I live and learn!

That theory holds even more weight when you consider the events of the previous episode which appeared to stress a lot of emphasis on John's main driven instinct to save lives.
This would be valuable information to Mary if you take that theory on Tumblr into account.

Was that There's something about Mary I was watching? I still enjoyed it, but I have no idea where they are going with it. Pregnant woman and a child will change the dynamics completely and not for the better. The third episode was a typical Moffat's convoluted plotting based on an idea that turned out to be a copout. Surely some blackmailee would ask for more of a proof than being whispered their indiscretions in their ear. And bang, problem solved, how convenient to wrap up an episode quickly. Moffat should write zombie series, his dead tend to come back.

Can anyone tell me why, when Magnussen was flicking John's face, he just didn't move out of the way, because that's what I would have done? Also, why weren't John and Sherlock searched when they went into his building? Why didn't Sherlock and John just leave when they found out Magnussen had no vaults full of info? Why did Sherlock hate him so much, as he wasn't a major threat and he didn't kill people? Then there is the info Magnussen is supposed to have on people. Presumably, he had hard copy at some point, so what is he supposed to have done with it? Burnt it? And if Mycroft can instruct 3 people to forget what they have seen and is so powerful why couldn't he simply deal with Magnussen himself or, if Magnussen threatens someone deal with that? Why would anyone pay attention to Magnussen anyway?

So, anyone know what the best price for the blu-ray is in the shops?

Try reading the last 50 pages!!

I disagree. Magnussen knew a lot of specifics about those transgressions, and nobody was supposed to know anything. I'm afraid I wouldn't have challenged him to produce evidence, he clearly knew more than enough to cause a lot of trouble for the lady and her naughty husband.

Welcome to last week. You have a lot of reading of this thread to do!

That's really interesting that you have the power to get inside my head and know what it is I like and don't like. Fascinating skills.

And of course, you're wrong, because I genuinely have enjoyed all three series. I care a great deal bout the storyline, which is largely why I liked the third series (especially looking back at all three episodes as one long story).

I can see why people would strongly dislike the third series if what they really wanted was more of the style of series 1 and 2. I can even see why people would absolutely write off the third series and not even attempt to understand why other people like it, if they were so upset that it wasn't more like series 1 and 2. I think they're being silly, but I can understand it.

What I find so odd, and peculiar, is why people refuse to accept that other people like things that they do not. I have no problem with other people preferring series 1 and 2, but I happened to like all three. Why is that a problem for you Kapell? Why can't you accept people are different?

Why do you have to try and belittle them, dismiss them, explain them away with condescending assumptions like they're facts and not just a symptom of your inability to accept everyone's tastes are different?

Fascinating, truly.

Just as well there weren't three episodes about her, then. There were three episodes in which she was a character, sure. But they weren't about her. None of them were, really.

Had to laugh at "as far as I am concerned it ended in season 2". Oh dear dear me. Bit upset at, THE HORROR, a slight change in style, were we?

I have read them. No-one has produced a reasonable explanation.

It was an huge change in style and she was a main character. The fact that you do not, in fact, agree with me is no need for sarcasm, also you have got it wrong, I'm not upset, I'm actually quite angry that I wasted my time watching this.

Read the following, you'll hate it: http://thediurnalrambler.blogspot.co...s-3-sucks.html

It's extremely unfortunate for your logic that people who liked it are actually belittling, dismissing and generally being unpleasant to people who didn't. Like yourself for example. Or do you really think that your reply to my previous post was accepting that people are allowed different opinions?

You seem to have a big problem that I liked Seasons 1 and 2 and thought Season 3 was largely crap and there was too much Mary. That is hardly accepting that people are different is it?

In order...

1) Because Magnusson would have called people who wanted to kill John's pregnant wife.

2) Because Magnusson was over confident.

3) See 1

4) See 1

5) Memorised it. That was kinda the whole point of shooting him.

6) Magnusson doesn't break the law, therefore Mycroft is useless.

7) Because he is Rupert Murdoch and he can print anything he likes.

How did you not get all that from watching the episode? It was all perfectly obvious.

That doesn't explain why she phoned for an ambulance. Had she not done that, Holmes would have died, and she knew it. She wasn't just hedging her bets; she wanted him to survive.

She did the best she could to keep him alive, and if he almost died anyway, that was because her best almost wasn't good enough.

You've given us two links to shippers who want Mary dead because Watson's wife is in the way of their fantasies. They're very cute, but don't forget some of the viewers are grown ups.

The response to series three certainly appears mixed. It's the first time I've ever dropped a programme mid-series (I'm usually very persistant) and coupled with the fact it was a series containing my favourite literary character, I really was angry.

However I've calmed down, and really have no interest in what happened in episode 3. In fact I'm not even sure I know what the plot was in the first two episodes, but neither did the writers it seems. Thinking back now I always had issues with Martin Freeman as Watson and the casting of Moriarty, both of whom just annoyed me throughout - it always felt like a school play when they were on screen. I couldn't help thinking they tried to get too clever with S3 and it always felt like a BBC3 programme to me, appealing to a younger audience.

All that said, I've let it go now, but it is a shame as, personally, it feels like a lost opportunity. I'm glad for those that liked it. Plenty of other things to watch.

