I wonder what was so awful about Mary's past in the end.

Took some gumption for John to gulp that down! When dating, mum very nearly dumped Dad because he had uncultivated table manners!

Funny

I don't see how Moriarty could possibly be alive. A news reporter in episode 1 confirmed that it was proven Rich Brook was a lie to smear Sherlock's name and somebody must have investigated Bart's roof after Sherlock's jump, therefore they would have found his body and if they didn't, how could they have worked out he lied and was actually a criminal mastermind all along?

It doesn't make sense. I think it's a massive troll myself, a way for Sherlock to dodge exile.

I loved that episode, made up for that last two. And I find I don't care about the answer to what happened on the roof now so much, its been over taken by the question of what happened on the roof (Moriarty version).

Brilliant stuff. Now how long do we have to wait for s4?

I've noticed a few posters saying that now, that it wasn't necessary for the story to be told in a non-linear style.

I don't think that to be a strong criticism because telling good stories isn't about how necessary an element is.
Ultimately lots of things aren't necessary to tell a story, but what you add to the mix, which may not even be necessary to get a story across, can elevate a story to new heights.

It's like saying that it's not necessary to depict Sherlock's 'Mind Palace'. It's hardly necessary, they don't need to do it, and they could just as well show Sherlock thinking by just simply filming him with a thinking expression on his face. But I'm glad that they do because it raises the show to a level above the conventional.

Non-linear storytelling isn't a bad thing.
If they just stuck to ensuring that everything was done using familiar formulas and convention because they wanted to ensure that everything was 'necessary', the show would be very boring indeed in comparison to what it actually is.

You don't create storytelling magic by striving to ensure that everything is just functional or necessary.

Maybe got the assassin job because her husband was working at the CIA?

Well, I loved it.

I thought we were on a discussion forum. I didn't know everything had to be positive and anything that raises questions should be swept under the rug.

If they're gonna bring back Morirty then why not bring back Charles Augustus Magnussen as well at a later date. It would make just as much sense.

Don't me wrong season 3 is still better than most TV but that ending ruined it a bit. I like Morirty but if they wanted to bring him back they shouldn't have killed him off in the first place. I bet they won't even explain it like Sherlock and were suppose to let it slide when this show takes itself being clever? If they were really smart they would explain it for sure. I don't want Sherlock having LOST 'answers' for christ sake. It deserves better than that.

Oh, and Morirty is clearly alive if you watched the scene after the credits ended.

Well ok, but once the story stated that everyone thought the physical vault was at Appledore (that futuristic house) it kind of lost its potency. It'd be very easy for the government to kill Magnusson and then isolate his house until all its (alleged) contents could be processed.

A more powerful line would have been an unknown location for Appledore with Magnusson saying that there were operatives out here paid to activate a release of all documents should he be killed.
That way the government, Sherlock, everyone would be shit scared to harm him.

Haha!

For those complaining that Sherlock should be solving not participating in crimes surely that is the whole point? That Sherlock is a genius who understands madmen like Moriarty because he is just like them..he just chooses to use his madness on the the right side of the law...most of the time.

Daily Mail review
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...twist-far.html

He's married someone who has lied about her past, and took on someone elses identity. It's hard to swallow, even if it is meant to be true love.

She will hopefully be busy with the sprog in season 4.

I thought you would have liked tonights episode more, because it got straight into the mystery and moved pretty quickly, that seemed to be your main complaint about the last 2 episodes anyway. It felt more like Sherlock series 1/2 to me, how would you like them to change it? Because you haven't enjoyed this more 'normal' episode either.

I still put series 2 as the best, followed by 1 then 3. I have enjoyed the series a lot, and thought tonights episode was the best of the 3, but it didn't quite live up to the cliffhanger of series 2. But how many shows can follow a cliffhanger with an amazing explanation? It's a pretty difficult thing to do, and they did it pretty well I thought.

What do you think of Mary Sad_BB_Addict?

No let down, I wasn't expecting it to be very good, so I was not disappointed. But whatever you enjoyed tonight it certainly wasn't a great episode of TV.

I'm not well acquainted with the original books but know most of the popular stories from previous screen adaptations. The first two series were based on recognisable Conan Doyle's storylines. Do we owe anything in series three to him or are the writers now making it up as they go along?

That was a brilliant 90 minutes of TV.

Thank you, Moffat. You can definitely write another one, if you want. And don't leave it so long, next time! (I just wish you'd condensed the first 2 episodes into one, then we could have had another good episode, but too late now, end of series).

Please can someone clarify for me - what was the significance of Redbeard? I know it's a dog, but so what?

And do we know, who the other one that Mycroft referred to is? )I'm assuming that it's something for next series, but I may have missed a reference).

Btw, just because someone plasters Moriarty's image everywhere, doesn't mean it's actually Moriarty who did it. (I hope it is, I love him).

I also like Mary, so to all those who say she should butt out, I say, same to you.

And John Watson is the sweetest, nicest character on TV.

Who was the third guy in sherlocks little fan club at baker street. He was sitting in 'sherls' chair and got up when sherlock sat down but did not leave when mycroft had his little 'security services' tantrum.

In that news piece they never actually said that Moriarty was dead. It was made clear that Sherlock was dead but all they said about Moriarty was that Richard Brook was his creation. Thought that was strange at the time.

In fairness you don't actually know how or if they've brought Moriarty back from the dead yet (the post-credit scene doesn't really prove anything) so to say it makes no sense is a little harsh.

I'd also suggest that its less that people are criticising the episode and more to do with much of the tone and content of that criticism which is far too often wrapped in attacks on one of the shows co-creators.

They're not in a position where they're desperate.
They're in a position where they can afford to take some risks which may be divisive amongst viewers.

The easy way out would be a brother. One of the many theories about this episode beforehand was that "Redbeard" was the name of a pirate with many brothers. The theory was that one of the brothers died and so Mycroft was going to die, but as that clearly didn't happen, dun dun duunnnnn, maybe it's actually a pointer towards Moriarty.

No, nor would Basil Rathbone, Carleton Hobbs, Alan Wheatley and Ian Richardson.



Absolutely. Unreal.
Watson's first wife died (in the Conan Doyle stories), so this one could have done so, too.


I did think that the acting was good, but I think that in future I shall stick to the original Sherlock Holmes portrayals, just more my cup of tea,

But The Government(/slash Mycroft) weren't actually that bothered about him.

I assume the letters he drew out of his pocket to teas Sherlock were just 'blanks'?