http://dudeufugly.tumblr.com/tagged/s4

Some pretty interesting stuff in that link about Series 4. And can I be the first to say, so did J.K. Rowling.

Don't know if the post is true or not though.

The head bridesmaid was using him as a dating site.
Mary's ex was explained in the flashback. He was told to keep away.



He recored his score and was playing it whilst practising his dance.

No need for the Spoiler tag, especially as what you said in it is wrong. I admit for a split second the room number did look a little bit like 267 (the way the lighting was) but it clearly was 207 when we got a good look a second later.

I watched the episode on Sunday and half-way through was feeling a little frustrated. I was getting a sense of disappointment that after a long break, we were heading into the end of an episode and nearing the end of another series, and it was all a bit of a mess.

With that said, I genuinely enjoyed the ending and felt that it resolved the episode very well to the point that overall my fears were unfounded.

I then watched it again on iplayer this evening and enjoyed it even more. The confluence of the story lines was really well done and it bears at least a second viewing because it's so easy to miss details.

I'm intrigued to see what happens next. I'm curious as to the theme of loneliness which is developing and the changes happening to Sherlock. He remarked on the subject of loneliness to Mycroft in TEH.

It's the piece where they were in deduction mode around the hat, and Mycroft denied he was lonely, and Sherlock replied - how would you know?

I just have a feeling that the 2 years the character spent dismantling the Moriarty network actually caused him to review his 'sociopath' status and that there is more of a yearning for contact. I'd cite also the need to test out Molly as a potential replacement partner, the uncharacteristic plea for help via text message to lestrade, and the wedding scene in general. Sherlock did flirt with the bridesmaid, and it's very difficult not to see his disappointment towards the end of the episode when he sees her dancing with the nerd. It's very obvious that he's hunting the crowded dance floor for her, and he breaks into a smile when he spots her, only for his face to fall when she nods towards the nerdy guy. The next person you see is Molly, who is dancing with her new guy Tom before Sherlock decides to leave on his own.

I've also puzzled over the Mycroft question about remembering redbeard, and Sherlock's response of I'm not a child anymore.

There is the famous redbeard, but there's also a Japanese film from 1965 which IMDB summarizes the plot as "In a charity hospital, a hard-bitten but honorable older doctor, Dr. Niide, takes a young intern under his guidance through the course of a number of difficult cases."

There's another plot summary on a wiki page which says:

Dr. Niide brings Yasumoto along to rescue a sick twelve-year-old girl from a brothel (fighting off a local gang of toughs to do so) and then assigns the girl to Yasumoto as his first patient. Through his efforts to heal the traumatized girl, Yasumoto begins to understand the magnitude of cruelty and suffering around him as well as his power to ease that suffering, and learns to regret his vanity and selfishness.

There's some echo of both Holmes & Watson there perhaps, or just as likely it's a complete pile of tosh and me reading something into it that just doesn't exist, and the reference to redbeard is something else entirely. I don't know how the reference to a black and white 1965 Japanese film would produce the response "I'm not a child any more", I'm just stumbling around.

Last comments in a post that has more than likely outstayed it's welcome. I didn't enjoy the stag night scene at all at first, but genuinely loved it on second viewing. It's the small stuff, like Sherlock exclaiming "ah Hudders" when he and Watson are feeling worse for wear on the stairs, and Martin Freeman plays his role so well throughout, particularly when drunk.

And finally to Moffat himself. I watched an interview/audience with Benedict, Moffat and series producer Sue Vertue (who is Moffat's wife). Benedict was his usual charming self, but Moffat comes across as somewhat smug and unlikeable. I'm sure he isn't, it's just that you may form that impression from his demeanour. My point is we are all quicker to boo the smug, which I think factors in to the unfair amount of abuse Moffat sometimes faces.

For the same reason that Sherlock's parents were spuriously introduced into the previous episode, with no connection to the plot, just so they could be cast by Benedict Cumberbatch's actual parents. So what?

This series seems to have been written solely to generate exactly the kind of faux conspiracy theory and red herring debate that is visible on this forum, at the expense of telling any kind of story.

I was a huge fan of the first two series, but this just smacks of trying to be too clever for its own good. It's degenerated into masturbation by the writers.

No need to apologise. It's nice when anyone answers your post.

I see, that makes sense now. I should apologise for asking such a pointless question. But as I did say I did find it difficult to hear all the dialogue properly, even when using the rewind button.

By the way, I too did notice Mary being quick to tell Sherlock and Watson the door number of the room Sholto was in.
It wasn't the number she said which struck me, but how quick she was to know at all in a split second.
I was thinking how would she know, and so quickly?
But then I guess the episode did make the point that Watson was rubbish with all the arrangement details and perhaps Mary worked out all that stuff. But still, a lot of guests there and she didn't even need to pause to remember what room she had booked Sholto into.
You'd need a photographic memory to remember that wouldn't you?
Maybe Sherlock noticed that and felt the same?
Maybe I'm overthinking this bit though.

