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?
I am pleased that it is described as being "based on" the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I did actually enjoy this evening's episode, and had a chuckle now and then. I am greatly relieved that I did gain enjoyment from watching it because the episode the other day confused and yet also bored me so that I switched it off after half an hour.
Not only I then, that's good:) That first episode did not gain my curiosity.
Whatever happened to critical judgement? It seems that many people are determined to like it regardless of its many shortcomings.
Just as there are other people who who are determined to dislike it regardless of it's strengths, many because they dislike what one of the writers did to their beloved Doctor Who.
Just as there are other people who who are determined to dislike it regardless of it's strengths, many because they dislike what one of the writers did to their beloved Doctor Who.
I suspect that a lot of Dr Who fans love Sherlock because this series it seems interchangeable (pace wise, dialogue wise, performance wise) with it.
Not watching again. It was rubbish the previous episode and this was just one monotonous monolgue. Sherlock mumbling for 90 mins. Had to put the subs on. I lasted 30 mins and switched off. Rather just see a normal case.
I suspect that a lot of Dr Who fans love Sherlock because this series it seems interchangeable (pace wise, dialogue wise, performance wise) with it.
I'm afraid that I don't 'get' that at all. What it's basically saying is that people who like one programme like another - which is pretty standard isn't it?
I like Dr Who and Sherlock.
The other half likes Dr Who and has never been a Sherlock fan.
My mum loves Sherlock and wouldn't watch Dr Who if you paid her in cold hard cash.
Sometimes, people just like what they like - or don't like what they don't.
Anyway, I must be a pretty poor watcher of both Dr Who and Sherlock 'cos I don't really find them interchangeable at all. I watch Dr Who knowing it's Dr Who and Sherlock as Sherlock.
I didn't have a problem with last week's episode at all - I wasn't too keen on the "nods to the fandom" stuff but each to their own, and it didn't bother me that much; I just thought it was a bit silly.
But on the whole, I thought it was watchable and it was perfectly acceptable to spend episode one rebuilding relationships and setting the scene for the next two.
I really didn't enjoy last night's though - I thought it was overlong, the crime plot was weak, and fairly predictable and it had a feel about it of something that is being deliberately wedged into a cult shaped hole ( and I didn't know until reading this thread that the writers were involved with Dr Who - I don't watch DW and tend to avoid reading too much about the stuff I do watch, like Sherlock because I prefer to just watch and enjoy - or not)
I hope the finale is tighter and has more substance to it, and I suspect it will, but I'm disappointed with the fact that we've now had two fairly light episodes.
For all that, it'll take a lot for me to stop watching as I still think it's worth tuning in for just for performances of the two leads.
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.
I was slightly annoyed too that the victim was very apparent, the importance of the belt was highlighted, and that the woman's connection to 'John Hamish Watson' was made so easy too. And that the photographer was fairly transparently placed mid-scene close to the recap of the photographer stalking the guardsmen.
I prefer not to be able to put these things together myself, personally Having said that, I do dislike detective dramas where the final denouement rests entirely upon some piece of evidence known only to the detective.
I'm perfectly happy with the belt explanation, though. Credible enough for my suspension of disbelief.
Not watching again. It was rubbish the previous episode and this was just one monotonous monolgue. Sherlock mumbling for 90 mins. Had to put the subs on. I lasted 30 mins and switched off. Rather just see a normal case.
I heard and understood every word and I am watching in a foreign language (English). Maybe there is something wrong with your TV.
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
Yes. I agree with you. Also we like Dr Who and our kids like it too. Talking to my next door neighbor has shown me that Dr Who has changed a lot over the numerous years it has been made also.
Ijust noticed something in latest episode that relates exactly to next weeks!!!!
The telegram sherlock reads to Mary which calls her Poppet is from CAM. Charles Augustus Magnusson.
In the original books he was labelled CAM devil
Noticed that too and I felt by the look on her face that she knows 'CAM' really well too. Is the bit about wishing her family had been around to see this day relevant as well?
