’s Mind Palace, but gives us the deluxe tour.
Steven Moffat's script is characteristically clever stuff, weaving in and updating whole story elements, not just names and nods, from Conan Doyle. Moffat balances emotion with intrigue and rare moments of leavening humour in His Last Vow, building effectively upon the previous episodes' character work while keeping the case and the villain centre stage.
BBC Drama Controller Ben Stephenson summed it up at the BAFTA screening when he said there were "mouth dropping twists" and added: "It is really f***ng good."
Magnussen is blackmailing Mary to get Sherlock on side to get all the money from The Waters Gang, which is headed up by Mary's dead. They worked for him but 'went rogue' and started keeping all the money to themselves. Magnussen wants it back.
He'll do this by putting John in danger (i.e. the bonfire incident). The whole theme of this series has been 'rehearsal', the stabbing happening twice, the whole wedding thing.
Aaaaand to tie it all up. Mary's Telegram from the wedding, 'blah blah, wish your family were here to see this, love Cam'
CAM = Charles Augustus Magnussen, he has Mary's family.
Basically, Mary's dad is a criminal, her adoption story is a cover, Magnussen has her family, and is going to try and use Sherlock to get the money from Mary's dad, and if he doesn't get the money he's gonna blow something up (the parliament bomb, was also a rehearsal).
The episodes have all seemed fairly random and unconnected, and I think that was the point, Episode 3 will tie it all together and it will be amazing.
Magnussen is blackmailing Mary to get Sherlock on side to get all the money from The Waters Gang, which is headed up by Mary's dead. They worked for him but 'went rogue' and started keeping all the money to themselves. Magnussen wants it back.
He'll do this by putting John in danger (i.e. the bonfire incident). The whole theme of this series has been 'rehearsal', the stabbing happening twice, the whole wedding thing.
Aaaaand to tie it all up. Mary's Telegram from the wedding, 'blah blah, wish your family were here to see this, love Cam'
CAM = Charles Augustus Magnussen, he has Mary's family.
Basically, Mary's dad is a criminal, her adoption story is a cover, Magnussen has her family, and is going to try and use Sherlock to get the money from Mary's dad, and if he doesn't get the money he's gonna blow something up (the parliament bomb, was also a rehearsal).
The episodes have all seemed fairly random and unconnected, and I think that was the point, Episode 3 will tie it all together and it will be amazing.
Lots of good, and very plausible theories there. Nice work.
Lots of good, and very plausible theories there. Nice work.
The only bit i feel im missing is some sort of endgame. Would Magnussen pull all this stuff just for a bit of smalltime bank robbery money? I'm thinking thats just the backdrop, and the bigger story is a personal issue relating to the Holmes family, a long standing hatred.
Can i just wade in on the cliffhanger thing... I'm sure it's already been mentioned but this comment:
'We knew right from the start how we were going to do it.
'But we had absolutely no idea it would take on the epic proportions it has so that really by the time we came to actually do it we really had to address the fact it had become so huge and there are only so many ways you can jump off a building onto the pavement.'
Freeman commented: "It’s particularly important you end on a fantastic third one and the third episode in the third series is stellar. Everyone’s work on it is great and it’s a Steven Moffat special which is always good, but they are all so good! I was very, very excited when I read this one – it’s one of the best scripts I’ve ever read."
I agree with you. It does matter.
That's the whole point of a cliffhanger.
If you set up a great cliffhanger then you're effectively promising a great payoff for when people tune back in next time.
I think it's a shame to want or need to be spoon fed absolutes by a storyteller. I'm fine with how it's been left. I really don't care any more about the issue.
If they don't give a more satisfactory resolution to the last cliffhanger I don't think it will matter. People will just assume that whatever cliffhanger is at the end of s3 won't get a proper resolution anyway, and lose interest.
I think it's a shame to want or need to be spoon fed absolutes by a storyteller. I'm fine with how it's been left. I really don't care any more about the issue.
I feel the same.
Cliffhangers are ALWAYS exciting, but they are NEVER satisfying enough when resolved, some better than others mind.
Sherlock's was good ENOUGH, and the fun has been HAD, time to move on.
I think it's a shame to want or need to be spoon fed absolutes by a storyteller. I'm fine with how it's been left. I really don't care any more about the issue.
Comments
I agree with you. It does matter.
That's the whole point of a cliffhanger.
If you set up a great cliffhanger then you're effectively promising a great payoff for when people tune back in next time.
No,...I think you may have just nailed that one.
I felt satisfied with the ambiguous explanation - although that could be because I didn't actually think it was all that great a cliffhanger in the first place. Personally I think revealing Sherlock's survival at the end of s2 was a mistake, would've been stronger if the final shot of the season was the actual jump imho.
Mark gatiss has tweeted once this week and all it said was Redbeard.
I also don't think anything will be wrapped up - we are definitely going to be left wanting...
Love and hate Sherlock equally for that!
I've heard it's meant to be an even bigger cliffhanger
If they don't give a more satisfactory resolution to the last cliffhanger I don't think it will matter. People will just assume that whatever cliffhanger is at the end of s3 won't get a proper resolution anyway, and lose interest.
I agree.
There was so much excitement and speculation about the cliffhanger ending of series 2, and I feel that series 3 has been far too dismissive of this.