The main problem I had with season 3 is the actual Sherlock character. He hardly does any detective work despite being a dectective. He was so painfully stupid to not even suspect something was up with Mary despite knowing she was a liar from the start. He allowed her to marry his best friend without doing any research on her FGS. He was humanized too much to the point where he was unrecognisable from season 1 that made him brilliantly unique. That wasn't progression. It was regression because he became a total bore.

I must ask do people watch it for Sherlock Holmes or for Benedict Cumberbatch now? This is becoming the same situation with Doctor Who where they watch it for the actor and they don't care how stupid the character/plots get.

Been thinking about episode three of this series and I do think they got it wrong.

The fatal shot that killed Magnussen should never have been from Sherlock using a gun that should have been frisked away when they got to Appledore.

I would have had Sherlock drug Mycroft, Mum and Dad and Watson leaving Mary untouched.

Sherlock visits Magnussen alone carrying a wire to Mary. Mary is listening for the key words "the only copy of the data is in Magnussen's head" She is in position for the kill shot when Mycroft and Watson arrive to see Sherlock and Magnussen on the patio. We see a laser tag move from Sherlock to Magnussen and a single shot sounds.

Sherlock knows Mary did it but won't tell. Watson suspects Mary did it but can't prove it and doesn't want to know. Mycroft knows Sherlock arranged and Mary probably did it but it has just enough deniability that Sherlock isn't exiled.

EDIT: it is also more in line with the original as the blackmailed woman shoorts Magnussen / Milverton.

The usb disk scene happens after they return.

Then Moriarty appears

I must admit that one problem I do have with season 3 is that Sherlock didn't properly weigh Mary up before the Wedding - so out of character and not, imo, because he'd been humanised but because the writers were so focused on the conclusion of the series, and the bombshell they wanted to drop, that they were a bit clumsy with the plot devices they used to get there.
Even if Sherlock dropped the ball, we know Mycroft monitors his Brother's life: he knew all about John within hours of his first meeting Sherlock, yet he doesn't check out Mary when she becomes part of Sherlock's circle,
I felt John's forgiveness of Mary was too easy though, and the final goodbye scene felt "off" - so I'm hoping there's something to be concluded in Mary's story, otherwise I will be disappointed with all the loose ends.
I watched the last ep of season 1 last night, and it will be a shame if they never give Sherlock any of those clever, slick cases to solve again - likewise, I hope the show isn't heading for a soap type mess whereby Sherlock can't crack cases because he's letting emotion take hold - I'd be happy though if this season there'd been a conscious decision to put the crime solving to one side to focus on character development, and normal service is resumed next time.
One thing I do wonder though, is if they went for Reichenbach too soon.
I wonder if it should've been held back until later in the show's run, with, maybe just one more season after it? Because I feel that maybe, for some viewers, there's been a sense of anti climax about this season?

BTW why didn't she shoot them both? There certainly was time for that. Suspicions would not be on John as Moffat said through Sherlock. Sherlock tried to get to Magnussen, surprised the hitperson and got in the way. Apart from the episode being over I do not see how this could not work.

That was his modus operandi, somebody would challenge that, or eventually sue him. And once he could not present a proof, it would start an avalanche of challenges.

What was obvious is that's what the writers wanted us to accept.
1 Agreed for that precise situation. But i believe some of the many people Magnussen blackmailed over the years would have asked for proof before leting him flick their face.
2 You bought that? Not searching them, for me, is hughly illogical.
6 Mycroft knows Magnussen sometimes breaks the law but sometimes does it for the government. He is an asset to them, as Mycroft admitted. I suspect Mycroft is happy to get ride of him but as we saw at the end of the episode, Mycroft is powerful but not alone to decide.
7 Yes but if he has no physical proof, i would sue him dry for libel. Not everyone would do it but also not everyone would just rollover like it's implied everyone did during his years as a blackmailler.

How did you not get that from watching the episode?
Because not everyone has the same perception of the psychology of a character. Like point2: overconfidence is not a fact, it's the perception (strenghten by Moffat's comments to defend himself leaving a plot hole) of the psychology of the character. I don't buy it, you do; nothing wrong with that

You're forgeting how much power Moffat (thinks he) has.
He actually said that in the original story, it wasn't the woman who shot Milverton, it was Sherlock. But Watson wrote the story in a way to not put Sherlock in trouble.
Funny how the slight hint of someone here pretending to know what happens in others head, he or she is immediately (and rightly so) told off. But Moffat knows what was in Conan Doyle's head a hundred years ago. He's sooooo powerful. He even created Mrs.Hudson too according to him!
To be clear, i like him as a writer(most of the times) but don't give him much credibility for PR.
Justifying a plot hole by using a fantasised version of ACD he would have liked to be instead of saying 'it's either a plot hole or you'll find out in next series or a bit of both but it's just fiction, relax'
Anything but 'i respect ACD and i know what he really meant' and then goes to change everything about a character exept the name.

Sorry for ranting; i do feel a bit for him. Whatever he does, it will never seduce everyone on this planet! Sherlock Holmes's legacy is too big for him (for anyone). Someone should tell him that

I haven't watched this series and don't know what all the fuss is about. I did watch the first Sherlock series and concluded that it was all show and no content. I doubt that things have changed.