PDA

View Full Version : Sherlock series 3 (?) (SPOILERS)



Glom
2014-Jan-03, 12:09 AM
That was dumb! I mean really dumb! I get the main focus was on how the characters deal with Sherlock coming back from the dead and the "case" was really just a tool to hang that bit on, but even so, it was so dumb. So so dumb.

Link to Tube Map for context. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/standard-tube-map.pdf)

Aside from the hackneyed terror threat talk at the beginning, the case really begins when the guy for works for London Underground shows Sherlock the suspicious CCTV footage. There are two snippets specifically. The first is of the Westbound District line platform at Westminster late at night, which shows a guy getting on the rear carriage. The second snippet shows the train arriving at the neighbouring station, St James's Park 10 minutes later and the rear carriage is empty.

Now, it is always going to be provocative to do a Tube bit in any TV show or movie because they're going to talk about this station or that station, this line or that line, when really, for production reasons, the filming is going to be done at the disused stations at either Charing Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charing_Cross_tube_station) (Jubilee line, the rest is still operating) or Aldwych (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldwych_tube_station). Anyone slightly familiar with the Tube will easily spot the deception because the network, due to its complicated history, has quite disparate looks to its various parts that a bit of set dressing can't cover up. Westminster and St. James's Park shown here are both really Charing Cross and naturally, its resemblance to any District line platforms is non-existent, particularly sporting its tiny toy train rather than a more normal sized train used on the District.

Anyway, Tube guy says there are no side tunnels between the two stations for disappearing guy to have used to escape. So where did he go? Big mystery. Though on second thoughts, actually there is a way. Seriously, that's the way the narrative unfolds. A few scenes later, they casually bring up there's disused platforms between the two stations (fiction), which provides the guy with his escape opportunity. That's not unfolding the mystery. That's CTRL-Z'ing it.

Sherlock also notices that train that arrived at St. James Square is missing a carriage, which is really stupid. You see, it took 10 minutes for that train to make the journey when it should only take 5 (actually timetabled at 1 minute (http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/user/AHF/TLJJP06P1__0000419e.pdf)). First, it takes longer than 5 minutes to uncouple a carriage. It's not normally something that is done outside of the depot, unless the objective is to kill people (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10964766). Second, why did no-one else notice a train set was missing a carriage when it was parked that night? And why did no-one notice the end carriage was missing? End carriages look different to the carriages in the middle because they have the driver's cab in them. Thirdly, and most importantly, since we were previously told there were no side tunnels, while the platforms give the guy the opportunity to escape, the carriage is stuck in the running tunnel. So for the several days this plays out, this carriage has been blocking the District line (and Circle line). This point doesn't even require Tube geekery. This is clear to anyone from what we are told in the programme.

So the case is solved after what is probably 5 minutes of case screen time. Disappearing guy actually left the tunnel through the disused station, which they forgot about at first leaving a carriage in the tunnel, which is stupid. Sherlock and Watson go to this disused station (filmed at Aldwych) and find the carriage sitting in the tunnel filled with explosives and we all expected. It's a funny train too because it has changed form into the spatially impossible with an exterior now looking like a former Northern line toy train, while the interior actually now resembles a full sized District train.

The plot is to blow up Parliament on November 5th because Guy Fawkes and North Korea or something. We are told this disused station was actually never completed because of a dispute during its construction and that it sits directly under the Palace of Westminster. The thing is that the District line is what those in the trade call a subsurface line. Its tunnels sit just below the street. They were created by demolishing everything on the surface in their path, digging a trench, then roofing over it so replacement buildings could built. So for this station to be right under the Palace of Westminster, the compulsory purchase of the century would have had to have been made.

Sherlock turns off the bomb by flicking the off switch, but not before making Watson brick it for a bit so he'd admit his feelings, and the villain is arrested. Case closed.

Of course, it's fun to nitpick technical inaccuracy. This programme is to the Tube what Armageddon is to NASA. But the problem with it isn't that District line trains look like Jubilee line trains, then Northern line trains with Tardis powers, it's that the case is really dumb. Not only is it riddled with plot holes as noted, but it's just empty as a mystery plot. I understand the character stuff was the important bit, but the case is being used as a backdrop and needs more effort than this.

