Page 16 of 18

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:34 pm
by Aeva
I'm dead.
THAT WAS THE MOST AMAZING THING I HAVE EVER SEEN. I'm still in shock. I successfully avoided spoilers, so I had no idea what was coming, other than that Magnussen was the villain. I'll just hit my highlights for now.

First, the whole thing with Janine: I had a feeling Sherlock was playing her, I just didn't figure out why until it was revealed that she is Magnussen's secretary.

Then Mary: I knew she had to be part of it, but that whole scene when it's revealed is crazy good. I actually thought it was Irene Adler for a minute before she turned around, and then she shot Sherlock, and I freaked out. But I'm so pumped she didn't die.

Sherlock's mind palace: mind = blown. That was incredible. I absolutely adore all the little flashbacks to Sherlock's childhood, and it was so fitting that Moriarty was in the deepest part of Sherlock's consciousness.

Magnussen's mind palace: This twist never even crossed my darkest dreams until he opened the door and sat in the empty room. Then it hit me, and I did some more flailing and squealing lol. What a stunning invention.

The end: I nearly lost it completely when Sherlock shot Magnussen, and then Mycroft views him kneeling on the ground as a child. *more frantic flailing/aggressive Sherlock hugging*

The real end: Again, I never expected to see Moriarty back. *dies of fangirling*
*curls up in the corner*

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:53 am
by Amethystic
...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

S4 plz.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:46 am
by Shennifer
*screams and fangirls silently so I dont' wake my whole dorm up*

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:25 pm
by BlessedCheesemaker
Awesome episode. I kind of guessed about the mind palace part though.

Sherl is a girl name, just sayin'

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 6:39 pm
by Musical Shutterbug
I have no words.

...


KREE.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:41 pm
by Shennifer
I heard that series 4 might come out at the end of this year

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:20 pm
by Aeva
SO DID I. I'M SO EXCITED.

I'm still not over this season. I probably never will be. :- I watched "His Last Vow" again, and it was even better the second time. The guy who played Magnussen is brilliant; (deerstalker) hats off to him.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 3:34 pm
by bookworm
Unlike the other episodes which I reflected on in hindsight, I think it would be good to do this one like I post on other tv shows: a running writeup of my thoughts as I have them watching through the episode. Real time reaction seems fitting for an occasion this momentous. Here we go then. :)
Ha, I thought the opening was the actual explanation of what had happened and was sitting there being disappointed because it didn’t work at all, and then it was shown to just be that guy’s theory and I was like ‘Thank goodness.’ Clearly it’s not right, it had two major flaws (and many more minor ones). It required Moriarty’s death, which Sherlock didn’t know was going to happen, or at the very least couldn’t have ensured would happen even if he suspected it, and, as has been mentioned previously in this thread, it needed to have too many people in on it.
I found it very interesting that the theory was essentially every fan theory I’ve read put together into one master plan. I wonder if that scene was always there and the fans’ minds really ended up being that close to the writers’ or if the writers crafted that scene as an afterthought based on fan theories they read about as a kind of nod.

But here’s something I’m really confused about: how did he know about Moriarty’s body in the first place? It doesn’t make sense; there’s no way he could actually have that as part of his theory. The only way he could know Moriarty had died on the rooftop was if they discovered his body, which has only two ways of happening and neither one fits.
If they found it on the roof where he fell when he shot himself that means it wasn’t switched for Sherlock, so he wouldn’t have claimed it was in his idea. But if it was discovered after, that means it was also discovered that the body on the ground wasn’t Sherlock, meaning he was right, but we know he isn’t because Lestrade said so. :|
This makes me wonder, again, if this scene was just thought up as a nod to the fans, because it has too glaring a continuity error to have been a fully formed idea that was in the show from the start.

Okay, good, Sherlock’s name is cleared. That was a necessary part of his return, I’m glad it happened. Though I don’t know why it happened. Why it took two years to happen anyway. And what finally did it.

Was Mycroft in on the fake suicide from the beginning then?

Their take on the Final Problem continues to be the exact opposite of the original story. As I went over previously, Moriarty’s death was the conclusion of bringing down the network, the very last thing that needed done. That was why he was okay with sacrificing himself if that was what it took to bring it about. And also why discrediting him was such sacrilege, because the Fall was his ultimate act of glory, not an act of disgrace. But here, Moriarty’s death and what surrounded it was apparently just the beginning, and he then went on to dismantle the network.

