Slithytove

Glad you agree, T.o.b.y and Van Buren Supernova - and I heartily agree that those who don't like the show because it's not canon can bugger off. Well said!

I read the negative Amazon reviews with some amusement. It was similar to reading the comments section of The Daily Mail, i.e. dreadful and, occasionally, unintentionally funny. There seems to be two main gripes. One is, basically - "this isn't authentic Victoriana, or authentic Conan Doyle, I'm off to re-watch Jeremy Brett." These people don't seem to grasp the fact that this is ​Sherlock' s re-imagining of the Victorian era. There are some deliberate anachronisms - "the virus in the data" - as the 21st century breaks into his dream, and maybe a few unintentional ones because he neither knows or cares about the details. This is the man who retains only knowledge he deems relevant, and consequently didn't know the earth goes round the sun or that England has a queen, not a king. Would you really be surprised that he didn't know, as one Amazon reviewer complained, that female property owners could vote in local elections by 1895? And would it have made any difference to the story if he did? As for those who say the writers play fast and loose with the original stories - well, isn't that the point? This isn't another dramatization of ACD's stories. If that's what you want, I doubt Brett's version can be bettered. The Sherlock stories are fast, funny, dramatic and occasionally silly, and their attitude to the ACD canon is affectionate but irreverent. The original stories are strong enough to withstand a bit of chaos. After all, they've survived plenty of badly-written parodies and pastiches. They'll survive any amount of playfulness by Moftiss too. The other complaint seems to be that people couldn't understand the time shifts. I've got some sympathy for anyone who had never watched the previous series and fell for the "stand-alone episode" claim. However, anyone with any intelligence who saw HLV should be more than capable of following the story. Some people seem to want to be spoon-fed, and never have to think about what they are watching. As for the reviewer who said Martin Freeman is a terrible actor and incapable of portraying Watson...Were they watching a different programme? The man was born to be John Watson!

Yupp, have seen it, but don't get it. Can you help? Note to self: Read the canon. Learn Chinese. It's from the original canon. Ricoletti and the case of the club foot. So Ricoletti has come out of a club in Chinatown whose name in Chinese is The CLUB Foot. It's a play on words and a clever way of working it into the plot by Gatiss. In medical terms, a club foot is a foot that is bent or twisted at a wrong angle at birth. So it's just a play on the word - club foot, night club, gentleman's club... it's a club called "The Club Foot." That's clever. I was wondering why Mr Ricoletti didn't have a club foot. I'm glad they managed to work it into the story. Anyone got any ideas about the significance of the scenes where Sherlock thinks he has woken up but is actually still asleep? Why is he trying, and failing, to find the fake Mrs Ricoletti in the real Mrs Ricoletti's grave? How does that tie-in with trying to solve the Moriarty problem? And why does he imagine John would refuse to help him, but Mycroft and Lestrade would help? I don't quite see how it fits in to the whole in-my-Mind-Palace-to-solve-the-Moriarty-puzzle .

Morality went out of the window in HLV, when John decided he did not need to know who Mary had murdered or why, and when Sherlock shot an unarmed man in the head. The Bride saw a return, I'd say, to the morality of ACD's Holmes, who felt no need to have people arrested if he thought the murders they had committed were justified. If the victims were sufficiently nasty, Holmes occasionally let killers escape, so I don't think he would have been handing over either Molly or Sir Eustace's wife to the hangman.

I discussed the episode with my daughter , who likes the show but isn't a demented fan like me, and she raised two points. 1) Why doesn't Sherlock realise Molly is a woman, when it is so obvious and John realises immediately? My guess is that Sherlock, normally so observant, is so uninterested in women that he is blind to gender differences. It is, I think, otherwise hard to explain why he could be so blind, when he normally notices such tiny details about people. Of course, this is Sherlock's version of Molly. Does he feel guilty about the times he has manipulated her through her love for him? Or does he wish he could deal with her as if she was a man, so that sentiment would not be an issue? 2) Why is Mycroft so fat? My daughter hasn't read the ACD stories, so I explained that the original Mycroft was fat but she pointed out that this version of Mycroft, in Sherlock's Mind Palace, is not merely overweight but grossly obese and extremely greedy. I've always been inclined to the idea that Sherlock has an eating disorder - he regularly starves himself, and often makes derogatory remarks abut people's weight - but we wondered whether it was also an illustration of the way Sherlock feels about his brother. Does he see Mycroft as greedy in some way? If so, what does he feel Mycroft is gobbling up - the respect, the power, the attention? Mummy & Daddy's love? It just made me wonder why Sherlock would imagine him in this way.