SeanF
2014-Jan-03, 12:53 AM
I think it was supposed to be that the unused station was diverted off the main line, so the abandoned car (they're cars, not carriages - it's a legacy of the early American involvement in the tube system ;) ) was not actually left in the running tunnel. When Sherlock first notices the difference in the number of cars, he says, "The driver must have diverted the train and then detached the last carriage." Although that, of course, means the delay in the trip should've been even greater.

As for the car itself, I would guess it was an extra car - so it's not that the train is now missing a car, but rather that it (temporarily) had an extra car attached. Not much better, granted, but still.

Tog
2014-Jan-03, 07:15 AM
It sounds like it was based on an other Doyle story that wasn't originally a Holmes one. It was called "The Lost Special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Special)", and I've only heard the radio adaptation.

The basic plot as I remember it was a VIP has to hire a special train to deliver a secret McGuffin. The train consists of the locomotive (and tender, I assume) and one car. It pulls out and passes a station right on time. The second station it should pass never sees it. Investigators come in to walk the track and find no trace of the train anywhere on the line. There are no spur tracks, so the train simply vanished. They do, however, find the bodies of the train crew.

Later, they find that an old spur track that goes to a mine or something had the quarter mile or so of track that connected it to the main line pulled up. There are signs that a team of men relaid that track, then pulled it up again. The train is found a few miles away on the spur track.

profloater
2014-Jan-03, 10:30 AM
Must say, I noticed some of the tube "errors" but it made no difference to my enjoyment of the return which was well played, I thought. This adaption of Sherlock to modern times has been a success although personally I prefer the latest film versions with Downey Jnr. set in period.

SeanF
2014-Jan-03, 12:35 PM
I enjoyed it overall, as well, and I'm glad to have it back. I hope that when this series is over, we don't have to wait two years for the next!

SPOILER WARNING!

The fact that the dead body buried in Sherlock's place was a doppelganger who worked for Moriarty was something I had already deduced - based on the little girl's screaming - so I was kind of proud of that. I did not figure, however, that Moriarty would have already killed him.

I had noted before that Moriarty's plan failed in part because he didn't keep an eye on Molly, disregarding her as one of Sherlock's "friends." I feel that was bad writing however - in Moriarty's first appearance, he used Molly and Sherlock's relationship as a way to get to him!

(Also, Mycroft's "How would you know?" was one of my favorite bits from "A Scandal in Belgravia," so it was fun to see Sherlock throw it back at him)

Strange
2014-Jan-03, 12:57 PM
Sherlock turns off the bomb by flicking the off switch...

I really liked that. It made a pleasant change from the usual "red wire - blue wire" nonsense. (And the clock was left with more than 1s to go.)

I thought the Tube stuff was silly (especially, "there is no extra station ... except this one" - I'm surprised the fictional station wasn't called Deus Ex Machina). And putting Watson in the bonfire made no sense either - especially as clues were given to find him. Why bother.

And what was the point of Holmes explaining things to Empty Hearse Guy? And then disappearing? (It may have been explained: I was watching under sub-optimal conditions with an elderly relative saying things like, "that's not Basil Rathbone", etc.)

profloater
2014-Jan-03, 02:17 PM
I really liked that. It made a pleasant change from the usual "red wire - blue wire" nonsense. (And the clock was left with more than 1s to go.)

I thought the Tube stuff was silly (especially, "there is no extra station ... except this one" - I'm surprised the fictional station wasn't called Deus Ex Machina). And putting Watson in the bonfire made no sense either - especially as clues were given to find him. Why bother.

And what was the point of Holmes explaining things to Empty Hearse Guy? And then disappearing? (It may have been explained: I was watching under sub-optimal conditions with an elderly relative saying things like, "that's not Basil Rathbone", etc.)Just a guess, they want some loose ends for later episodes. It gave a chance to show three possible ways the stunt was achieved without actually saying how, which was neat, and at least was not explained with "all a dream" or twin turning up:)

SeanF
2014-Jan-03, 04:47 PM
Just a guess, they want some loose ends for later episodes. It gave a chance to show three possible ways the stunt was achieved without actually saying how, which was neat, and at least was not explained with "all a dream" or twin turning up:)
First, "Empty Hearse Guy" was Anderson. He (along with Sally Donovan) was rather instrumental in convincing Lestrade that Sherlock was a fake in "The Reichenbach Fall," and even prior to that had been shown to have a (mutually) rather antagonistic relationship with Sherlock.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure we were supposed to accept Sherlock's accounting to Anderson as what actually happened. Anderson was left doubting it, of course, but I don't think we were meant to.