Well, that reunion went both worse and better than I expected in different ways. I get Sherlock’s reasoning, but I have to side with John. I would think after everything they’d been through he would trust him to keep the secret. I mean, in two years there must have come a time when it was okay to let at least a couple more people in.
I hope they sort things out. I mean, I know they will, but I hope it happens sooner than later.

Who tried to kill Watson, and why? And why let Sherlock save him?

Woah, Sherlock and Mycroft’s parents. That was unexpected.

I almost figured this one out! Well, sort of. I needed Sherlock to start the sentence, but I finished it before he confirmed my thoughts. Does that count? Probably not because all the work was really done, everything that pieced together was already pointed out all I did was the actual piecing. I was still proud of myself though.
When Sherlock brought up that the disappearing guy was from parliament and then said the terrorists were underground, it clicked. I knew it was Bonfire Night because of the thing with John and that there was a parliament meeting because of Sherlock’s parents. But that guy isn’t at the meeting, he disappeared from the train. Only one reason for not going would be because the terrorists are going to carry out the Gunpowder Plot tonight.

For real? He seriously did just jump onto a mattress? And are you kidding me - every person on the street was in on this? That is ridiculous. No wonder people didn’t figure this out, we were misled! I had thought up all of that in considering possibilities, the airbag, the fake body, the cyclist, everything, but immediately dismissed it because the point of this was to be secret so it was implied Sherlock and Molly were the only people who knew. If I knew he had 50 people helping then obviously I would have stuck with that line of thought!
- Oh; got me again! That’s just mean. But I should have known. I should have had enough faith in them to determine that when things started feeling wrong it was indeed wrong. I knew from the start it couldn’t be a massive plot with a ton of people helping, that was always established, but for some reason when it went to that here I allowed the possibility that they would go against it rather than sticking with that certainty and realizing it was just another fantasy.

Wait, they’re not going to explain who took John? Because it doesn’t make sense, if it hadn’t happened Sherlock wouldn’t have put all the pieces together and been able to find the bomb. So it wasn’t the terrorists. Was it someone who knew about all this and wanted to push Sherlock in the right direction? That would explain why they allowed him to save John after going through all the trouble of trying to kill him, because they didn’t really want him dead, it was just a veiled clue. But if that’s the case why did they go with something so drastic? Clearly it’s not a completely good guy, even though he apparently wanted to stop the bad guys.

Ah, it’s this guy. How mysterious. I don’t know who it is or why he’s doing whatever he’s doing, but please, please don’t be Moriarty. That would just be ridiculous.
This episode gave off some strong Scandal in Belgravia vibes. It had a very similar feel of ‘There’s a big important terrorist thing going on that Sherlock is supposed to be figuring out, but it gets pushed to the back of everyone’s mind and other stuff happens for the whole episode instead until they finally get back to it at the end.’ Though, most of what happened did actually pertain to that plot in the end, once we saw how everything connected, even though they seemed to be unrelated incidents at the time.

Anyway I liked this episode a lot, it was easy enough to follow and enjoyable to watch. Not as much paying off as I would have liked, left some loose ends both in the big picture (holding out on explaining the fall, obviously) and in its own story (the bonfire), but in all it was satisfying. I’m sure the threads aren’t going to be left hanging forever, they’ll carry into the future episodes and will be explained eventually.

As some additional thoughts, I’ll continue to give my take on the episodes from the perspective of the original Doyle stories.
The title of this episode is of course a (very clever) play on The Empty House, the Doyle story where Holmes is revealed to be still alive. The case at the heart of the ordeal however bears no resemblance to the original version. In both it is shared interest in a case that finally brings Sherlock and Watson together again, but in the book it’s a locked room murder and in the show it’s a terrorist plot. There was a locked room murder here as an additional reference, but it turns out to be a fake case. So other than the fact that this is where Sherlock finally returns, the retelling aspect dissipates and like The Blind Banker this episode is entirely of the series’ own creation. Which is fine. Every episode doesn’t need to be a direct retelling of a particular Holmes story, it’s great for them to occasionally come up with their own plots and simply reference some parts from Doyle.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 6:47 pm
by Shennifer
It's always nice to read your thoughts on the episodes of Sherlock, bookworm :)

I look forward to your thoughts on the other two.
Personally, I rather liked this season, even in the ways it was different from the previous two

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:49 pm
by bookworm

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:06 pm
by Shennifer
bahaha! that's awesome. I want one :D

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 2:56 pm
by bookworm
I didn’t like The Sign of Three until the end. I didn’t get it, I thought it was a bunch of random stuff and the point of the episode was just the wedding. But when it was revealed that everything actually had a purpose and all tied in together, and then we got the final payoff, it changed my whole perspective and I now think it was quite good. Perhaps even one of my favorites.

