All the best writers write for themselves. Those who write for fans are on a perilous path that's more likely to end up veering into self-indulgence than the former type, ironically. I much prefer writers who say 'this is what I'm doing, take it or leave it.' I enjoy what they're doing on Sherlock, you don't; that's fine, isn't it?


I agree with most of this - like Watson referring to Holmes' 'death', I want to know 'why' as much as I do 'how'. But I disagree that Sherlock isn't smart writing; it's just a different type of show from the US crime procedurals. I'm hoping that the 'why' of Moran's plot is tied up with the slow reveal of the series' main villain. For me, Holmes linking two seemingly separate mysteries (the 'Underground network' message and Moran's tube disappearance) were highly reminiscent of the way he works in Doyle's stories.

I'm an enormous fan of the original Conan Doyle tales, especially the short stories, but many of them are little more than a description of the crime, followed by Holmes making a clever deduction or two, then entrapping the perpetrator. Great reading (and highly recommended to anyone who hasn't read them) but all a bit familiar in TV terms, and certainly not enough to carry a modern 90-minute programme. Just my opinion, of course.

I loved it. It had to focus on the explanation(s) as we'd all been hanging around with tongues lolling out for two years, waiting. If that had been over in a jiffy and then we'd moved onto an intricate crime solving plot, we would have felt short-changed. I thought Gatiss et al provided a perfect balance between satisfying the need for a heartfelt, complex reunion and moving the story on with the bomb plot.

Benedict C is remarkable, but hats off to Martin Freeman whose portrayal of John's turmoil, especially in that first restaurant scene, was just glorious. Absolutely fantastic acting.

I'm glad to see so many positive posts, but, as usual, 'discussion threads' on DS seem to be hijacked by people who seem determined to criticise for the sake of it. I don't mind criticism, but please don't keep coming back to beat us all over the head with the same thing over and over until everyone agrees with you.

I used to love DS but rarely post now as every time I go to a thread, I read the same old vitriol, which largely seems designed to reinforce the commenter's own sense of superiority simply by the fact that they can see why something was shite and the rest of us lesser mortals can't.

It should be easy. Did you enjoy something? If yes, tell us why then let everyone else have their say. If no, tell us why then let everyone else have their say.

same as me. I absolutely love most of the previous episodes but I found myself a little bored by this episode, its just didn't draw me in as much as the others.

I was also disappointed that the bomb on the underground mirrored V for Vendetta so much. im quite surprised that mark gatiss wrote it as he must have realised this

Okay, the terrorist plot was boring, essentially a non event and poorly thought out.

Everything else was great though - the reunion between Sherlock/Watson, the brotherly dynamic with Sherlock/Mycroft, anything involving Molly, Lestrade, Anderson and Hudson.

The theories playing out were amusing to watch, even if the episode became super meta at times.

I like Mary. I want her to stay and not be a baddie. She was immensely likeable throughout the episode.

Overall, a fun episode, 8/10

I haven't read The Empty House and now I must do so. The 2 year gap in this show may have been by design, in order to create a similar hiatus as in the original Conan Doyle stories. I remember that originally, Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes and was forced to bring him back, therefore he had to come up with a plausible explanation for his faked death. In Sherlock, the whole plot has been planned in advance and is not a response to the audience's shock at Sherlock's apparent death. However, they have included a nod to the audience reaction, so that's quite a clever angle.

As far as I am concerned, the writers are still sticking to the overall plan, of modernising the Holmes stories. I don't think this episode has driven the whole project off track and some people are suggesting.

Personally, I really enjoyed it and I'm waiting to see what happens in the other episodes.

That depends on the next episode. Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside.

Without a semi-decent, intriguing plot the show might as well pack up shop and go home. The series has always worked as a strong combination of character and plot. To ditch the plot almost entirely in favour of soapish character situations was a mistake and jettisoned half of what made the series so watchable, and we're already a third of the way through!

Did V for Vendetta have a similarly exploding houses of parliament? If they did, I wonder if Sherlock did their own mock up, or just used footage from the film.

Just a thought, if somebody posts that they enjoyed the episode, I don't think they need to be lectured on why they shouldn't have. Or vice versa. I think we're all capable of discussion without trying to change each-others opinions to suit our own agendas

i refuse to watch this show now, people should boycott it. The writer is stuck up this own *** and becoming American. Nearly as frustrating as Lost!

V showed the house of parliament exploding at the end of the film, but i'm taking your comment as being slightly sarcastic as im sure Sherlock didn't just nick the footage!

Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

Don't like it then move on to something you do like. Leave the rest of us who do enjoy it to continue.

This.

or maybe just let people post what they want to as this is a free forum. If you don't like the post just read it then forget it!

I thought I'd remembered a similar explosion, but have only seen V for vendetta once, and wasn't really paying much attention to it.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. It would seem to be a pretty sensible thing to do if they did, a bit like having a white jag in 60s and 70s TV action programmes (Saint etc), so they could use the stock footage of one going off a cliff and landing on its roof.

Edit: I don't know how difficult it is to simulate the Houses of Parliament blowing up in the way they did, but it is sure to be a big lump of money for what was only a 3 or 4 second sequence. I know the BBC are "good" at spending licence fee payers' money, but they could have saved a bit by buying in existing footage.

What? You mean hugely successful with a devoted worldwide fan base and highly profitable?

What a horrible thing to happen!

ahh it just never occurred to me that tv shows would buy footage. I feel a bit cheated now thinking that they may do that!

(obviously im talking about shows such as Sherlock!, I realise news/documentary's etc buy it! )

I don't think it's hard or expensive to CGI/animate the Houses of Parliament sequence. I think most Foundation Degree students on a computing course could do it.

No dear that's Downton Abbey..... DOWNTON ABBEY, I said.

Sad isn't it, when they get confused. Also when they're too proud to use thier hearing aids

Where was the obvious bit Moffat was referring to that we all overlooked??

V for Vendetta featured a plot to blow up Parliament using a booby trapped train that would go down an unused underground track that passed under the parliament. On November the 5th.

If people are going to blast this episode, why blame Moffat when he didn't write it?

It pulled in 10 million viewers. Like it or not, it's still popular. Like Moffat's Who as well.

i refuse to watch this show now, people should boycott it. Nearly as frustrating as Lost!

Soundtrack Previews

"Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside".

Completely agree with the above. Very complacent and a very shallow boring plot that was overrun with trying to appease the many fan theories on how Sherlock faked his death. Although top marks to Martin Freeman who stole the episode with some fine acting.

Hoping episode two is a big improvement.

Me I'm just waiting for Utopia and Line of Duty which both return in Feb!