Disappointing. Style over substance. Too much time wasted. 
Sherlock - New BBC Drama (Part 2)
49 of 127
Wonderful to see this back. Cumberbatch was superb but Martin Freeman was the Star of that episode for me. Such a great pairing.
Originally Posted by peach45:
“Bet Gatiss penned episode for sure.”
“Bet Gatiss penned episode for sure.”
Of anything ever I'd say, possibly except Adventures of Time and Space.
So, if there are 13 scenarios, how many did we have tonight? Was anybody counting?
Just wondering how many more we have to see before the TRUTH comes out.
Just wondering how many more we have to see before the TRUTH comes out.
How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.
Originally Posted by Joe_Zel:
“What's the fact it's fiction got to do with it?
He's merely asking when we'll know the actual resolution to a mystery will be revealed which was created by the writer of this particular piece of fiction.”
“What's the fact it's fiction got to do with it?
He's merely asking when we'll know the actual resolution to a mystery will be revealed which was created by the writer of this particular piece of fiction.”
I think the point that Moffat was trying to make (in that scene when Sherlock Holmes was getting interviewed), was that it really doesn't matter which flashback is the 'correct' one, they are all plausible and that no one explanation will please everyone (the viewers).
Originally Posted by CD93:
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you thinking people watched tonight who hadn't watched earlier episodes and so were "surprised about the style of the series"?
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Patience. It's a throwback to the original books.”
“Patience. It's a throwback to the original books.”
If I wait will she get a new voice and personality?
I know I'll sound dumb but please can someone explain to me:
1) So how did he actually fake his death? There are 3 ways they shown.
2) Who was the old guy at the end?
1) So how did he actually fake his death? There are 3 ways they shown.
2) Who was the old guy at the end?
Originally Posted by nethwen:
“So, if there are 13 scenarios, how many did we have tonight? Was anybody counting?
Just wondering how many more we have to see before the TRUTH comes out.”
“So, if there are 13 scenarios, how many did we have tonight? Was anybody counting?
Just wondering how many more we have to see before the TRUTH comes out.”
We've seen 3 (Derren Brown, Moriaty/Sherlock snog and the final one with the him falling ontp the inflatable thingy), he sort of ran through another two during his first meeting with John, so definitely 3, and possibly 5
Originally Posted by itunesfestival2:
“I know I'll sound dumb but please can someone explain to me:
2) Who was the old guy at the end?”
“I know I'll sound dumb but please can someone explain to me:
2) Who was the old guy at the end?”
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-...pening-episode
Originally Posted by CD93:
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
Looks like 'style over substance' is the new battle cry to go next to 'complicated story arcs'. Which as you say is bizarre. Sherlock has always been a highly stylised show. That criticism was made by some the minute the text on screen thing first appeared. Others loved it.
Its always been super slick. Were some expecting a gritty kitchen sink drama?
Originally Posted by robot1000:
“I think the point that Moffat was trying to make (in that scene when Sherlock Holmes was getting interviewed), was that it really doesn't matter which flashback is the 'correct' one, they are all plausible and that no one explanation will please everyone (the viewers).”
“I think the point that Moffat was trying to make (in that scene when Sherlock Holmes was getting interviewed), was that it really doesn't matter which flashback is the 'correct' one, they are all plausible and that no one explanation will please everyone (the viewers).”
Has anyone been pleased by any of the "explanations" seen so far?
Originally Posted by Veri:
“I'm not sure what you mean. Are you thinking people watched tonight who hadn't watched earlier episodes and so were "surprised about the style of the series"?”
“I'm not sure what you mean. Are you thinking people watched tonight who hadn't watched earlier episodes and so were "surprised about the style of the series"?
”
I'll be frank, I was one of these people! I need to watch these episodes, but I loved tonight either way!
Originally Posted by CD93:
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
“How many people watched tonight solely on hype?
Seems to be a lot of people surprised about the style of the series.”
The surprise for me was all the nods to the fanfiction slashers (which doesn't interest me), but I think it was good that Messrs Moffat and Gatiss included them - even if it's to get them out of the way for the episodes to come. I hope, anyway.
Originally Posted by saladfingers81:
“Looks like 'style over substance' is the new battle cry to go next to 'complicated story arcs'. Which as you say is bizarre. Sherlock has always been a highly stylised show. That criticism was made by some the minute the text on screen thing first appeared. Others loved it.”
“Looks like 'style over substance' is the new battle cry to go next to 'complicated story arcs'. Which as you say is bizarre. Sherlock has always been a highly stylised show. That criticism was made by some the minute the text on screen thing first appeared. Others loved it.”
But it hasn't always been style over substance. Tonight it was.
Originally Posted by CD93:
“Moffat, Moffat, Moffat, oooh Moffat..
It was written by Mark Gatiss, sorry.”
“Moffat, Moffat, Moffat, oooh Moffat..
It was written by Mark Gatiss, sorry.”
True, but I'm sure both Moffat and Stephen Thompson had a significant amount of input.
Brilliant episode and as a massive sherlolly fan I have been sated. Their never going to get together so that little sequence at the beginning is the closest we'll get.
long live sherlolly.
long live sherlolly.
The whole bombing parliament plot was a bit iffy, from the train bloke's contrived job to the whole uncoupling a tube carriage thing... Tube trains aren't steam trains!
But this episode was never really about the crime of course. Nor was it even about the How-Did-Sherlock-Do-it? It was all about Sherlock and John. And on that basis, it was fantastic stuff.
But this episode was never really about the crime of course. Nor was it even about the How-Did-Sherlock-Do-it? It was all about Sherlock and John. And on that basis, it was fantastic stuff.
49 of 127