The Suffragettes damaged property but I can't think of any incident where they attacked people. (Incidentally, there is evidence which seems to indicate quite clearly that Emily Wilding Davison, who was trampled by the King's horse, was trying to attach the Suffragette colours to its bridle, not committing suicide.) I assume that the pointy-hooded ladies weren't supposed to be Suffragettes - that was Mary's role - but had decided on direct violent action against abusive men. In a weird way, I suppose the episode could be Moffat's attempt to answer the accusations of misogyny which have been levelled against his creation of female characters. We have Mycroft's saying, in effect, that women are right in their struggle against patriarchy, and Sherlock explaining women's rights to John (and a roomful of women.) On the other hand, we still have the idea that women are deceptive and violent (like Mary and, to a lesser degree, Irene.) However, it all becomes a bit irrelevant when you realise that the Bride is Moriarty and it's all about a power struggle between two men or, considering John's role in the scene of the waterfall, about the bond between two men. Basically, we women are still just bystanders, like poor Mrs Hudson and her lack of lines. It doesn't worry me too much, because the story is centred round the Sherlock-John relationship and I wouldn't want that to change. Moftiss really are on shaky ground, though, with their female characters. Loved Molly in drag, though. Speaking of the waterfall, I enjoyed the way that the uber-posh Holmes admired his enemy's brain but added that, when it came to fighting on the edge of a precipice, " you're going into the water, short-arse."

The writers love to drop bombshells, destroying our previous beliefs, don't they? I know a lot of people loved the tarmac scene, with both characters being all repressed and manly, but it irritated me. I'm willing to accept Sherlock as emotionally crippled (but unable to say a meaningful farewell, when he thinks he is leaving forever? really?) but John seemed cold as well. Now we know Sherlock was stoned throughout the whole thing. Maybe it will turn out that John was heavily sedated as well! I like the idea that Moriarty, as well as having some sort of continued presence in the real world, exists in Sherlock's mind as a symbol of his fears and weaknesses. I hope he will continue to pop up in the Mind Palace at significant moments. I hope Mary isn't going to be part of MI5 in the next series. That would really annoy me.

If we don't have to use spoiler boxes now - and I hope this is okay - I'd like to say: Generally, I'm not keen on "it was all a dream" explanations. (Anyone old enough may remember Dallas, where an entire series turned out to be the dream of a character they had killed off and wanted to revive.). However, I was quite glad that the more fanciful bits were a fantasy - as Moriarty pointed out, criminals don't tend to go in for melodramatic effects such as hoods, gongs, etc., so it was a good thing that they were just part of Sherlock's drug- induced dream. I haven't had a chance to rewatch it yet, which I need to do because it was too much to absorb in one go, but I've tried to make sense of the ending. If the Ricoletti case was Sherlock's attempt to understand the riddle of Moriarty's return, then presumably it is significant that the Bride was able to commit crimes after her death because she was more than one person. Sherlock says Moriarty is definitely dead - a shame, as Andrew Scott is so good in the role - but he knows exactly what he is going to do next. Because Moriarty is more than one person? That is the only way I can see how the Bride's case helped him to solve Moriarty's. I also liked the fact that during the tarmac scene, which I hated, Sherlock was apparently high. Explains a lot!

