Lol...you know I think the issue is that for some reason Moff likes to portray his stuff as really clever when often it ain't, whilst Doyle was far more disparaging about his work and would never have gone out claiming "game changers" etc etc

Yep, in the originals Holmes only told Mycroft he was alive because he felt that John would have given the game away, not being the type who could hide his emotions.

Fair point about John wearing his heart on his sleeve - in which case it would've been more satisfactory ( for this viewer anyway!), had Sherlock explained that to him; I think this series in particular, Sherlock's character, his behaviour, has been a bit inconsistent at times.

Me either. I'd be quite happy if the show was never made again. I guess I've just fallen out with it. I have absolutely no desire to rewatch any of the episodes from the new series let alone buy it on DVD. It's just not my cup of tea any more. I prefer stuff like The Bridge, The Fall, Borgen, etc. Sherlock has just become too silly.

Cool, stop wasting your time posting of your dislike then, if you dislike it so much.

But it doesn't apply here - Mycroft isn't some new external panacea, he's been there all along.

Haha, are you STILL complaining? You've sat through not one, not two but three full length one and a half hour episodes of this show, constantly complaining, complaining, complaining and saying you couldn't take any more, and you're still erm...complaining?

This is quite unreal even for DS - I have to admit

Even though it was Holmes who made him his name and fortune, he considered the writing of Holmes as 'minor work' compared to the other things he wrote.

''Had Holmes never existed i could not have done more, though he may perhaps have stood a little in the way of the recognition of my more serious literary work''

Extract from the introduction by Conan Doyle of his last book on Holmes 'The case-book of Sherlock Holmes'

This^^^^^^

Which is also why I don't think that John is waiting for the baby to be born before kicking Mary out, as some think. He just wouldn't be able to pull of the charade.

Absolutely not.

I honestly didn't have anyone else's theory in mind.

My theory isn't about him firing a blank, but the gun is simply a detonator switch which blows off the back of the fake head. Something entirely different.

Yes, but he/she is doing their bit to boost the viewing figures and helping to guarantee that the BBC will commission series 4

It's a shame that you won't be watching it anymore.

But anyway, look forward to seeing you on here for the next series.

You don't need a blank bullet or a fake head/fake blood or anything. All you need to do is ask yourself if Holmes was taking the piss when he was talking to Anderson. So far, the very last minute of episode 3 confirms what I was thinking all along.

I don't have an exact quote but Anderson says something along the lines of "Surely I'd be the last person in the world you would give the true story to??"

I'm in for a very, very long wait to see if I was right or not!

I know, it was a joke about the crack, hence the wink.
Also i used a 'but' to make clear that i said something slightly different. I don't see how it's completely different. Pretty much the same. I initialy used the word blank but it was pretty clear my main point was that he could have faked his death with todays technology and FX, just like you

I brought it back because it's the only one of my theories that seems right. All other ones were wrong (theories, not observations).

Just thinking back to episode 1 of series 3, with the bomb that had an unlikely "off" switch, is it possible that Moriarty (if he is still alive) set it up, and that he wasn't really trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament, just messing about?

You need it in the following scenario:
-i said if Sherlock can do it, Moriarty can too, if he's prepared.
-so then how could he do it; hence the fake blood, etc. And it appears that i'm not the only one who thinks it's possible.
Not saying it's what happen, just put it out there before series 3 started that it was possible. If you've read my other posts, you see i always give credit to others. And this is the only one i can claim a little bit.
I apologise if i seem too insistent, just two months of forum under my belt, perhaps a bit clumsy

The reichenback fall, was unbelievably good, that anything after that will be a dissapointment.

Good attempt but it still doesn't explain why Sherlock has to jump (i.e. become dead) at that point. In fact, it may be the worst time and method by which to fake his death, given the large number of people in on it plus the very real possibility that a Moriarty sniper may well see exactly what happens.

Why is Watson deemed to be such a security risk? Surely Sherlock's own parents, brother, Molly, homeless associates etc etc would also be monitored and just as likely to betray their true feelings?

Look, I know why the writers made Watson virtually the only person near to Holmes who believed him to be dead; it's a great opportunity for all the dramatic and comedic stuff that took place for much of series 3 episode 1. All I'm saying is that it could have been handled more satisfactorily.

But I'm going by what we saw in the final episode of series 2. I'm not even considering what he told Anderson.
We saw Moriarty, or Richard Brook, stick a gun into his mouth and seemingly blow his brains out with Sherlock stood right in front of him.
This is long before The Empty Hearse and the events within it involving Anderson in series 3.

No not at all, your contributions are very much appreciated!

I have to admit I don't normally give any TV stuff this much thought, but if you watch the whole "explanation" again that Holmes offers...that whole scenario depends on so many factors that could possibly go wrong, it's out of this world.

Looking at it logically, I'd say it has a 99% chance of being totally impossible.

IF Moriarty is alive,

AND they decide to show us how he survived,

Then they might even revisit Sherlock's fall and give us yet another solution.

You saw Holmes's "version" of events. This is one of the oldest tricks in fiction literature, a narrative within a narrative that may/may not be true.

As I said, I may be very wrong about this but so far the series is consistent with the above.

Didn't he say there are 13 possible explanations? Dear lord, 3 given so far (and that includes the snogging!), 10 to go...my brain will explode

If i go with what Sherlock said to Anderson and also take into account that it was mainly to fool Watson.
I thought the explanation holds if the roof is the only place he could do it.
Apart from, if Watson was the main one to be fooled, why use another body in the plan. If Watson didn't see the last feet of the fall, all they had to do is play a sound effect of a body crashing. Much easier than to find a body that looks like Sherlock. And the other body was dropped at a much lower height, it would not make a satisfactory sound.
But many people raised very good points, so had it been something else, i would not have been surprised.
About what a person would or would not do in a precise situation, it's psychology so my thoughts are on less firm ground.
But i just don't think Moriarty would sacrifice himself only to get under Sherlock's skin.
Two years of spéculations! i'll need a vacation. And it starts tonite with Death in paradise!

Here is the transcript of the Q&A session with Steven Moffat et al after the BAFTA [pre-] screening of His Last Vow that took place in London the other week:

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/sherlock...#ixzz2qMrEM9Co

(I know an FM asked for this a while back but there have obviously been many posts on here since then, so can't find the particular post.)