One very little thing, probably very minor,...Watson was just about to break down the door of the room Sholto was in before he could commit suicide.
But Mary interjected and told Watson he didn't need to. Then Sholto came to the door and opened it after all.
How did Mary know he was going to do that?
Why didn't she think he might top himself like Watson did?
After all, Watson in this show is supposed to be someone who understands people very well and acts as the empathetic half of the Sherlock/Watson duo.
But Mary somehow knew that Sholto was going to unlock the door instead of committing suicide. Which I found quite curious.

Just as an aside, we saw how clever Mary actually is when Watson was manipulated by her into apparently taking Sherlock out on a case, but at the same time she appeared to have been manipulating them both at the same time when it is revealed that she had also manipulated Sherlock into taking Watson out on a case. Marked out by giving them both a thumbs up signal with both of them unaware of each other's part in it.
Maybe she even wanted to get them both out of the flat for ulterior motives?

More symbolism theory here, but is it possible that Mary almost represents a kind of amalgam of both the best elements of Watson's character mixed together with the best elements of Sherlock, without both of their flaws?
The thumbs up scene, although it showed horns behind her head, was also symmetrical in every way. look at how the curtains on either side of the image appear almost symmetrical. Like she somehow 'possesses' both Watson and Sherlock and is a kind of hybrid representation of both of them as one.


But I may be well off the mark here, but I'm enjoying exploring the notion and thinking about the possibility of these sorts of things.

These may appear to be needless questions, but they are just little elements that I like to clear up with myself, and I enjoy reading the answers given because quite often somebody produces something else within their post that I enjoy reading and also find interesting that may lead on to further thought about the episode.

Same for me.

I watched this episode with family members on Sunday night who hadn't seen ANY of the previous ones, and they were a bit underwhelmed by it. For them, this was probably the worst possible episode on which to judge 'Sherlock'. I felt a bit let down for their sake, so didn't enjoy it as much at the time as I'd hoped.

A second viewing on my own however has changed my mind, and the 1.5 hours passed very quickly. Not everyone's cup of tea I know from earlier comments, but I personally would watch this episode along with any of the others with equal enjoyment.

Yes I know this. I accounted for the flashback.
Just because something is explained from a character's point of view doesn't necessarily mean that is how things actually are.
Sherlock often makes mistakes which are rectified afterwards in the reveal or the conclusion.

For example Mary is presented as Watson's wife. But we suspect that there is more to that than meets the eye. Just because it is explained to us that Mary is Watson's wife doesn't mean that we just accept that as the whole story.

A bit of that tonite, yes. Was fun.
I'm new, not only here at DS, but also at this forum business. So i hope it's not a spoiler if i offer a theory. I don't go to check things outside here, haven't even seen the trailer for 3rd.
Here's a few things who have 'lead on to further thought about the episode'.
-from one of your question, i recalled that when Small the photographer was arrested, he complained that Major Scholto was the real criminal. Which we tought to be reffering to the events in Afghanistan, where Small's brother was killed under Scholto's command.
-i expressed the fact that, when Scholto was dressing-up, i thought he was the same guy we saw at the end of TEH. At that time, i dismissed it, thinking, this is just what they want you to think, don't jump the boat. But sometimes, first impressions...
-it's still not clear, i think, why Watson was kidnapped and attempted on his live. I believe it was a real attempt; he was too close to death, and in such a public surroundings, to be just to draw Sherlock out or peak his interests. It was personal.
-When Scholto arrived at the wedding, i didn't feel a whole lot of warmth from him toward Watson in the first few seconds of their meeting.
-now with this post, you raise the point 'How did Mary know he was going to do that?
Why didn't she think he might top himself like Watson did?
After all, Watson in this show is supposed to be someone who understands people very well and acts as the empathetic half of the Sherlock/Watson duo.
But Mary somehow knew that Sholto was going to unlock the door instead of committing suicide. Which I found quite curious.' Scholto again.
Won't say anymore, draw your own conclusion.
But i'm going to rewatch the 2nd tomorrow. Perhaps more toughts. I'll probably hit 100 posts by sunday, and then a 1000 during the week after.
Hope not, i have to work

Well it's not for the same reason because the Sherlock parents scene was a little comedy relief with a little bit of extra backdrop to the character.

The scene with the music manuscript addressed to Dr Watson and Mrs Watson is unlikely to be written for absolutely no reason at all other than to fill a couple of minutes of time.


Bloody hell, what's wrong with generating a red herring debate. You say that as though it's a bad thing.
You write 'faux conspiracy theory' as though you intend that to have a negative connotation.

Of course the writers 'conspire' to create a mystery and mislead us with the intention of inviting viewers to theorise about it. Which is one of the main purposes of any stories which deal with mysteries.

You seem to be really pissed off that some of us are speculating and thinking up theories about the show so far. Why are you evidently annoyed about this when it's just people enjoying themselves?
To some of us it's actually part of the fun.

I don't agree that the series has failed to tell any kind of story.
I have offered a fair amount of criticism, especially earlier in the thread, but I believe that I have also given it merit where I think it is due. I don't believe that the series has been badly written. I just think that narrative choices have been made which some don't like, or have simply deviated from what some had come to expect, which can create a degree of discomfort.
I think even I had a bit of difficulty accepting the change of tone, but I think the writing has been excellent and I find little fault with it, apart from one or two plot elements which didn't completely convince me, and probably still don't.

