Episode 3.1, "The Empty Hearse"

[Caya]

 

 As for the full English wedding -- in addition to changing her name, her accent, and her backstory, she may well have had extensive plastic surgery.

 

Possibly - but whatever she did, it didn't fool CAM. And even if she didn't know that it was him behind the crispy!John incident, she must've known that someone's got her number (literally, too, for she got sent that skip code). So publicly celebrating the union with the man who already came close to being roasted because of their association doesn't strike me as intelligent, and even less so as mindful of his well-being ... but of course, it's all about Mary first and foremost with her.

 

 

As someone has already pointed out, the coffee doesn't count, because Sherlock thought it was drugged.  But John's breakup with Sarah occurred between Series 1 and 2, and I don't recall any later mention of her other than Sherlock calling Janette "Sarah."  What's that about beer?  Did I miss an episode? 

 

The coffee was drugged indeed (and that is one thing I have a hard time forgiving Sherlock) but that wasn't my point; it was that John's reaction to it, "You don't have to keep apologising", meant that he recognized that (falsely so, but again, not the point) as one of Sherlock's customary attempts to make up after he'd done something stupid, so it seems that was the usual modus operandi at 221B. As for the beer, that's from the blog:

 

 

You never told me about Sarah.

Sherlock Holmes 02 May 15:17

You never even noticed I'd been to New Zealand.

 

John Watson 02 May 14:46

I went shopping earlier. There's some cans of beer in the fridge. Next to the feet.

Sherlock Holmes 02 May 16:50

John Watson 02 May 16:46

 

Note the time elapsed between 14:46 and 16:50. Sherlock realized he'd done something a bit not good, so he went out and got beer for John.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Ah, right! I remember having read that on the blog. Sweet, isn't it

[Arcadia]

I just watched this episode again last night, and noticed something ... leading up to the "reunion", the music punctuates a series of scenes by sounding a single, ominous note where you might not expect them to be:

 

1. When Sherlock cockily says "I can’t be seen to be wandering around with an old man." (Uh oh, watch it, Sherlock.)

2. When Mycroft says "Baker Street? He isn’t there any more." (Look out....)

3. When John finally realizes the waiter is Sherlock. (Warning, warning!!)

4. And finally when John slams his fist down on the table in the restaurant. (Dive! Dive! Dive!)

 

Then when the scene starts getting really heavy, they switch over to playing it for laughs, punctuating the action with the "jaunty Sherlock" theme.

 

It's little stuff like this that just makes me adore this show.

[by the sea]

 

  But I was thinking today, if maybe I just stop trying to make sense of things and just try to enjoy what is being presented, maybe then I can enjoy.  It did have some good stuff in it.  I'll definitely give that some more thought.

 

Amen to that, Pamela !  Sorry ... I think I might have started off this latest controversy.  Well, I'm not sorry really ... doing my Moriarty impression here  .  It's good to see people feel so passionate about all of this.  Not to get too personal,  but I live with an elderly person who is totally incapable of suspending disbelief ... every episode of every television show is roundly condemned for every single element that isn't true to life.  Fantasy, sci-fi, comic book fiction are all "stupid" and totally beyond her grasp.  Possibly as a defence mechanism, I've developed a strong interest in many things outside my daily routine ... space travel (on the Star Ship Enterprise), Harry Dresden, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sherlock's big, funny brain.  We've discussed this before when I noted that I was afraid my opinions were too shallow for some of the passionate people I've seen posting here.  But for me,  it's more important to enjoy the story, the wonderful acting, the great locations and the fun I have watching.  I don't want to dwell on a character's morality or lack of same.  I'm pleased there are people who can get so into it and find such thoughful stimulation from the stories and each new viewing brings more and more of the subtext to life but mostly, for myself,  I'm happy to simply suspend my disbelief and let the stories unfold.  

 

Debbie in Never Never Land !  

