It's a theme with him, isn't it. The rate at which his characters are coming back from dead, nobody will turn up for Moff's own funeral.

Moffat/writer's throwaway joke, nothing else.

As for Sherlock killing Magnussen, a nice lobotomy would do, too. Or simply making it public that he has nothing to prove that he's saying the truth. He could just make it up.

It's only Sherlock isn't it? We don't really know about Moriarty yet.

(Sorry if I've forgotten anyone.)

I also meant his DW stories.

Ah, OK.

True, but Moriarty's resurrection is strongly implied as a cliffhanger.

In Moffat's Doctor Who we've had numerous characters brought back to life not just once but again and again and again! We've even had the entire cosmos magicked back into existence through nothing more than the act of rememberance. Eventually all sense of threat or jeopardy is removed from whatever latent drama cowers beneath the onslaught of Moffat's incessant one-liners and quick-fire dialogue.

Disagree with this - how/who could organize a lobotomy...Mycroft has already said that Magnussen is untouchable as far as he was concerned...Brilliant tho Sherlock might be, I don't think he would be able to perform a lobotomy in the limited time available, and the fact that there was no hard evidence wouldn't stop him publishing whatever he wanted to and ruining people/bringing down governments and who knows what else. The damage would have been done. 'His Last Vow' was Sherlock's vow to protect Mary and Watson, whatever it took..his killing Magnussen was the 'whatever;

Yes, that's my view of it, too. He wants to use an emotional impact of a death of a character, but to keep that character, too. After a while a viewer gets jaded and stops caring, because it's just Moff playing again.

It makes me worry for the future of society as a whole that there are posters here that cannot separate Their Opinions from Everyone Else's Opinions.

For example, the quote above. So perfectly self-involved. Nobody else's opinions or tastes matter.

Irene Adler faked her death twice in one episode didn't she ?

Well, aren't you both upset over nothing?

1) Sherlock was never dead, we all knew that.
2) Moriarty hasn't actually been brought back yet, let's wait and see what the story is shall we?
3) As regards Doctor Who baddies coming back, anyone that thinks a Doctor Who established baddie is ever dead is just being silly and should step away from the TV and the internet
4) Who else are you referring to that he's killed and revived? Or are you just lashing out because, The Internet?

Not a regular Doctor Who viewer, so this matters not a jot to me!

Exactly. Once, you can get away with but with Moffat it's a recurring theme.

People say 'Oh I don't watch Doctor Who so I don't care, blah blah'. But if you do watch Doctor Who, as is my unfortunate habit, then to see the same irritating crap being foisted upon what was once a watchable show is really disappointing.

No, I am not. That's all I will write as a reply to your condescending post.

From an earlier post i wrote: if he's dead of course

It was a joke. I don't think he's not dead.
We may have more to learn. Like perhaps not searching Sherlock was suicidal.

As for the writers killing characters. To me clearly, it is being done in a way to make believe the audience there was a death. Then looking clever by bringing them back.
We all knew Sherlock wasn't dead because he's central. Like when they killed Superman in the comics, everyone knew he was coming back. That doesn't change the fact that he was killed to provoque a buzz.
So the same was done with Irene Addler. We don't know yet for Moriarty. But it's in the same family; he is seemingly back to create a buzz.

Personaly, i wish Moriarty is back for two reasons. First because i theorised he had faked his death before season 3. Second because, like Magnussen, i hate him as a vilain and i enjoy the actor's work protraying him. If it's a brother we saw on TVs, second reason will still be working.

So no, i don't think Magnussen is still alive. But perhaps he has a brother too?

Now you are teasing!

A bit, of course. Here's another one:
has someone checked if Moffat invested in cloning facilities?

To be fair to the writers, it is becoming more difficult to engage viewers. If the final scene is 'i'm gonna break your arm', it's not powerful enough anymore with all the big stories people grew up with. If you can't cross the sci-fi frontier, it has to be the threat of a whole city blowing up or a main character dying. I'm talking in general here; i do think Sherlock fans are more intelligent and would accept a smaller threat if the plot is nicely crafted and thight. But the producers and show runner of Sherlock are aiming at global fame, so they go bigger.
In the short run, it works for me.
We'll see if they abuse it without breaking the sci-fi/fantasy frontier; did they with that glowing matchbox?

Seems to be working.

