Absolutely!
p.s. Nepotism exists in hundreds of publicly funded businesses - local authorities, councils, government, the monarchy etc etc. just saying.

Maybe they did, but put it down to a muscle cramp or twinge or an ache or so.

A definite maybe. I think that's the case, but we might find a link in the next episode, or next series. i did think it odd that bearing in mind the problems LeStrade was having, that he hadn't already called Holmes in to help with the actual case.

Warning; 100 year old spoiler...


/end century old spoiler

It was like some corny finale from the 1960s Batman shows. That and the recent 'delayed action stabbing' are well on the side of idiocy rather than ingenuity. Hope number 3 is better.

For a lot of that case though Holmes was 'dead'

Without getting too specific about your spoiler, I think that's outside of canon (for what that's worth).

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. I do like a lot of what Mark Lawson says.

I haven't watched much of the relaunched Dr Who, largely because it doesn't seem very accessible. When I picked up an episode on catch-up, there always seemed to be references to other episodes, that I hadn't seen. I even took to reading the Dr Who forum on here for information on what I was missing but it's full of hardcore fanboys who can't even seem to agree amongst themselves what the references mean.

Comments under the Guardian article are quite good - reasoned and articulate, for the most part.

Brilliant, thanks for that summary.

The painless stabbings baffled me too, but suppose it's no worse than the explanations behind many of the crimes in crime fiction in general, not just this show.. You have to be prepared to suspend a lot of disbelief with Sherlock and I'm ok with that.

The daft stuff like the elephant in the room, complete with elephant trumpeting sound effects, was much less easy to swallow!

Perhaps its not a case of people defending it rather that they simply don't care how someone got a role or a job just so long as they're good at it.

I'd also just suggest that its rather simplistic to argue that it should be the most talented actor who gets the role. In part because that's an incredibly subjective view point and also because sometimes the most talented actor isn't the right person for the role. I'd also point out that there's levels of nepotism to all casting regardless of how its done. There's no shortage of actors who have given terrible auditions but still gotten a part because producers or casting directors happen to like them or see something in them and fight for them. Equally there are just as many examples of actors who have read for one part but given something else without auditioning for it because producers happened to like what they were doing and thought they'd be better at it. Or indeed they'll read for one project but be asked to come and read for something else they wouldn't have otherwise been considered for because like them (Matt Smith originally auditioned for Moffat and the BBC for Watson but was asked to come back and read for Doctor Who despite being nothing like the original actor profile they'd had for that role). Then of course there's the issue of casting a star or a big name. They rarely, if ever, audition for roles in this day and age. At most they'll screen test but usually they'll just be offered a role. Often this is because broadcasters or those financing a projecting will insist on some kind of star name so its easier to sell the project. And none of this even touches on the fact that so much of casting is to do with who your agent is (and how much they like you), how much experience you have, if you have the right look, if a casting director likes you and many, many other things.

Casting isn't fair. Its never been fair and it never will be fair.

Also its frankly ludicrous to suggest that Sherlock or any other show should go through extensive casting process for every and any role just so that they can say they did. Its time consuming and somewhat expensive to do that.

Even worse

Does iplayer go off after a week?

I'd like to re-watch eps 1 & 2 again, but probably after 3. Can anyone tell me whether I'd still be able to watch episode 1 after 3 has aired. I'm not a regular user of iplayer, and I can't access it now to check. Thanks.

just checked for you the first two are available until the 19th january

I'm pro-licence fee, believe me. I defend the BBC against some of the most ridiculous attacks.

On Sherlock, and Moffat specifially, I'm less eager to fight back. I wonder if there is a link between frustration at the way in which Doctor Who has deteriorated and an increase in anti-licence fee sentiment?

Only one man is responsible for turning Doctor Who and Sherlock into fanfiction.

Nonsense.
Neither Sherlock, nor Doctor Who, are the responsibility of one man.

Hmmm, yet your user name could be a reference to a Moffat penned episode of who. Not sure you've always hated him or are you going with a flavour of the month attack?

Because being scared to death by a phosphorescent dog is so much more believable.

Detective fiction is always looking for new and slightly incredible ways for victims to be killed. ACD had a few in his time, as did Agatha Christie and Dorothy L Sayers.

It isn't enough just to stab someone, or shoot someone or doink someone on the head - that's just too real life normal.

I doubt it. Not everyone who complains about the licence fee spends their time brooding about the deterioration of Doctor Who and Sherlock.

The fact that the actors behind Watson and Mary were also having a real-life relationship. You sort of kept wondering how much was acted and how much was real. And what they talked about when they got home...

... as I said it was a distraction, when I should have been paying attention to the plot.

Well, it's difficult really isn't it - as Dr Who was the most watched programme over the Christmas period it would suggest that most licence payers are happy enough with it as it stands.

I think Eastenders seems to be the biggest bone of contention!

Seriously you should get over this obsession with Moffet. There are a lot more people involved than just him anyway and if you don't like it there is a very easy way of not letting it affect you any more - use that remote and change the channel. If you hate the man so much then ignore everything he does from now on and live a happier life.

The whinging keyboard warriors like you are very much in the minority anyway, as the viewing figures and general love for the programmes attest too. (divisive latest episode of Sherlock excluded of course).

Personally in Who i much prefer the more adult and complicated plots of moffet to the RTD era and whilst series 3 of sherlock is definitely the weakest so far, its still great TV and I'm hopeful it can be all bought together with a stonking final episode.

Brilliant - you used the word 'doink'. I've never heard anyone other than me use that word, and yet it's a wonderful, neatly descriptive word. Is it a 'real' word...? I don't know and I don't care, but it really deserves to be used more.

Do you know that for certain. I asked about this earlier as I wondered when they were filmed. They would have needed the same degree of access to the building as before.