Episode 3.2, "The Sign of Three"

[T.o.b.y]

Actually, heresy here, but TSoT is my least favorite of the season three episodes.  I seem to be making a couple of "no emoting" posts this morning, and I promise I'm not really that cold.  But for some reason, TSoT is a bit too emotional for me; it seems like the amount of emotion the two men express throughout the thing is just a little out of their normal characters, and I find that uncomfortable from male protagonists.  But since I started viewing the episode as part of HLV, I've liked it better.  As a stand-alone, I still have problems.  

 

You know, if I'd had been shown just the script for The Sign of Three, I'd have torn it up and spat on it. My brain totally agrees with you. But my heart doesn't. When I saw this episode, something went click inside me, my defenses went down and the story just punched me right in the gut.

 

In my opinion, it shouldn't work, but it does.

 

I'm not very good a being rational about this episode, but maybe the fact that there's a wedding going on is an adequate excuse for why our boys become, temporarily, a bit more emotionally honest. Getting married forces you to think about and deal with feelings and love, not just towards your spouse, but your whole family as well. I don't habitually hug everybody I'm close to and tell them just how much I appreciate them and how thankful I am for all they've done for me, but at my wedding, there was an awful lot of that going on (no wonder I had a migraine the next day).

 

Then, the scenes where we see that kind of honesty are all about "prepared words". Sherlock worked on his speech for months, it seems, and John probably had all the tube ride to Baker St to think about how he wanted to ask Sherlock to be best man. It's not their usual spontaneous interaction.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'll have to try thinking of S3 in that way and see if it helps things to jell in my mind.  But I suspect I'd have to think of it as Acts 1-3 of a 4-act play.

 

Act 4 being whatever you can think up to resolve 1-3?

 

More like whatever Moftiss think up.  I can guess all I want (and probably will), but I'm not Moftiss (just as glad, actually), so they're bound to come up with something different.

 

I'm not very good a being rational about this episode, but maybe the fact that there's a wedding going on is an adequate excuse for why our boys become, temporarily, a bit more emotionally honest. Getting married forces you to think about and deal with feelings and love, not just towards your spouse, but your whole family as well. <snip> Then, the scenes where we see that kind of honesty are all about "prepared words". Sherlock worked on his speech for months, it seems, and John probably had all the tube ride to Baker St to think about how he wanted to ask Sherlock to be best man. It's not their usual spontaneous interaction.

... and on top of all that, they're both out of their bailiwick. Crime solving, fine. Getting shot at, kidnapped, poisoned, fine. But dealing with the formalities and traditions of a wedding -- fish out of water!

[Arcadia]

If it's any consolation, TSo3 wasn't high on my list of favorite episodes at first, either. I'm not very good at following convoluted storylines, for one thing (Tinker Tailor almost did me in) -- so it took multiple viewings before I could begin to unravel all the layers. At which point I started to love the cursed thing and now I think it's one of their best. (I like Moffat's description: "most audacious.") Go figure.

[sittything]

The Sign of Three has definitely grown on me the more I watch it.  Initially I didn't care for it all that much;  at the time it seemed "fluffy" to me and somewhat out of character to the overall feel of the show.

[Arcadia]

The Sign of Three has definitely grown on me the more I watch it.  Initially I didn't care for it all that much;  at the time it seemed "fluffy" to me and somewhat out of character to the overall feel of the show.

Yes, it does! And I think that's another reason I love it ... you don't expect it. It expands what you think Sherlock (the show) is. It plays around with convention in ways the scripts didn't before.

 

Also, I think I love it because we get to see a broader range of Benedict's acting chops. I like to think of this and HLV as the writer's gift to BC; here, son, ya done good, now we're going to win you an Emmy. And they did. (And Martin too, altho he's so freakin' good he could probably win an Emmy if he just sat there and made faces at the camera.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

If it's any consolation, TSo3 wasn't high on my list of favorite episodes at first, either. I'm not very good at following convoluted storylines, for one thing (Tinker Tailor almost did me in) -- so it took multiple viewings before I could begin to unravel all the layers. At which point I started to love the cursed thing and now I think it's one of their best. (I like Moffat's description: "most audacious.") Go figure.