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.
I was immediately reminded of that Supernatural episode, during last week's Sherlock, the whole Wincest! (some fangirl dreams of romantic overtures between the two leads who are brothers on Supernatural for those who don't watch) and Sherlock/Moriarty.
I enjoyed that episode, especially the downgrading of the restaurants and I did giggle at the off switch on the bomb. It was nice to see something different to the usual cutting of the correct wire a tenth of a second before it explodes.
I didn't like this episode as much. It had its comical moments - the stag 'do, Lestrade sending armed response and whoever else to Baker St. and I really liked the courtroom scene, but it just felt a bit overblown and padded. At times I found myself thinking 'get on with it', and the murder plot felt like it had been crowbarred into place. I can see what they were trying to do, but for me, it didn't quite work.
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.
From my own layman's point of view, I'd have thought the same (especially as the major may not be able to tighten his belt - it depends on whether you could tighten it one handed, after fastening it). But similarly, I don't know about the real situation.
In both cases, what would the person do who started to feel pain? They still wouldn’t know they had been stabbed. The soldier on guard duty would carry on guarding until relieved. The Watson/Holmes dialogue touched on this when discussing scratching. Idle chat at the time, but ultimately relevant to the plot. I think a re-watch of the episode would indicate both showing discomfort, but not enough for the viewer to realise without the advantage of hindsight.
I don’t know if the major got up from his seat and returned to his room because he now realised what had happened, based on Sherlock’s speech, or if he was just feeling unwell.
It is certainly not unknown for people to have serious internal injuries but for them to not realise how badly hurt thry are and so put off getting help until it is too late.
Are people who have seen the first two series really happy with "The elephant in the room" and the glowing matchbox as references to Sherlock's cases? Really?
Maybe they've just forgotten how good this programme was previously.
This week's episode - the comedy was comedic, the emotion was emotional, the dialogue was sharp, the Sherlock thinking was well done, Benny and Martin would be worth watching if they were reading the telephone directory aloud, the portrayal of the relationships were spot on, but - it wasn't Sherlock. I'm not Sherlocked.
The crime bits were just pathetic. No tension, no urgency, no menace.
And how much padding is necessary? John and Mary's dance went on and on. So far these have been hour long episodes stretched to fit an hour and a half.
I hope for an improvement next week.
There's been a lot of remarks on here about Moffat. I've disliked a lot of his stuff for Doctor Who, felt that Moffat had lost the plot, and then, suddenly, he'll pull something out of the hat that takes your breath away by his sheer genius. Crossing fingers he'll do that for me again next week with Sherlock.
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.
How do you know? How many terrorist bombs have you encountered?
As I did last week, I've compiled a list of references in last night's episode (ten in all) to The Sign of Four and various other Sherlock Holmes stories - link below.
For example, Sherlock's meticulous palette would have tasted the spirit in his drinks,,,
Normally yes, but in this case i think that can be explained by the fact he had already had a lot of beers, so his "meticulous palette' would not have been working to full effectiveness.
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'?
This annoyed me too, reminded me of how slow he was to realise that Watson fired the shot in the first episode of series 1.
Does anyone know, why did the photographer have to watch that young soldier so much that he felt he was being stalked? Surely the photographer didn't need a particular soldier to be his victim, just any of the guards who did that duty would have done? So I would have thought he just needed to watch long enough to find out how long a duty shift lasted and what time they switched over, so he would know what time he wanted to do the stabbing?
How do you know? How many terrorist bombs have you encountered?
Well the Army and bomb disposal units seem to take terrorists bombs very seriously, especially in their approach to diffusing them. They must be wasting their time if such bombs have a simple on off switch.
How many examples can you give of terrorist bombs that have been diffused because they had a simple on off switch.
As for the bomb in Sherlock, it may had an on off switch on purpose and was just a calling card to Sherlock from the bad guy.