I don't know how to use spoiler boxes - I'm old and technically dim - so I won't be commenting yet on any details. Though, as sfmpco says, I don't quite understand why we have to hide comments on a thread specifically designed for spoilers. I will, however, confine myself to saying how I felt about it. I loved it but, unlike previous episodes, I won't be watching it with my granddaughter. It was so creepy! As always, it was the dialogue between Sherlock and John which was its greatest strength - snappy, funny and occasionally touching. I liked the fact that 19th century Holmes had an even posher accent than his modern incarnation. Mrs Hudson's appearances, though brief, were priceless. It was a pleasure to see familiar faces popping up in unfamiliar guises. And enough material there to keep us pondering... Sherlock really is the jewel in the BBC's crown. Wish we didn't have to wait so long for S4.

Hi! I do take your point, but I would think Mycroft is actually capable of quite sophisticated cruelty. It seems to be implied not only by his manner and his reputation, but also by the fact that he can sit and calmly watch his own brother being tortured and can send him off on a one-way mission to his death. (And God knows what befell "the other one!") My guess is that it is emotion which gives Sherlock the edge. Sherlock, despite his claims to the contrary, experiences powerful emotions and Jim evidently does as well. In fact, he seems at times to be teetering on the verge of barely-suppressed rage, particularly in the swimming pool scene. It is not only their genius and their boredom which makes them alike. If anyone knew how to manipulate Jim's weaknesses - his anger, his vanity, his ambition - it would be Sherlock, rather than Mycroft, because he experiences them too. That's my guess, anyway. Though I suppose that the real reason was that Jim had to capitulate quickly and then top himself, to move the story on. Credibility isn't something which bothers the writers too much, I think. At least, it bothers us a lot more than it bothers them!

That is a good point. Mycroft's power, due to his job, is far greater than Sherlock's, and he is supposedly the Ice Man. What could Sherlock do that is more icy than his brother's actions?

I've told my family that our New Year's Day dinner has to be finished and cleared away by 9 p.m., and I want no talking whilst Sherlock is on! (Not that they will take any notice...)

That series was made and broadcast by ITV. The BBC can be infuriating - I have never forgiven them for cancelling The Hour, which was an excellent series - but it makes some high quality programmes and usually recognises when it has a hit like Sherlock on its hands. I think that, when it is unable to recommision a series, the problem is often funding. It is a public service broadcaster and doesn't have to kowtow to advertisers, but it does have to deal with the government which controls its funding through the licence fees. The BBC usually manages to annoy whichever party is in power but the Conservatives particularly hate it, and they are ( unfortunately) our ruling party at the moment. Given that antipathy, plus the general economic climate, and the BBC isn't exactly rolling in money at the moment. On the other hand, a hit like Sherlock must generate quite a bit of income through overseas sales, merchandising, etc, so hopefully they will be able to keep backing it.

I second that! Yes, John, Lestrade and Molly are wonderful, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the (unlikely) reappearance of Jim Moriarty because I like a barking mad villain, but Sherlock is the one I really love. As long as he remains centre stage - and why wouldn't he? - then I'm happy.

Thanks, T.o.b.y! I'm sure we are going to have a lot to discuss after we've seen The Abominable Bride. Hopefully, enough to keep us going until Series 4.

As well as portraying the inimitable Percy, not to mention Captain Darling, Tim McInnerny was also in the Jeremy Brett series of the Sherlock Holmes stories. He played John Clay in "The Red-Headed League," a story I always liked for its sheer silliness. Apparently, it was one of ACD's favourites as well.