The other two possibilities offered (by Anderson himself at the very beginning and by the young woman in his group) were clearly meant to be false - and I found myself wondering how much of their theories came from things the writers had seen offered by someone on the Internet in real life. If someone online had theorized that the dead body was Moriarty's body in a Sherlock mask, that opening sequence probably really ticked them off. :)

Glom
2014-Jan-03, 05:53 PM
I think it was supposed to be that the unused station was diverted off the main line, so the abandoned car (they're cars, not carriages - it's a legacy of the early American involvement in the tube system ;) ) was not actually left in the running tunnel. When Sherlock first notices the difference in the number of cars, he says, "The driver must have diverted the train and then detached the last carriage." Although that, of course, means the delay in the trip should've been even greater.

As for the car itself, I would guess it was an extra car - so it's not that the train is now missing a car, but rather that it (temporarily) had an extra car attached. Not much better, granted, but still.

But we were explicitly told there were no side tunnels. The excuse given for no initially knowing about the station (and an incredibly poor excuse) was that it was abandoned before ever opening. But if it is in a separate tunnel, which would have to be a platform loop for the station where the train could enter from the main tunnel at one end and rejoin the main tunnel at the other in order to be able to drop the carriage there, then it is a separate tunnel with working electrified track and working points at both ends. And this tunnel isn't well documented?

Strange
2014-Jan-03, 06:55 PM
First, "Empty Hearse Guy" was Anderson.

Ah thanks. I thought he had to be someone. (Oddly, I don't remember this "Anderson" of whom you speak.)

SeanF
2014-Jan-03, 07:21 PM
But we were explicitly told there were no side tunnels. The excuse given for no initially knowing about the station (and an incredibly poor excuse) was that it was abandoned before ever opening. But if it is in a separate tunnel, which would have to be a platform loop for the station where the train could enter from the main tunnel at one end and rejoin the main tunnel at the other in order to be able to drop the carriage there, then it is a separate tunnel with working electrified track and working points at both ends. And this tunnel isn't well documented?
Didn't say it made sense, but it's still more likely than the car blocking the main tunnel for a week, isn't it? :)


Ah thanks. I thought he had to be someone. (Oddly, I don't remember this "Anderson" of whom you speak.)
He didn't have the facial hair previously, and I was surprised how different it made him look. I almost didn't recognize him myself (especially since they always called him "Anderson" in previous episodes, but only called him "Phillip" in this one).

He had a fairly prominent role in the first episode. At the site of the lady in pink's death, Sherlock deduces that Anderson spent the night with Donovan (on account of they were both wearing the same deodorant), then shuts the door in his face when he suggests the victim was German because she scratched "Rache" on the floor. Later, when Lestrade orchestrates a "drugs bust" at Baker Street and Sherlock's trying to figure out the meaning of "Rachel," he insults him again - "I'm trying to think. Anderson, face the other way. You're putting me off."

Strange
2014-Jan-03, 07:29 PM
"I'm trying to think. Anderson, face the other way. You're putting me off."

I'll have to remember that one for work...

jokergirl
2014-Jan-03, 09:48 PM
Does it have to be a separate tunnel? In my hometown there's a place between stations with a parking track next to the real track; sometimes you'd pass by a lit (or unlit) empty train on your way between stations. Spooky...

;)

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-03, 10:37 PM
As an avid fan of the series so far, I found this episode lacked the endearing qualities that make the equivalent canonical "The Empty House" episode with Jeremy Brett so much more satisfying. I also was never drawn in to any mystery or problem to solve in this episode - and no suspense by showing Sherlock alive from the start. And that competition with Mycroft with the hat, and the conversation about Sherlock being the lesser of the two, was overboard for a fan of Holmes like myself.

I think the series will regain its footing, but this episode was a let-down. I enjoyed the latest one from "Elementary" in fact more, watching both the same evening. On the other hand, what a wonderful job both actors did in the latest Hobbit film. Smaug's voice was very well done by Cumberbach.

