sh_fan

Oh, no, I hope they don't do this to Sherlock... but odds are they will. Do all shows have to be the same?? It seems as if there's a real disconnect with the audience, too, because with regards to movies, anyway, audiences - in general - complain that there are far too many special effects and that that's all movies amount to anymore. Sherlock was an off the charts wild success BEFORE they changed it this season. A few years ago, there was a BBC show called "Lark Rise to Candleford" (completely different, I know), which brought in ratings of 8 million - in the UK! That's between what Sherlock season 2 & Sherlock season 3 did, and it ended in 2011 (they said they wanted to quit while they were ahead). My point being, this show, taking place in 1895, had no violence, special effects, profanity, sex, nudity, etc., and it was hugely popular. Why? Because it had characters and a plot! This is very irksome to me - especially when a show I love - Sherlock - gets ruined.

I thought I'd add this video I saw today in which, during the interview, Moffat was asked if Moriarty is really dead, and he says, "he is." Then, when further asked if he could have somehow survived what happened in TRF, he says, "how do you fake that?" (meaning, blowing your brains out) I have to say those are repeated, definitive statements. If Moriarty comes back now, I don't see why anyone should ever listen to a Moffat interview again. http://watch.accesshollywood.com/video/sue-vertue-steven-moffat-talk-working-with-benedict-cumberbatch-martin-freeman-on-sherlock/2566183279001

I, actually, see no reason why a show can't go backward - especially if they're returning to what worked (what made Sherlock Holmes so popular in the first place)! What I want from season 4 is a return to seasons 1 & 2. Before HLV, when I liked Mary and thought her a good addition, I thought they might add her into the Holmes / Watson adventures (because of what Holmes said about how clever she was and how useful she could've been to his detective work in The Sign of Four). Now, I think she's beyond redemption, and I don't know why anyone trusts her, and I hope she's gone in season 4. Definitely more Lestrade! I'd, actually, like to see less Mycroft. It's true that he adds material to the potential episodes, but, Gatiss being one of the writers, it just feels to me as if he's just writing himself in because he wants to be in it more. Mycroft barely appeared - ever - in the Holmes stories (once, that I remember, in the Greek Interpreter, where I laughed out loud when he was described as being so fat that when he reached out to shake John's hand, it reminded John of a Whale flipper)! Yes, I'd like to see the Red Headed League, too - I'd also love to see what they'd do with the Six Napoleons or the Dancing Men! And I DEFINITELY don't want Moriarty back! Entertaining villain, but ridiculous, the idea of him surviving shooting himself in the head (I'm sure they won't tell us how that happened, either).

That wouldn't surprise me, but, if he were high, that wouldn't be the case here, I don't think (the alienation part, I mean). John disliked, in the extreme, his cocaine use in the books, but Holmes only did it when he didn't have a case and was bored, so he was never an "addict." What I find so puzzling about this whole thing in HLV (which is why I can't seem to let it go), is that I saw an interview with Moffat & Gatiss where they addressed the cocaine issue (or lack thereof in the series), and they said they felt is was unnecessary to add that in because they believed it was perfectly believable to have a workaholic genius detective whose drug was the cases. So, to then turn around and have him get high on opium... I simply can't see how it would benefit him in any case (unless, in his undercover work, he had to do it to make himself believable to those he was trying to fit in with?). I don't see how it could be regarding CAM, because how would he possibly find out Sherlock got high to try to use it against him in that slum?

But back to the opium thing for a minute: The only thing that would persuade me to think he was actually high was Molly's reaction. But didn't she say "he's clean" when John asked her? That's what confused me. His roughing Mycroft up and John actually thinking he was high didn't sway me in the least. John always falls for Sherlock's acting, and, as we saw in the train scene from TEH, well, to quote John Watson, "The stage lost a fine actor..." It was easily believable to me that Sherlock was using their belief that he was "high" to let loose a bit on Mycroft. Emotionally, I don't want to believe it, even though I know the original Sherlock did cocaine. I suppose that's the other reason I'm having a hard time believing it: It wasn't that way in "The Man with the Twisted Lip," and Sherlock only did cocaine when he was bored. I simply can't see him using drugs while ON a case.

This, I couldn't agree with more! All of this discussion, and all of these extremely valid points make me wonder if Moffat and Gatiss should have a number of fans preview their scripts before they go forward with them, because they've made some serious, serious blunders in this series (and not simply with Mary and this episode). Someone, pages ago, said, "Welcome to 'Sherlock Into Darkness.'" I wholeheartedly agree. I have enjoyed watching the previous two series over and over again (and SO eagerly anticipating this new series)! Now? Not so much. I'm sure I'll watch these again (and look forward to the next season). But not nearly as before. It's changed for me. The holes in the writing. The let downs (as we've discussed). The whole attitude of "yeah, Sherlock faked his suicide, but we're going to act cool and not tell you how just so you can think we know how he did it even though we don't" from TEH. It's all quite a letdown for me. I truly hope next season will be better - but I'll try my best not to get my hopes up.

