Moffat and Gattiss say a lot of things. Some of the things they say makes them sound like complete arses.
Just because they're the writers it doesn't mean they know everything or get everything right.

Why didn't they have a scene of a wedding rehearsal, it might have been funny with lots of interruptions

I saw the interview this morning and enjoyed her little chat with Ruth and Eamonn.

The most outrageous is:
Moffat: I almost forget now that Mrs. Hudson isn’t really a character in Sherlock Holmes at all. I think maybe in The Dying Detective she’s allowed to utter a line — otherwise she doesn’t speak. So Mrs. Hudson is really our creation.'

A small exemple from 'The empty House', a story he must have read recently since it's the basis for The Empty Hearst:

"I hope you preserved all precautions, Mrs. Hudson?" said Holmes.

"I went to it on my knees, sir, just as you told me."

"Excellent. You carried the thing out very well. Did you observe where the bullet went?"

"Yes, sir. I'm afraid it has spoilt your beautiful bust, for it passed right through the head and flattened itself on the wall. I picked it up from the carpet. Here it is!"

She doesn't utter a word, really? She's not really a Holmes character? She your creation?
I don't get it sometimes with him. He can make very precise and to the point comment that explains a lot of things then make such an obvious 'mistake' !!

I've just watched the episode again, and was surprised by the way everything fell into place this time. I really enjoyed it.

Perhaps a rewatch of the first two is in order - I might look on them more kindly second time round.

And now it's hit me that that's it until who-knows-when, which is a bit sad.

Me too, Granny.
Me too!

You should understand it isn't as you say. Sherlock and Watson met like other detectives - in ep 1. The eps/series have had a number of stand-alone episodes. None have been the convoluted crap as the more recent eps.

It is series about a detective, not a detective series.
No, it isn't. Not originally anyway. All series together - it has been a it mix of the two.

So sorry to dispel any notions of Sherlock being somehow 'superior' to other detective/drama series on TV. It isn't.

I waited until I'd seen episode 3, and then re-watched episodes 1 & 2 on Monday, and episode 3 on tuesday, all on iplayer. I think it was well worth the re- watch. As i now already knew what the outcome would be, I was less worried about trying to guess which clues were real and which were red herrings, and could just sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm glad I did. It's the first time I'd ever re-watched something so close to the original broadcast.

Something that in a way, made me feel sorry for the Magnussen character, is that he seemed a lonely fellow, what he did was wrong, I understand but it seems so sad in a way.

I'm not as tender-hearted as you, sandy. I thought he was a nasty piece of work and I didn't feel remotely sorry for him.

He deserved to die just for flicking my adorable John's face. How dare he?

I understand Granny but I think John would have punched Magnussen if it wasn't for Sherlock.

Can't say i enjoyed the 2nd time more. Definitively as much as, but for different reasons.

Why does it have to be it?
The wave has almost passed but i'm sure you'll keep a couple of toes in the water like me !

Yes, John had to suffer it until witnesses arrived to see Sherlock killing CAM.


No new Sherlocks, though - I'll have to make do with rewatching the DVDs.

Ah yes, with extras and perhaps deleted scenes.

And it's not the same of course but all these other versions of Holmes can keep the flamme alive too; for exemple i borrowed a friend's old copy of 'Without a clue', a 1988 parody with Micheal Caine as Holmes and Ben Kingsley as Watson.

With all the talks of rewatching, i forgot to rewatch the prequel-minisode 'Many happy returns' !

I was thinking, I do sometimes, about Sherlock getting shot. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but he's famous, isn't he? He's a media figure. When he returned from the dead, the media were there in droves. Also, in Britain, when someone gets shot, the Police always investigate, don't they?

So Sherlock is in Hospital dying and the Police aren't investigating, and they never investigate him getting shot because, if they did they would discover who did it. Mary didn't transport into the building on invisible wings, she got in somehow and someone must have seen her. So the Police would have found out who did it even if Sherlock said he didn't know, and even if Janine and Magnussen didn't say anything, and why wouldn't Janine say anything anyhow? I don' t get it.

What's the prequel-minisode? Where is it?

Presumably she did get in without being seen, by the way she was dressed. If someone dressed like that is seen, she'd obviously be up to no good.

Janine didn't know who bashed her on the back of the head presumably. If you read the interview with the writers posted a page or two back, they said Mary broke in, she didn't get Janine to let her in so there's no reason to assume Janine knew anything to tell.

Hey, love to break this to you, but what with the show being Their Show, what they say about it is pretty much all you need to know. If they say Their Show is about a detective rather than being a detective story, that's what it is.

Who said it was superior? Is that SHOCK a straw man argument erected to secure the win?

Sherlock is a very different show about a detective to any other detective show I've seen. I happen to think it's one of the best shows about a detective. Sometimes they do detecting. Other times they focus on the characters. All of the time there's something fishy going on. It's great. It's quite different. Some people like it, some don't. Nobody is or should be arguing that the differences make it an outright winner of all tv shows.

But by gumbo it doesn't half stand out from the rest of the pack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01np1b8

Ok but that still doesn't explain why the Police didn't investigate or are we supposed to believe they did but we didn't see it? I find the whole thing very unconvincing and how did Mary break in, there would be some evidence somewhere surely?

I also don't get why Sherlock said Mary saved his life unless he is supposed to have said that purely for John's benefit. It's not realistic. I quite enjoyed the episode while I was watching it but as soon as it ended I started to think it was rubbish. OH said stop thinking, it was fun but crap and now it's over we can still enjoy it by counting the numerous plot holes.

I would have preferred more Lestrade and much less Mary. In fact, I would have preferred more of everyone and no Mary at all. I was hoping she would die and the pregnancy was simply a lie. Oh dear, wicked me, sorry.

I think Sherlock's comment that if they found him dead in a building with a gigantic image of Mary's face on the front "even Scotland Yard would work it out" suggests that the police investigated and got nowhere. Nobody knows how Mary broke in, the scene didn't make the final cut.

Sherlock said Mary saved his life because she rang an ambulance as soon as she'd shot him.

OK, thanks. However, nothing will ever convince me that saying someone who has almost killed you saved your life because they then called an ambulance is a normal or intelligent reaction. Just imagine it happening in real life for a moment. Someone gets shot and the attacker calls an ambulance and then runs away. The shot person then says the shooter saved their life. I mean, your life wouldn't have even been in danger if they hadn't shot you, would it? HIS LIFE WAS NOT IN DANGER UNTIL SHE SHOT HIM. Oh well.

Also, I had a thought about the pregnancy. She got pregnant precisely as a safeguard so if John found out her past he would not leave her. He might leave her but not his child. I can't see how this is going to continue. Poor John has been manipulated by his wife. She's a liar, he doesn't know her real name, and she's a trained assassin. I hope he doesn't upset her sometime, she might shoot him.

Well, like Sherlock himself said, mixed messages.