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I've developed a strong interest in many things outside my daily routine ... space travel (on the Star Ship Enterprise), Harry Dresden, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Sherlock's big, funny brain.  We've discussed this before when I noted that I was afraid my opinions were too shallow for some of the passionate people I've seen posting here.  But for me,  it's more important to enjoy the story, the wonderful acting, the great locations and the fun I have watching.  I don't want to dwell on a character's morality or lack of same.  I'm pleased there are people who can get so into it and find such thoughful stimulation from the stories and each new viewing brings more and more of the subtext to life but mostly, for myself,  I'm happy to simply suspend my disbelief and let the stories unfold.

 

 Agreed!  Can I join you in Never Never Land, Debbie?  Yes, I have had some problems with Season Three, but the more I watch and compare it with what I know of canon and the developing character of Sherlock, the more I am comfortable with this series and all the complexity of it.

 

 Despite what may be seen as plot holes, and I am going to have to admit that there are some....the Blind Banker for instance.....there is so many little details like the way music is used, that I can't help but have hope that Season Four will take care of some of the questions raised by Season Three. I am keeping my fingers crossed on that.

[T.o.b.y]

 We've discussed this before when I noted that I was afraid my opinions were too shallow for some of the passionate people I've seen posting here.

 

Shallow? Oh, come on, we're only rambling on about a silly little television show, not the state of the nation! Jump right in if you feel like it!

 

As for being civil to one another, it would be pretty pathetic if we weren't, considering the above mentioned significance of what it is we are discussing, wouldn't it? I mean, sure, I am a bit gaga over Sherlock and spend way more time watching that series, thinking about it and discussing it here than most people would consider normal or healthy, but I'd never go so far as to hate anybody because of it!

 

Since Empty Hearse seems to have plunked lots of holes into Reichenbach Fall, I haven't had the nerve to go back and watch RF for a really long time

Neither have I! To be honest, I haven't dared to watch any of series 1 and 2 since I saw 3, because I know I like the old episodes better and I'm afraid that if I remind myself just how much better, all the appreciation of series 3 that I have slowly developed will evaporate in discontent. Yes, I know this is more than a little silly.

 

There is so much melodrama in the new ones. That wasn't there before, was it? The fire, exhibit A. My heart loves it (it's the same heart that loves Dickens novels, so small wonder), but my brain scoffs. And it didn't use to be that way with "Sherlock". During series 1, especially, it was all so subtle and constrained. But I guess it couldn't stay that way for ever. And Moffat is right when he says that it actually makes more sense for a brilliant person like Sherlock to mature and learn.

 

Of course, the melodramatic elements are very true to Doyle's stories. It's merely an aspect of them they left out before.

 

[Arcadia]

As one of the people who may have -- ahem -- gotten a little heavy into the "morality" of the stories, I hope you understand I'm just exploring the aspects of the story that intrigue/confuse/enlighten me ... and I enjoy it when someone out there is willing to bat ideas around with me. But I don't think poorly of people who choose not to respond; heck, I only respond to a few topics myself. Anyway, I hope I haven't offended anyone but I know sometimes what excites one person can annoy another... 

 

I would go so far to say that ALL my favorite entertainment provokes controversy, or at least dialogue, of one kind or another; apparently I'm drawn to that kind of thing. (OMG....)

 

But what I really enjoy about Sherlock is simply the quality of this show. The acting especially, but really, everything about it is just so well done. The cinematography, for example ... sheer brilliance. I'm not an expert on any of these things but I think I've seen enough TV to know when I'm being treated to something special (the first episode of "Lost" comes to mind, for instance) and with "Sherlock" we get that in spades. Even the plot holes are intriguing! Well ... some of them. Oh, and I mustn't forget to mention the delights of that little stray curl bouncing around on the back of Mr. Cumberbatch's neck....

[by the sea]

Oh, and I mustn't forget to mention the delights of that little stray curl bouncing around on the back of Mr. Cumberbatch's neck....

 

Isn't that adorable ?   And the hair fluff when he takes off the Bearskin !     