But terrorist bombs do not have on off switches, and neither do they have nice LED time displays to show the count down. Unfortunately terrorists aren't that considerate.:)
Sherlock drew 8.84m, down only 400k from Wednesday's record high (which is a remarkably strong performance, as ratings for all shows almost always tail off after the season opener).
31.9% share of audience, comfortably the most-watched show from yesterday.
The overall number will go up once repeat showings, iPlayer and other time-shifted viewing is taken into account in a week's time.
A lot of people on DS are critical about the current series (I make no judgement about that - each to their own) but there can be no question that Sherlock is delivering seriously good numbers for the Beeb and that the vast majority of viewers were happy enough with episode 1 to tune in to episode 2 too.
Sherlock drew 8.84m, down only 400k from Wednesday's record high (which is a remarkably strong performance, as ratings for all shows almost always tail off after the season opener).
That episode was mind blowingly self indulgent. The writers and producers obviously believe their own hype a bit too much and feel they can churn out any old pish and convince people it's 'OMG, like sooooo amazing'.
Comments
Not only I then, that's good:) That first episode did not gain my curiosity.
I suspect that a lot of Dr Who fans love Sherlock because this series it seems interchangeable (pace wise, dialogue wise, performance wise) with it.
I'm afraid that I don't 'get' that at all. What it's basically saying is that people who like one programme like another - which is pretty standard isn't it?
I like Dr Who and Sherlock.
The other half likes Dr Who and has never been a Sherlock fan.
My mum loves Sherlock and wouldn't watch Dr Who if you paid her in cold hard cash.
Sometimes, people just like what they like - or don't like what they don't.
Anyway, I must be a pretty poor watcher of both Dr Who and Sherlock 'cos I don't really find them interchangeable at all. I watch Dr Who knowing it's Dr Who and Sherlock as Sherlock.
But on the whole, I thought it was watchable and it was perfectly acceptable to spend episode one rebuilding relationships and setting the scene for the next two.
I really didn't enjoy last night's though - I thought it was overlong, the crime plot was weak, and fairly predictable and it had a feel about it of something that is being deliberately wedged into a cult shaped hole ( and I didn't know until reading this thread that the writers were involved with Dr Who - I don't watch DW and tend to avoid reading too much about the stuff I do watch, like Sherlock because I prefer to just watch and enjoy - or not)
I hope the finale is tighter and has more substance to it, and I suspect it will, but I'm disappointed with the fact that we've now had two fairly light episodes.
For all that, it'll take a lot for me to stop watching as I still think it's worth tuning in for just for performances of the two leads.
I was slightly annoyed too that the victim was very apparent, the importance of the belt was highlighted, and that the woman's connection to 'John Hamish Watson' was made so easy too. And that the photographer was fairly transparently placed mid-scene close to the recap of the photographer stalking the guardsmen.
I prefer not to be able to put these things together myself, personally
I'm perfectly happy with the belt explanation, though. Credible enough for my suspension of disbelief.
I heard and understood every word and I am watching in a foreign language (English). Maybe there is something wrong with your TV.
Yes. I agree with you. Also we like Dr Who and our kids like it too. Talking to my next door neighbor has shown me that Dr Who has changed a lot over the numerous years it has been made also.
In the original books he was labelled CAM devil
I was immediately reminded of that Supernatural episode, during last week's Sherlock, the whole Wincest! (some fangirl dreams of romantic overtures between the two leads who are brothers on Supernatural for those who don't watch) and Sherlock/Moriarty.
I enjoyed that episode, especially the downgrading of the restaurants and I did giggle at the off switch on the bomb. It was nice to see something different to the usual cutting of the correct wire a tenth of a second before it explodes.
I didn't like this episode as much. It had its comical moments - the stag 'do, Lestrade sending armed response and whoever else to Baker St. and I really liked the courtroom scene, but it just felt a bit overblown and padded. At times I found myself thinking 'get on with it', and the murder plot felt like it had been crowbarred into place. I can see what they were trying to do, but for me, it didn't quite work.
