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.
apparently so, I didn't realise til I read it on here TBH even though I knew his mother was an actress. Don't see why that mattered really, the thing that got me was that it jarred with the scene with Sherlock and Mycroft reminiscing about their childhood
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.
I spotted this post so will reply as i'm not going through 30 pages.
What was the point of the fooling the assasins when he could get Mycroft to pay them off?
I didn't see any point in the minister in the train. What was he supposed to do there?
It's not like he took the bombs and the primers down there with him.
All he needed to do was pay off the driver.
Yes. I suppose it was designed to make people think "ZOMG! Benny's mum and dad!! Best episode EVAH!!!". There's no other reason why they would've been cast except for the unbearable 'nod, nod, wink, wink' value.
Yes. I suppose it was designed to make people think "ZOMG! Benny's mum and dad!! Best episode EVAH!!!". There's no other reason why they would've been cast except for the unbearable 'nod, nod, wink, wink' value.
perhaps they did it cos it was agood way of getting a family resemblence and Mark Gatisss parents were too northern
I didn't really understand the Jack the Ripper bit , is this something they've yet to explain ?
No, they explained it very clearly in the show.
It was a fake scene put together by Anderson and his club in an effort to lure Sherlock out of hiding. It worked actually, because he was called in to look at the scene, but they didn't seen to have anything in place to notice him when he did.
It was a fake scene put together by Anderson and his club in an effort to lure Sherlock out of hiding. It worked actually, because he was called in to look at the scene, but they didn't seen to have anything in place to notice him when he did.
1- they weren't really possible explanations. they haven't told us what happened. you can't really complain until we have seen the right one. but fooling watson was central to selling the idea. this was made very very clear.
We know that none of the explanations is the real one but that doesn't explain why all those who were coming up with the daft versions were concentrating on making the one person Holmes trusts above all others (even Mycroft) believe he was dead whilst a whole raft of others knew the truth.
The writers have made a bunch of people behave in an absurd manner - which is badly thought out writing. You can't just excuse coming up with explanations that ignore the main purpose of the fake suicide by airily saying: 'oh, they were just fans'. They also need to behave in a generally coherent manner unless they are inhabiting a mental institution.
2- yes the rail enthusiast played a major part. what of it? it's daft if holmes gets help?
As with the previous item, you completely miss the point. Holmes did nothing to get the information - it was entirely arbitrary. If the RE hadn't decided to contact Holmes,Holmes would have failed. In the original cases this doesn't happen. They are much better thought out and written and it's Holmes' entirely intellect that solves the problem. Yes, he'll ask people questions and use their answers to solve it but it is a result of pure chance as it was in this case.
3- presumably someone would also notice if a carriage went missing at all
Quite.
That's what makes the whole thing so incredibly stupid. (I just mentioned driving it back so that the terminally hard of thinking could see how it would be impossible for it not to be blindingly obvious).
or if you filled one with explosives.
Er, no, the explosive filled carriage was left on a disused section of track.
it was covered up.
ROFLMAO! You have the most bizarre sense of what is and isn't possible.
You seem to believe that someone can cover up a missing carriage and driving cab from the subsequent drivers of the train and all the staff and passengers that see it at the terminus and all the hundreds of passengers and staff who would see a short train with one carriage end that opens onto nothing.
And yet despite accepting that these hundreds (more likely thousands) of people did not notice this incredibly obvious anomaly you are quite happy to believe that one person would notice something almost completely trivial and which could have all sorts of innocent explanations
We know that none of the explanations is the real one but that doesn't explain why all those who were coming up with the daft versions were concentrating on making the one person Holmes trusts above all others (even Mycroft) believe he was dead whilst a whole raft of others knew the truth.
The writers have made a bunch of people behave in an absurd manner - which is badly thought out writing. You can't just excuse coming up with explanations that ignore the main purpose of the fake suicide by airily saying: 'oh, they were just fans'. They also need to behave in a generally coherent manner unless they are inhabiting a mental institution.
As with the previous item, you completely miss the point. Holmes did nothing to get the information - it was entirely arbitrary. If the RE hadn't decided to contact Holmes,Holmes would have failed. In the original cases this doesn't happen. They are much better thought out and written and it's Holmes' entirely intellect that solves the problem. Yes, he'll ask people questions and use their answers to solve it but it is a result of pure chance as it was in this case.
Quite.
That's what makes the whole thing so incredibly stupid. (I just mentioned driving it back so that the terminally hard of thinking could see how it would be impossible for it not to be blindingly obvious).
Er, no, the explosive filled carriage was left on a disused section of track.
ROFLMAO! You have the most bizarre sense of what is and isn't possible.