 

Debbie

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or the hair fluff after he crashed through the window and just before he kisses Molly?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Since Empty Hearse seems to have plunked lots of holes into Reichenbach Fall, I haven't had the nerve to go back and watch RF for a really long time, although I've re-watched everything else multiple times (except BB).  But I was thinking today, if maybe I just stop trying to make sense of things and just try to enjoy what is being presented, maybe then I can enjoy.  It did have some good stuff in it.  I'll definitely give that some more thought.

I've been saying that for some time now with regard to "The Blind Banker," but the other Series 1 and 2 episodes generally seemed to stand up pretty well to scrutiny. Now I'm not so sure. The "ha-ha we fooled you" disconnect between Series 2 and 3 requires some sort of special treatment, but I'm uncertain whether the best approach is to continue trying to make sense of everything (which did eventually work with "Hounds"), or just give up and enjoy it scene by scene.

 

I wonder how the scene between Sherlock and John in Baker Street would have unfolded if John had got to speak with Sherlock when he first approached 221b, but instead was drugged, kidnapped, and put in the fire. I guess they would still, eventually, have worked things out between them, but I think the tension and awkwardness had been even worse prior to Sherlock resquing John.

Good question. And I keep wondering why the kidnappers hung back for so long. If John had indeed walked right up to the door and let himself in as usual, they'd have missed him altogether. Which would have been fine by me, regardless of the interesting scene that follows. I hate seeing John always being the victim (much like the Lone Ranger's faithful Indian companion Tonto).

 

... whatever she did, it didn't fool CAM. And even if she didn't know that it was him behind the crispy!John incident, she must've known that someone's got her number (literally, too, for she got sent that skip code). So publicly celebrating the union with the man who already came close to being roasted because of their association doesn't strike me as intelligent, and even less so as mindful of his well-being ... but of course, it's all about Mary first and foremost with her.

True, and I concede your main point. (But I'm going to reserve judgement on Mary's possible attitude and/or motive till we know more about her.)

 

The coffee was drugged indeed ... but that wasn't my point; it was that John's reaction to it, "You don't have to keep apologising".... As for the beer, that's from the blog: <snip> Sherlock realized he'd done something a bit not good, so he went out and got beer for John.

OK, I see. Thanks. Not sure how far to believe the blog, but in this case it does seem to corroborate and amplify what we've seen in the episodes. 

 

... for me,  it's more important to enjoy the story, the wonderful acting, the great locations and the fun I have watching.  I don't want to dwell on a character's morality or lack of same.  I'm pleased there are people who can get so into it and find such thoughful stimulation from the stories and each new viewing brings more and more of the subtext to life but mostly, for myself,  I'm happy to simply suspend my disbelief and let the stories unfold.  

 

That's always been my favorite approach, Debbie.  (I never even noticed the plot holes in "Blind Banker" till I read a parody.)  I also enjoy minor nitpicking.  But I really can't "get into" morality analysis.  If I like a character, I tend to assume they have a reason for their actions, just as I would with real-life friends.  If I get all worked up over fictional motives, the show is no fun for me.

 

[Caya]

 

Good question. And I keep wondering why the kidnappers hung back for so long. If John had indeed walked right up to the door and let himself in as usual, they'd have missed him altogether. Which would have been fine by me, regardless of the interesting scene that follows. I hate seeing John always being the victim (much like the Lone Ranger's faithful Indian companion Tonto).

 

Well in A Study in Pink (and even more so in the unaired pilot), it was John who saved Sherlock. But I fully agree, more of that would be nice.

[T.o.b.y]

  But I really can't "get into" morality analysis.  If I like a character, I tend to assume they have a reason for their actions, just as I would with real-life friends.  If I get all worked up over their motives, the show is no fun for me.

 

 

I have to admit I kind of love "morality issues" because I never think about them of my own accord and I find other people's views on them terribly interesting. They don't seem to affect my enjoyment of the story, though, or my sympathies for its protagonists. Most of what Sherlock does is I guess morally wrong, but I love him anyway. (I love it when Mrs Hudson says "Sherlock" in her affectionate way, dragging the name out as long as possible with a fond sigh. It's exactly how I feel about this character.)