Now that I've had a chance to ponder and to watch it a second time, I have a few more thoughts: 1) I've seen one or two people here think Sherlock was actually high (on the opium). I didn't think so the first time, and I still don't (but if there's something I've missed, I'm open to seeing it). His eyes weren't dilated, and he acted completely normally. But the main reason I don't think he was high is because he wasn't in the "Twisted Lip" story where they took this from. 2) Being in America, I watched this online, so I didn't see the part at the end people were referring to with Moriarty walking around. That being said, I am really, really, really hoping this was just a ruse by Mycroft or Sherlock to bring him back and that they don't really bring Moriarty back. I agree with everyone that he was an entertaining villain, but there's plenty of other source material to draw from instead of Moriarty, somehow, faking shooting himself in the head. 3) I've been interested in all of the discussion about John being Sherlock's moral center. I'll admit that I haven't read the stories forever, but I have read almost all of them, and most of those more than once. The distinct sense I get from the essence of Sherlock Holmes, the character, was that Sherlock was primarily driven by the need for mental stimulation, granted, but he also had a strong sense of justice. True justice, not relativistic justice (a great example is that he thought justice was served when Milverton was shot and wouldn't help Lestrade solve the case). Justice is a moral quality, so, even though Watson (in Scandal in Bohemia) referrs to his "cold reason," etc., that doesn't preclude that Sherlock had a strong and clear sense of morality. I say this all the while knowing that he does things that the rest of us wouldn't do (like getting engaged for the sake of a case), but he only did it, again, in pursuit of justice. (As an aside, I loved the way they handled it in this episode, because I didn't feel bad for the woman in the Milverton story (Holmes said he had competition, and other suitors would eagerly step up after he departed), and, the way they did it, I didn't feel bad for her here.) So, why they're choosing to make such a big deal about Sherlock supposedly being a Sociopath (which, don't they have no conscience?), mystifies me. Also, when I heard Jeanine's comment about "I know what kind of man you are" (or something to that effect), I didn't think she was referring to his sexuality - I thought he was referring to his personality - who he is. He simply doesn't care about any of that because he only cares about the work (mental stimulation, justice). In the books, he almost struck me as asexual (not because he wasn't masculine, but because it wasn't on his radar). That's what I thought she meant. Lastly, I wonder if Sherlock now considers his vow fulfilled, or if he views it as ongoing? (But, as we've all decided Mary must die in childbirth, that only leaves John to protect, which he'd do anyway.)

I hate that I wasn't able to watch this episode until later, and now there is already 9 pages of discussion! Bummer for me. -_- Well, I won't rehash all that's been discussed, except to say that I agree about how ridiculous it is that John, knowing that Mary's killed people in the past, doesn't even want to know about it? And she's the mother of his child? I am glad they finally got back to more of a plot in this one - the first episode disappointed me for emotional reasons with the way Sherlock treated John, and the second episode was just lame the way they stuck little "mini-cases" throughout the episode. Finally, a consistent case throughout the episode - and with so much from the (granted, different) stories. I thought the Magnussen character was so consistent with the Milverton character from the book. I didn't like that Sherlock was the one to shoot him, but, given that, in the story, Sherlock wouldn't help Lestrade because he was glad Milverton was dead, it wasn't a stretch for me - especially given the Vow he made at the end of SoT. The real "ugh!" moment for me was when Moriarty was brought back. I thought it was ridiculous. Although I'm not convinced he's actually alive, given that no one's truly seen him. But if he is, and he comes back, I think it will demonstrate that the show is going downhill and the writers are quickly running out of ideas. And, I supremely agree with the person who talked about Sherlock and John's friendship being the top thing for me, and I don't like anyone to get in the way of it. Especially an assassin-wife who lies to the man she "loves" from the moment she meets him and then kills his best friend and doesn't apologize for it. I wonder how they're going to kill her off (since we know she died in the books - with no children).

Oh, it's more than well done, Carol - it is outstandingly superb!! The version I saw was with Benedict as the Dr. - he was amazing, as usual! But, I'll confess, I didn't know the story, other than the basic - Dr. Frankenstein creates a "monster." It was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen - from a philosophical and worldview standpoint, I mean. In today's world, I find thinking to be shallow at best, and most of the time, just sad. This was wall to wall solid meat and was made so much more powerful because of the incredible performances. Anyone who has the opportunity to see it - it's a must!

Oh, drat.

OH MY GOODNESS!! I'm so glad I scanned around on these various topics! This is going to be playing about an hour away from me THIS Sunday! For $15!! I had to quintuple check it to make sure it was correct (I mean, why is Benedict Cumberbatch playing in a performance for $15/ticket??). I wonder if there will be any possibility - at all - for pictures afterward...

In the scene toward the end of the show where everyone's in Baker St, Sherlock is on the phone with Mycroft and Mycroft is begging for Sherlock's help with something. Was this back to the Les Miserables thiing - Mycroft begging Sherlock to take their parents to the matinee? Or was it something else that we don't know about?