Sherlock checking up on that guy was a great scene, as was Mary playing both Sherlock and John to get them to get the other going again.

I thought it was really funny how Sherlock’s deductions were affected when he was drunk, but I’m not sure how accurate that is. Sherlock Holmes, at least in the books but I’m pretty sure here too, doesn’t make any special effort to notice details and make his deductions, the ability has become second nature to him. So while his senses would of course be dulled, I don’t think something so engrained would be compromised to such an extreme extent as to competently disappear.

This episode has nothing to do with the novel The Sign of Four, other than being the story concerning John and Mary. Though in truth, even that is a stretch connection as their engagement happened in the previous episode and this one was concerned with the actual wedding, whereas in the book they get engaged after this case. Also here the Sign of Three has nothing at all to do with the case, it was just used as a reference at the end. So this isn’t really an adaptation of any Holmes story, it just borrows a name. Like the first episode of the season, the story is purely of and for the show.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:06 pm
by Aeva
You're probably right about the drunk deductions, but that entire sequence is still my favorite Sherlock moment EVER. :-

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:32 pm
by bookworm
Limerick wrote:
Anna><> wrote:And all the sirens in the background when Lestrade got backup when Sherlock needed "help"
I am not sure I totally believe that Lestrade would just drop everything like that without confirmation ... what reason did he have to believe he needed "maximum backup"?
The terse wording of the text implied urgency, and you have to remember that Sherlock’s relationship with the police isn’t a cordial one. It’s very unlike him to request their help, it’s not at all unreasonable for Lestrade to assume he did it because of a dire situation.

Petrichor wrote:Am I the only one who’s been really disappointed with Series 3 so far? ... I feel like ’The Sign of Three’ marks the second episode with no cohesive plot. The mystery elements of the episodes felt like an afterthought ... it just doesn’t feel like Sherlock to me.
I don’t agree about the plots, I think both so far have been quite good. I do agree about the cases feeling like afterthoughts, but the keyword is feeling. During the episodes it seems that way, but once you look back from the end it all makes sense.
These episodes have definitely been very different, but I don’t believe they’re less Shelockian than the first six. The trademark of this show is solid, complex plots. Super complicated, yet somehow at the same time remarkably simple. In this latest season, because of what’s happening with the characters, the method of presenting those plots is different, but the plots themselves are still as high quality as ever.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:34 pm
by Shennifer
I didn't necessarily mind that there was a different feeling this season. It was nice to have an episode mostly focused on the wedding, and an episode focusing on John and Sherlock's reunion, all while still having a great plot and mystery to solve. After two seasons of establishing the show and the characters, this change is welcome

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2014 9:32 am
by bookworm
I wasn’t saying I mind it (not that you were implying I was, but just to be clear), I was just acknowledging it. I wouldn’t personally say it was ‘welcome’, there was nothing wrong with the old format, but it’s certainly not off-putting.

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 9:11 pm
by Graces4you
I've enjoyed this season so far and I really like how they portray Mary.
Has anyone downloaded the ios app "the network"?

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 5:16 pm
by Aeva
I desperately want to, but I have an android phone... So if any of you tech-savvy people know a way around this little problem, let me know. \:D/

On another note, this is just too adorable for words. :inlove:

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:38 am
by Shennifer
That made me smile :)

I pre-ordered season 3 today \:D/

Re: BBC's "Sherlock" Series

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:04 pm
by bookworm
I didn’t like His Last Vow very much. It was very different and very weird. The story was good and well put together, but it wasn’t my style.

There were a lot of improbabilities. The Watsons’ maid of honor being Magnussen’s assistant, Mary being who she turned out being... I know Sherlock Holmes is all about not discounting the improbable, but this was a bit much.

The mind palace sequence was really something.

While the villain is adapted from The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, as is the story, the title is borrowed from His Last Bow. The only connection to that story in the episode though is the east wind. It was a very clever adaptation, quite well done. It’s like Scandal in Belgravia where the details were extremely altered, but the heart and main events of the story were right in line with the original.