Thanks, it's not the same link that i saw before, much longer.
Have to read this later

Again this is explained in the episode itself.

From the perspective of Moriarty (and thus his network) the whole purpose of that meeting on the rooftop is the death of Sherlock Holmes. If Sherlock leaves that roof alive then Moriarty's network immediately swings into action placing those closest to him in danger. Sherlock has to jump at that point because its the only way to guarantee the safety of those closest to him. That was the whole point of this set up by Moriarty to leave Sherlock with no choice but to die in that moment. This is why Moriarty kills himself on the roof because if he's still alive then Sherlock always has a way to make it off the roof alive. Its not Sherlock's choice to jump at that moment its what the situation demands.


Mycroft we know is perfectly capable of masking his true feelings also given that he wasn't targeted by Moriarty in the episode itself we can perhaps assume that his position of power makes him difficult to keep tabs on effectively. Molly was judged to be unimportant by Moriarty so there's absolutely no reason to think he would have her under surveillance. I think the same could quite possibly be suggested of Sherlock's parents given that until this series they were barely mentioned (and never as far as I can remember in an especially positive way) let alone seen. But even then presumably it was Mycroft and not Sherlock that decided to let them in on the secret. Why would Moriarty be monitoring Sherlock's homeless network? Its not even clear how he'd go about doing that. Moreover since we don't actually know for sure how Sherlock survived the fall we don't know that the homeless network actually knew anything. Watson, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade where the three people targeted by Moriarty in the episode so it seems most logical to suggest that those three would be the ones that Moriarty's network would be keeping tabs on. Notice that none of them knew Sherlock was still alive and we see him reunited with all three in The Empty Hearse.


It was. Perhaps you just weren't paying enough attention.

No, that was the link to the Q&A session after we all got to see the final episode lol.

Anyway, as my post was last one on previous page and they can sometimes get lost, I'll post the link again just in case.

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

And yes, it's quite long. Just starting to ingest it all now.

I hope that's the case and not an error.

http://imgur.com/hidSwyS

Yep, the bottom picture clearly shows what appears to be a "." where none existed before. Also, the sweep of the right hand leg of the "A" is also far more curved than in the other photos.

Obviously just a prop mistake.

How do you explain the choice of close-ups for all three.
And they know Sherlock is one of the most scrutinized show on this planet. Someone would have noticed and they still put a close-up shot in the fire?
If it turns out it's a prop mistake, i'll be extremely disapointed!
Thanks to fefster for originaly spoting that

From the Q&A that was linked by nethwen further up this page, plus comments.

-There was some speculations/impressions about Sherlock's reaction after Magnussen showed an empty room instead of the expected vault.
Not saying it closes the subject but this is what the director said:
''To have an episode where Sherlock Holmes makes one or two mistakes, you witness him realising these mistakes he keeps making. A terrific, terrific project to be involved with.''

-Many asked why Sherlock didn't react more at the word 'liar' he saw in his mind when he meets Mary. I like this answer; doesn't satisfy me completely but i like it:
''I think the frightening thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he actually is human, he’s completely human, and he has all the impulses and the feelings that every other human being has, but he suppresses them in order to be a better detective, and it’s on those moments where he doesn’t successfully suppress it that he gets into trouble. He believes that emotion gets in the way of his brilliant brain, and on the evidence of the show so far and of the original stories he’s completely right. When he gets emotional, he gets blind. He doesn’t spot Mary as a fraud as he should have as she points out in that episode. Ages ago, he should have spotted it. You know when you see the word ‘Liar’ all around her – as some people have noticed – when he first meets her there’s a whole blizzard of words and one of them is liar and he ignores that word because he wants to like her.''

That's just from the first quarter, there's plenty more. Last exemple, i said i liked what Moffat said, some other answers, i didn't like as much. Quit interesting!

Over the last couple of days I've rewatched the 3 episodes on iPlayer. I've never before rewatched a programme so soon after first seeing it, but I thought it would be worthwhile here to see what I'd missed the first time round. I'm glad I did.


There were a few things I'd missed, but nothing too significant.

But whereas the first time I'd been looking for significant clues and trying to understand if they might be significant, now I just laid back and watched it a straight forward entertainment - as an adventure story / romp. I now had the advantage of seeing the clues for what they were, as it happened, because I now knew the outcome.

I thoroughly enjoyed the re-viewing, it added to the experience.

Yes, I just finished watching the final episode an hour ago. I enjoyed it the first time, but on second viewing it was an easier viewing as I could absorb tiny little things which I may have missed the first time, which made it enjoyable in a more relaxing way.