We'll never know. This is Sherlock. For all we can tell, he could be faking everything. But in that case, the character would become boring. Parts of him have to be genuine or else we'd lose interest and he would not be believable. No, I don't think he's a hundred percent sincere when he gets down on his knees and folds his hands and so on. But there's a sincere reason for it. He really wants to be forgiven and he does feel he's done something "not quite good". So he tries to play whatever part he thinks is expected of him to gain a certain end - and badly overdoes it, as usual. I love how he just can't find the right measure with things like this. No wonder John smelled a rat. I don't believe John fully fell for the whole thing, anyway. I guess he wasn't sure and just in case they were going to die, he decided to say whatever he wanted out before he'd never get the chance, thus realizing he had things to say in the first place. Now, THIS explanation makes a bit more sense to me! I can see Sherlock manipulating forgiveness out of John - the problem I had in the train scene was Sherlock laughing at John. However, after having mulled the episode over for 8 days now and having watched it again tonight, I can see how the humor "broke the ice" (although I don't know how Sherlock would've figured that out, since he doesn't understand these interpersonal type situations). John's quick acceptance of being laughed at - which also bothered me greatly at first - now, too, makes more sense. After all, imagine the emotional roller coaster John's been on for however long Sherlock's been back in this episode! (which must've been some time, since Sherlock was clearly in pain after "being beaten nearly to a pulp" and for the rest of the episode was fine) And now, he's bared his soul to Sherlock, they're in another adventure - just like old times - and he has his best friend back for real. I think it's sheer relief and he just wants to embrace life with Sherlock in the picture again and move on. I know coincidences have been mentioned quite a bit - coincidences in TEH & SOT - that, I agree, amount to bad, or at the very least, lazy writing. It's probably been mentioned here, but what if that train guy never went to see Sherlock? It's reiterated that there's no such thing as coincidence, but it sure is lucky, at the very least, that he went there!

Hello everyone - I'm new here - just wanted to get that out of the way! I had to post my thoughts, and I am very happy to see that a number of people share my feelings - especially about TEH! Overall, I am enormously disappointed with both episodes, but far moreso with TEH. I am a newcomer, relatively speaking to Sherlock Holmes. Not being a "mystery" fan, I'd not read the stories until I ran across this series. However, having read them more than once by now - and knowing what dedicated fans Gatiss and Moffat are to the stories, I simply cannot figure out what the deal was with Sherlock's cruel treatment of John in the train scene in TEH. Sherlock was mean to John throughout the episode, but the train scene was horrible. I felt that when John said, "If this is another one of your tricks..." that that was a setup (for the audience) as if Sherlock does these sort of "tricks" on a regular basis. I just didn't see that - at all - in the stories. Sure, Sherlock might get John in sticky situations in their adventures, but he'd never be intentionally cruel to John (yes, I know he's not really aware of others' feelings, etc., but he purposefully extracted that emotional confession from John and then laughed at him. The "real" Sherlock would never have been so awful to John, IMO). I also didn't like this new "funny" Sherlock. It's not him. I saw something with Gatiss & Moffat where they talked about Sherlock "growing" and "learning" in these areas of deficiency he has with human interaction. I could be wrong, but I simply don't recall that in the stories. Additionally, the episodes felt disjointed and chaotic to me with all of the jumping around they did. I was left with the impression that, perhaps Gatiss & Moffat felt the pressure of the enormous expectations that people now have of them with this show and that they "tried too hard" to make it "shinier" for lack of a better word. Another thing I completely didn't get was the scene with Mycroft and him in Baker street and that odd conversation about friendship and loneliness. With all that was going on in the episode, if they wanted to make the point - and an out of place one at that - that Sherlock sees the benefit of friendship and is encouraging Mycroft in that direction, did they have to take up so much time? After that scene was over, I was confused as to why it was there in the first place. (Plus, I love Sherlock, not Mycroft, so I don't like being reminded that Mycroft has "seven times the deductive powers" as Sherlock!) Finally, I seriously didn't appreciate the blatant mockery of the fans. The way they portrayed Anderson, plus all of the theories (and what Sherlock told him was simply a compilation of the more plausible ones) was uncalled for, I thought. It's true people go crazy over this show - I understand that. But do Gatiss & Moffat not understand whence comes their success in this? It's not generally advisable to bite the hand that feeds you. Of course there were things I liked - everything about the way Sherlock behaved / reacted with regards to his best man duties, of course the speech, the hug, him playing the violin for John & Mary (a piece which he composed and left for them on the music stand) - all that was within the normal "Sherlock" character (although I don't think his reaction to the bridesmaid was). I only hope "Vow" will be better. I have been really looking forward to this one, too! Depending on how closely they stick to the story. I'd love to have someone convince me that I'm incorrect in the way I'm reading all of the things I have problems with! This is what is so perplexing to me - because G & M know the characters (and stories) so well, I'm hoping I'm missing something - especially in the way Sherlock treated John in the first episode. Thanks for letting me spill!