Radio Times Favorite Sherlock Episode Vote

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not sure if this discussion should stay in this thread, but you can move it if you like, Carol (do we even have a thread where we discuss John's character? If not, how did that happen?)

 

I will admit that we've strayed somewhat from the nominal topic -- but if you can figure out what to call a thread where all of the above digressions would fit, please let me know!

 

First of all, I understand why you may not like the idea of John being an adrenaline junkie, but what makes you think that was not the writers' intention?

I don't generally watch television thinking, "What was the writer's intention?" I prefer to just experience the story. So it's not that I think the writers have been misunderstood (if we can actually believe them in this case, they really do intend for John to be an adrenaline junkie). And it's not just that I don't like the idea (though I don't). It's simply not how I interpret John's behavior. I understand how people could see him as an adrenaline junkie, but I find it at least as plausible to see him as someone whose training and experience enable him to deal with danger, regardless of whether he likes it. I've probably said before that if he really did crave danger as such, we'd see him sky-diving and bungee-jumping.

 

It's part of the very first episode. Mycroft telling John his therapist is wrong, that he misses the war, that his psychosomatic symptoms are better when he's under stress.

Yes, that's Mycroft's opinion. While I have a certain amount of respect for the character, I don't necessarily trust his opinion on psychological matters. (He strikes me as kind of a messed-up dude himself.)

 

... Sherlock curing the limp with a good chase after a killer, throwing themselves into traffic on a busy street included.

 

I always thought that was why John is so drawn to Sherlock's company, Sherlock takes him back to the battlefield, in a way. He is his new "commanding officer", as Sherlock puts it in The Sign of Three.

That's certainly a plausible interpretation, but I'm more comfortable thinking of John as a man who hates feeling useless, unneeded, and unwanted -- which is exactly where he found himself at the beginning of "Study in Pink." Sherlock gave him something meaningful to do and a fascinating new career. I do think there's a degree of truth in the "commanding officer" analogy, but that's consistent with either of our interpretations.

 

It must take quite some emotional adapting to live in a war zone, and no wonder he couldn't just adapt back and tone himself down again.

Again, I think that's probably true, but again, I think it fits with either interpretation. In that war zone, John was needed and wanted and useful. In short, he was important. He mattered. Contrast that with what his life had become after the Army sent him back.

 

What I think is interesting about John is that this seems to bother him. While Sherlock's attitude seems to be "f*** normal", I think John would really like to have an ordinary life and be an ordinary person. But he can't. He thought marrying Mary was a step in the right direction until the big reveal in His Last Vow. Poor John.

No argument there.   :(   (I might quibble with "he can't" -- but only because we probably disagree on why.)

 

[Arcadia]

 

I don't think I'd care that much about the show if it weren't for the humor. Maybe that's one reason S3 works better for me than for a lot of other people.

I may have inadvertently overstated my case -- I actually would not care AT ALL for Sherlock if it weren't for the humor. I HATE shows that are all seriousness. But on the other hand, unless a show is an out-and-out comedy, I generally prefer that the humor not be the focus of an episode. That said, I think I prefer the humor of "Sign" over that of "Empty Hearse," even though there may be more of it, simply because it's more intrinsic.

 

No, I don't think you overstated your case so much as I "under-read" it! I see now that you were complimenting TSo3 on way the humor was integrated into the story, vs. Hearse's more slapstick approach, and I originally took you to mean that you thought there was too much humor in S3 overall. And I just meant that's one reason I loved S3 so much; the funnier this show gets, the better I like it. (Okay, now I may be the one overstating my case! I wouldn't want it to be a comedy show -- I think. But I basically don't give a fig whether they're solving mysteries or baking cookies, if it's genuinely funny. Which most comedies aren't, imho.)

 

Since I'm on the subject -- I love "Hearse" simply because it is funny. I agree it's not as tight a script, or as beautifully shot, or a particularly successful mystery ... but the opening sequence is so audacious, and the (mostly benign) twitting of the fanbase is so overt, that it was love at first sight for me. And then John decking Sherlock and Sherlock's practical joke at the end ... I laughed til I cried. It's only later that I realized the episode didn't actually make a whole lot of sense, but I still love what I first loved about it. Does that make sense?

