Series 5 Rumors, Speculation, and Wish Lists

[T.o.b.y]

Never watched any Dr Who but with Sherlock, I am certainly glad they stopped when they did. For me, it was just in time, I could tell the show would go downhill if it was continued any further but for my taste, it was still good enough when it ended for me to be very happy with the finished product - and quite ecstatic to have a finished product at all after other series I loved just petered out or required me to eventually forget everything after a certain point.

 

So if they make a S5 at all or another special, it should definitely not happen before everyone involved really wants to do it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... if they make a S5 at all or another special, it should definitely not happen before everyone involved really wants to do it.

I agree. I can't imagine that it'd be much fun to watch a show that was made grudgingly.

 

But once they do reach the "hey, wouldn't it be fun" stage, they really do need to get their butts in gear!

[Alex the Dabbler]

Well, Mark Gatiss seems to think that Series 5 is at least two years away:

 

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-07-18/a-new-series-of-sherlock-is-even-longer-than-two-years-away-says-mark-gatiss

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

No big surprise!  Even if it weren't for the talk about "possibly the end," I'd be very surprised to see them start filming before 2019, more like 2020.  Though I'd have no objection to a 2020 "Tenth Anniversary Special."  :D

[elbafo]

I would prefer if they didn't make any more. I'm worried they'll make it worse. Moffat's touch with everything coming back to the supervillains is very much like what he did with DW. We're led to believe that it all has a higher meaning and they'll keep stringing the audience along because soon we'll understand that it's all been very clever and strategic, when really they're flying by the seat of their pants, adding jokes and gimmicks and then they're forced to make something meaningful out of the jokes and gimmicks. And Moffat never lets the dead stay dead. That seems to be his signature move.

 

If there was a fifth series, I love some standalone mysteries, not this overarching "clever trousers" plot. I'd love a writer who can write about real characters to come in, like my all-time favourite Sally Wainwright.

[T.o.b.y]

I would prefer if they didn't make any more. I'm worried they'll make it worse. Moffat's touch with everything coming back to the supervillains is very much like what he did with DW. We're led to believe that it all has a higher meaning and they'll keep stringing the audience along because soon we'll understand that it's all been very clever and strategic, when really they're flying by the seat of their pants, adding jokes and gimmicks and then they're forced to make something meaningful out of the jokes and gimmicks. And Moffat never lets the dead stay dead. That seems to be his signature move.

 

If there was a fifth series, I love some standalone mysteries, not this overarching "clever trousers" plot. I'd love a writer who can write about real characters to come in, like my all-time favourite Sally Wainwright.

While I agree that there has been more than enough returning from the dead, I actually really like story archs that cover more than one episode. I love it when it turns out in the end that all sorts of seemingly random events were connected (like the weird cases at the beginning of A Scandal in Belgravia all had to do with the flight of the dead or all of S1 led up to Moriarty). I don't even mind if things are made to fit retroactively because the writers didn't come up with an idea until later (Redbeard for example) as long as it all makes some kind of sense and they don't devalue what came before.

[Arcadia]

I think that's the problem though ... sometimes some people think they have devalued what came before. I'm afraid that's the way I feel about TRF; I used to find it brilliantly heartbreaking, but now I tend to view it with a bit of cynicism, knowing that Sherlock is lying his ass off the whole time just to fool John. Not that I can't see some of his emotion might be real, too, but it's so easy to see ... now ... how it might not be. Dang.

 

Right now, I'd love to see more ... I feel like there's so little of it as it is ... if I think of it as a TV show. If I think of it as a series of movies, there's been too many already. So I don't. :P

 

[T.o.b.y]

I only want more if it's good (duh) and if it doesn't spoil what we already have, specifically the ending.

 

That said, there are plenty of Doyle cases left I would love to see their take on. And I am still waiting for Sherlock to secretly buy up John's practice via Dr Verner and set him free from his tedious job because I think that's about the nicest thing the original Mr Holmes ever did.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... that's the way I feel about TRF; I used to find it brilliantly heartbreaking, but now I tend to view it with a bit of cynicism, knowing that Sherlock is lying his ass off the whole time just to fool John.