It's interesting that fans can have such profoundly different reactions to the material. For myself, I read all the ACD stories when I was in my early teens, about 50 years ago, and fell in love with both Mr Holmes and Dr Watson. Since then, I've watched various adaptations - obviously, the Jeremy Brett version was very good, although I'll always have a soft spot for Douglas Wilmer and Nigel Stock. I'm also old enough to remember the UK copyright expiring and the subsequent flood of pastiches, sequels, etc. I've read a lot of them because I'm addicted to the characters, even though some of the stuff was pretty bad and must have had poor old ACD turning in his grave. Laurie King's Mary Russell books were probably the best, though the series has gone steadily downhill. So I didn't have great hopes of Sherlock before it aired. Now I consider it to be the only really successful non-ACD version of Holmes. Why? Well, obviously it's well-made and beautifully acted, but that wouldn't make it unique. One reason is that it takes very familiar characters and puts an original slant on them, without making them positively unrecognisable. (Like Mycroft, for instance, in Elementary. That one had me screaming at the tv. As for their Moriarty, the least said the better!) Another is that it is unpredictable without being totally irrational. I like it when I can't predict what will happen, but not when it makes no sense at all. (Yes, I admit there have been moments in Sherlock that defy logic - such as "How would he have survived the Fall if Moriarty, instead of killing himself, had stood on the roof and watched?") but, in general, the plots do hang together. I also like that fact that, very often, it is genuinely funny. I don't think we should underestimate the value of humour, as the brightness serves to make the dark moments even darker. And I have to say that I enjoy all the little references to the ACD canon. To create something original and yet pay homage to the source material seems, to me, to be quite a difficult thing to achieve. It doesn't bother me if these references appear in places where they would not appear in the ACD stories. I don't see this writing as a rip-off of Doyle, but as the writers having fun and, hopefully, communicating this playfulness to the fans. What matters, I think, is that the essential characters of Holmes and Watson are preserved and that their friendship remains central. Other than that, Sherlock can fold napkins and make speeches, dash around in a Belstaff or an Inverness cape, have his hair slick and straight or long and curly, swan-dive off roofs or retreat to his mind palace, and I'm happy to go along for the ride. I'll even grit my teeth and bear it when I do feel he does something he shouldn't, such as solve a problem with a gun rather than with logic, because there is enough of the essential Sherlock Holmes there to make it worth watching. And I'll be glued to my tv set on New Year's Day, pretty sure that I'm going to be entranced and entertained, even if there are plenty of points which infuriate me enough to make me come here and start arguing about them...

Well, a quick skim through the "Radio Times" suggests that Sherlock is the one stand-out event of the festive season, as far as tv is concerned. (Though there is Aidan Turner in an Agatha Christie who-dunnit, and the magazine hints that he is sometimes "clad only in a towel"!) I think the snippets that we've seen so far look very promising. Difficult to go wrong when you've got fog, gaslight, hansom cabs and all the gothic romance of Victorian London.

Thank you - I've been in hibernation for quite a while - family stuff - but you know what this fandom is like. It draws you back , and you can't resist joining in...

Thank you for the welcome back, Arcadia! Is there any serious possibility, I wonder, that the film will ever be on DVD? Because I would buy it like a shot. I'm just doubtful that it will happen, as the NT's screening of Frankenstein has never made it to DVD. This was supposedly because the actors - Jonny Lee Miller, specifically - wouldn't sign it off, but I wonder whether the NT feels it can make more money from cinema screenings than by releasing their films on DVD. Just a thought.

He's very passionate about the refugee issue, bless him. Won't make him any more popular with the Daily Mail types but he has a big heart and feels very strongly about the refugees' plight, so why shouldn't he express his views? People are hardly going to faint at hearing him use a four-letter word.

Interesting. I didn't like that adaptation, though that wasn't due to MF's performance. I think he's a very good actor - as John Watson, of course, but I also liked him in The Hobbit, although I didn't expect to, and in Fargo, once I had got used to his accent.

Do we know it's Mrs Ricolleti? Oh, probably it won't be. Knowing Moffat and Gatiss, it wll have only the vaguest connection to the canon. I just like to imagine it will be Mrs Ricolleti and her club-footed husband.

I'm not worried about disliking this version of the original, 19th century Holmes. I have sufficient faith in the actor and (I admit, grudgingly) in the writers too. They may infuriate us - like obliterating the entire reason for TRF, by the "explanation" offered in TEH! - but they know how to write a good story. I even like Watson's moustache....It was pretty awful on modern- day John but looks right, somehow, on Victorian Dr Watson. What intrigues me is the way in which Mrs Ricolleti is going to turn out to be abominable. It's such a strong word - I do hope that they give us someone truly abominable.

Hey, Slithytove -- welcome back! Thank you! Nice to be back.