That's what I initially thought, but apparently not as it turns out.

Surely they'd appreciate me teasing them for a laugh?

That prop with the doll head of a girl surrounded by what seemed to be like little oranges was especially curious.
It struck me being there as very deliberate as it seems so specific, if that makes sense.

Did anybody notice the hair of the dog reference in the last episode, on the morning after that stag do, when Mrs Hudson makes breakfast for John? I was going 'ewww' because there was a small hair on John's glass of Alka Seltzer, but he knew it was there because he discreetly blew it off before taking a sip.

Speaking of breakfast: is John/Martin vegetarian?

And speaking of food: what's with all the references to Sherlock and chips this series?

1) No. Then again, I'm useless at spotting that sort of stuff.

2) Not as far as I know. I took him pushing the plate away to mean that he couldn't face a fry-up after a night of heavy drinking.

3) Not a clue, sorry.

Well spotted.

I think one of the great things about this adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, is that the episodes are so full of symbolism of one kind or another; and one of the many reasons why I love it so much.

Like yourself, I do at times think I may be looking just a little too much into things - and maybe I'm seeing things that aren't meant to be there in the first place - but, for me, that is one of the great beauties of the Arts as a whole, along with its myriad interpretations imho.

That's one of the things i found this evening! The framing of the shot was too obvious to be accidental.

and there is shot of another character framed with what some would consider the opposite of the Mary shot.

Add that to THE telegram and its all very clever stuff. Classic Moffat!

1. It was just that the camera seemed to loom in close-up over the glass for a long time (well, a few seconds). Whether it was put there on purpose or not, I don't know (and I'm beginning to doubt myself now lol). I just thought that the person behind the camera would have seen it as well, and the 'hair of the dog' saying popped into my head as a result.

Overactive imagination.

Not as bad as Anderson though (I hope).

2. Mrs Hudson gave John a vegetarian breakfast which made me wonder.

Now I'm intrigued to discover what you saw there!

But yes, it is all very cleverly and brilliantly done imho.

I love it.

BIB: Do you mean the shot John poured into one of the beakers at the bar? I thought John swapped the glasses round and drank it himself in the end?

Sherlock got drunk at the stag do. That's what most men do on such a night. And all people that get drunk lose their marbles somewhat. I loved his word clouds in the scene afterwards such as: 'thingamebob' and 'sitty thing'.

But how manky were those lab beakers they were drinking out of? Dear knows what concoctions Sherlock had been mixing in them before they went out that night.

[/quote]


Wasn't this one of the main points in House, that Greg wasn't able to have relationships and express his true emotions coz he was afraid by being more "human", he would lose his edge and not be able to do his job so well ? And they demonstrated how disastrous it was when he got together with Cuddy. I bring it up as the character is also based on Holmes.

I remember quite clearly of Moffat saying way back at the beginning, that by starting with a young Holmes and Watson, it would be interesting to see the progression in their characters and relationship as they ( and the actors ) grow older over the years. Heh, heh, so Moff is in this for the long haul unless he changes his mind of course. Or one of the actors pulls out.
So Series 1 establishes the 2 characters. We see Holmes, pre-Watson, as this very abrasive but brilliant and strange young man. Then throw them together and let the "Watson influence" take effect. Of course, it's not a one-way street as Sherlock helps Watson deal with his war trauma.
We come to Series 2 and the changes to Sherlock are already starting. The writers did say something about the theme for the 3 episodes - love, fear and death in that order. Sherlock is learning about emotions. The 'love' part with Irene - I wasn't too convinced about that. (If he has Aspergers as some have speculated, then definitely not convinced!) Somehow didn't seem to ring true that he would mourn as John would put it, 'like a puppy dog' the first time she 'died'. Especially after he very coldly 'crushed' her next. But, he saved her life in the end - an internal conflict of wanting to remain detached but unable to resist coz he finds her interesting ? Doesn't amount to love imo, too strong a word. However, fear in the 2nd episode was very real, albeit with the help of some drug. Plus, he learns a bit about friendship after his altercation with John about 'having no friends'. John's influence was most obvious in Episode 3. John coaches him on social skills and the correct way to respond to people. Of course, internally nothing has really changed. Just that he is now more aware of the external responses expected of him. And there are still lapses, like in the courtroom. Perhaps here, the love theme is better served. We learn he actually cares for his friends.

