More than the Mail reviewer, he was talking about Dominic Cumberbatch and Tim Freeman

I think it's partly because the stories weren't written (and generally aren't collated) in chronological order. If a story could do with a wife in it, then bingo! she was alive, whether or not year-wise it actually fitted.

How the hell do you manage to watch TV on the Moon

Think you have got it spot on. no matter what explanation is given people like Philip will criticise. imo the dig at Phillip was aimed at the armchair critics.

Loved the first episode, gobsmacked at the awful explanation at the beginning till we see it's all someone theory. brilliant.
Too many questions still not answered from the last series and am sure far more will be revealed.

Poor old Watson's only function seems to be to blunder around London getting kidnapped all the time (how many times is it now?)
Presumably the bombing/guy fawkes party is being masterminded by this Charles Augustus Milverton character that we've heard about in the papers.

I'm glad you said that - I thought I was the only one who thinks Sherlock has had a personality transplant in this episode. He seems quite different from before.

I was a bit disappointed, overall. I daresay we will get a proper explanation of how Sherlock survived eventually, though. But there was too much padding in this episode. Far too much.

And please don't anyone post to say in a superior way that I shouldn't need a detailed explanation. I want and expect one.

There has been one episode in each series which I have felt to be not as good as the others. I hope this was it for this series.

Some of the talk around the net is that we will never know the solution to Sherlock's death.

What do you all think?

Usually the one written by Gatiss.

Personally I thought it was made quite clear that they are leaving it ambiguous. As was indicated in the episode the reveal of a magic trick is always disappointing. They've supplied us with a few clues as to what might have happened and I think that is all we are getting.

I thnk that'd be the best way for the makers to handle it, by no-one knowing, people can't pick holes. The last example shown tonight fitted in with roughly how I thought it might have been done, but I won't be disappointed if I never know.

I've seen a few people comment on thirteen possible scenarios as if they are going to be thirteen solutions to his death shown to us. This confuses me as I read that dialogue as thirteen possible solutions to Sherlocks final meeting with Moriaty and nothing to do with how he faked his death. I was just that one of those scenarios was that he HAD to fake his death with Moriaty having committed suicide.

Don't think the explanation was genuine at all. Why would he tell Anderson of all people? On camera, too. Nah, it doesn't add up and I reckon he was just messing with him.

Sunday's is written by Steve Thompson, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. Plenty of creative input!

What I'm mostly expecting at this point. It didn't feel very "to be explained next week / in two weeks."

More "this is a concievable solution, decide if it's true." We play Anderson.

BIB: Oh right. I'm going to have to sit down and watch this episode again, without any interruptions, to take it all in.

I'm also going to have to think a bit more on how I would feel if the solution is left ambiguous. At the moment, I'm thinking that that would be a cop out - a bit like how I felt on how the 'cliffhanger' at the swimming pool from the end of Series 1 was resolved at the beginning of Series 2, with Moriarty saying "You're not going to die after all, as I need to take this phone call instead" [paraphrase]. Only I think I might feel a lot worse than I did then. I may even have to take back their nods to the online fandom and their theories because, basically, that's all it's been about in tonight's episode.

I'm also wondering what those watching (who don't use the internet) thought of this episode? They must be wondering what on earth it was all about tonight, come to think of it.

'Sign of Three' trailer is up

Double bluff?

It all felt a bit too "look at us having fun making a hit tv show" to me. then again,I couldn't take the Watson marriage proposal seriously either - Knowing about the "tax" situation of the pair in real life

I think it was disingenuous to make out that Sherlock fans had been going along with crackpot theories when the actual explanation given was most popular theory on here.

I did enjoy the episode, and there were moments of brilliance, especially the opening trick on the viewers which had me fooled.
However I think that there was too much breaking the fourth wall stuff with mocking fans which was time which could have been better served on a strong story.
I know that some have expressed concern hoping that it doesn't disappear up its own arse in the way that they believe Doctor Who has, and I think I understand them if they were thinking of the amount of time spent on this episode playing around breaking the fourth wall and making self knowing references to fandom.

I don't think it was the best episode of Sherlock, but there one or touches of brilliance and I found it very entertaining. I definitely laughed out loud once or twice. Hopefully after that 'rompy' opening episode it should just get on with it now with focus on strong stories.
It's a shame that there's only two episodes left. That's why I'm not sure they had the luxury of time to have a bit of a faff about episode when it's a 3 episode long series. It would be less problematic if they had 6 or more episodes to play with.

Are you sure?
I got the feeling that Sherlock finally gave the real explanation, but Anderson(?) wasn't content, and being a fan wanted to stir up speculation again when the real explanation didn't satisfy him.

True. I think there are cases when if the style is good enough it can make up for any shortcomings.

Yes, they are both excellent in this. But so is Una Stubbs too.

Yes, that was really weak. Which is such a shame when at the opening end of the programme it was a stroke of genius to mislead all the viewers into thinking we were being given a crap explanation, and then revealing that we were having a clever joke played on us. Which makes the off-switch on the bomb seem even more rubbish.

Err...yes.
I believe that's what the majority on here were going along with.
The explanation given in the episode was what many on here including myself collectively put together as a possible solution.

When people complain of 'style over substance' they're not complaining about style in itself.