And yet, he had his own issues and troubles with the role.

Possibly, if he is still being regarded as the definitive Holmes, he would actually be resting quite easy (I hope so, he is someone who didn't seem to be easy in life).

Yes, and naked, as he tried to keep his thoughts under control. I think this show is good at including lots of little bits that may or may not be important, and/or may or may not reference something else - names and titles etc from Conan Doyle stories (although most of these serve no real purpos for the casual viewer and are just something for the keen SH fan to tick off).

There are also little steps back to earlier scenes (eg the "Hamish" scene from Belgravia). Some people, with a particular dislike for Steven Moffat seem to pick up on this love of complicated and intricater plots which finally mesh together. TBH, I don't know much about him. Prior to reading his name on this thread, the only thing I knew he wrote was the old series "Coupling" - at least I remember the name, and so assumed it was the same person.

I've just checked on IMDB, it is the same person. Of everything he's done I'm familiar only with Coupling and now Sherlock.

I quite enjoyed Coupling, particularly the "odd" ones - I remeber one where one of the characters was speaking Hebrew (I think), and we saw the same scene from both persons viewpoint. Also another one where all the scenes were in the wrong order. I only saw each episode once, so don't remember any details now.

I can sort of see some similarities in the styles of both in the way scenes are split and orders changed etc. A General question: Does this style spread across other work he has done? If it characterises all his work, then I could see how it might become tiresome.

It's a perfectly fine review. I think you just went to it looking forward to an evisceration and were disappointed to find that the reviewer actually enjoyed the episode on it's own merits.

Your assumptions are entirely groundless. You just don't like what was written. Don't worry about it - just hate the episode for yourself and let other people have the reactions they had. That's all a review is really - one person's reaction.

What the source material has to do with it I don't know. This wasn't 'The Sign Of Four', it was a story based around a couple of concepts from 'Four' plus a couple of others thrown in for fans.

Yes Sherlock's parents role was a tiny one but it's indicative of the problem. The role of Mary is a pretty major one and the fact they've given it to Freeman's real life partner is just shocking to me. Surely licence fee funded programmes should be seen to be above nepotism.

I was expecting him to say "spoilers".

(Doctor Who reference, for those who don't know).

I was not dismissing him. I was just stating a fact I had just discovered.

Also a review is always the personal opinion of the reviewer, is it not? I mean, unless the reviewer says something like, my friend Jim hated it, it has to be their opinion. My Husband, for example, loves Elvis, and I loathe him. It's just people are different. That's what makes life so interesting.

The only time it gets a bother is when someone implies that if you like something they hate you must be an idiot.

Also, I would like to know how to recognize an average viewer. {That is a joke by the way}.

Why is it shocking? I just don't understand. They wanted her to play the role. There must be a reason for that. I seriously doubt the reason is "Well we can't have a talented actor playing the role, we've got to give it to a mate. I know, let's give it to Martin's missus."

No. They wanted someone that would embody the character and have chemistry with Martin, and that's who they went for. I think it's great casting.

Criticising nepotism for criticising nepotism's sake isn't helpful.

It was so hackneyed Wile E. Coyote would have winced and rolled his eyes.

I'm not saying she isn't a good actor I'm saying the process should be a fairer one. There are thousands of great actors who I'm sure would have loved to have had the opportunity to audition for the part. Jobs for pals isn't good enough for me when it's being publicly funded.

They seem to be trying to cater to a particular strand of fandom though. Those who frequent sites like Tumblr and watch for the bromance between Sherlock and Watson. All the shipping, Johnlock, Sherlolly, Mysrade is all very strange, but I get the feeling that the writers think that's why we all watch it, and not for the crime solving. It's a shame really.

Ahhhh. You're saying what they should have done, having already known who they wanted for the role, is to hold a country-wide casting call at great expense so as to be seen to be doing The Right Thing.

Nah. They knew who they wanted. They asked her. She said yes. I still completely disagree that this is anything worth expending more than one nanosecond getting upset about.

Goodness, what a bunch of whiners, blimey.

Its very simple, if you don't like it, don't watch it, no one is forcing you to. Do people think that Whinging will somehow make the BBC change the stories to make the whingers happy? At the end of the day it is generally agreed upon that the whingers are normally the vocal minority. I enjoyed the episode, it had humour and great charecter development.

Love the Moff

I remember the Jeremy Brett episode, The Final Problem. It was the one featuring the Reichenbach Falls. Still impressive to this day.

Sorry to say this but I couldn't stand Sherlock Holmes until Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman took the roles of Sherlock and John Watson.

I was frightened of Basil Rathbone's version and Jeremy Brett left me cold!

To be fair a lot is filmed in and around Central London Whilst Baker Street clearly isn't Baker Street it is just along the Marylebone Rd at North Gower Street. Together with Speedy Cafe.

http://i1350.photobucket.com/albums/...psx4ns2rg3.png

I can't speak for others, but what I mean when I say 'pandering to fandom' is the playing up of and over emphasis on those aspects of the show that a certain section of fans focus on, namely the bromance between Sherlock and John, the perceived homoerotica, Sherlock's quirky, socially inept personality, etc. I'm not saying this demographic of fan is not interested in the canonical material or the crime aspect too, but you only have to browse briefly on Tumblr to see what is uppermost in their minds as regards this show. And there's nothing wrong with that by the way, but I do not think producers/writers should be too influenced by it, and I fear that Moffat and Gatiss are going down that route a little too readily - whether consciously or not. The first two series had a perfect balance of drama, humour, pathos and plot but this series seems very skewed towards humour and relationships, and I think the average viewer would actually prefer the former. So make your own judgment on who the writers are writing for - so far.

I imagine that husband and wife acting couples have appeared in the same show at the same time many times before this, and will continue to do so? Is it just this particular instance that is causing the problem?

It could have been a show in it's own right - have blind auditions and spinny chairs and a public vote.

BBC missed a trick, if you ask me (which you didn't, I know)

No I'm not saying they should have auditioned every female English actor in the correct age range I'm saying the process should have been fairer.

I'm not upset, I'm shocked that a publicly funded BBC programme can be so flagrant in its nepotism. Let them produce their own vanity programmes using their own cash if they're so determined to give jobs to all their friends.

Some very good points raised in this article

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...influencing-tv

Because people are only allowed comment on things that they love and adore? That sounds interesting.

If you don't like smoking or if you don't like a particular brand of cola, no one forces you to have it...

Do you have any evidence at all that there weren't auditions?

Don't producers often have someone specific in mind for a part, and cast them without auditioning?

I thought they did.

I happen to think Amanda is perfect for the part of Mary. I suspect Gatiss and Moffat, seeing her normal interaction with Martin, thought the same.

I thought Benny's parents inclusion was a step too far, though.

Obviously I don't have evidence. But the article linked to above would indicate none took place.