The scene in which she does a double thumbs up to Sherlock and John is very specifically framed, watch that bit again.

Ooops double post.

Yes it's a phrase, but to us that sounded like a reference to a case we'll never see in which there very much was an elephant, and a room. Not a jokey way to say they had lots of cases.

For me, the use of several stories in The Great Game works only because it forms a gradual build-up to Sherlock and Moriarty's final confrontation. To do this as a 'normal' episode I'm a bit more dubious about.

I do kind of understand why they persist with the 90-minute episodes. For international sales it fits a two-hour slot, and then having three 'films' every two years makes it real event TV, which the BBC is now very good at milking for global PR. Boiling it down to a 60-minute format is trickier to sell internationally because of ad breaks etc - you'd end up with edited episodes (which would be horrible) or have to come right down to 45 minutes like Doctor Who (which creates its own challenges).

Anyhow, I rather suspect - an assumption based on no actual knowledge! - that season four will be the last. By then it will have been six years, and some of the people concerned may be ready to move on to other projects and/or want to go out on a high.

I suspect the origins of that theory are Moffat's Radio Times interview with Cumberbatch in which they discuss how Sherlock is returning to a very different London to the one he left, and how he's quite out of touch with the changes and needs to acclimatise himself.

I daresay you are right about the 90 minute episodes and the reasons for it. It's just that I think whoever edited the last episode must surely have realised that to have the bride and groom dancing for ten minutes was not good. (Alright, it probably wasn't ten minutes, but it seemed like it).

Unless there was some clue in the dance sequence that I missed.

I, too assume that the 4th series will be the last, at least if the careers of the two stars continue to flourish (as I hope they do).

When we first saw Mary in Ep 1 she arrived at the table and said something along the lines of 'That took longer than expected'.

I'm assuming that she wasn't referring to a visit to the loo. So what was she doing. Taking a call that told her Sherlock had arrived?

I think she was planted either by CAM or Mycroft to keep an eye on Watson and therefore Sherlock by association. Just not sure which one. Knowing what a skip code is was definitely a flag that she is more than just a Drs receptionist.

Must admit, given the choice I'd like the old Sherlock back, not sure where I stand with this one. I'd like a bit more sleuthing and a bit less relationships and gags. But hey. It's still enjoyable. Though I am very much missing Andrew Scott. He was a brilliant Moriarty. Though I may just be missing Andrew Scott!!

So… you admit there's been pre-publicity saying that this is what's happened to Sherlock, this is how he feels now, this is what's all changed.

And then you watch the episode and think "Hmm, Sherlock's not up to scratch this time, something's a bit off, I wonder why?"

And rather than going "Ah, obviously. That stuff they said before the series started obviously referred to this - that's how they've put it in the script, it wasn't just empty words they said to a reporter" you instead postulate "Ah ha. Sloppy writing."

Okaaaaay.

This has been a relationship which was hardly explored at all in the books - from memory, Mycroft only appears four times? - but it has been a delight to watch it develop on screen, in particular over the last two episodes. This despite the fact that physicaly the willowy Gatiss doesn't fit Conan Doyle's more portly Mycroft at all - the last thing the literary version would ever do is run on a treadmill - and Mycroft's dysfunctional cruelty towards Sherlock in their childhood (which still exists now) just feels so right.

Point out the "depth" in the last two episodes of "Sherlock."

"Elementary" has, over dozens of episodes, developed the Holmes/Watson relationship. Watson always had great respect for Holmes but Holmes, thanks to Watson overseeing his rehabilitation period, has greater respect for Watson. It never required entire episodes to show this.

When you have many episodes - over time. If there are only three per series then much more subtle approaches can be used. But the amount of focus has been disproportionate.


If viewers are really yearning for this relationship overkill then the BBC must know something we don't. I'd have thought people tune in to Sherlock for the intelligent case solving associated with the many adaptations seen through the years.

It may well be true. But does the viewer have to be hit over the head so much with the fact that it is a triangle?

It may be a setup. Let's hope it turns out better than the denouement to the series 2 finale.

That and his 60-a-day smoking habit.

Leave them wanting more, as the saying goes!

Not really a spoiler, but just in case ...

In A Study In Pink (I think)there was a bit of needling of Mycroft from Sherlock about whether he was gaining weight, and references to "the diet".

I took it to mean that Mycroft had been chubby, but was no longer, as he'd taken measures to sort it out. The treadmill was a visual reference to that.

Quite an amusing and clever way I thought, to get round having a thin Mycroft.

There was more depth of characterisation and depth of relationship between John and Sherlock in the last two eps than I can remember in any other Sherlock ep.

So there you go, asked and answered.

For reference, I think the last two eps have been great. A little disappointingly light on mystery and deduction, but wonderfully rich in humour, personality, and character. Really enjoyed them, on a different level to the previous series.

Neither of which are Doyle's best work. In fact they are amongst his least original/interesting Sherlock stories so I'm not sure why the writers decided to use them when there are so many other wonderfully bizarre choices.

