I hope so too!

Not just room, in a 3 episode series is there any excuse for a filler episode?

Filler episodes are usually used as a breather for some elements of the production, say to allow a rest for the lead actor for one reason or another. But there's enough of an opportunity to experiment or try something different without reducing the number of episodes in the series.
When you only have 3 episodes to start with I find it inexcusable to use an episode or two to play around a bit.

Fingers crossed, that it will be back on form!

Spot on! I agree with you there. We are waiting long enough for a new series, and we only have three episodes to watch per year. I find it inexcusable too-if that is indeed the case.

Exactly. The biggest reason I'm complaining tonight is because two precious episodes were wasted, in a long running 20 episode show that would be fine, but there are only 3 in a series of Sherlock. Every one should be written to be the best it can be, at what it should be. Doing it with the opener was bad enough, but at least you had the excuse there of everyone he usually has around him to help solve a crime thinking he's dead, tonight there was no such excuse, they had a chance to tell another great story to add to the small, and with both actor's stars rising, likely to be limited, set they have and they blew it on more fan service, as if the fan fiction opener wasn't enough. If only they'd put that energy to good use somewhere more appropriate, Doctor Who's 50th, where they refused to do hardly any for the sake of the story, shame they didn't care about story here.

Well, I just saw the trailer for episode 3 "His Last Vow"...Looks like it might be back on form!.

Again, I am still hoping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=xhjIsu7n6bI

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?

If you'll indulge me for a moment, seeing as I wrote that review - and did so before seeing the finale ...

I stand by what I wrote, but two points:

1. I deliberately withheld mentioning a couple of *major* clues that appeared in this episode for the finale, because I didn't want to spoil the surprise for people who didn't spot them - which, given that nobody has mentioned either anywhere on this thread, seems to be most people.

2. My view of the episode changed (for the better) after seeing the finale.

That's not to say I think this was the best episode ever, or even a particularly good one. It was perhaps a 7/10. However, I'd still say that mediocre Sherlock is still better than 90% of what else is on TV.

Your point about not needing a filler episode in a 3-part series is bang on, though. Having read a lot of comments in various places (not just Twitter, where you can always find people who complain that the sun rises in the morning), I know several people who absolutely adored this episode, some (not many) who thought it was poor, and several who were in between. A typical cross-section reaction, in other words, perhaps a little more negative than usual.

But hey, even in a poor episode there is plenty to enjoy. I don't ignore the flaws, but I do prefer to focus on the good stuff. A game of Drunken Deduction, anyone?

Nothing personal, but do you know that for sure, though? Honestly, I'm not afraid to admit I don't know about how it would work (or whether it actually does work), but I'm also sceptical of the number of people on here who claim to be experts on the matter ...

She does die in the books. Bear in mind the order of stories is different, but basically:

First introduced in The Sign of Four, at the end of which Watson proposes to her. (She accepts.)

Wedding takes place off-camera (or off-book, as it were).

Makes fleeting appearances in a couple of the short stories (Watson has moved out of 221b at this point, I believe) - the Watsons have a good marriage, but like any real one it has its ups and downs.

Appears to have died between The Final Problem (Reichenbach Falls) and The Empty House (Sherlock's return). I say appears because the exact timeline is implied rather than explicit. Holmes consoles Watson on his bereavement in TEH, so she's definitely dead.)

Of course, there's nothing to say for sure whether the writers will stick strictly to canon and kill the TV version of Mary - or even when it will happen.

Hope that helps.

It's open to interpretation. The first two versions were fans' interpretations - I think we cans safely dismiss the second one (where Sherlock & Moriarty kiss), but elements of the first one *may* have some merit (probably not the Derren Brown bit though).

The version told by Sherlock at the end *may* be true but it's left ambiguous. It could also be Sherlock winding Anderson up. Opinion on this is divided - some believe it to be true, personally I believe some of it is true but that Sherlock is deliberate toying with him.

As the episode itself hints, what matters is not so much how Sherlock survived, but that the fact he did and didn't tell John had had a damaging effect on their relationship.

