[DFI]

Originally Posted by eggshell

Unfortunately again they ditched this and came up with Hound being an acronym that Holmes remembered near the end. You know thats not out of keeping with a lot of Holmes original stories but it feels a bit of a cheat to do it with the one original that was fair.

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 )

[Stockingfiller]

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.

[edEx]

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.

[doom&gloom]

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

[daniel9624]

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?

[piimapoika]

Was the Luminous Rabbit a reference to the Likely Lads?

[gomezz]

Originally Posted by DFI

You do realise that it was a trailer, right? A teaser for next week's episode.

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.

[Fayecorgasm]

Originally Posted by DFI

You do realise that it was a trailer, right? A teaser for next week's episode.

And you want it to be a self contained story in its own right?

How about waiting until they actually broadcast the whole thing and then see if things are explained?

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

[Night Owl]

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

[Stockingfiller]

Originally Posted by piimapoika

Was the Luminous Rabbit a reference to the Likely Lads?

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 ?

[StarSupernova]

Originally Posted by Night Owl

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

I do hope so.

[Night Owl]

Originally Posted by StarSupernova

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

[iamsofired]

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 .

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by lovinluka

He's brilliant as Moriarty - just because he isn't the traditional older, quieter, brooding interpretation? I love the barely-contained crazed terrifying genius Andrew Scott conveys, I like that this Moriarty puts on a big performance and elaborates everything into a 'playful' game. It's wonderfully entertaining and unnervingly dissociated from any real feelings.

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.

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by cylon6

A Scandal In Belgravia was watched by 10.66m in the BARB ratings! Blimey!

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.

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by Superbeast

I missed that part. Was there an announcement "Find out just how Moriarty as caught... and what he has planned for Sherlock next week at the later time of 9"? Because I didn't hear that. I did hear them say it would be on later next week but no other information was given to explain Moriarty being in a cell this week when he was a free man last week.

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.

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by Rorschach

So when watching the first episode of The Killing you want a message that some of the people being investigated in the episode aren't actually the murderer but are red herrings?

Before the very first episode of Masterchef you want a note that you shouldn't get attached to anyone in the heat because none of them, in fact, will reach the final?

When watching Aliens you want a detailed description of how the alien spaceship came to be on planet LV-426 in the first place because they never actually show you you know?

In the first book of a trilogy you don't want to see a single line that relates to a plot in the next two books. It must be entirely self-contained.

In Con Air there's an entire plane full of criminals and not a single one of them is shown being arrested!

It's a serial drama, the ending was a foreshadowing of the coming episode. It will make sense after you have watched the next one.


PS - We never saw how Watson got his breakfast, no one was seen cooking it or even buying the ingredients. Am I expected to just assume it was prepared in the kitchens of the pub where they were staying? Bloody lazy writers.

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

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by Superbeast

No, I thought it was an epic saga in and of itself. Please can the sarcasm, I'm not an idiot despite everyone trying to make me out as one for noticing a plot hole.

I do not expect a set up for next week to be in and of itself self explanatory. What I would like is if they ae going to present the threat of Moriarty's release, establishing him being captured in the first place. Apparently that's expecting too much of professional writers these days.

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?

[mickmars]

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 ;-)

[Alrightmate]

Originally Posted by Sallysally

She was also in the wonderful 2012 series on BBC.

As far as Sherlock was concerned, I thought it to be as good as the first in this series. I found it scary in parts (OK, I know I scare easily, but still..), particularly the scenes in the house and although I know the original story backwards, it really does not matter to me if they change the story and bring it into line for the modern era.

In fact, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise!

I think Cumberbatch and Freeman make a fantastic team.

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.

[Alrightmate]

double post

[Starfish.r.cool]

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!

[and123]

Originally Posted by Starfish.r.cool

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 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....

[Normandie]

Originally Posted by mickmars

...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 ;-)

It's Alphas...


...kinda.

[Agent Krycek]

Originally Posted by mickmars

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 ;-)

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