 

But when is he lying?  He may be glorifying things considerably in his later accounts.  And we don't even get much of those, do we?  I assume we can more or less believe what he tells John.

 

But as for what he tells Anderson -- did he even tell Anderson that?  Or was Anderson fantasizing?  Or was Sherlock lying his ass off, just to get even with Anderson?

 

An awful lot of things just don't jibe, so some details must be either made up or tweaked a bit, and we really have no idea which ones.  So I'd say, you're free to use TRF as a basis and extrapolate whatever suits you.

[Arcadia]

I wish I could, but I believe the "Anderson explanation" is the true one, so ... there you go. I'm doomed. :(

[Carol the Dabbler]

But it's not even self consistent! I do think it's close, but certain details (eg, how they dealt with John's assassin) just don't make sense within the overall plan.

[Arcadia]

It's consistent if you concede the whole point of the exercise was to fool John, and by extension, the audience. That's why it bothers me to the point of cynicism; it makes it seem like there was never any real peril, the Holmes brothers had it all covered before the plan was even set in motion. That's not what I want to think, but in my heart of hearts I believe that's the solution they have given us, and I can't get around it. 

 

I do like the idea that Sherlock was making it sound all perfectly worked out just to make himself look good, but I don't believe it. I still enjoy watching it; it's a well-constructed episode. But the emotional punch is gone ... for me.

[T.o.b.y]

There must have been a good degree of real peril to make all that planning necessary. I think we were just misled as to when the time of most danger was.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right.  I would certainly classify stepping off a four-story building as "peril."

[elbafo]

I think we as an audience are supposed to think these things are cleverer then they actually are. I now harbour a great deal of cynicism for the show. I think Mofftiss wrote themselves into a corner with Sherlock surviving the fall. Couldn't think of a genius way of explaining it, so just left it ambiguous. With John and Sherlock leaping out of the windows due to the explosion in TFP, they couldn't even be bothered making up a slightly plausible explanation as to how they walked away from it.

I love the show and have to keep reminding myself why I do. I find it best not to look at these holes too closely.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right. He's Sherlock Holmes, he's a genius, so we'll never understand how he does things, so there's no real point in explaining. Besides, it'd get in the way of the story. Reichenbach wasn't really about Sherlock surviving a four-story fall, it's about the face-off between Sherlock and Jim, and about the friendship between Sherlock and John.

 

Not that I plan to stop trying to figure things out! As for the window jump, maybe they landed on Speedy's awning. :D

[Arcadia]

For some reason the window jump doesn't bother me in the least, it's hyperbole, like Sherlock's mind palace, or his coat. Everything about the show is somewhat flamboyant, that's part of why I love it!

[T.o.b.y]

For some reason the window jump doesn't bother me in the least, it's hyperbole, like Sherlock's mind palace, or his coat. Everything about the show is somewhat flamboyant, that's part of why I love it!

Me too. In some ways, Sherlock is a bit of a superhero, I just find him a lot more interesting than, say, Captain America.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, at the risk of repeating myself, I've always thought this show owed more to fantasy than to detective fiction. Which is fine by me.

[T.o.b.y]

Yeah, at the risk of repeating myself, I've always thought this show owed more to fantasy than to detective fiction. Which is fine by me.

Oh, I think it owes most to Doyle. His stories weren't particularly realistic either.

[Carol the Dabbler]

For some reason the window jump doesn't bother me in the least, it's hyperbole, like Sherlock's mind palace, or his coat. Everything about the show is somewhat flamboyant, that's part of why I love it!

 

I've always thought this show owed more to fantasy than to detective fiction. Which is fine by me.

 

And yet -- you want to take Explanation to Anderson at face value?  ;)

[Arcadia]

Hey, I take Gandalf's explanation for his escape from Orthanc at face value too, as preposterous as it seems. :p

[T.o.b.y]

Hey, I take Gandalf's explanation for his escape from Orthanc at face value too, as preposterous as it seems. :p

:-D At least Gandalf can fill any holes in his narrative with "it was magic"...

[Arcadia]

And Sherlock just fills his by claiming everyone's a critic. :d

[Arcadia]

By the way, Sherlock's repeated assertion that "I don't really say that" when someone mentions "features of interest"; is that a thing in the books? I don't remember him ever using it in the show ....