Paul Beardsley
2014-Jan-03, 11:09 PM
I watched it this evening and found it very good entertainment, but...

Sherlock Holmes stories need to be about the mysteries. First and foremost, they should be about the mysteries.

The character quirks and the relationship stuff are the spice, not the meat.

profloater
2014-Jan-03, 11:39 PM
As an avid fan... And that competition with Mycroft with the hat, and the conversation about Sherlock being the lesser of the two, was overboard for a fan of Holmes like myself.

I suppose you know the actor who plays Mycroft is also the writer?:rolleyes:

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-03, 11:40 PM
Oh, no, I didn't know that! Well, he's being quite self-serving in the whole series, I'd say.

Strange
2014-Jan-04, 12:26 AM
Sherlock Holmes stories need to be about the mysteries. First and foremost, they should be about the mysteries.

The character quirks and the relationship stuff are the spice, not the meat.

Well put.

captain swoop
2014-Jan-04, 01:00 AM
As for disused Underground Stations, there are loads of them. Some are still intact, some are just 'hollow' openings in the tunnels they still have stairways in their shafts for emergency access and escape like City Road (http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/c/city_road_station/index.shtml).
Some were replaced by new stations of the same name and some are used for 'reversing' or storage tracks alongside running lines like Tower Hill (http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/t/tower_hill_station/index.shtml)
Some are used for other purposes for example Brompton Road (http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/b/brompton_road/index.shtml) became the Command Centre for the London Anti-Aircraft batteries in WW2. It's Platforms were walled off from the tracks and the shafts down to it were floored out into several levels that housed communications and plotting tables. Others were converted in to Air Raid Shelters. Some are used today as Telephone and communications exchanges.
They still open it for pre-arranged visits on occasion. Links provided have a load of photographs and info on them.

Site dedicated to Disused Underground Stations Here http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/

Glom
2014-Jan-04, 11:01 AM
Does it have to be a separate tunnel? In my hometown there's a place between stations with a parking track next to the real track; sometimes you'd pass by a lit (or unlit) empty train on your way between stations. Spooky...

;)

Same problem. If there was a working siding or platform loop in the same tunnel, it should have been known. In addition, if it is in the same tunnel, it would have been found by the next train.

Also, it's not what we see. Ironically, the District line, built by the cut-and-cover method, could have such a track sharing the tunnel (although it doesn't in this section according to this popular map (http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-london/), the tunnel we are eventually shown in clearly one of the deep tube tunnels, built with the tunnelling shield method, with room for only one track per bore. So from what we are shown on screen, no it isn't another track in the same tunnel.

captain swoop
2014-Jan-04, 11:34 AM
There are extra tracks alongside running lines at some of the disused stations where platforms once were but as you say that would be obvious as it would be alongside an existing running line in the same tunnel.

Strange
2014-Jan-04, 12:12 PM
It might have been better if they had claimed it was a top-secret extension built to provide an escape route / bomb shelter for the Houses of Parliament. (The latter would also have been nicely ironic.)

profloater
2014-Jan-04, 12:50 PM
It might have been better if they had claimed it was a top-secret extension built to provide an escape route / bomb shelter for the Houses of Parliament. (The latter would also have been nicely ironic.)Aha, that script line was expunged as too revealing by the "watchers"

captain swoop
2014-Jan-04, 08:15 PM
But Westminster Station is more or less under the Houses of Parliament. It has sub-surface platforms opened in 1868 as part of the Inner Circle route, the line from the west runs in cut and cover tunnel diagonally under Parliament Square. Deep level platforms opened in 1999 as part of the Jubilee Line. When this work was done extra re-enforcement and foundations had to be put under and around Houses of Parliament's clock tower (popularly known as Big Ben). Portcullis House the 'office block' for the Houses of Parliament have their own direct entrance from the station.

publiusr
2014-Jan-04, 09:31 PM
I think the trick here is to make Sherlock a bit more mythic. He will be the one behind the scenes initially, and get a big reveal late--with his entrance rather like what we saw in The Third Man--that's my guess at least.

JohnD
2014-Jan-06, 07:02 PM
You guys who take it so seriously will LOVE episode two about John and Mary's wedding!
John

Strange
2014-Jan-07, 10:39 AM
I really liked episode 2. I think it was an interesting twist on both Paul's comment in post #15 (the focus was on the mystery but it was partly hidden by the wedding plot and character development - rather like a stage magician deliberately distracting you from what is really going on) and the technique used in the original stories of apparently unrelated events all being clues to what is going on.