From my own layman's point of view, I'd have thought the same (especially as the major may not be able to tighten his belt - it depends on whether you could tighten it one handed, after fastening it). But similarly, I don't know about the real situation.
In both cases, what would the person do who started to feel pain? They still wouldn’t know they had been stabbed. The soldier on guard duty would carry on guarding until relieved. The Watson/Holmes dialogue touched on this when discussing scratching. Idle chat at the time, but ultimately relevant to the plot. I think a re-watch of the episode would indicate both showing discomfort, but not enough for the viewer to realise without the advantage of hindsight.
I don’t know if the major got up from his seat and returned to his room because he now realised what had happened, based on Sherlock’s speech, or if he was just feeling unwell.
It is certainly not unknown for people to have serious internal injuries but for them to not realise how badly hurt thry are and so put off getting help until it is too late.
Maybe they've just forgotten how good this programme was previously.
This week's episode - the comedy was comedic, the emotion was emotional, the dialogue was sharp, the Sherlock thinking was well done, Benny and Martin would be worth watching if they were reading the telephone directory aloud, the portrayal of the relationships were spot on, but - it wasn't Sherlock. I'm not Sherlocked.
The crime bits were just pathetic. No tension, no urgency, no menace.
And how much padding is necessary? John and Mary's dance went on and on. So far these have been hour long episodes stretched to fit an hour and a half.
I hope for an improvement next week.
There's been a lot of remarks on here about Moffat. I've disliked a lot of his stuff for Doctor Who, felt that Moffat had lost the plot, and then, suddenly, he'll pull something out of the hat that takes your breath away by his sheer genius. Crossing fingers he'll do that for me again next week with Sherlock.
How do you know? How many terrorist bombs have you encountered?
http://slouchingtowardstv.com/2014/01/06/sherlock-the-sign-of-three-10-references-you-may-have-missed/
I'm sure I've missed a load more, so feel free to let me know what a dullard I've been!
Also, here's my review of last night's episode, which some have referenced already:
http://slouchingtowardstv.com/2014/01/05/sherlock-s3-ep2-the-sign-of-three/
Hope these are useful/interesting.
Normally yes, but in this case i think that can be explained by the fact he had already had a lot of beers, so his "meticulous palette' would not have been working to full effectiveness.
This annoyed me too, reminded me of how slow he was to realise that Watson fired the shot in the first episode of series 1.
Does anyone know, why did the photographer have to watch that young soldier so much that he felt he was being stalked? Surely the photographer didn't need a particular soldier to be his victim, just any of the guards who did that duty would have done? So I would have thought he just needed to watch long enough to find out how long a duty shift lasted and what time they switched over, so he would know what time he wanted to do the stabbing?
Well the Army and bomb disposal units seem to take terrorists bombs very seriously, especially in their approach to diffusing them. They must be wasting their time if such bombs have a simple on off switch.
How many examples can you give of terrorist bombs that have been diffused because they had a simple on off switch.
As for the bomb in Sherlock, it may had an on off switch on purpose and was just a calling card to Sherlock from the bad guy.
But terrorist bombs do not have on off switches, and neither do they have nice LED time displays to show the count down. Unfortunately terrorists aren't that considerate.:)
Sherlock drew 8.84m, down only 400k from Wednesday's record high (which is a remarkably strong performance, as ratings for all shows almost always tail off after the season opener).
31.9% share of audience, comfortably the most-watched show from yesterday.
The overall number will go up once repeat showings, iPlayer and other time-shifted viewing is taken into account in a week's time.
A lot of people on DS are critical about the current series (I make no judgement about that - each to their own) but there can be no question that Sherlock is delivering seriously good numbers for the Beeb and that the vast majority of viewers were happy enough with episode 1 to tune in to episode 2 too.
Excellent news!
Embarrassing.