Which brings us to Series 3. Even if he and Mycroft did plan to bring Moriarty down from the beginning, it doesn't detract from the fact that he still does care for his friends especially John. Whereas in Hounds, he stopped short of saying sorry for the friends comment, here he does and profusely after seeing John's reaction. Some people have mentioned that he was too cheery in the 1st episode. Well, after spending 2 years away and successfully dismantling Moriarty's network, I guess he's entitled to be pleased with himself for a bit. In these 2 episodes so far, I don't really see a drastic shift or change in his character that a lot of people are complaining about. He's learnt from John the right responses to make. He's clearly trying to say and do the right thing but it looks forced. Just look at his interaction with Molly. In ASiB, his insensitive remarks drove her to tears but realising his mistake, apologises. Two episodes later, again insensitive remark 'why should I need anything from you ?' Few minutes later, the admission, 'I need you'. Next in TEH, he thanks her and hugs her rather stiffly but look at his face. He know he owes her a lot so is making an effort.
He's more natural with John and the apologies are more genuine but still lapses. Look how he takes advantage of the bomb situation to squeeze a forgiveness speech. He wants a reconciliation but goes about it in a typical Sherlock way. He's terrified of the best man job which includes 'the speech' and his friends are worried he's going to cock up big time. I suppose the stress of having to conform to the expected response ie. be more 'human' resulted him in losing his edge. Remember, he's still trying to get in the good books with John hence the comment after mentioning 'tragic loss'..I'm really sorry about that. He won't be able to keep this up for long. When push comes to shove, the tiger will eventually show his stripes.

So.. has he really changed ? I leave it to you to decide.

I liked e2 a lot more than e1. The train in the tunnel really out me off e1.

In both episodes I worked out an important plot detail long before Sherlock (that HoP was the target, and that the soldier was the victim), so either Sherlock is getting slow for some deliberate reason known only to the writers, or the writers think we're idiots and need everything explaining in such detail it makes Sherlock look a lot less impressive than in previous series.

https://twitter.com/Markgatiss/statu...61291317121024

"Redbeard"

Oh!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s129/...of-an-era.html

Sherlock's speech begins on exactly the abrasive note we expect. "A wedding is nothing short of a celebration of all that is false and specious and irrational and sentimental in this ailing and morally compromised world," he sneers, before using the phrase "deathwatch beetle" in a sentence. It is not good. Everybody's cringing. This is going to be a train wreck.

Oh dear. Not good.

I didn't hear Sherlock say that.

I forget the exact wording of the dialogue, but Sherlock used 'deathwatch beetle' in comparison with the institution of marriage, in the sequence which ends with him saying the priesthood was where the family idiot ends up.

I got round to watching ep 2 last night - well, around 55 mins of it before total and abject boredom overtook me. Sadly, although I enjoyed ep 1, I feel that you are right in that it's not the Sherlock that I know. I had hoped that it would get back to basics after the scene-setting opening episode, but sadly that was not the case.

I've always loved the Sherlock Holmes stories - remarkably good reads over 100 years after publication - including most adaptations, but after a brilliant series one, I won't ever be able to watch this version again. My series link has already been deleted after fuming through the first one and a half episodes of this series. I just don't want to watch a will-they, wont-they, titter-ye-not story scattered with red herrings. The character has survived down the years through strong individual stories where only Holmes took centre stage. The makers of this effort seem more intent to compete with US TV or create some TV epic than honour the source material.

Looking at the viewing figures, though, I feel more akin to the eponymous hero's distance to the real world.

That's a shame, because the final third of the episode was significantly better, although as a whole i did still think it was relatively weak.

As a general comment, there seems to be a bit of a misconception among some people here that all the original Holmes stories involve him using his deductive powers to do detective work. That's not necessarily true - most of them do, certainly, but in fact the two stories that Sunday's finale draws on involve pretty much zero deduction. Make of that what you will!

I'm intrigued you say that. I think that Moffat and Gatiss are clearly very knowledgeable about the Holmes canon but have chosen a more modern and different take on the characters - John, in particular - where I think they're trying to create something new and still recognisable, but without being slavish.

Still, each to their own. I can understand why some people don't like this new version, but I'm also willing to bet this modern approach has won over new viewers who otherwise might not have bothered.

I rate Gatiss very highly, and enjoy some of the Dr Who stories, so Moffatt must be capable too. I also anticipated some modernisation as simply transplanting a Victorian gentleman into 21st Century London would have been a little Disney-esque. However I wish they had taken this stance of redefining the character relationships from the outset as the first series was excellent and respected the source material.

It all depends on how far you want to push the re-definition. I appear to have a lower limit than most when it comes to Holmes, and feel a little aggrieved that this didn't turn out as I had hoped. I know all my family and many friends feel the same and now choose not to watch this, so am not alone. Perhaps next series when he enters a civil partnership, takes to wearing his underwear outside his trousers and invents an invisibility cloak, others will have their limit exceeded too but others may see it as an improvement and ratings will go higher, hence my reference to competing with US TV where ratings are king

Martin Freeman is a vegetarian.

I have read most of the original stories and to be honest thought a few of them were crap. Note, a few of them. I read them in German. Conan Doyle was evidently a very weird guy. He believed in fairies for a start. I mean little tiny things that flit about with wings. Anyhow, apart from a few things I mentioned earlier I have enjoyed these two episodes.

See, I didn't even spot that. Saw a big plateful and immediately thought fry up. I really ought to pay more attention.....

So you'll be checking out the US Elementary series then, right ?!