You seem to believe that someone can cover up a missing carriage and driving cab from the subsequent drivers of the train and all the staff and passengers that see it at the terminus and all the hundreds of passengers and staff who would see a short train with one carriage end that opens onto nothing.
And yet despite accepting that these hundreds (more likely thousands) of people did not notice this incredibly obvious anomaly you are quite happy to believe that one person would notice something almost completely trivial and which could have all sorts of innocent explanations
I DON'T FEKKIN CARE! I LOVED IT - THE WHOLE EPISODE - I FOUND IT ENTERTAINING, QUIRKY, FUNNY, MOVING AND BETTER VALUE FOR MY LICENCE FEE THAN ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SEEN ON TELLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS. So there.
That's how I interpreted it, but not with a great deal of confidence.
Why were you unsure, watch again from about 1 hour 17.
"But that's not why I came is it Phillip"
"No?"
"Jack the Ripper how I did it?"
"Weren't you intrigued?"
"A case so sensational you thought I'd notice. But you over did it, you and your little fan club"
How is that ambiguous? How is that not spelling it out for you? Someone set up the scene with a set of clothes they bought off eBay and then Philip and his club get told off. Seems clear cut to me.
The clothes had been bought a few weeks earlier as I recall. The scene had not been constructed in the last half hour. At the time they constructed it yes he was, even during the time period of the show he had only revealed himself to a few people such as Lestrade and Watson. So for all they knew at the time they constructed the scene yes he was.
It was a fake scene put together by Anderson and his club in an effort to lure Sherlock out of hiding. It worked actually, because he was called in to look at the scene, but they didn't seen to have anything in place to notice him when he did.
Yes. Imagine my disappointment. I thought 'ooh, finally we're getting into the story, the problem, the case!', and yet it turned out to just a load of s***e about a fanclub.
Yes. Imagine my disappointment. I thought 'ooh, finally we're getting into the story, the problem, the case!', and yet it turned out to just a load of s***e about a fanclub.
I thought the point of the scene was to show how much he missed John not being there when he was working a case. After all he kept imagining what John would be saying at that point ("Show off").
Now I understand that you are clearly in the camp that wanted the episode to be lots of casework and only brief little characterisation, so it wouldn't be for you. But in a show that was showing the effect their separation had on both of them I think it worked.
I DON'T FEKKIN CARE! I LOVED IT - THE WHOLE EPISODE - I FOUND IT ENTERTAINING, QUIRKY, FUNNY, MOVING AND BETTER VALUE FOR MY LICENCE FEE THAN ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SEEN ON TELLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS. So there.
I DON'T FEKKIN CARE! I LOVED IT - THE WHOLE EPISODE - I FOUND IT ENTERTAINING, QUIRKY, FUNNY, MOVING AND BETTER VALUE FOR MY LICENCE FEE THAN ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SEEN ON TELLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS. So there.
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
I still enjoyed the episode.
It was just a pity that they didn't think things through a little more carefully to end up with a better quality product.
I shall not let it put me off the next two episodes.
I loved the episode. Enjoyed Benedict and Martin, all the other actors. Doctor Who and Sherlock my favourite shows and best thing over the festive period.
I thought the point of the scene was to show how much he missed John not being there when he was working a case. After all he kept imagining what John would be saying at that point ("Show off").
Now I understand that you are clearly in the camp that wanted the episode to be lots of casework and only brief little characterisation, so it wouldn't be for you. But in a show that was showing the effect their separation had on both of them I think it worked.
Fair comments, but couldn't Sherlock have started investigating a proper case and then decided he was missing Watson, and it would still have worked? As it was we had the set-up of a case involving a skeleton at the table and it ended up just being more fanwankery stuff when what the episode desperately needed at that point, IMO, was some strong narrative thrust.
Oh well. Hopefully Sunday's will be better for me. I just think it was a mistake to relegate the casework to almost zero when the show has always been fairly plot-heavy.
I spotted this post so will reply as i'm not going through 30 pages.
What was the point of the fooling the assasins when he could get Mycroft to pay them off?
I didn't see any point in the minister in the train. What was he supposed to do there?
It's not like he took the bombs and the primers down there with him.
All he needed to do was pay off the driver.
I think that whole plot line was flawed.
These are very good points.
The episode felt to be stretching this way and that so much so that I didn't feel I got enough time to ponder over things like this in the episode. Which I normally would do in a TV story.
I remember being momentarily baffled by Mycroft removing the assassins on his say so, but at the back of my mind I felt something felt amiss due to my vague memories of the cliffhanger last time. But then it swiftly moved onto something else so I forgot about it.
I think you're completely right there. If Mycroft could just tell the assassins to stand down....then why on earth did Sherlock need to jump in the first place? Did the writers just sort of forget, or have I missed an important detail? I probably have.