And Holmes's reactions to events at the party were nicely ambiguous - e.g. was he sad when he left or just baffled by the behaviour of humans.

However, the MacGuffin (the way the soldier was killed) seemed totally unrealistic again.

Paul Beardsley
2014-Jan-07, 10:49 AM
I really liked episode 2. I think it was an interesting twist on both Paul's comment in post #15 (the focus was on the mystery but it was partly hidden by the wedding plot and character development - rather like a stage magician deliberately distracting you from what is really going on) and the technique used in the original stories of apparently unrelated events all being clues to what is going on.

I think all good mystery stories (as opposed to stories about detectives turning to alcoholism) are basically stage magic. Jonathan Creek nailed this fact.


And Holmes's reactions to events at the party were nicely ambiguous - e.g. was he sad when he left or just baffled by the behaviour of humans.

Or just ripped off from the Doctor Who story The Green Death. (I was pleased to discover I was not the only one to notice this.)


However, the MacGuffin (the way the soldier was killed) seemed totally unrealistic again.

At last! Yes, I'd really like to know, was it possible? Can you fatally stab someone through a belt without them noticing???

Strange
2014-Jan-07, 10:57 AM
I think all good mystery stories (as opposed to stories about detectives turning to alcoholism) are basically stage magic. Jonathan Creek nailed this fact.

The Prestige (book, haven't seen the movie) did this particularly well.


At last! Yes, I'd really like to know, was it possible? Can you fatally stab someone through a belt without them noticing???

I think there are cases of injuries where people have been saved by their tight clothes, etc. But I am not convinced that a simple stab wound would do. Especially if it was a weapon that was so thin they didn't feel it. (What was that movie where someone swings his sword at his enemy's neck, who then says "You missed" ... "Try nodding")

Also, the old soldier (can't remember his name/rank) didn't seem to have his belt on very tight - what with only having one hand, and all.

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-07, 11:16 PM
This one didn't do it for me, either. Improved at the end, but not enough. Crossing my fingers for an episode-long case next time, and some of the earlier atmosphere.

JohnD
2014-Jan-08, 06:11 PM
Also, the old soldier (can't remember his name/rank) didn't seem to have his belt on very tight - what with only having one hand, and all.

You have to be a better Sherlockian (or ** Irregular) than that!
The episode was called The Sign of Three (Remember? Mary's pregnant?) in memory of The Sign of Four, in which Holmes - as in future we must call Doyle's creation, as opposed to the new incarnation, Sherlock - shows that Major Sholto, to all appearences a solid ex-military man, is a thoroughly bad piece of work. (Ooops! Plot killer!)
This Major Sholto seems to be a solid ex-mm, but he has a scar on his career, as well as his face. I'd like them to use the new Major Sholto some more, he would be a good character in the "is he/isn't he" a villain mode, but don't suppose they will.

With the passing of Moriarty, the new villain is Mr. Magnussen. I think we can know what villainy he will perpetrate, as his name is homage to another Holmes villain, Charles Augustus Milverton, the "king of all blackmailers" in Holmes' own words.

John

publiusr
2014-Jan-10, 11:40 PM
My favorite of the Jeremy Brett villains was Herr Gruner (The Illustrious Client) as played by Anthony Valentine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Valentine

PS, now that I think of it, Magnussen is equal parts Milverton and Gruner--a collector

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-14, 05:21 PM
Well, with the third episode, thoroughly enjoyable, I understand the preparations of the first two. I still think they could have used more mystery and less focus on setting things up, which could have been done a bit less heavily. All in all, looking forward to another set of episodes if they are planning to make more. Love all the actors and like watching them work together.

profloater
2014-Jan-14, 09:23 PM
agreed a series of twists, and I hope they get back soon. Will recommend it to friends, they say it set a record for downloads

JohnD
2014-Jan-14, 11:32 PM
He's back! Or will be! Moriarty, that is!
John

captain swoop
2014-Jan-15, 10:40 AM
It seems to me that they have made a completely different show with these 3 new episodes.

