As the start unfolded, and particularly as I saw the thickness and "obviousness" of the rope/fall arrester, I assumed they were doing a take off of one of the old weekly adventure dramas - the sort where the hero is seen going over the cliff with the stage coach at the end of one week, but as the next episode starts, you see a different film where he jumps off before the drop.

I then saw Derren Brown, and sort of knew that I ought to know him but didn't actually know his name but knew he was a performer.

I thought the start was excellent. Nothing new in having a false start - usually done with an action scene which then ends in "CUT!" and we discover it was a film set and not part of the actual story. I thought this was all done well. Ditto for the later Moriarty and Holmes kissing - even more far fetched, but immediately burst by being seen as even too far fetched by the rest of the fan group.

I liked the whole fan group (reminded me of a Jonathan Creek episode). I think the idea of a fan group fits in well with Watson's blog - an entirely up to date replacement for JW's writing in the Strand. The whole popular detective with a fan group idea seems entirely appropriate. Because of that, the writers including teasing with the real public is fine. I don't see it as any sort of betrayal. It just adds to the fun.

A bit of an aside - I wonder how much of the alternative explanations were filmed at the same time as the original, 2+ years ago? ie, did they respond to the fans on line and add the alternative ideas while they were filming this new series, OR, had they always had the alternatives in mind (because they expected people to speculate on the real method), and so filmed them at the same time as the original. I presume some people might know when actual outside filming took place, so would know if the Sherlock team went back to create the alternatives.

I presume there are records when roads are closed etc to allow this sort of filming. Does anyone know any links to find this sort of thing out?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25574277


9.2 million people watched.

you know the bits where his inner voice is calling him names - is that a new thing or has he always done that ?

I thought it was the best episode so far. It had me hooked all the way. I love Moffat and Gatiss, they come up with some brilliant things!

I really enjoyed the opening scene. The entire episode had me gripped throughout

I'm concerned that this show may be going the same way as Dr Who (of which I'm not a card-carrying fan anyway), but I am willing to suspend disbelief and give it a chance.
The first 3 minutes or so were a game and the rest of the episode was much better. I'm glad I watched all of it. I'm deciding to keep my powder dry and hope that Sherlock will return to his old ways - I like his sociopath image and he was too friendly in that episode.
Having said that, there was a lot of loose end tying to do, now they have done that (albeit not telling us what really happened definitively), so hopefully the other episodes might be substantive. If not, I will belatedly agree with you.

I do hope so. I like Sherlock. The new character (surely an impostor?) would be unlikely to render either Ms Adler or myself "Sherlocked".


What?

I agree. One reason I want to believe the third explanation is that it was my own explanation (which I came up with before reading anyone else's, honest!

I expect we will find out more, but if we don't I'll stick to this conclusion. Better that the producers don't overdo the explanations anyway.

I would imagine that the method of the fall would be storyboarded at the same time of the fall. The solutions to having a suicide-that-isn't in a busy area of a city, even allowing for pre-planning and a whole host of extras, aren't that many really.

It could be that the 2 year gap between the fall and the landing was a double edged sword - on the one hand it gave fans time to come up with all sorts of solutions and on the other hand it gave fans time come up wth all sorts of solutiions. I wonder if the presumed answer would have been so flat to people if it had follwed immediated after the fall episode?

I would imagine as well <crazy conspiracy theory alert> that the PR and media management around the show is such that if fans/on line forums/whatever weren't going in the right direction that there would be someone about who would be able to steer discussion/speculation in the appropriate direction.

I prefer it when a writer/creator produces work to "satisfy himself". That is much better than a sort of programming by numbers to serve an imagined average audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the better writers/creators, they produce something that appeals to other people as well.

In this case, I think it worked well, and I enjoyed the ride. If the next episodes continued in the same vein with lots of supposed explanations each with a reveal afterwards, it would soon become boring, but so far I think it works well.

I realise its not to everyone's taste - but that would happen regardless of what type of show they produced. Overall I've enjoyed all of the Sherlock's produced by this team - my favourite was episode 1 of series 1, mainly because of the way they updated Sherlock to the modern world, and showed how he operated, both in an analitical as well as a human way.

Derren Brown has changed his image - shaven head and stubble rather than elegant grooming and goatee. I spotted him because I have been a DB fan since the beginning, and his appearance in Sherlock was amazing - that was the point at which I twigged that we were being teased however.

I highly recommend DB - he's not a magician, his live shows are excellent and his TV work was great.

Haven't read the whole thread but... for me a good plot is really important. The Conan Doyle stories are masterpieces of intelligent plotting. Sherlock isn't. The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned in favour of just finding out what happens, and that's not good enough.

