Why are so many people under the impression this episode was written by Steven Moffat? It's not just some people here, I've seen many people over the web think this was Moffat-penned.

The story mimicked V for Vendetta in that both involved exploding a tube train under the Houses of Parliament.

The footage of the exploding HoP was completely different, in that in V it was much more expensively done, with close-ups, and the viewing side was the North side of the Thames, but with Sherlock it was from the South Bank (allowing not so detailed CGI/models to be used?)

Thanks .

I loved it. It was intelligent and fun. I also thought it was similar to V for Vendetta with the train and the blowing up of Parliament.

I read on an American site that US viewers might be confused about Guy Fawkes but enough people should have seen that film and enough people around the world seem to have the masks to make sense of it.

That conversation was all in Anderson's mind. Surely as it was shown that Sherlock was not there at all

Interesting as I think Utopia and Line of Duty are crap. Each to his own. I have never seen V and I do not care how the BBC did the exploding House of Parliament Scene. Also BC has a great backside!

A confusion for me in this show was the actress playing Mary (MF's real life partner), as I'd got her confused with the actress who played the journalist in the last series - the one who was supporting Moriarty's alter-ego. They look a little similar, and I thought they were the same person.

Well, that was pretty daft for several reasons:

1) Holmes' 'death'

All the possible explanations for Holmes' death revolved around fooling Watson into thinking he was dead whereas the actual reason for Holmes jumping was to make Moriaty's henchmen think he was dead. All the proposed scenarios would have allowed unknown observers who could have been anywhere to see exactly what was going on.

2) Who played the major part in stopping the bomb?
It was the rail enthusiast. Had it not been for him Holmes would have had no idea.

3) Absurdities with the underground
If you detach the 'rear' carriage from an underground train, someone will notice it very, very, quickly. At the very latest when someone tries to drive the train in the other direction.

Also did the rail enthusiast explain how he knew that the villain was not on the train and not just out of view?


The whole episode seemed incredibly badly thought out, to me.

I'd thought that, buuuuuuuuuut, it was then odd to do it as a cut away in the middle of the underground bomb scene. You'd expect a cut-away to be what Sherlock was thinking, not the confused ideas of someone else.

Edit: Of course, though, by doing it in the middle of the bomb scene, it just (successfully) adds to the confusion of the viewer.

Strange. This post is almost the same as post 1485-perhaps the author is stuck in a time loop?

You are quite free to boycott it if you so desire (and to post the same thoughts twice in two different posts). Myself, I cannot wait until Sunday for the next episode. And I will be buying the S3 blu-ray.

Well, in the nick of time, just as I had given up with feeding on the corpse of regurgitated sitcoms and undernourished Christmas 'Specials', along comes Sherlock to breathe a little badly needed originality into the Xmas/New Year TV schedules.

The whole thing rattled along, so watchable, and I loved the multi-version approach to the 'how did he do it?' aspect. The cast really love making the show and it really shines through in the performances.

Reading through the thread, I can only laugh and shake my head at how literally some people will take a fictional television show!

Assuming that such footage is for sale, and that it would cost less than any custom effects (the cost of which is of course, unknown).

They were 'fan' theories and so didn't necessarily need to 'work'. Not everyone will have known that Moriarty's henchmen needed to think he was dead. Anderson's theory tried to get round it with Mycroft essentially talking them out of it!




No, this is what I thought for a while but nobody seemed to consider it. I don't suppose hiding on a train would have much purpose though.

For someone so observant and clever Sherlock can miss some 'obvious' stuff sometimes. It took him ages to notice that a whole carriage was missing from the train.

I don't think it matters that the bomb plot was a relatively small part because:

a) I don't think it's a self contained story. It came across as the start of something bigger

b) I'd rather that took a back seat to the character stuff than vice versa. You can't please everyone and I suspect had the bomb plot been bigger and less space had been left for the reunions and character bits then other people would be complaining.

I'm glad John didn't just get on with his life with Sherlock back.

Surely Sherlock would not be thinking anything meaningful other than getting his "I forgive you" from Watson. After all he knew no death was involved ass he knew about the off switch.

I do believe we are being played with and no definitive explanation will be given. I for one don't care I am just glad he faked his own death and delighted to see him back

It's all very well having episode in a series dedicated to letting the characters grow, but not when there is only 3 episodes in the series. If you want to let the characters grow in such a short run, do it over all the episodes and have a cumulative emotional outpouring or grievance un-burdening before the final hook of episode 3.
The plot was thin & even then full of holes. My main annoyance is what exactly happened to all the normal tube traffic that would have been crashing into the car left under the Houses of Parliament? We were told on numerous occasions that there were no other lines, deviations or other nonsense for the original tube to go down yet this car has been abandoned on a main line for a week plus without anyone noticing. Even as Holmes & Watson walked to the car, Holmes says the lines are live and they'll be OK if they don't touch them. Unused lines would not be powered up.

Just re-watching last night's episode again hoping for some of it to make a bit more sense as it moved at quite a pace.
My favourite reaction has got to be Lestrade's "ooh you bastard" then a big hug

And especially if they're running a train in 2013 which has a 1969 cab on it on a line which clearly isn't the District line which is was supposed to be.

(A mixture of my and a friend's tube geekery)

Rule Number 1: Gatiss & Moffat LIE!

They do this to protect 'spoilers' leaking online and ruining any plot twist which they may have coming up in furture episodes. When they kept telling us before this episode, "find out how he did it", "we will explain everything", it is quite blatanty a way to steer us into believing the 3rd explaination given to Anderson, was actually the correct one, but also - building up hype (which worked if the ratings of 11 Million as correct). But a magician should never reveal his trick - not fully anyway - which is their big fat (but genius) lie.

However, if i know Moffat and co, and i think i know their writing pretty well by now, this is all building up to something much bigger, with the guys saying that Magnussen will be invloved with the show for a longer time than Mortiarty (i am saying this even although i know they lie - hmm) i CANNOT wait to see how it all turns out.

Having said that, i hope they dont wait until the last 5 minutes of the last episode this series to introduce Magnussen like they did his predecessor. Never do the same trick twice.

I couldn't help but continually think the same thing. Each 'reveal' was predicated on convincing Watson that Holmes was dead by a) having him see Holmes fall b) distracting him at just the right moment and ensuring he stayed down long enough to miss the actual moment of impact and c) Watson being satisfied that he was indeed dead when he went over to the body. I can accept that Holmes had a small army of people on stand-by to assist with any given scenario, but how did they prevent anyone other than Watson being anywhere in the vicinity where they might have watched the 'real' version of events un-fold and therefore expose the whole thing as a ruse?

That niggle aside, I thought it was very entertaining. Not great when considered overall, but had little gems throughout; Mrs Hudson, his parents, and every scene with Mycroft. Their 'duelling logic' was great and M's line about gving S Interpol if he took his place at Les Mis was fantastic.

Well said

sums up my thoughts exactly

I'd argue that they did, otherwise why make them remotely plausible (if you're SH) at all? If we assume that each one was in fact total cobblers, Holmes still went to great length went to concoct these theories, but seems to have overlooked a vital, but easily spotted, flaw in his logic, which isn't like him. Bear in mind that everyone presumed him dead, not just Watson.

The only thing I liked was seeing Dr Watson with a moustache because that's how he appeared in the original stories......but then, unbelievably, he shaved it off!

i completely agree too.