Well here's my two penneth, for what it's worth: I'm a big fan of Sherlock but I did not enjoy The Sign Of Three at all, with the exception of perhaps the last fifteen minutes. In fact I found a lot of it positively cringeworthy and if it weren't for the undeniable fact that Benedict Cumberbatch is a very charismatic and skilled actor it would have been nearly unwatchable for me. The rest of my family were in stitches throughout it, though, so I can only guess that I was missing something.

In past series I have loved the moments of humour, so it's not as if I want my Sherlock to be all dark gritty drama, far far from it. But this episode was just trying too hard to be funny ALL the time, and IMO it didn't work. It felt forced to me. I do not believe Sherlock would ever go out to a club and get pissed, for example, so the "humour" of this scene did not connect with me. Can it really be put down the "character development" as many have argued? Well I would argue that it's more a case of Moffat and co. pandering to fandom, and they risk making this show into a self parody. They are treading a very thin line in my opinion.

On the positive side, the cast is as wonderful as ever, in fact better, as Amanda Abbington is a great addition. Also, the little hints as to what may be to come in the finale were intriguing. I have high hopes for that - please let it be more dramatic, more structured, less fangirly, less talky, less constantly jokey. Still feel that this series can be salvaged with a great last episode on the scale of The Reichenbach Fall. I certainly don't want to give up on this show like I gave up on Doctor Who a few years ago.

That DS review is appalling. The reviewer gushes like a teenage girl and seems to have left all her critical faculties at home. I can only assume she's neither seen the show before or is remotely familiar with the source material upon which the series is allegedly based.

I like how Yes / No wasn't enough for The Guardian.



Love the extremes.

Because it was crap and he's still the definitive Holmes.

Happy to help.

The poll is a bit unclear as to whether it's a verdict on the episode or the new series in general. Either way, it's a sizeable minority who have voted for dissatisfaction.

So is Sunday when Series 3 solidifies it's place at the bottom of the pile - or when the actual Moffat-episode is recieved as the best of the bunch?

If the latter, we all get together and sing kumbaya.

You bring the tie dye and the patchouli.

Something is confusing me about people's complaints about Sherlock. I keep seeing people post that the episodes are pandering to fandom. How is that so? Surely fans of the show would want it be about crime solving and not a mediocre comedy? Which fans asked for this change in direction? And as so many fans on these threads seem unhappy with the direction then how can it be pandering towards them? Not having a dig at any posters, just trying to understand the criticism.

Trouble with viewing figures is the "did you watch Sherlock?" .... "yeah it wasn't very good" .. isnt taken into account.

I suspect the last epp will be down a fair bit. Most people will be like me - still watch it but agree this series has been crap.

I enjoyed the episode except for the following:

1. The dance between Mary and John was too long.
2. Unlike, it seems, everyone else in the entire Universe, I have never been convinced that John is John Hamish. This theory seems to be based solely on the fact that Mary calls him James in one story and James is English for Hamish. However, Conan Doyle evidently had a friend called Dr James Watson and I have always thought he simply forgot John was John. Printed too it looks like "hämisch" which is somewhat unfortunate, to me anyhow.
3. I am also irritated that Mary is pregnant. I have 10 kids and quite honestly am tired of anything to do with pregnancy. I cannot see how they are going to deal with this. Will they kill her and the baby? Amanda is fine in the part but I wish she wasn't there. I prefer Sherlock and John as working partners with any wives etc in the background.

I can't get past the nepotism in casting Abbington as Watson's wife. I know lots of people disagree but it just doesn't sit well with me.

Because they're not fans of the original source material or the problem solving. They're fans of this particular incarnation of Sherlock/Watson or Cumberbatch/Freeman, they're fans of the 'bromance', of the interaction between the characters. It's what they liked about the first two series and, no doubt, saw the detection as something of a side-show. Now they can squee in delight at the spectacle of Sherlock being drunk instead. I'd imagine the new series is very popular with the sort of people who liked 'Friends'.

Bloody hell, I'll bet you are!

The whiff (or stench) of nepotism surrounds everything that involves Moffat and Gatiss. Gatiss's 'Tractate Middoth' was ripe with it.

Now hang on a minute there. The first two series of Friends were awesome, then it became self indulgent nonscence. (Oh I've just seen a pattern emerging ).

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...glish/nepotism

So is there any such evidence of favouritism?

In truth, none here knows the casting process, and what was considered in offering the role to her.

I do, thanks to an interview in The Independent:


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...s-9030613.html

The evidence is that co-lead Martin Freeman's real life partner is playing his on screen partner. And Cumberbatch's real life parents played his on screen parents.

If people choose to view that as a jolly coincidence there's little I can say to persuade them otherwise.

But seeing as they are not trying to achieve the same result, your comparison is irrelevent. It would be like going into a chinese resraurant and complaining that the food doesn't taste like the pizza you like.

Haha

So is the addition of Mary pandering to these fans?

I do agree with you to a certain extent. The first two series of 'Sherlock' were in a very strong and rich tradition of adaptations of the Doyle stories. As such it was inevitable that comparisons would be made with previous versions, including Brett's definitive portrayal. This new series is as far removed from the original 'Sherlock Holmes' mythos as it's possible to get. Only the names of the characters remain to remind the viewer that they're watching a Sherlock Holmes TV show at all.

mmmmmm,,,,, not so sure about that. If I'd been drinking one thing all night (or a couple of hours it seems) I think I'd know the difference.

As an aside: how many pubs in this Country would pour a drink into those vessels ? They have to be drawn into a measured & stamped vessel.

Watchable but played far too much for laughs. The last ep next week had better drag it back to case-solving drama rather than fluff like last night.

My feeling exactly. Such a shame as I was a huge fan of the first series. The program seems to be in danger of disappering up its own backside.