In an interview after the BFI preview, Gatiss called the final scenario "a very plausible solution". So, again, very ambiguous.

Hope that helps.

Interesting thing I noticed: when Mary gives Sherlock and John the thumbs up before they go to solve a case, there are decorative horns positioned directly behind her on the wall and the way the scene is shot makes it look she's wearing them.

You don't think that could be some kind of symbolism or anything? Like, it could turn out that she's actually working with the big bad of this series? Either that or I'm looking too much into it.

They are doing something quite daring and controversial which is about breaking out of the crime show format.
I dont know any other crime show where an episode is basically a best mans speech and where the crimes are anecdotes.
Its brilliant.....but its not easy.

Episode 1 was similar,focusing on the relationship between characters and not on the crime.

I like the idea of THREE,of Sherlock and watson and wife being a unity instead of the usual twosome we get in crime shows,of the baby making three, and of the fact it was written by three writers instead of the usual one or two.

This series the crimes are secondary. Some will like that, some wont. But whatever, its a daring approach to a jaded genre.The final episode might put them back on track and steady them for a more conventional season 4.

"Who knows?"

Felt episode two was an improvement on episode 1, but I still miss the crime-solving/mystery. I can't deny that the dialogue and interaction between the characters is witty and funny, but it's all the show has been about so far in series 3. Where's the substance? If that's the way the writers are going then perhaps I'll give it a miss next series.

Much better than last week, but still pretty poor.

Surely anyone who reads detective fiction, like ACD or Christie is used to new, inventive and possibly slightly implausible ways of people being made the dreaded deaded?

I mean, I've never thought that having someone die of fright to order is a particularly reliable but it seems very popular.

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.

Yes, I watch DW as well as Sherlock, but contrary to your sweeping generalisation where you go on to admit not even watching the programme, I enjoy complex plots, story arcs and complex characters rather than "leave your brain at the door" action and special effects.

Sweeping generalisations are hardly the best way to make a point or to win an argument, neither is a snobbishness or a condescending, dismissive attitude about others who enjoy science fiction (an attitude that still seems to be apparent in your reply).

What difference does it make? Or are you asking if you can only enjoy this series if you haven't read the books or seen other adaptations?

If it makes any difference, I've read the books, watched Rathbone and Brett and enjoy Elementary (and House). If I want the pure story and to exercise my imagination, I'll read the books. If I want to see a moving book, I'll watch Brett. If I want to watch a Sherlock-that-isn't-Sherlock I'll watch this.

The very fact of taking it out the era it was written and placing in it 'today' means that it's going to change - and it certainly isn't the worst adaptation of a book to tele that I've seen (that goes to the Elizabeth George Inspector Lynley stories which were completely miscast and adapted with a rusty can opener, in my opinion, although the more recent ITV Marples run them a close second. Always baffles me that a channel that had Piorot so right can get Marple so wrong every time, but anyway).

Any programme that has to live up to 2 years worth of over-the-top hype is never going to live up to expectation. It would have been interesting to see how these episodes were met if they had run on from the end of the last series or with a more 'normal' series break.

I found last evenings programmes story line , a little poor,compared to the 1st in the new series, my opinion.

But 100% better than Atlantis,which bored me so I stopped watching it.

Whatever happened to critical judgement? It seems that many people are determined to like it regardless of its many shortcomings. Hearing Sherlock sing the praises of his doctor was exactly like hearing one or Dr Who's companions singing the praises of that particular doctor! Whatever the title the format and the behaviour of the leads is exactly the same in both shows. There was nothing Sherlock said or did last night that one couldn't imagine Matt Smith's Dr Who saying or doing! That's a major problem. Sherlock Holmes and Dr Who are not interchangeable. Dr Who is essentially a kiddy show for kiddies of all ages, Sherlock isn't or shouldn't be.

Surely the belt is a proxy for applying pressure to the wound (as Sherlock had to do for the first soldier).

What was the glow inside that matchbox?

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