 

That said -- I think I get why other people might not love it (TEH or S3, take your pick) as much as I do. I was just a bit surprised to find out how much of a minority I was in that survey. (See how I brought it back to the topic of the thread there?)

 

 

 

That's at least part of the problem for me as well. Poor John -- as a war veteran and a doctor, he's accustomed to danger and horrendous situations, which means that (unlike the great majority of people) he's capable of associating with people like Sherlock and and Mary, and being their friend, and enjoying their adventures. From their point of view, I can understand how that translates into him craving the danger itself -- they're projecting their own attitudes onto him. What's most painful to me is that John seems to swallow the idea. Maybe once he recuperates from the events and revelations of "Last Vow," he can get his head together well enough to see that they're mistaken, and tell them, "No I'm not addicted to danger, you idiots -- I tolerate it because my best friends are addicted to it."

Not sure if this discussion should stay in this thread, but you can move it if you like, Carol (do we even have a thread where we discuss John's character? If not, how did that happen?)

 

Anyway. I'd like to disagree, a bit.......

 

I think I'm going to stake out the middle ground here, because I agree with most of what T.o.b.y said ... they have consistently shown John as someone who thrives as Sherlock's companion-in-arms ... but I also agree with Carol ... I personally don't interpret his behavior as an "addiction to danger". The way Mr. Freeman plays him, what I see is someone who enjoys a challenge, who likes to be useful, who will stand strong when in danger ... but doesn't seek out danger so much as accepts it as part of the "job." And he likes the "job" because it's often meaningful, and sometimes exciting, and because it gives him a reason to hang out with Sherlock. And he likes Sherlock for himself, NOT because he's a conduit to danger.

 

Frankly, I think this is just another example of Moftiss misusing the English language for dramatic effect; like "sociopath" for "eccentric", or "Asperger's" for "poor manners." It's a shorthand way of explaining something that's actually very, very complex -- why did John fall for Mary? Since we know little to nothing about Mary, we have nothing to go on but the dialogue; but I would argue that Moftiss haven't made their case. They may intend for John to be an addict, but they haven't proved it to my satisfaction; like so many other things on this show, it's open to interpretation. (Why are Moftiss so averse to definitive statements? Do they have commitment issues? :D )

 

 

 

Not sure if this discussion should stay in this thread, but you can move it if you like, Carol (do we even have a thread where we discuss John's character? If not, how did that happen?)

I will admit that we've strayed somewhat from the nominal topic -- but if you can figure out what to call a thread where all of the above digressions would fit, please let me know!

 

Well, you could always stick it in the "hijacked thread" thread!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Since I'm on the subject -- I love "Hearse" simply because it is funny.... I laughed til I cried. It's only later that I realized the episode didn't actually make a whole lot of sense, but I still love what I first loved about it. Does that make sense?

Of course it does. I still enjoy "Hearse," I just don't think it's a very well constructed episode. (And I could say the same for "Blind Banker.")

 

I think I'm going to stake out the middle ground here, because I agree with most of what T.o.b.y said ... they have consistently shown John as someone who thrives as Sherlock's companion-in-arms ... but I also agree with Carol ... I personally don't interpret his behavior as an "addiction to danger". The way Mr. Freeman plays him, what I see is someone who enjoys a challenge, who likes to be useful, who will stand strong when in danger ... but doesn't seek out danger so much as accepts it as part of the "job." And he likes the "job" because it's often meaningful, and sometimes exciting, and because it gives him a reason to hang out with Sherlock. And he likes Sherlock for himself, NOT because he's a conduit to danger.

Is that the middle ground, or you agreeing with T.o.b.y, or you agreeing with me? Whatever it is, I agree -- very nicely put!

 

Frankly, I think this is just another example of Moftiss misusing the English language for dramatic effect; like "sociopath" for "eccentric", or "Asperger's" for "poor manners." It's a shorthand way of explaining something that's actually very, very complex -- why did John fall for Mary? Since we know little to nothing about Mary, we have nothing to go on but the dialogue; but I would argue that Moftiss haven't made their case. They may intend for John to be an addict, but they haven't proved it to my satisfaction; like so many other things on this show, it's open to interpretation. (Why are Moftiss so averse to definitive statements? Do they have commitment issues? :D )

They probably like to keep their options open. ("Probably"?! Did I say "probably"?!)