 

Odd.  Even though I likewise found this episode a tad bit "fluffy" at first, I've never had trouble following the flow.  It's structured like good software -- one main plot line (the wedding), with explicit side trips to flashbacks, after each of which we return to the main plot line.

 

By contrast, I'm still puzzled by one part of "Empty Hearse" -- when did Sherlock's conversation with Anderson really happen?  (Or did it?)  And I'm so bewildered by the timeline of "Last Vow" that I don't even know where to start asking.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I received my copy of Sherlock Chronicles the other day, and while I haven't actually read it through yet, I have skimmed a bit.  The Deleted Scenes (quotes from the original scripts) are interesting, such as these two from "Sign of Three":
 

Sherlock:  Oh, Mike Stamford you mean?  Nice fella, not sure he'd handle all the --
 
John:  Mike's great, he's not my best friend.
 
Sherlock:  . . . your Mum?
 
John:  Is dead, and a woman.
 
Sherlock:  Dead?  I was talking to someone's Mum, wasn't that yours?

 
Just as glad they omitted those couple of lines -- now John's Mum is free to be alive.  Who knows, she might even turn up in an episode.
 

Sherlock, completely blotto, in the middle of a bar fight with a pissed up thug.  He's pointing at the thug's hoodie and yelling.
 
Sherlock:  Listen, I'm telling you -- on your ... hoodie.  That's ash from a Marlboro light!
 
Thug:  I never smoke lights.  Girls' fags!
 
Sherlock (yelling):  I know ash!  Don't tell me I don't!

 
Which ought to settle a few discussions about what Sherlock is actually saying there.

 

[Arcadia]

I received my copy of Sherlock Chronicles the other day, and while I haven't actually read it through yet, I have skimmed a bit.  The Deleted Scenes (quotes from the original scripts) are interesting, such as these two from "Sign of Three":

 

Sherlock:  Oh, Mike Stamford you mean?  Nice fella, not sure he'd handle all the --

 

John:  Mike's great, he's not my best friend.

 

Sherlock:  . . . your Mum?

 

John:  Is dead, and a woman.

 

Sherlock:  Dead?  I was talking to someone's Mum, wasn't that yours?

 

Just as glad they omitted those couple of lines -- now John's Mum is free to be alive.  Who knows, she might even turn up in an episode.

 

On the other hand "Is dead, and a woman" is a really funny line....

[Redbeard]

That is funny, and so is Sherlock response.  It reminds me of his line when he says "Might not be peas.  Might not be him.  But he's got a great singing voice.  Or somebody does."  I love how he fails to remember all these details about his friends.  Just a vague sense of something once told him about themselves lol. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, to be fair to the dear boy, he's just a tad distracted at the time!

[T.o.b.y]

I received my copy of Sherlock Chronicles the other day, and while I haven't actually read it through yet, I have skimmed a bit.  The Deleted Scenes (quotes from the original scripts) are interesting, such as these two from "Sign of Three":

 

Sherlock:  Oh, Mike Stamford you mean?  Nice fella, not sure he'd handle all the --

 

John:  Mike's great, he's not my best friend.

 

Sherlock:  . . . your Mum?

 

John:  Is dead, and a woman.

 

Sherlock:  Dead?  I was talking to someone's Mum, wasn't that yours?

 

 

Oh, I wish they'd kept that in. Sherlock suggesting John's mother as best man and not knowing she isn't alive any more, that would have been so - Sherlock.

 

I love how Sherlock isn't sure Mike Stamford would be able to handle the duties of being best man. As opposed to himself, for example.

