I'm really new to the Sherlock party. The Empty Hearse was the first episode I saw and then I was hooked and went back and watched all the others.

One thing I would say is that from a standing start, with no prejudice or even knowing anything about the creators, the more I have read their interviews, the more supercilious and disrespectful they seem to be to fans.

I think that Mr Moffat and Mr Gatiss would do far better to maintain a dignified silence. As creators, they have the ultimate power over this show, but it's never good to believe your own hype.

Anyway, love Sherlock, but thought a newbie's viewpoint would be worth saying.

I suppose we are to assume that the police are investigating but come up with no leads, Janine may not have known of marys involvement as I'm sure she would be pissed off if her mate had left her unconcious. Magnusun may have given false information to the police to put them off the scent? like a guy shot sherlock?

Thanks for that. A nice little teaser. A pity I missed it first ime round.

Thanks from me too, marsch_labb. New for me also, and a nice little bonus.

Mind you, I've also only just cottoned on to the fact that John's blog on the TV programme is also there to read on this website!

That's my Saturday afternoon entertainment sorted then, having a read through that!

BIB I'll think you'll find that as long as posters stay within the rules of the forum they can argue whatever they like and I shall continue to do so whether you like it or not.

If you, or anyone else, is interested there is a version of "Hound of the Baskervilles" on Drama (Freeview 20) tonight at 7pm.

Richard Roxborough and Ian Hart are Holmes and Watson.

Aw I love that version! Thanks for posting as I would never have noticed (possible unpopular opinion but Ian Hart is my favourite Watson)

So you agree with them that no one guessed that Mary turned out to be a baddie and that Mrs Hudson was their creation?

Whhhhhhhhhhaaaaattttt?

Thanks - haven't seen that one, and I always forget to check what's on the extra channels.

I dont understand how anyone who loved the first two seasons, would be happy with the three episodes we have seen now in January..

I saw the last episode yesterday, since I live in Norway, and I wanted to love it. I wanted it to make up for the first two, but alas.

Oh, that's a shame that you didn't enjoy this series as much as the other two.

I also loved the first two, but unlike you enjoyed the new ones just as much. I personally tire of programmes that don't change, and so I end up giving up on watching them. For example, I can rarely watch more than a couple of series of police procedurals, because I become bored of seeing the same thing over and over.

Sherlock is not in that mould, and I for one am grateful because it has kept me interested in watching more. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with next!

That's just my opinion of course - we all enjoy different aspects of these shows.

I couldn't agree more. The 3 episodes just shown were pretentious rubbish. All the quick fire dialogue between the lead characters just got so tiresome. It failed to be smart or clever, (unless your a teenager maybe).Combine that with a lack of any real storyline involving a decent case and it just screamed of the BBC having no money to spent on it, despite the onslaught of teasers.

I certainly will not be fooled or watch any more of this steaming pile...

About the police investigating Sherlock being shot.
I too would have like a follow-up on Lestrade's investigation. All we had was a short conversation with Watson at Baker street, where they conclude Sherlock must know who it is because he was shot in the stomach!

Would have like to see Lestrade's in your face approach interrogating Magnussen. Also that scene would have given us pressure points on Lestrade!

Always loved Lestrade the character and feel for him. In the sens that, if Lestrade is a 6 /10 investigator and Sherlock a 10/10; where would Lestrade be if he didn't have to follow legal procedures and administrative requirements. If Sherlock had to do that, he wouldn't be has effective as he is now!
So in that sens, any policeman looks stupid compared to Sherlock, and they complain about that in the originals 'we can't do that in the force, Mr.Holmes'.
Of course, it's clear Sherlock is way better inside a crime scene but in the overall investigation, the gap between Sherlock and Lestrade is not as important as is protrayed, imo.
Just a thought.
I was a bit surprised when i saw the stag night, but in retrospect, it's also because they were only two. Can you imagine a night out including Sherlock, Watson, Lestrade and perhaps Anderson!
Perhaps if Sherlock marries Janine...

Strange isn't it.

You see, I don't understand how anyone who loved the first two series could not like the latest (in fact I'd go further and say, love it even more).

It really hasn't changed all that much but, the way that some people are banging on, you'd think it was an entirely different show.