 

As for John having to be the damsel in distress, I don't mind that at all, but I am curious where the idea came from. It doesn't happen too often in the original stories. There were plenty of clients there to get in danger. And more often than not, it was Holmes who had to be pulled out of some critical situation by his biographer. He would have died a lot of deaths without him, come to think of it...

 

Perhaps we wouldn't care so much about a client, who is usually only there for one episode. If they want a situation to really get to us, I guess they have to endanger John or Sherlock. Mrs Hudson will do in a pinch. And I guess they haven't targeted Molly much because it would be too much of a stereotype to have her rescued by Sherlock.

 

 

 

[Pamela]

Speaking of Sherlock's hair (okay, it's been awhile, but still ...), is it a wig or does he grow it for each series?  Anyone know?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, what I actually meant was specifically "kidnapping victim" -- by force, threat of force, or trickery.  It's gotten to be quite the cliche in this show.  Let's see --

 

"Study in Pink" -- Mycroft and his magic telephones

 

"Blind Banker" -- abduction by pizza delivery

 

"Great Game" -- the pool scene

 

"Scandal" -- Irene posing as Mycroft

 

"Hounds" -- John as lab rat

 

"Reichenbach" -- Mycroft and his magic bank machine

 

"Empty Hearse" -- toasty!John  (love the phrase, if not the situation)

 

"Sign of Three" -- good heavens, an entire episode with no kidnapping?

 

"Last Vow" -- can I count "let me flick your face"?

 

Have I forgotten any?  (I'm pretty sure there was one episode where he was actually kidnapped twice.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Speaking of Sherlock's hair (okay, it's been awhile, but still ...), is it a wig or does he grow it for each series?  Anyone know?

 

 

He grows it.  And complains about it (thinks it looks kinda girly).  But it's not his natural color (which is sort of a light auburn), so he has to dye it.

[Pamela]

 

Speaking of Sherlock's hair (okay, it's been awhile, but still ...), is it a wig or does he grow it for each series?  Anyone know?

 

 

He grows it.  And complains about it (thinks it looks kinda girly).  But it's not his natural color (which is sort of a light auburn), so he has to dye it.

 

Thanks, Carol!

[sherlockandjohn]

Sorry, what I actually meant was specifically "kidnapping victim" -- by force, threat of force, or trickery.  It's gotten to be quite the cliche in this show.  Let's see --

 

"Study in Pink" -- Mycroft and his magic telephones

 

"Blind Banker" -- abduction by pizza delivery

 

"Great Game" -- the pool scene

 

"Scandal" -- Irene posing as Mycroft

 

"Hounds" -- John as lab rat

 

"Reichenbach" -- Mycroft and his magic bank machine

 

"Empty Hearse" -- toasty!John  (love the phrase, if not the situation)

 

"Sign of Three" -- good heavens, an entire episode with no kidnapping?

 

"Last Vow" -- can I count "let me flick your face"?

 

Have I forgotten any?  (I'm pretty sure there was one episode where he was actually kidnapped twice.)

 

John does seem to be painted as the damsel in distress often... but I hadn't really thought about it. I see your point now. Yeah, I definitely want a "stronger" John in the next series.

 

Can we count him being "abducted" by the police in TBB after Sherlock and Raz ditch him?

 

[by the sea]

 

 

Speaking of Sherlock's hair (okay, it's been awhile, but still ...), is it a wig or does he grow it for each series?  Anyone know?

 

 

He grows it.  And complains about it (thinks it looks kinda girly).  But it's not his natural color (which is sort of a light auburn), so he has to dye it.

 

Thanks, Carol!

 

 

And I've noticed in any interviews I've seen when Mr. C is not in Sherlock mode, his hair is flat ... and not the fluffy, curly tresses of his character.  So, I imagine it takes a little effort on the part of the company stylist to keep it in the style we all love so much.   So maybe he doesn't appreciate the fuss of it.  Could be a nuisance trying to do your job when sombody is running after you with the hair spray !   