I noticed that in the space of time before Sherlock shot Magnussen, the time where Magnussen is tormenting Watson, Sherlock looked stressed and frustrated, and had a look on his face as though he felt beaten and had to resign to defeat. Just as he was shooting him the writing made the point that he wasn't doing something heroic, something to be celebrated, but that he was simply resorting to being the sociopath.
Which I felt on second viewing worked well. As the writing ensured that it was clear that what he did wasn't something clever or heroic, but an act which he simply had to reluctantly fall back on as a last resort.

One little thing I missed first time around is that it was revealed that Magnussen wouldn't have let John burn to death if Sherlock hadn't saved him from the bonfire. He said that he had men on standby ready to pull him out.

Well I completely disagree, I think these three eps taken together are rather brilliantly conceived as an arc, packed full of recurring themes, as well as so much wonderful character development and interaction. I did miss the lack of a central mystery each week, but I got over it and enjoyed each episode on its own merits, as well as the full three episodes as one longer, single work.

Hmm, interesting. Can anyone remember if John actually showed Mary the stick she gave him - in that 'This stick you gave me? I don't need to read it' - way people do, prior to him throwing it in the fire? Presumably he did, as he wanted her to see he was destroying it. Therefore, considering pic 2 is different to pic 1, wouldn't/ shouldn't Mary have noticed it wasn't the same one she gave him? And pic 3 is different again to pic 2, so the one John threw in the fire isn't the same one he showed her, so he's got two USB sticks with him, both slightly wrong duplications of the original ! Did he put his hand back in his pocket between pics 2 and 3? As much as we'd like to think they wouldn't have a props cock-up, I think that is the most likely explanation. The only other is that John duplicated it twice and got it wrong both times !

There are three different versions of that prop, and much as I'd like to think it's a clue that actually the character has gone out and found a duplicate drive and scribbled the initials on it incorrectly, I actually think at least one of those alternate props is just a mistake made by the props department.

For example, it's almost certain that the closeup of the drive in the fire was shot separately to the main scene by a 'Second Unit', who had a duplicate prop, that just happened to be non-identical.

I agree that it seems a little sloppy, but continuity is a very hard thing to be completely on top of when making a big drama like this, especially when you have different units shooting different things. Maybe John did keep it, but the fact there's three different props and no reason to have three within this idea we're boiling up makes me think Continuity Error.

What do you mean, "how do you explain" it? There needed to be a closeup of the drive in his hand, and being burned so we could see what it was.

I agree, the lettering is different on every version, but there's also three different versions. The theory that's being cooked up only requires there to be two different versions. So I'm calling Props department slip-up.

It might be props dept slip up between the drive she shows them and the drive in his hand, but the difference between the one in his hand and the one in the fire could be deliberate.

I hope so anyway, it would be disappointing if the props department was sloppy enough to make two continuity errors with the same prop.

Hi nethwen, that was me who was looking for it. Thanks so much for sharing the link. I'm looking forward to reading what they had to say about HLV.

If you were intending to pretend you had destroyed the original, surely the thing to do is copy the files onto something else, any old memory stick, and then actually destroy the original. There's no need to try and exactly match the writing. You have a copy, it doesn't matter what it looks like, as the only memory stick Mary (or the viewers) ever need to see is the one she handed over and that she subsequently sees being thrown on the fire.

For that to be the case, John would have had to put his hand in his pocket to switch sticks. That'd be an odd, not to mention very obvious - both to Mary and the viewer - thing to do, so I'm inclined to believe that's part of the slip up.

Perhaps the truth is simply that the initials were written on both sides of the memory stick with the normal variation between them you get when handwriting something?

Good point. Its probably just a continuity error then.

Not sure I'd agree with that. If someone gives you something that you intend to duplicate, then supposedly destroy in front of them, wouldn't you want to make your copy as identical to the original as you could, lest they want to see it again for some reason, or you drop it on the floor or something? Why take the risk of doing a sloppy job and have the original owner twig it's not the original item?

I also disagree - have thoroughly enjoyed all three parts, and some of the acting has been outstanding.

No, I think what Eater meant was that you would destroy the original in front of them and keep the copy. Therefore it wouldn't be necessary to make any attempt to make the copy look like the original, in fact it would probably be better if the copy looked nothing like the original just in case they happened to find it.

Ah I see what you mean. Generally yes, I agree, but in this context (the different props), the one he destroyed doesn't look like the original, so if the different props are deliberate and part of the story, then he didn't destroy the original, he destroyed a copy, and a sloppy one at that, with the implication being he's kept the original. I think.