Yes and what was the minister getting on the train car all about? (It's a car, not a carriage;-):D).
He obviously didn't take the bombs on board with him. So what was it that he was supposed to have done? Separate the train car from the rest of the train and just make sure that it's situated under The Houses of Parliament? How? Even if he could do this on his own how is this done with a train moving at speed, and without anyone noticing? I'm confused a bit by this.
If Sherlock can trust Molly and a cast of thousands who he hasn't even met to keep it a secret that he didn't really die, why couldn't he trust John Watson of all people to keep quiet about it? The one person he'd know he could rely on to trust.
If Sherlock can trust Molly and a cast of thousands who he hasn't even met to keep it a secret that he didn't really die, why couldn't he trust John Watson of all people to keep quiet about it? The one person he'd know he could rely on to trust.
I was just about to reply the same.
Ok, Sherlock needed to die so that he could unravel Moriarty's network. There's nothing there though for the need for Watson to be in the dark. There were plenty of other people who could give the game away, including his parents.
If they're going to spy on Watson then why not spy on his parents and Mycroft?
Without going over what's already been said, surely the weakest point is the explanation for the sniper about to pot Watson not actually doing so.
The inference in the last episode of Series 2 was that he was satisfied that Holmes had, indeed, fallen to his death. Now we find out that one of Mycroft's men had a gun aimed at him all the time. This is ridiculous. If Mycroft knew every possible location for a sniper, why does Holmes have to jump in the first place? Surely an intelligence service capable of identifying every sniping spot in an area is capable of also defending Molly and Mrs Hudson as well?
This is just bait - the real explanation is to come, I think. However, the story was good enough to stop me even thinking about the jump scene for most of the episode.
Ok, Sherlock needed to die so that he could unravel Moriarty's network. There's nothing there though for the need for Watson to be in the dark. There were plenty of other people who could give the game away, including his parents.
If they're going to spy on Watson then why not spy on his parents and Mycroft?
John didn't even know anything about Sherlock's parents - and Mycroft only fed Moriarty information about Sherlock that they'd arranged so he could have fed Moriarty anything about Sherlock's relationship with his parents (i.e. there is no relationship). Like Molly, they perhaps were seen as not counting. And Mycroft they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near anyway (I can't remember if that was shown in the Reichenbach Fall or whether I read that in an interview... It covered why Moriarty didn't send an gunman after Mycroft - because they couldn't get near him).
Re: the risk of the homeless network letting the cat out of the bag - no idea, plothole, incredibly trusting or one hell of a lot of money to keep them quiet.
Comments
were they Cumberbatch's parents ?
apparently so, I didn't realise til I read it on here TBH even though I knew his mother was an actress. Don't see why that mattered really, the thing that got me was that it jarred with the scene with Sherlock and Mycroft reminiscing about their childhood
What was the point of the fooling the assasins when he could get Mycroft to pay them off?
I didn't see any point in the minister in the train. What was he supposed to do there?
It's not like he took the bombs and the primers down there with him.
All he needed to do was pay off the driver.
I think that whole plot line was flawed.
Yes. I suppose it was designed to make people think "ZOMG! Benny's mum and dad!! Best episode EVAH!!!". There's no other reason why they would've been cast except for the unbearable 'nod, nod, wink, wink' value.
perhaps they did it cos it was agood way of getting a family resemblence
It was a fake scene put together by Anderson and his club in an effort to lure Sherlock out of hiding. It worked actually, because he was called in to look at the scene, but they didn't seen to have anything in place to notice him when he did.
LOL.
We know that none of the explanations is the real one but that doesn't explain why all those who were coming up with the daft versions were concentrating on making the one person Holmes trusts above all others (even Mycroft) believe he was dead whilst a whole raft of others knew the truth.
The writers have made a bunch of people behave in an absurd manner - which is badly thought out writing. You can't just excuse coming up with explanations that ignore the main purpose of the fake suicide by airily saying: 'oh, they were just fans'. They also need to behave in a generally coherent manner unless they are inhabiting a mental institution.
As with the previous item, you completely miss the point. Holmes did nothing to get the information - it was entirely arbitrary. If the RE hadn't decided to contact Holmes,Holmes would have failed. In the original cases this doesn't happen. They are much better thought out and written and it's Holmes' entirely intellect that solves the problem. Yes, he'll ask people questions and use their answers to solve it but it is a result of pure chance as it was in this case.
Quite.
That's what makes the whole thing so incredibly stupid. (I just mentioned driving it back so that the terminally hard of thinking could see how it would be impossible for it not to be blindingly obvious).
Er, no, the explosive filled carriage was left on a disused section of track.
ROFLMAO! You have the most bizarre sense of what is and isn't possible.