I don't get people who say it doesn't matter. Did they say that at the end of series 2? Did they not have fun speculating about how it could have happened?
If there is another cliffhanger at the end of series 3, then I doubt people will be on here speculating about the outcome - they'll just shrug and say it's not worth it.
Gah! They tease us.
And I have another problem with that solution given with the airbag, etc. Its not just the logical issues that Benry Gale outlined above, its the fact that it was given to Anderson. Frickin Anderson????
Sherlock despises Anderson, for a start. In one episode he told him to shut his mouth before he lowers the IQ of the entire street. And for seconds, later in that same episode Watson asked him how he did it, and Sherlock dodged the question. If these writers are half as clever as people think they are, they know that the explanation to the viewer always comes through explaining to Watson - that's mostly the point of Watson's existence in the Sherlock Holmes stories. So when, (or if?), we get the real explanation at all it should be through Sherlock explaining to Watson.
If that doesn't happen, I suppose I'll still tune in for Sherlock s4, but then again, I watch Hollyoaks so that's not saying much.
I think that's a good point. Watson should be the conduit for the stories, although the writers had already gone against this by showing that Sherlock was still alive at the end of series 2.
I would like a definitive (and better) explanation of the fall, mainly because the current explanation isn't very good. A lot of people have moaned that Moffat had promiwee something better. I'm not bothered about what he has or hasn't said outside the programme. To me, what's important is whether it hangs together as a coherent story. I'll wait until the end of series 3, to see if it feels like a gap or not. Of course, by then, there'll be another cliffhanger to worry about.
Just loaded it up again.
http://imgur.com/6ZDtDnw
This one?
The shot started right on the 'make believe' before focussing on Sherlock. Definitely intentional.
Full Article
**
The Mirror Spoiler-Free Review
Full Article
Mary Morstan's father in the books was a stolen treasure stealer guy.
In Sherlock, they've modernised Mary's dad, he is now a bank robber. The Waters Gang we saw Lestrade going after.
The gang, were the gunmen who Moriarty hired to take out Watson, Lestrade, etc.
First guy:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/cff10786e0a9dbb03685dd327fee14c4/tumblr_inline_mz0tvk3SWM1qiv5yk.png
https://31.media.tumblr.com/860dbb51866aec01919a7e826ce49aca/tumblr_inline_mz0u3odtE01qiv5yk.png
Second guy:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/dfd634bd79c8dfb3759bd5ee7052c588/tumblr_inline_mz0zofQ3dr1qiv5yk.png
https://31.media.tumblr.com/05eeffbaf7753cc535627be9024a530a/tumblr_inline_mz0zq1xY6B1qiv5yk.png
And older grey haired guy:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/ae621744af62ab2e800545634f847e6e/tumblr_inline_mz13iyL5si1qiv5yk.png
Mary's dad!
Magnussen is blackmailing Mary to get Sherlock on side to get all the money from The Waters Gang, which is headed up by Mary's dead. They worked for him but 'went rogue' and started keeping all the money to themselves. Magnussen wants it back.
He'll do this by putting John in danger (i.e. the bonfire incident). The whole theme of this series has been 'rehearsal', the stabbing happening twice, the whole wedding thing.
Mycroft was wearing black trousers with a red stripe:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/2613c5d3046c1d9e802a8be78aff0152/tumblr_inline_mz01ygCrEF1rxars5.png
Just like colonel wotshisface and the brigadeer were, who both got stabbed in the abdomen.
Mycroft checking out his abs:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/6e57ea378b325e131b22d367df757dc2/tumblr_inline_mz02euwJm21rxars5.png
Mycroft may also be up for the chop!
Aaaaand to tie it all up. Mary's Telegram from the wedding, 'blah blah, wish your family were here to see this, love Cam'
CAM = Charles Augustus Magnussen, he has Mary's family.
Basically, Mary's dad is a criminal, her adoption story is a cover, Magnussen has her family, and is going to try and use Sherlock to get the money from Mary's dad, and if he doesn't get the money he's gonna blow something up (the parliament bomb, was also a rehearsal).
The episodes have all seemed fairly random and unconnected, and I think that was the point, Episode 3 will tie it all together and it will be amazing.
Lots of good, and very plausible theories there. Nice work.
The only bit i feel im missing is some sort of endgame. Would Magnussen pull all this stuff just for a bit of smalltime bank robbery money? I'm thinking thats just the backdrop, and the bigger story is a personal issue relating to the Holmes family, a long standing hatred.
Crikey, Slipknot have let themselves go.
'We knew right from the start how we were going to do it.
'But we had absolutely no idea it would take on the epic proportions it has so that really by the time we came to actually do it we really had to address the fact it had become so huge and there are only so many ways you can jump off a building onto the pavement.'
Makes me think there isn't much more to come.
Cultbox Dialogue Teasers
View at your discretion.
I think it's a shame to want or need to be spoon fed absolutes by a storyteller. I'm fine with how it's been left. I really don't care any more about the issue.
Waaaah.
I feel the same.
Cliffhangers are ALWAYS exciting, but they are NEVER satisfying enough when resolved, some better than others mind.
Sherlock's was good ENOUGH, and the fun has been HAD, time to move on.
I don't see anything really on there.
edit: online at least, not sure if you meant in print?
Good for you!
Some of us do care, though.