[sfmpco]

 

If it's any consolation, TSo3 wasn't high on my list of favorite episodes at first, either. I'm not very good at following convoluted storylines, for one thing (Tinker Tailor almost did me in) -- so it took multiple viewings before I could begin to unravel all the layers. At which point I started to love the cursed thing and now I think it's one of their best. (I like Moffat's description: "most audacious.") Go figure.

 

Odd.  Even though I likewise found this episode a tad bit "fluffy" at first, I've never had trouble following the flow.  It's structured like good software -- one main plot line (the wedding), with explicit side trips to flashbacks, after each of which we return to the main plot line.

 

By contrast, I'm still puzzled by one part of "Empty Hearse" -- when did Sherlock's conversation with Anderson really happen?  (Or did it?)  And I'm so bewildered by the timeline of "Last Vow" that I don't even know where to start asking.

 

 

I don't any problem with the timeline in HLV.

 

I often wonder about the whole rooftop setup in TEH and who made the fake call to John to pull him out of the labs?  And was Sherlock biding his time on the roof partly to wait for John to return?  What if John hadn't returned as quickly?  How long did Sherlock have before he had to jump?  I mean, how long would the shooters have waited?  I do love that Sherlock admits he has lots of the Belstaff coats!  His armor, his security.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't any problem with the timeline in HLV.

That's because you've already worked it out in meticulous detail.     Which I'm guessing you would not have felt the need to do if it had been instantly clear to you on first viewing.

 

As for the "Reichenbach" details, yeah, there's a lot left unexplained.  I guess real life is like that, though.  People never explain every little thing -- except for times when you really couldn't care less!

 

[Boton]

 

I don't any problem with the timeline in HLV.

That's because you've already worked it out in meticulous detail.     Which I'm guessing you would not have felt the need to do if it had been instantly clear to you on first viewing.

 

As for the "Reichenbach" details, yeah, there's a lot left unexplained.  I guess real life is like that, though.  People never explain every little thing -- except for times when you really couldn't care less!

 

 

 

What gives you the issues with the timeline, Carol?  Is it the flip-flopping back and forth between 221B and Christmas, or is it what to do with the missing six months?  

 

I didn't have any problem with the timeline of HLV on first viewing, although I've changed my mind on just a few points to allow for us to have not seen a few more possible events.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Mostly the flip-flopping, I guess -- and not just between 221B and Christmas, there's also Leinster Gardens and the restaurant scene with CAM, and maybe some others -- though the missing months don't help much either.

 

As I mentioned before, I have no trouble following the flashbacks in "Sign of Three" because they're all nicely introduced as such.  But "Last Vow" is such a hodge-podge!

 

[Boton]

Mostly the flip-flopping, I guess -- and not just between 221B and Christmas, there's also Leinster Gardens and the restaurant scene with CAM, and maybe some others -- though the missing months don't help much either.

 

As I mentioned before, I have no trouble following the flashbacks in "Sign of Three" because they're all nicely introduced as such.  But "Last Vow" is such a hodge-podge!

 

Yeah, I can see that.  For whatever reason, I've always been able to keep the elements in chronological order, regardless how they were introduced, but I do tend to vacillate on when on the calendar I think certain events take place (other than Christmas, of course!).  But that's the fun of it for me -- I've got my head canon, and it works, and it doesn't have to match up exactly with anyone else's for the plot to still hang together.

[sittything]

I've never really considered the time-frames on episodes... I'm more like OK X happened and then some amount of time later Y happened, and oh hey!  Now it's Christmas!   

[T.o.b.y]

I've never really considered the time-frames on episodes... I'm more like OK X happened and then some amount of time later Y happened, and oh hey!  Now it's Christmas!   

 

Mhm, I am more or less the same way. Which I why I rarely notice inconsistencies in that area.

 

I think neither The Sign of Three nor His Last Vow are hard to follow. I'm trying to decide right now which episode of Sherlock I think is the most confusing. Probably The Hounds of Baskerville. No, The Reichenbach Fall, of course. That one still breaks my brain. More than ever.