You seem to believe that someone can cover up a missing carriage and driving cab from the subsequent drivers of the train and all the staff and passengers that see it at the terminus and all the hundreds of passengers and staff who would see a short train with one carriage end that opens onto nothing.
And yet despite accepting that these hundreds (more likely thousands) of people did not notice this incredibly obvious anomaly you are quite happy to believe that one person would notice something almost completely trivial and which could have all sorts of innocent explanations
I DON'T FEKKIN CARE! I LOVED IT - THE WHOLE EPISODE - I FOUND IT ENTERTAINING, QUIRKY, FUNNY, MOVING AND BETTER VALUE FOR MY LICENCE FEE THAN ANYTHING ELSE I'VE SEEN ON TELLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS. So there.
Why were you unsure, watch again from about 1 hour 17.
"But that's not why I came is it Phillip"
"No?"
"Jack the Ripper how I did it?"
"Weren't you intrigued?"
"A case so sensational you thought I'd notice. But you over did it, you and your little fan club"
How is that ambiguous? How is that not spelling it out for you? Someone set up the scene with a set of clothes they bought off eBay and then Philip and his club get told off. Seems clear cut to me.
The clothes had been bought a few weeks earlier as I recall. The scene had not been constructed in the last half hour. At the time they constructed it yes he was, even during the time period of the show he had only revealed himself to a few people such as Lestrade and Watson. So for all they knew at the time they constructed the scene yes he was.
Only John's spotter was in direct line of the plan, hence why he had to be compromised by Mycroft. The other spotters weren't at the scene.
Yes. Imagine my disappointment. I thought 'ooh, finally we're getting into the story, the problem, the case!', and yet it turned out to just a load of s***e about a fanclub.
Now I understand that you are clearly in the camp that wanted the episode to be lots of casework and only brief little characterisation, so it wouldn't be for you. But in a show that was showing the effect their separation had on both of them I think it worked.
I'm with you!:):):):):):)
I still enjoyed the episode.
It was just a pity that they didn't think things through a little more carefully to end up with a better quality product.
I shall not let it put me off the next two episodes.
Fair comments, but couldn't Sherlock have started investigating a proper case and then decided he was missing Watson, and it would still have worked? As it was we had the set-up of a case involving a skeleton at the table and it ended up just being more fanwankery stuff when what the episode desperately needed at that point, IMO, was some strong narrative thrust.
Oh well. Hopefully Sunday's will be better for me. I just think it was a mistake to relegate the casework to almost zero when the show has always been fairly plot-heavy.
These are very good points.
The episode felt to be stretching this way and that so much so that I didn't feel I got enough time to ponder over things like this in the episode. Which I normally would do in a TV story.
I remember being momentarily baffled by Mycroft removing the assassins on his say so, but at the back of my mind I felt something felt amiss due to my vague memories of the cliffhanger last time. But then it swiftly moved onto something else so I forgot about it.
I think you're completely right there. If Mycroft could just tell the assassins to stand down....then why on earth did Sherlock need to jump in the first place? Did the writers just sort of forget, or have I missed an important detail? I probably have.
Yes and what was the minister getting on the train car all about? (It's a car, not a carriage;-):D).
He obviously didn't take the bombs on board with him. So what was it that he was supposed to have done? Separate the train car from the rest of the train and just make sure that it's situated under The Houses of Parliament? How? Even if he could do this on his own how is this done with a train moving at speed, and without anyone noticing? I'm confused a bit by this.
Ok, Sherlock needed to die so that he could unravel Moriarty's network. There's nothing there though for the need for Watson to be in the dark. There were plenty of other people who could give the game away, including his parents.
If they're going to spy on Watson then why not spy on his parents and Mycroft?
The inference in the last episode of Series 2 was that he was satisfied that Holmes had, indeed, fallen to his death. Now we find out that one of Mycroft's men had a gun aimed at him all the time. This is ridiculous. If Mycroft knew every possible location for a sniper, why does Holmes have to jump in the first place? Surely an intelligence service capable of identifying every sniping spot in an area is capable of also defending Molly and Mrs Hudson as well?
This is just bait - the real explanation is to come, I think. However, the story was good enough to stop me even thinking about the jump scene for most of the episode.
John didn't even know anything about Sherlock's parents - and Mycroft only fed Moriarty information about Sherlock that they'd arranged so he could have fed Moriarty anything about Sherlock's relationship with his parents (i.e. there is no relationship). Like Molly, they perhaps were seen as not counting. And Mycroft they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near anyway (I can't remember if that was shown in the Reichenbach Fall or whether I read that in an interview... It covered why Moriarty didn't send an gunman after Mycroft - because they couldn't get near him).
Re: the risk of the homeless network letting the cat out of the bag - no idea, plothole, incredibly trusting or one hell of a lot of money to keep them quiet.