Someone decided that just solving Cases isn't good enough, we need more 'Soap' about the characters.

I liked the first 6 installments but found these 3 new ones almost unwatchable.

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-15, 11:23 AM
It seems to me that they have made a completely different show with these 3 new episodes.

Someone decided that just solving Cases isn't good enough, we need more 'Soap' about the characters.

I liked the first 6 installments but found these 3 new ones almost unwatchable.

I was only brought back into the fold by the last episode, and barely. Downright sick of Mycroft, btw.

Strange
2014-Jan-15, 01:36 PM
He's back! Or will be! Moriarty, that is!

I'm not a fan of this Moriarty; too much like a scruffy whinging teenager ("I'm so bored, I hate you all"). I was really glad they killed him off and am disappointed that they are bringing him back.

Paul Beardsley
2014-Jan-15, 02:16 PM
Add me to the "Oh just go away Moriarty" list. Recurring villains are usually boring. In the original stories he was only in two stories, and one of those was a retcon. Holmes has never needed a nemesis.

And I'm getting a bit bored of Mycroft too. The trouble with Mark Gatiss is, he's - how you say in Eenglish? - not very good.

captain swoop
2014-Jan-15, 06:50 PM
Plus he always casts himself it seems.

I was a fan of League of Gentlemen but having also watched Psychoville I see it was his colleagues contributions that I liked.

profloater
2014-Jan-15, 07:05 PM
well I liked to idea of up to date Moriarty as a young hacker who had made it big, so many tech giants are very young and it is feasible a criminal mastermind hacker would be young and obnoxious. Mycroft is also plausible for me as the official spook, with Sherlock as the individualist. I like mark Gatiss in role. The form of Moriarty's evil genius offers plenty of up to date plot lines of course and so very topical!

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jan-15, 08:04 PM
I'm not a fan of this Moriarty; too much like a scruffy whinging teenager ("I'm so bored, I hate you all"). I was really glad they killed him off and am disappointed that they are bringing him back.

Yeah, what a grating voice. Reminds me of the voice actor for Seymour Guado, a villain in Final Fantasy 10. Had to turn off the volume for that guy back in the day.

Nowhere Man
2014-Jan-24, 04:49 AM
WENG CHIANG

A Doctor Who reference?

Edit to add: Ah. A DW episode that makes numerous references to Sherlock Holmes.

Fred

Doodler
2014-Jan-25, 06:57 PM
I thought it was very entertaining. Holmes getting periodically more injured by Watson was priceless.

Nowhere Man
2014-Jan-31, 04:15 AM
ISADORA PERSANO

"who was found stark staring mad with a match box in front of him which contained a remarkable worm said to be unknown to science".

Fred

Extravoice
2014-Feb-04, 02:26 PM
I just watched the final episode of the third series, and came away disappointed. My mind was racing, trying to figure out the end game...and then he just shoots the bad guy?

BTW: I'm sick of Mycroft, too. Which is sad, because I actually like the character...in very limited quantities.

Tog
2014-Feb-04, 05:23 PM
I can read this thread again!

Okay, the first one was about as meh as it could have been. Nothing really stood out apart from Watson's increasingly hostile reactions to Holmes' return. Thinking back now, I can't even recall what the actual case was that needed solving in that episode.

I liked the wedding one. I liked the interactions, especially those between Holmes and the bridesmaid. As far as the mystery went...


At last! Yes, I'd really like to know, was it possible? Can you fatally stab someone through a belt without them noticing???
I'm going to say no. The spike would have needed to go through a kidney after penetrating a leather belt. (I assume the belts were leather) It's not easy to get a leather punch to go through a belt, let alone shoving what was basically an ice pick in without pushing hard enough for the person being stabbed to notice.

The thing about that one that burned me was that I'd figured it was something on a time delay. I was simply at a loss as to what it could have been.

I also couldn't believe it took Holmes that long to narrow down the target.

The third one went as such a hectic pace that I found myself struggling to follow along. I thought it odd that Mary identified a "skip code" earlier, but didn't really go beyond that. Then, when she appeared in the big bad's office, I assumed that it was some sort of long con being run on the guy. She shot Sherlock with a blank to make him think Holmes was out of the picture. From then on, It just got weird.

Watson's "fight scene" with the druggie was comically bad. It made wonder if they didn't really rehearse it at all.