The third series was premiered in the U.S.over the weekend apparently, and it looks as though this has been very well received. Found this -

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-...t-wows-critics

We've crossed swords before on that subject (or should i say we've crossed typing fingers).
So i will try one last time to make you understand...
my position

If we believe Magnussen that there were people standing by to prevent Watson to die, there are problems with that as a defence.
In court, and of course there are different formulation in different jurisdiction, but weither it's attempted murder or actions which threatens the life of a person, the fact that you had people standing by to help won't prevent you from being accused of something. Even if they do act and prevent the death, it is at least torture.
Second, in a public and lively place around a bonfire, there's a multitude of things that can not go according to plan. Which would result in a murder. If Magnussen is absolutely not a murderer like you seem to think, why do something as risky as this. Of course, there's no way to know if the then murder would be linked to Magnussen but why risk your blackmailling operations on people hired to do something that you can't completely control. (rescuing in a unpredictable surroundings).
Third, we only have Magnussen's word that there were people standing by to prevent Watson dying. I don't give him much credibility in the truth department: first, in a detective story, for me, every vialin is a liar, until proven otherwise. And we know Magnussen can lie, the whole mystery on how to prevent him doing wrong is based on a lie; the famous vault everyone think exists but doesn't.
If there were people standing by, where were they? Sherlock arrived barely in time to save Watson. Were they waiting until Watson started to burn? Had something gone wrong and they were late? Or do they simply don't exist?
Those last questions all point to something outside the world of blackmailling. And if Magnussen did that to Watson, it's probable, during all the years he operated, he did it to others. Don't know that but probable.

One other thing we don't know but is probable.
He threatens Mary to give her secret away to people who would kill her. As long as he doesn't do it, that's in the realm of blackmailling. But again, it is highly probable that, at some point in his long career as a blackmailler, someone will have said piss-off to him. If he doesn't carry his threat, he loses credibility so he will have done it. That's just probability but logical, imo.

Anyway, in my mind, the first points about Watson in the fire is enough to say 'he's not just a businessman and blackmailler. He plays with people life, not just reputation.

Even if some of his victims deserve to die (can't believe all of them who have threats on their life deserve it), it's taking the law in your own hands, which is still criminal and not the actions of a simple businessman.

Another point you make about Sherlock; i never wrote it's ok to shoot someone because it's Sherlock doing it. I might think it was the less worst thing to do in the circumstances but it still makes Sherlock a murderer. You say there's no difference if Magnussen calls ennemies of a person which would result in a death. The difference is Sherlock just kills him; Magnussen uses that fact to treat people like s..t before having them killed if they don't comply. For me, it's a big difference.

He's bad because of that.
He's bad because of, at minimum, torturing Watson (attempted murder from the arguments i gave)
He's bad because he blackmails.
He's bad because he treats his victims like animals (even when there's no possible killing involved), which is not the actions of a simple businessman.

I think he's a complete vilain and you think you could go bowling with him if he didn't have pressure points on you.

I don't think we'll convince each other but it makes us explore different angles of an important aspect of series 3, which is good enough to make me happy

Oh, i thought it was broadcasted on some cable channel at the same time as in the UK. But i know series 3 started on PBS sunday night.

Personnaly, i don't take much notice of official critics. Anyone here or an official critic are all on the same level for me. And i'm generous because who knows which critic is paid by a network!
Viewing figures are not a good sign, imo. People watch because they like it of course, but also because they're curious and we all have to watch to know if we like it or not.
DVD sells are subjective for two reasons. When the Rolling Stones went a bit disco with Emotional rescue, they still sold albums, just not to the same old fans. Second, maybe not at first, but if they make a special price on DVDs, people who would not have bought them would because of the price.

As i said, so far it works for me too. I am engaged by that show, with a lot of help from people here, thank you

It would be interesting to see Irene Adler back in the show, we saw a glimpse of her in The Sign of Three, I wonder what she would say to Mary

The IOU thing hasn't really been explained properly from the Reichenbach Fall. Why did Moriarty write IOU in the apple and in the windows?
Also, when john and Sherlock get arrested outside baker st, there is a large IOU graffitied into the wall which has large black angels wings over it.

Also, when they are running through the streets, I am sure I saw 'Moffat' graffitied onto the wall. Someone has a big head

No definitive answer at his point, just a few thoughts:
-i don't put much credit to the graffiti, probably the Moff playing with us, but that's just me
-Moriarty's IOU, now that's more credible to the story.
At the time, i took it as a clue for the code. It turned out the code didn't exist (we have only Moriarty's word for that, still a slight opening). So i took it as a false clue from Moriarty and an expression of his hate (or should i say love/hate) for Sherlock because he had messed with his plans, hence thinking he owned him something.
That was at the time. Considering what happened since then, i'm quit opened for another explaination.
Gosh, i thought i was done for awhile rewatching old episodes, damn you

They are all worth a rewatch - there is so much to see. There is something about the Grimm fairy tales as well which hasn't been explained. Sherlock is reading that book in the lab. Also Moriarty mentions the Grimm fairy tales on the roof of St. Bart's again.
Could be a red herring of course.