 

Debbie

[Carol the Dabbler]

John does seem to be painted as the damsel in distress often... but I hadn't really thought about it. I see your point now. Yeah, I definitely want a "stronger" John in the next series.

 

Can we count him being "abducted" by the police in TBB after Sherlock and Raz ditch him?

Right, that's another one (and not the one I'm trying to think of, either).  I wouldn't count the arrest as such, more the fact that Sherlock and Raz threw him to the wolves.

 

I do not consider John to be weak.  On the contrary, I think of him as very strong, brave, and competent.  It's just that (and I know this sounds ridiculous) everyone picks on him.  Even people who are supposedly on his side.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Oh, I don't consider him to be weak either. That's why I put "stronger" in inverted commas. I just mean that he is often the victim, and does not often get to show off like Sherlock does. But there are moments... like shooting the cabbie in ASiP, or saving the guardsman in TSo3. No, I'm not going to mention him spraining Bill's arm in HLV, which I know a lot of people find, in Mary's words, a tiny bit sexy. I had no problem with him doing it, but I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

But, even when he's a victim he can stand up for himself and Sherlock, like in the pool scene.

[Carol the Dabbler]

No argument there.

 

But it really has gotten to be a cliche.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Sorry, what I actually meant was specifically "kidnapping victim" -- by force, threat of force, or trickery.  It's gotten to be quite the cliche in this show.  Let's see --

 

"Study in Pink" -- Mycroft and his magic telephones

 

"Blind Banker" -- abduction by pizza delivery

 

"Great Game" -- the pool scene

 

"Scandal" -- Irene posing as Mycroft

 

"Hounds" -- John as lab rat

 

"Reichenbach" -- Mycroft and his magic bank machine

 

"Empty Hearse" -- toasty!John  (love the phrase, if not the situation)

 

"Sign of Three" -- good heavens, an entire episode with no kidnapping?

 

"Last Vow" -- can I count "let me flick your face"?

 

Have I forgotten any?  (I'm pretty sure there was one episode where he was actually kidnapped twice.)

 

Now that you put it that way... It is quite a list!

 

But if John does have to be the victim in many, many situations, he also has one huge privilege: He is, to date, always in the right. John never seems to mess up, never seems to do anything that would warrant an apology. Personally, I think the way they wrote him and the way he's played, he has some serious emotional issues, but in all, he's "the good guy", much more so than Sherlock.

 

It would be interesting to see John do something wrong for a change. Of course, I don't approve of the way he finally handled Mary's past, but the story tells me I should, so that doesn't count.

 

I'm actually kind of glad that it is John who has to bear the brunt of whatever the villains (or his best friend) are up to. John seems resilient; seeing him in peril doesn't break my heart and strain my nerves quite so much as it would with more vulnerable characters. For example, I know Sherlock is strong and capable as well, but if they did the same with him, I'd be sitting on the edge of my chair all the time, biting my fingernails and fighting the urge to try and reach inside the screen to save him. It was bad enough when the Americans had a go at Mrs Hudson in A Scandal in Belgravia. Man, did I get angry there. Thank goodness Sherlock did too and balance was rapidly restored to the universe...

 

By the way, I absolutely love Sherlock's blatant outrage when things like that happen. He belies his own principles there, of course: Caring for them does help save people!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It may be more or less John's own fault anyway. Sherlock is a consulting detective. He solves crimes that get people arrested and thrown into prison. There are any number of people on any given day just planning ways to get pay back on Sherlock. What better way then to keep nabbing the only person who has either the courage or the stupidity to hang around Sherlock. Especially since John does hang around means that Sherlock actually likes him so he must supply some kind of leverage if he can be used.

[T.o.b.y]

It may be more or less John's own fault anyway.

 

Good thing John is fictional and can't read that... Remember: "Why is everything always my fault?" Poor John.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

   Oh dear lord, T.o.b.y.....you are ssssooooo right.