Once it was revealed that The Big Bad had all the information in his mind palace, it was clear what the outcome would be, I just thought Watson would be the one to do it. Holmes would jump the guy, they'd struggle, and an instant before Holmes would be killed, Watson would shoot the guy and save the day. All witnesses would agree that it was self defense and there would be a cute moment at the end where Holmes reveals he threw the fight to force the outcome.

Extravoice
2014-Feb-04, 06:32 PM
I was hoping what appeared to be "Google Glass", would actually turn out to be "Google Eyeball." (c'mon, it fits with the "shark stare") and Holmes would have an opportunity to pluck it out. It even fits with his playing with an eyeball in an earlier episode.

Nowhere Man
2014-Feb-06, 05:10 AM
MILVERTON

A reference to the source story for episode 3.

Fred

Glom
2016-Feb-10, 05:30 PM
I have recently done a redux of this show. I had only seen from the final episode of the second series prior to a few weeks ago. Thatcham episode annoyed me for the "few lines of computer code" bit. I liked it when Moriarty revealed it was false and kind of stupid (because it was) but it still remains stupid that Sherlock fell for it. I mean he should at least know how many bits are in a byte and therefore how bloody long he would need to be tapping for to get anything vaguely executable. And why did Sherlock need to make a false confession to John? He only needed to be seen to jump.

Anyway, the very first episode was really good.

The second was filler and it was stupid how often thugs got the drop on Sherlock.

The third was pretty good.

The first episode of the second series with Irene Adler was neat in parts but also total groan in parts. She drugs him and that's her beating him? What? Sherlock is physically bested all the time. And then the bit about guessing the password was always going to be total groan. These criminal masterminds not only always wear their encryption on their sleeves but don't even thing of doing the odd l33t substitution. Adler would be taken to the cleaners by a smishing scam on 5 seconds. I did like the Coventry dilemma as a concept though.

The second episode way okay. But again with a fraudsters' best friend. I don't care how much of a Thatcherite you are. You don't secure military secrets with the password Maggie. Mrs Thatcher is spinning in her grave at such weakness. If there's one thing the series shouldn't do, it's have Sherlock guess passwords.

Glom
2017-Jan-02, 09:20 PM
Series 4 premiered yesterday. No sir, I didn't like it. I have mixed feelings on following up on Mary's dark past. And that final confrontation with the perp scene; an awful lot of Hackney for a scene which takes place in Lambeth.

Extravoice
2017-Jan-02, 09:36 PM
I watched the episode, but was distracted at a critical moment. How did he figure out who the perp was?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Extravoice
2017-Jan-10, 07:32 PM
I just saw S4 episode 2, and have to say I didn't like it a whole lot. Things just got too weird for me, especially after the climax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glom
2017-Jan-15, 08:47 AM
I just saw S4 episode 2, and have to say I didn't like it a whole lot. Things just got too weird for me, especially after the climax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There wasn't really a case this time. Just Toby Jones overacting. And I love Toby Jones.

publiusr
2017-Jan-15, 08:01 PM
I thought the earlier program would have a microdot that dated to the 1980's in the Thatcher busts.
No Beppo--just A.J. and the flash drive whatsit.

Sherlock comes on 7pm eastern--6 pm central tonight--so be prepared. No repeats later

The Backroad Astronomer
2017-Jan-16, 02:05 AM
Well I guess that wraps everything up on Sherlock, when the Holmes family have skeletons they really have skeletons in the closet or the well.

Glom
2017-Jan-16, 07:39 PM
Better I guess. At least Sherlock had to do a few Sherlock things.

Shaula
2017-Mar-19, 03:20 PM
Series 4 premiered yesterday. No sir, I didn't like it. I have mixed feelings on following up on Mary's dark past. And that final confrontation with the perp scene; an awful lot of Hackney for a scene which takes place in Lambeth.
Just watched all of S4. Got to say ... it was terrible. I thought S3 was weak, but S4 was practically unrecognisable as Sherlock. Especially the final episode. I really struggled to get to the end of that. It was full of holes, largely unbelievable and basically a poorly executed character drama full of clichés. I genuinely cannot think of a good thing to say about it.

As far as I am concerned the programme is over for me. Even if they do another series it'll take rave reviews to have me even think about watching it.