 

As for maybe "adrenaline junkie" is just Moftiss shorthand, that's a thought. I don't find their other "shorthand" terms all that helpful either, but I suppose it's easier than saying what they really mean -- whatever that may be -- assuming they've actually made up their minds. But I don't think I'll be using the term.

 

Well, you could always stick it in the "hijacked thread" thread!

True. But I think this thread had pretty much exhausted its original purpose, and we ARE discussing why some episodes are liked better than others. So what the heck, unless someone objects.

[Arcadia]

They probably like to keep their options open. ("Probably"?! Did I say "probably"?!)

You did, and I consider that highly optimistic of you. :P

[sherlockandjohn]

 

Yeah, I think that makes the most sense.  But I still have no idea how to compare Series 3 to the others.  *sigh*

Because it's stylistically different, you mean? Or because of all the unanswered questions? Or something else?

 

I'm not sure. I do think it has a very different feel, so that could certainly account for at least some of it.

 

But my quandary could also be (partly?) due to all the pre-S3 speculation and immediate post-S3 dissection. Even though I had seen S1 and S2 when they were current, I didn't find any forums till a couple months after watching S2 -- so I'd had time to digest the first six episodes on my own. I had my own personal opinions. I saw S3 in a far different context, and I do think that made a difference in how I received it.

 

I am seriously considering staying away from the S4 threads from the time the episodes are aired until I've had a chance to watch and digest them. The only downside I can see is that I'd effectively miss out on the discussion, because I'd be so far behind. Hmm -- if anyone else is thinking of doing that sort of thing, maybe we could wait till we've all digested the new episodes, and then have our own latecomers discussion (no early birds allowed!).

 

Yes, been considering the same thing, Carol. Especially since my discussions of TEH and HLV got a bit too heated for my own taste the first couple of days I don't want to get so worked up next time, if I can avoid it... Hm, how likely is that? Huh, Moffat?

[sherlockandjohn]

I agree with the top 3, that's for sure, though I wouldn't rank them in that order myself. And The Empty Hearse comes last for me as well. I understand why not so many people voted for The Sign of Three - I love it, but I see what might bother other viewers. The only real surprise for me is how low His Last Vow ranked. Behind The Blind Banker? Really? Wow. I mean, I like The Blind Banker just fine, but I always thought that was the least popular episode of all, and I would have expected His Last Vow to be much more universally appealing.

 

As for The Hounds of Baskerville, I think this is one of those you can only really appreciate if you're familiar with the book and so realize what a brilliant adaptation it is.

 

The low ranking of His Last Vow surprises me too - I know many of us have issues with it, but some love it better than any other episode.

 

I haven't read the story behind The Hounds of Baskerville, but I thoroughly love it because of the adventure, mystery, darkness, humor and friendship. It's fairly simplistic in comparison to the other episodes, though, so I get why many rank it as one of their least favorites. Besides, it's up against some tough competition

 

The Reichenbach Fall with its' gradually building tension, superb drama and strong friendship scenes is my favorite.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I am seriously considering staying away from the S4 threads from the time the episodes are aired until I've had a chance to watch and digest them. The only downside I can see is that I'd effectively miss out on the discussion, because I'd be so far behind. Hmm -- if anyone else is thinking of doing that sort of thing, maybe we could wait till we've all digested the new episodes, and then have our own latecomers discussion (no early birds allowed!).

 

Yes, been considering the same thing, Carol. Especially since my discussions of TEH and HLV got a bit too heated for my own taste the first couple of days I don't want to get so worked up next time, if I can avoid it... Hm, how likely is that? Huh, Moffat?

A bit too heated for my taste as well (though apparently far more civil than discussions elsewhere on the internet). If we're still of the same mind when the Special is about to air, we can have a nice time discussing Series 1 - 3 while the rest of the forum self-ignites!

[Inge l-w]

I just had a look at the final scoring of all nine episodes and cannot fault the public for not accepting the new perspective of the most famous pair in detective lore that was presented in Series 3. Having watched all of them repeatedly, my quibbles would be concerning the Reichenbach Fall and the Empty Hearse in their respective positions (first /last) since they are necessarily a two-parter.

