It was called The Hounds of Baskerville for a reason...there were two hounds. Not just the acronym, but an actual dog too (indeed possibly three if you include the dogging business )

Was that Elvis moment actually Elvis or was it Benedict Cumberbatch ? Sounded like the latter, to me. He does lots of impressions.
I wished that there had been more fog. They couldn't, maybe because the fog had to be in one place.
Liked the scene in which Sherlock loses it. Does Watson assume that Sherlock is just suffering from nicotine withdrawal ? He'd surely recognise the symptoms of shock.

I really enjoyed that, although I had to move my iPlayer down to SD 20 minutes from the end. Bloody file sharers all get their traffic shaping turned off at 10pm. Grrrr.

Up until this episode I'd forgotten how good Jeremy Brett was.

I love this show. I like that this season is much more about the "humanising" of Sherlock, Ep One being love/lust and this ep fear/self doubt. Makes you wonder what Moriarty will make him feel in the finale next week? Anger/ Revenge/Sadness?

Was the Luminous Rabbit a reference to the Likely Lads?

Well there is the rub. Was it a trailer or was it an epilogue? It was not at all clear. If it was supposed to be a trailer then the edit was appalling.

Oh thank godness I thoought it was a trailer andf then I read this thread and thought Id missed some massive plotline

I've just seen the repeat of Graham Norton with Martin Freeman on and he said they are looking to do a third series

Or maybe the imaginary giant rabbit in the James Stewart film 'Harvey' ? Or even the hilarious, ' Night of the Lepus' ?
What will Sherlock feel in the next episode ? Maybe that even his powers, when faced with completely amoral evil, are defeated ?

I do hope so.

Would be great and might I add that MF was looking rather dishy on the GN prog. I feel a strange crush coming on

JUst watched my first show, pretty good if you dont try and pick holes in the plot and how inplausible some of these deductions are .

I'm another in the group that believes that the actor who plays Moriarty is great.
I like the fact that physically he appears so unassuming and unlikely.

I missed most of the first series and only tuned in to the final episode of the last series.
It was the performance of Moriarty that hooked me right into this show.
Love the show now. Moriarty, Holmes, Watson, Mrs. Hudson. Love the acting from all of the respective players.

If I have any criticism, and I do have a couple, they'd be a minor one in which I think Moriarty looks too physically similar to the actor who plays LeStraud and I keep confusing which is which when they briefly appear in a scene in a quick edit which is moodily lit.

The other criticism is that although I think the acting from the main characters is great, I too find that some of the acting from supporting characters not up to par.
I find this happens frequently in many British fantasy or sci-fi dramas too.
It's as though the actors are overly familiar with the material or the characters and think they should play them a certain way in which they think is expected.
So I tend to think that some of the acting is great, and other actors although not acting badly seem to be off in their approach as though they're thinking Oh Sherlock? Doctor Who writer? I guess it should be a bit of fun. Then it can jar with me with patchy acting. Some actors doing a great job, but others acting as though they are in a children's drama. Not bad acting necessarily, but just off for an intelligent adult drama.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman manage to carry off funny lines in comedy moments and appear able to be funny yet believable at the same time.

But on the whole I love this series. I really liked last weeks episode and I'm glad that the female character wasn't killed off because she seemed like too good a character to just throw away.

Wow.
I'm surprised by that. I wouldn't normally expect something like that for a non-soap drama.

I'm glad though because I think the episode was deserving of those kinds of ratings.

Why are you expecting to be spoon-fed everything?

More to the point why do you actually want to be spoon-fed everything?

Mystery and suspense wouldn't exist if everything was made literal and immediate to us.
In fact Sherlock Holmes probably wouldn't have even existed as a work of fiction if it was demanded of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to reveal everything as quickly as possible so that the reader could get there quicker.

It wasn't some mistake on the writer's part. He made the deliberate choice to not tell you why Moriarty was in that final scene in that particular scenario. That's why you were shown what was shown to you. He didn't have to show you anything at all, but the fact you were shown that scene at all suggests that there was a reason to show it.
No mistake, no plot-hole, not bad writing, completely deliberate.

You have a choice to either forget about it and wait until next week to see what it was all about, or you can enjoy the tease and speculate. Both are reasaonable responses which I'm sure Stephen Moffat would be happy for you to do whichever choice you opt for.
But it's not a mistake. Nobody's slipped up and done something wrong in terms of storytelling.

As good as Columbo is, Sherlock is not Columbo, it's something different.

Sure, why not? I have stuff to do and have a busy schedule. I don't like my time being wasted.

If you're completely satisfied that the explanation behind the space jockey in Alien will be explained in the forthcoming Ridley Scott film Prometheus after 32 years, why aren't you cutting Sherlock some slack for revealing what happens next in a weeks time?

I thought this weeks was the worst of the five so far,I prefer things to be in the city (so to speak)
as for Sherlock's "mind thing" with the hands moving the words,lets just say I hope they don't do that too often - its not Hollywood or sci-fi

Yes I agree with all that.
It's not just all the story details that make it for me it's also the sense of atmosphere.
Even though it's a modern and contemporary take on Sherlock, for me it also has an eerie kind of Victorian/Edwardian feel about it with a bit of Neo-noir thrown in too. I think a lot of thought has gone into the look and stylisation of this to get it just right.

I don't think this is mentioned as much as the acting and storytelling but I think it's worth mentioning that it also looks great and feels great.

double post

I love Sherlock not only for the excellent quality of the writing, direction and acting but also because it's the only programme that will get the whole family to sit down together and watch as a family. In a household with two teenagers (14 and 17) that is quite an achievement (one that hasn't happened in about 6 years!) and I am glad that Sherlock has done that!

I thought that Hounds was another great episode! I find that the one in the middle is always quite difficult as it doesn't have the impact of a series opener or the (possibility) of a series finale cliffhanger But I loved this episode and look forward to next weeks, though I wish it wasn't ending!

I agree with this.... although I did get a question this week from my worldly wise (she thinks) 14 year old ' So why are all those cars parked in a circle in the middle of nowhere??' I didn't really feel up to starting to explain the concept of dogging....

It's Alphas...


...kinda.

Must admit I did giggle at that bit, thought he was chanelling Sheldon from BBT