That's all fine and dandy if you'd tuned in expecting to see a rom-com-sit-com-quasi-soap-opera. But that is not what Sherlock Holmes is about and never has been. Of course the relationships are important but not at the expense of the case/deduction. What surprises me is the apparent inability of the writers to develop the relationships while simultaneously telling a good crime story. To spend 90% of the two episodes on relationships is absurd. The show is now more like a TV version of 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape' than an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. We have Watson (and his fiance) looking after their mentally-challenged friend Sherlock with every situation played for laughs.

I must admit I'm rather concerned that we might not be getting a definitive answer as to how he survived the fall .


.

I'll try to respond to your points one at a time.

Depth? How about the nuances added to the Sherlock/Mycroft relationship? Or the exploration of how Sherlock & John's relationship was altered while he was away (something ACD singularly failed to deal with)? And the very fact that John asked Sherlock to be his best man - and Sherlock accepted - says a lot too. John knew it was a potential disaster - he asked Sherlock anyway - showing that their relationship is now fully repaired. (By the way, I'm not saying these 2 episodes have been better than seasons 1 and 2 in this respect, but those who say there has been NO depth and it's all soapy are missing things.)

I think it's been necessary to clearly establish how much each of the three likes and trusts each other. Subtle would be better, but not everyone gets subtle and I think it's been important to drill this point home ahead of the finale. Has the focus been disproportionate? Arguably. But I'd also say reserve final judgement until after seeing the finale.

I don't think viewers are yearning for more relationships. But the worst people to ask about what viewers want are the viewers themselves. You'd end up with such a diverse spread of opinions - as on here - that you'd end up either ploughing a dull middle ground or you would end up alienating half your audience. Like the Walkman or the iPod, don't ask people what they want, give them something (hopefully) brilliant and let them realise how much they love it. Personally, I don't think you can have a long-running series without focussing more on relationships at some point. Good stories are great (and important), but it's the characters that most people really relate to.

Have viewers been hit over the head? Episode 1 was primarily Sherlock/John, with Mary introduced as an important figure in John's life. Episode 2 was about how Sherlock has to face up to the fact that John/Mary will impact his own relationship with John. In both stories, Mary has demonstrated reasons why Sherlock would accept her as a friend, something he is not prone to doing. Personally - and I accept, it's a personal view - I don't think that's hitting viewers over the head, it's more establishing background and credible characterisation. I think the bigger issue with some people is they just don't like Mary as a character and the fact that she is getting between Sherlock and John, so any amount of Mary is too much.

I'd go further than to say it *may* be a setup. We are being steered in a very specific direction, which is encouraging people to draw some obvious conclusions. Some of these will turn out to be true, but I can also say that there is one popular theory (on DSpy at least) which is 100% wrong. (I'm not going to laugh at anyone for getting it wrong, because I made the same mistake!)

I agree. They're both among his poorest stories.

But I have to say that in terms of picking a villain for Sherlock to come up against at this specific point in the series' development, it's actually a very good choice.

Most of Conan Doyle's other villains are pretty much of a muchness, given that they're all one-story characters. Milverton's as good a choice as any. It's really all about how the villain is built up and then how well he is portrayed. And let me say that Lars Mikkelsen is stunningly good in this episode, elevating a humdrum literary villain into someone almost worthy of being put alongside Moriarty.

Watch the finale, see what you think. I don't think it excuses some of the flaws of the first two episodes, but it does help explain (and to an extent justify) some of the choices the writers made.

Well slouchinghatch, I do hope it's a magnificent set up and then I can treat all three episodes as one story.

Because I'm currently not counting them as three individual stories.

Oh, they are three individual stories. But the connection between them is much stronger than in the sets of three in seasons 1 & 2 - both in terms of actual story elements and in terms of the characters' individual journeys.

The first two episodes make more sense after you've seen the finale, but that's not to say you will suddenly think they were brilliant if you hated them to start with. Just as there are people who loved both episodes (and despite what some here may claim, there are an awful lot of them) who may be disappointed by the finale.

Just jumping back to the films briefly, I must admit I laughed out loud when Stephen Fry was introduced as Mycroft (I hadn't checked the cast at all), that was a stroke of absolute genius!

I don't think there's been anything wrong with this series so far and I expect the final part to be a cracker.

I've enjoyed series 3 more than series 2 though not quite as much as series 1.

Oh wow! How did I miss that? When I watched that scene the first time it gave me the creeps, but I had no idea why. I do now!

Mycroft appears in the original stories only 2 times (only mentionned in the other two stories).
And their relationship in the original is purely respectful. In Sherlock, it has been described by Watson as 'sibbling rivalry' and Mycroft described himself as 'his arch-enemy' ; absolutely nothing of the sort in the original.
The only aspects of their relationship Sherlock kept is a difference in how they view affairs of the state. Mycroft would like Sherlock to be more interested and put is talent to the service of his country. But Sherlock is only sincerely interested if the case is novel and intriguing.
Of course, during the two WW, they used him for sort of propaganda for national pride but in the original, Sherlock almost had to be forced to help solve political intrigue.
They also kept the fact that Mycroft doen't like going out of his habits.

It is barely covered in the original but there's absolutely no hint that they have a sibbling rivalry.

I enjoy the relationship in Sherlock and i think, despite no physical ressemblance with the original, that Gatiss is the best incarnation of Mycroft that i've seen.