Also, to waste 90 minutes on John's wedding seems to be a waste of good resources, from the actors to the technical teams, so its place makes sense. As for the Blind Banker coming before His Last Vow, it leaves too many things unanswered (perhaps with a view of tying up all loose threads in Series 4) but still not a cliffhanger like the previous two series' endings.

We shall have to wait and see.

[T.o.b.y]

Also, to waste 90 minutes on John's wedding seems to be a waste of good resources, from the actors to the technical teams

 

Now, now, not everybody thought it was wasted... The Sign of Three is different from the other episodes, and it has a different focus. I understand why it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I like it. I like it very much, in fact. But you see, to me the characters and their relationships with each other as well as their personal development are more interesting than anything else, so of course I got a lot out of it. If you're looking more for the crime show / thriller aspect of things, then I see why it would be a bit disappointing.

 

I think it's somehow not quite fair to compare The Sign of Three with the other episodes. It's like a special or an extra. Something you watch to get a deeper understanding of the protagonists or to play around with a different setting for them.

 

I can't even say what genre The Sign of Three belongs to. It's just... The Wedding Episode. And most certainly it is the absolute best wedding I've ever witnessed (okay, before my husband sees this and feels slighted: The other absolute best wedding next to our own. Happy now, dear?)

 

[joanneta1]

Genre, dear Toby? How about a good old-fashioned farce? I have grown accustomed to the two creators' penchant for playing havoc with their show's fan base, but this particular episode advances nothing except perhaps Sherlock's growing blindness to Mary, which leads on to the Goetterdaemmerung of the next episode.

[T.o.b.y]

Genre, dear Toby? How about a good old-fashioned farce?

 

It's too sad for a farce, if you ask me. I think The Sign of Three is an episode that is light and funny only on the surface. There's something going on there, at least that's how it feels to me, something melancholy, and I can't - quite - grasp - it.

 

This is definitely an episode I find it easier to react to emotionally than intellectually. All I can say is, it feels the closest to home of all Sherlock episodes for me, and it makes me laugh and cry and feel wistful and sympathetic towards everybody (except, maybe, Jonathan Small).

 

No, it's not a farce... It's a comedy, but it has something else going on. Something true. Something about love, and loss, and letting go and moving on. Those are relevant topics. More relevant, perhaps, than finding out who killed someone or who stole someone else's silver. Maybe not quite as entertaining, depending on the kind of entertainment a person likes.

 

That said, I totally see why one would not like this episode. It is partly the reason I am hesitant to watch the third series with other people. I'm kind of afraid they "won't understand" and think me silly and childish for liking the series so much.

[joanneta1]

Oh, don't get me wrong! I have watched TEH and SoT so many times already that I could quote whole sections out of them, but this is all in an effort to try to understand them, especially the second episode, which also seems to me to function simply as a bridge between their reconciliation at the end of the first and the horrendous consequences of the vow he makes at the end of the second, as played out in HLV. I actually got a second copy to keep as backup, a thing I have not even done for the Granada series, which I always fall back on when I get the urge to throw something at the TV screen, because, unlike our common fixation, I don't interact with the television set by speaking out loud.

[Arcadia]

I think TSo3 is sad because it foreshadows Sherlock's ultimate fate, if he remains the kind of person he is ... to be alone. And it's sad because everyone else seems to be growing up, moving on and leaving him behind. And it's sad because he actually tries to fit in for a change; he gets along with Mary, he tries to give John the best wedding ever, he genuinely wants to dance with Janine; and he still ends up leaving early, by himself. Poor guy, I'm getting a little teary just thinking about it!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Plus, it's not really about the wedding.  That's merely background.

 

[Inge l-w]

Certainly it is not about the wedding! It's purpose is to increase his blindness to Mary's potential, to draw him into humanness ( he should have heeded his own advice at the end of Scandal: Sentiment is to be found on the losing side, ) and to make him make the silly vow that would have such serious repercussions in the next one. Plus, there are so many lacunae left in HLV that you don't know where to start! One great big mistake on the part of the scriptwriter is that both Sherlock and John are carefully frisked when they are in his own flat and they are NOT frisked when they visit him in his own lair? How likely is that?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... there are so many lacunae left in HLV that you don't know where to start! One great big mistake on the part of the scriptwriter is that both Sherlock and John are carefully frisked when they are in his own flat and they are NOT frisked when they visit him in his own lair? How likely is that?