It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.

Well I thought it was splendid. Enormous fun from start to finish. Sat there with a big smile on my face most of the time. Some great jokes (including those at the expense of obsessive fans) and some pleasing nods to the original stories, plus some enjoyable character development, especially from Holmes. Well worth the wait. After Adventure in Time and Space, the Tractate Middoth, and now this, Mark Gatiss is clearly at the top of his game.

Not sure what to make of Mary, though. I liked the character well enough, and she interacts well with Holmes and Watson, but I'm just wondering if there's more to her than meets the eye. After all, we know she and John got together while he was vulnerable after Sherlock's death, and she seems a bit 'too clever'. Do GP receptionists usually diagnose the patients before announcing them to the doctor, or was that just a necessary part of Gatiss's humour in that segment? And she spotted the skip code in the text message pretty quickly. Suspicious, or just trying to show she's smart enough to keep up with the two leads? I'm not sure, but I do wonder if Moffatt and Gatiss are relying on us taking the character at face value simply because of who she is in the books...

Agree that episode 1 of Series 1 was brilliantly done but then it was followed up by what I found a really dull story about a bank. The 3rd however got back to form. It's the plots themselves I like more than anything. (I hated the Hound of the Baskervilles update)!. That's me I suppose as I don't like too much distraction and why I haven't really taken to this whole prolonged death scene teaser stuff.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Crime procedurals are ten a penny and we are already very familiar with the Holmsian method of solving cases which are now made as delicious background to other interesting aspects of his story.

Does no one see the difference between humour as part of the plot and as part of the characters' er, character, and humour shoehorned in just for a laugh?

(Nudity in Doctor Who, Sherlock's parents in Sherlock).

One is good drama, the other is pantomime.

I hate pantomime.

Compared with the overnight figure of 8.75m for the season 2 opener. Big, big number - and it will only get bigger once time-shifted viewing is taken into account. Every chance the final figure will be 11m+.

The story is about Sherlock solving crimes. If it's not that, it's nothing but fanfic.

It's new. I think it was Sherlock channelling John's voice in his mind, to show us how much he really missed him at his side.

But if that is all it is it becomes a soap.

I agree that a good plot is very important, but equally Conan Doyle's characterisation - particularly in The Empty House - was sometimes a bit off. Holmes is gone for 3 years (in the books' timeline), comes back, Watson faints, everything's then as it was as if Holmes had never gone. Really?!? I thought this was handled much better.

I would expect the final two stories to be more plot-driven. Personally I think you have to look at this one as a one-off, to explore how Sherlock and John's relationship has changed over two years, rather than immediately pressing the reset button.

Loved it. Best show BBC has done by far.

Some nice gags in there, especially a notable Apocalypse Now visual gag.

But beyond that a rather poor episode that perfectly demonstrated that as long as the writer/s tip their hats to online fandom they can get away with the most thread bare and frankly amateur fan w*nk imaginable. An episode that firmly shoved it's head up its own backside at the expense of believable structure and drama meant to be set in a 'real world'

If a show jumps up and down 'shouting look how clever we are' then it needs to pull it off in an adult way and not so with half arsed writing that makes CBBCs look like Steinbeck. I've never been one for the phrase 'dumbed down'' but if the cap fits.

So Sherlock's character development it to be an absolute c** t to his closest friend, really.

Each series has had a weak one, the somewhat Scooby Doo Chinese one, the tepid Baskervilke one and now this frankly intelligence insulting mess. Some nice gags yes but..er....yes...that's about it.

For me it's about crime-solving but also about the dynamic between Holmes and Watson, which is drawn here better than in any version I have seen. I think it's important to make the distinction between 'character drama' and 'soap'. I felt that last night's episode got the balance right. The main focus is on John/Sherlock and how their relationship needs to be repaired, and we also have to introduce Mary. If the series becomes all about Watson's (or Sherlock's) domestic dramas, then I'd agree it's too soapy. But as long as the emotions revolve around the case rather than the characters in future episodes, I'm okay with that.

As I've said elsewhere, I think you have to look at this episode as a bit of a one-off. Personally I'd have been really annoyed if Gatiss had just pressed the reset button and not addressed how John felt about Sherlock returning and being kept in the dark about it (which is what Conan Doyle effectively did).

Oh, right, because the first two series were soaps weren't they.

I give up.

That wasn't really character development - Sherlock has always been like that to John. He simply doesn't understand human nature, as he explained to Mary.

More interesting, I thought, was the nice touch he offered in giving Molly a day in John's shoes. And the evident panic in his voice as he and Mary go to rescue John, which betrayed his true bond with John behind all the bravado.