I think if Lestrade and Anderson had been along for the ride, there'd probably have been strip clubs, lamp posts and handcuffs involved!

In 'Many Happy Returns' there's a tiny moment, it only lasts for a fraction of a second, but I think it showcases how Martin Freeman is absolutely brilliant at how his under-acting can totally hold the scene. It's in response to Sherlock saying "Only lies have detail", and Martin gives a hardly-noticeable shake of his head. The actor I can most compare him with for that is John Thaw - another genius and master of the facial expression that speaks a thousand words.

Totally agree - I always rate the romance between Tim and Dawn in The Office as one of my all time favourite on screen love stories, precisely because of the wonderfully understated, realistic way it was acted.
I've loved his acting ever since; I think he conveys his characters' feelings brilliantly.
Also agree with the comments on Lestrade - one of the unfortunate consequences of this series being less crime focussed, imo, was that he didn't seem to feature much.
I'm another who thinks the 3rd series is much better on second watching - I still felt there were scenes in the second episode that were overlong and had that slight Doctor Who type eccentricity to them, but there were some lovely moments between some of the characters too and it was a brilliant example of how this man, who has so many flaws, has this very small handful of people in his life who have seen the child-like character behind the brilliance and arrogance and love him for who he is - that for me has become the heart of the show, and as long as I'm intrigued by that, I'll keep watching.
I do believe there will probably be more of a mix of the crime solving and the relationship aspect next series, though.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it's over 40 years since I was a teenager. As far as I'm concerned, it can be viewed on lots of levels - as a fast action romp at one extreme, or as a convoluted plot with twists and backward references as the different strands and clues finally mesh. I've watched it twice, with different needs, both of which were met.

I can see that some people are not entertained and find it pretentious, but that doesn't mean that people who do enjoy it are in some way inferior. It's horses for courses. In my opinion, Sherlock achieves what it sets out to do, and achieves it well. Off hand, I cannot think of anything else I've seen that has attempted to do what Sherlock has done, let alone achieved it.

Agree with this, too.
(And it's been a long time since I was a teenager, also)

I don't mind folk not liking something I liked, I don't mind criticism, I don't even mind outright revulsion, but insinuations that anyone not in agreement with someone's opinion is in some way intellectually inferior really P's me off (not that teenagers are inferior but the contributor's post clearly indicates that train of thought)

I don't usually respond to comments like that.
Don't like it, i don't care.
The teenager comment perhaps refers to teengirls who are in love with Benedict and would accept anything from the show. Clumsy comment but not insulting if that's what you meant.
The not clever comment. Some people seem to confuse being possible and clever. For exemple, in TSOT, the stabbing through the belt. Imo, it's possible if it's just to have the time to remove yourself from the scene and give yourself an aliby. But it's not possible as shown in the episode, where the murderer hangs around for hours hoping the victim wouldn't feel anything all this time. But it's still clever!
You have to be smart to see the difference
Most people here did see the difference

There is a lot of criticism going around for series 3. A lot of people saying Sherlock wouldn't do this or that but if found generally the show has been pretty true to the books. Anyone who watched and understood 'His Last Vow'' properly and still says Sherlock would never have shot Magnussson is stupid. It was his ONLY option, it's very clear in the story.

For those that see Sherlock as weaker or Series 3 as poor you have to remember its character progression. He had been away for 2 years. The reaction to his return had changed him, he is more human. Series 3 has always been about progression. Don't forget Moriarty was always lurking in the background of Series 1 and 2. Series 3 had to be different. And with Moriarty back for series 4 the character progression will add a new dimension to Sherlock vs Moriarty. Moriarty has a lot more to go at now and personally I can't wait.

Character alteration =/= character development. And I actually think it shows a glaring weakness on the part of the writers that they feel the need to make Moriarty relevant again to keep people interested. They already overplayed the Moriarty card in the first two seasons (he is referred to/seen in every episode).

No he isn't. We didn't see him at all in the first two episodes, then five minutes at the end of the third, then just brief glimpses in ASiB and Hounds. It was only the Reichenbach Fall which really featured Moriarty a main character.

Plus, you might be jumping the gun by thinking that the writers are making him relevant again. We don't actually know that Moriarty is back yet, it could be some entirely knew villain using his image.