 

I've tried over and over to make any sense whatsoever out of that.  Shall we give it a go?

 

1.  CAM assumed that they'd never dare enter his house armed.

.  .  . (Seems an unlikely assumption.)

2.  CAM assumed that his henchmen had frisked S&J before bringing them in.

.  .  . (Possible, but assumes either complicity or absent-mindedness by henchmen.)

3.  They were frisked, but managed to hide the gun somehow.

.  .  . (Remotely possible.)

4.  Sherlock pulled a Jedi mind trick on the henchmen and/or CAM.

.  .  . (Seems just as likely as any of the above.)

 

If Sherlock had any reason for suspecting that the henchmen were not 100% loyal to CAM, #2 would be the most plausible, but if not, maybe he hid the gun.  He would not rely on hoping they would not be frisked.  But surely somebody can come up with more possibilities (plausible or not -- we're desperate!).

 

(I haven't counted, but I seriously doubt that HLV has as many plot holes as TBB, though!)

[J.P.]

CAM is underestimating our boys in his endless vanity.

 

It shows when he comes to 221B and talks about British being domesticated... and proves it.

 

as a theory it's a little bit weak if you think of it, but otherwise the fireplace scene wouldn't have to be so... extreme. 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Is it possible that they check Sherlock and John but forgot to check John's coat as it wasn't on initially?

[Arcadia]

 

... there are so many lacunae left in HLV that you don't know where to start! One great big mistake on the part of the scriptwriter is that both Sherlock and John are carefully frisked when they are in his own flat and they are NOT frisked when they visit him in his own lair? How likely is that?

 

I've tried over and over to make any sense whatsoever out of that.  Shall we give it a go?

 

1.  CAM assumed that they'd never dare enter his house armed.

.  .  . (Seems an unlikely assumption.)

2.  CAM assumed that his henchmen had frisked S&J before bringing them in.

.  .  . (Possible, but assumes either complicity or absent-mindedness by henchmen.)

3.  They were frisked, but managed to hide the gun somehow.

.  .  . (Remotely possible.)

4.  Sherlock pulled a Jedi mind trick on the henchmen and/or CAM.

.  .  . (Seems just as likely as any of the above.)

 

I'll take #1, please. With a dollop of #4 on the side.

 

(I haven't counted, but I seriously doubt that HLV has as many plot holes as TBB, though!)

Ooooh, do! Or, has anyone made a list of all the plot holes in Sherlock? So we can sit here and try to plug them? Or will that ruin the show for me, to discover there are even more plot holes than I currently realize?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... has anyone made a list of all the plot holes in Sherlock? So we can sit here and try to plug them?

  

If you'd like to start a thread for discussing (and patching) plot holes, please do!   :D  That should keep us busy till more episodes come along.

[Arcadia]

Nice job passing the buck right back! First I have to think up a plot hole. What were we just discussing?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Nice job passing the buck right back! First I have to think up a plot hole. What were we just discussing?

We've been discussing a lot of HLV (here & in it's own fix it thread) and the whole gun/shooting Magnussen.thing.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Nice job passing the buck right back!

 

Hey, what's the point of being a moderator if I can't delegate responsibility? 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Nice job passing the buck right back!

Hey, what's the point of being a moderator if I can't delegate responsibility?

I think we have making of a leader here.

[sherlockandjohn]

I think TSo3 is sad because it foreshadows Sherlock's ultimate fate, if he remains the kind of person he is ... to be alone. And it's sad because everyone else seems to be growing up, moving on and leaving him behind. And it's sad because he actually tries to fit in for a change; he gets along with Mary, he tries to give John the best wedding ever, he genuinely wants to dance with Janine; and he still ends up leaving early, by himself. Poor guy, I'm getting a little teary just thinking about it!

 

Now, why did you have to go do that?

 

Except... Come to think of it, I only think the above is sad on one hand. Sherlock is Sherlock, and he's not meant to be anything different than what he is, in my eyes. I agree with him, when he says something like this: "I can read a crime scene the way John Watson can read a person. I used to think that's what made me special; quite frankly, I still do." If Sherlock's personality makes him lonely, to some degree, then so be it. He is too special - I don't want him to change too much.