[Arcadia]

Most confusing sequence of events, you mean? I agree, Reichenbach, but only after seeing TEH. I thought I had a pretty good handle on the sequence until the "explanation." Now I don't know what the heck I think! Plan to sit down for a good attentive viewing again soon.

Emotionally confusing, however: Scandal.

For some reason I have no trouble with the time jumps in HLV, except for wrapping my head around the idea that Sherlock was apparently in the hospital for several months(?????) Why didn't he go insane?

[T.o.b.y]

Most confusing sequence of events, you mean? I agree, Reichenbach, but only after seeing TEH. I thought I had a pretty good handle on the sequence until the "explanation." Now I don't know what the heck I think! Plan to sit down for a good attentive viewing again soon.

 

Emotionally confusing, however: Scandal.

 

For some reason I have no trouble with the time jumps in HLV, except for wrapping my head around the idea that Sherlock was apparently in the hospital for several months(?????) Why didn't he go insane?

 

He probably drove the staff insane instead. I can imagine Sherlock would be the patient from hell.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've got my head canon, and it works, and it doesn't have to match up exactly with anyone else's for the plot to still hang together.

Most of Sherlock is like that, isn't it?  We each have our own private little version -- which makes perfect sense until we try to discuss an episode with another fan.

 

I've never really considered the time-frames on episodes... I'm more like OK X happened and then some amount of time later Y happened, and oh hey!  Now it's Christmas!

 

But see, that's the problem -- the events in "Last Vow" are almost certainly NOT in chronological order.  I don't worry too much about elapsed time, but it's not at all clear to me what order the scenes belong in.

 

He probably drove the staff insane instead. I can imagine Sherlock would be the patient from hell.

 

Whoever said "Doctors make the worst patients" never had Sherlock on their ward!

[sfmpco]

Yup, he would have been the worst patient ever, but I think he got a dose of humble pie after collapsing at 221B.  Superior intellect, normal body that is subject to failure like any other human being.

[sfmpco]

What we do know about time gaps, however, is that Sherlock has returned to Britain near Guy Fawkes day (Nov. 5), so probably in October, and then there is a reference at the end when Mary says she's looking at a spring/May wedding.

 

Then in TSOT the shot of the wedding invitation says May 18, so there were new adventures between Nov. 5 and May 18 - just about 6.5 months.  

 

I still have issues with how far along in her pregnancy was Mary at the wedding?  If she was 1 month, let's speculate, then she would have been 8-1/2 months at Christmas and likely ready to pop when seeing SH off on the plane at the end of HLV.  But she doesn't look ready to pop.  So that bugs me a bit.  Her child should have been born in January.

[Boton]

What we do know about time gaps, however, is that Sherlock has returned to Britain near Guy Fawkes day (Nov. 5), so probably in October, and then there is a reference at the end when Mary says she's looking at a spring/May wedding.

 

Then in TSOT the shot of the wedding invitation says May 18, so there were new adventures between Nov. 5 and May 18 - just about 6.5 months.  

 

I still have issues with how far along in her pregnancy was Mary at the wedding?  If she was 1 month, let's speculate, then she would have been 8-1/2 months at Christmas and likely ready to pop when seeing SH off on the plane at the end of HLV.  But she doesn't look ready to pop.  So that bugs me a bit.  Her child should have been born in January.

 

I'm no judge of pregnancy, but I do think Mary looks ready to pop on the tarmac.  But I agree that she has to be one month or less pregnant -- just newly caught.  She can't have had any, um, "clues" so that Sherlock's deduction is even cooler.  Creepier, but cooler.

[Boton]

Yup, he would have been the worst patient ever, but I think he got a dose of humble pie after collapsing at 221B.  Superior intellect, normal body that is subject to failure like any other human being.

 

Sometimes, I wonder.  I mean, that's kind of the direction my head canon goes too -- that he really found out his limits with that experience.  But, since they showed us nothing, it's always possible that he made it through the intervening months being a total PITA and learning absolutely nothing.