But you're actually begrudging people for speculating about the story and having theories?
Well for some of us this is arguably the best part of a thread for a TV show. It gets the creative juices going and encourages people to think creatively. Not a bad thing at all in my book.
And what's more, the beauty of it is that it doesn't even matter if people's theories are wrong or misplaced.

There is a story being told there. I think you know this really. I believe that the writers have genuinely tried to write an excellent piece of television for the viewers' pleasure. Which admittedly will have fallen short for some. But instead of insisting that it's bad writing, why don't you just simply state that you happen to not like the story? I understand that, believe it to be a more honest opinion, and respect it more as an opinion.

Thanks for your take on that Japanese film. Very interesting.

Mark Gatiss obviously seems to want us to focus on Redbeard, given that's the only word he tweeted last night.

ETA: Actually I think I should put the following in spoiler quotes (not that they are actual spoilers, of course; just supposition):


Last edited by nethwen : 08-01-2014 at 05:45

Just a quick though re Mary, thought I would add as a spoiler just in case. Just watching again to check.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe the headline in that article is wrong. Cumberbatch appears to be talking about the current season 3 and then season 4, whereas the headline refers to seasons 4 and 5.

A mismatch between headlines and articles happens more often than you might think. Journalists tend to write stories, and then an editor/sub-editor/headline writer creates the headline. When I write my blogs for the Metro website, I suggest a headline but the final one that appears is often different, as the editorial team tweak it for consistency, search engine optimisation etc.

My point about shooting schedules is not that it isn't possible. Of course, it is. But it is more difficult and time-consuming than many people think. It's not like they just pitch up, shoot an episode in a 2-3 days and then go away again. (You clearly know that yourself, but equally I read many comments on forums that show that people think that feedback online can be used by the writers to shape new episodes almost immediately, whereas that is so NOT the case!)

I believe the Sherlock team did make some adjustments to the schedule, but it's well documented that Peter Jackson made major accommodations for Freeman. It's really unusual - fingers of one hand type unusual - for a major blockbuster film to work around a TV schedule like that. As I understand it, there has never been any intention of doing Sherlock every 12 months, even before The Hobbit, Star Trek 2 etc became a factor.

Yes. There has been one clear hidden-in-plain sight clue in the episodes which have already been aired, a couple of smaller ones and one which only makes sense once you have seen the finale. Sherlock will explain these in the finale, as hardly anyone has put even the first three pieces together yet.

I'm unsure why people are struggling with this so much. It's not so much that Sherlock changed in the two years he was away, it's just that everyone else got on with their lives. So he just assumed he could walk back into 221b and John's life, and it took Mycroft to point out that he had not only moved on but moved out of 221b. It took him the entire first episode to really understand how much everyone else had changed and accept it.

And besides, why wouldn't Sherlock himself have changed? He'd had a pretty busy and dangerous couple of years away from his usual world. New experiences change people. It's not like he left one day as a high-functioning sociopath and suddenly came back as completely normal. Can any of us say that we're the same people we were two years ago? I certainly can't.

It was. You can see that it is a musical score titled "Waltz by Sherlock Holmes".

I think it makes sense from a writer's point of view. It's a symbolic act signifying the closure of a chapter in his life (and John and Mary's), just as we are sometimes shown someone closing a book they have been reading - we don't have to see it on screen, but we are conventionally shown it to signifty the equivalent of a full stop at the end of a sentence.

Also, hadn't Mary just made a comment about "no more waltzes"? The piece Sherlock had been playing was a waltz. Again, it's signifying the end of a chapter.

She meant that Sherlock's ability to deduce things about people could be useful in helping her find a potential, ahem, dance partner for the night, given that the 'tradition' of the bridesmaid hooking up with the best man wasn't going to happen.

And, yes, it's absolutely fair to question the role of any of the people we were introduced to at the wedding if, as it is speculated, Mary is herself suspect. Although I think we can probably let young Archie off!

EDIT: Sorry, I see others have already covered the first part of my answer. They're quite correct.

When the three of them are in 221b planning guests from both sides, Sherlock comments that Mary's side of the aisle is looking a bit thin. She replies something along the lines of that being an orphan's lot.

So it's either true or it's a convenient lie to cover up a less palatable real truth.

On the other hand, Sholto was a VIP guest - probably the one person that John wanted there and there was a question mark over his attendance.

You'd probably not remember the room number of Auntie Flo who replied immediately - but the one for the mentor of your intended who was being ... troublesome ... might stick!

(and someone who has a healthy/unhealthy number of death threats might have a few criteria when it comes to room allocation ... bed must face door, no fire escape near window, completely separate ... now that could stick!)

I assumed Mary had been to reception to ask and that's why she was a bit behind them and saying it as she came up the stairs

So Sherlock is wrong when it's thought to be moving away from being a detective story - and wrong when it gets people talking about it like it is a detective story?

Or that

DoG wades in on Internet criticism