# Sherlock Series 4



## Bungle73 (Jul 29, 2016)




----------



## Black Halo (Jul 29, 2016)

Looking forward to it but were the title cards necessary? "Hey in case you didn't guess the danger in the new Sherlock is Srs Bsns" They read like a billboard for one of those books where the author's name is bigger than the title.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 29, 2016)

I hope this is just the opening episode and that the other two are more basic Homes & Watson Investigate stories. Too much bombast.


----------



## moonsi til (Jan 1, 2017)

Tonight at 8.30pm


----------



## Maggot (Jan 1, 2017)

Looking forward to this.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 1, 2017)

Been killing time for the last 40 minutes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 1, 2017)

it was crap


----------



## binka (Jan 1, 2017)

Just watched it for the first time since the first series. Found it a bit dull and don't think it's half as clever as the writers think it is. 

When she did one if she was going to random destinations how did she end up somewhere with a dodgy brick in the wall with a false id behind it? 

And why did he invite them along to the final confrontation at the aquarium? It all seemed very unnecessary


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 1, 2017)

no one very likeable in it - they're all dicks
and i don't buy this mercenary business.
and now i can't catch up on S3, which I must have missed. damn


----------



## TruXta (Jan 1, 2017)

Fucking shit.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 1, 2017)

I nodded off for the second 30 mins and missed all the crucial exposition 

Back to regular cases, please.


----------



## gosub (Jan 2, 2017)

Meh.  Gone from something i looked forward to, to something I don't mind this is the last series. 


 At least when Happy Days did sharks, you had the Fonz on waterskis


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

And the Watson extra marital crap was just wrong...so out of character.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 2, 2017)

Spoiler: Do wee need to do spoilers? It's not been officially cleared?!



Pretty crap storyline, just filler to crowbar the device for Mary to leave. I assume they'll be back on track for the next 2 episodes.

Way too much time misfiring on stupid and pointless subplots that went nowhere. I can't imagine this was how they would want S4 to start 2 years ago- we've had all that time waiting on baited breath the return of the uber villain - (who's a bit shit to focus on - all versions of Sherlock suffer in this regards, not dissimilar to Simpsons Treehouse of horrors AND obvs he's been killed twice in sherlock and by Daniel Craig-ish) ...BUT if you use that as your cliffhanger, you can't essentially drop it in act one, or you need to explain a bit of a shark jump.

(This all sounds Tabloid gossipy dickheadery, but hasn't Martin Freeman and Mary split up irl? Maybe she wanted out or summat? )

Tho I thought I was paying attention (moreso than usual ), but not sure if the elongated 2nd third lost my interest, I didn't actually realise the woman at the end was the minute taker (until he mentioned how he knew she was bored and why) 

I'll always watch it, as I'm a whopping fanboy of all things SH, I LOVE the production values and the dialogue teeters juuuust before it gets overly smug and stylised. But yeah, was a shit episode. It also had lots of Lestrade and Mycroft - a chasm in quality and delivery relative (behind!) to the rest of the cast IMO.

Also, they do tuck themselves into corners about spooks and villians, making out every episode baddie is worst thing that's ever lived...Until the next one. I wish they'd move away from "issues of national/international importance".


----------



## Shirl (Jan 2, 2017)

I didn't like Mrs Watson being killed and especially when they copied Kylie's dying in his arms speech from Corrie


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jan 2, 2017)

Glad she's gone. Terrible actress in my opinion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 2, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Glad she's gone. Terrible actress in my opinion.


They're all actors these days


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 2, 2017)

mwgdrwg said:


> Glad she's gone. Terrible actress in my opinion.



I thought she was brilliant - her character was the problem. When they went out on a mission yesterday as a 3 some (didn't they take the baby too?) I was fully googling the Points of View address. Its fucking Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. You don't add in some 3rd fucking wheel


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

As I mentioned earlier, I must have missed the episode(s) where it's revealed she's a former spook/mercenary. I thought she was a nurse or something. but it didn't ring true at all (which i suppose is a daft thing to say as none of it is exactly plausible)


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 2, 2017)

It's hinted at in The Abominable Bride (S3E2), then confirmed in last one about the paper magnate (S3E3) (His Last Vow?). Which, coincidently, would probably be my current favourite (Bride - the speech was lols), and worst (Why don't they just shoot the newspaper guy?).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 2, 2017)

Well, I enjoyed it. I love how many references to stories from the books they cram in, the style of it if, the dialogue, everything really.


----------



## RubyToogood (Jan 2, 2017)

So clearly Watson's extramarital gf is also going to be an assassin, or working for Moriarty or something.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 2, 2017)

RubyToogood said:


> So clearly Watson's extramarital gf is also going to be an assassin, or working for Moriarty or something.


I kinda hope not. It would be much better if they just left it as it was - a glimpse that he's not so perfect as we thought, he has flaws just like everyone else.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2017)

I've not been a Sherlock regular at all, and I've missed many more episodes than I've caught. 

But I was fine with last night's. I'm with beesonthewhatnow -- both his posts


----------



## editor (Jan 2, 2017)

I thought it was pretty poor. Much prefer the Jeremy Brett version of that story.


----------



## Voley (Jan 2, 2017)

I enjoyed it too. I can't really remember what happened at the end of the last one but it didn't seem to matter much. It didn't have the  ''Ooh, didn't see that coming'' bits that other episodes have had but I still liked it. Interested to see where the Moriarty stuffs going.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 2, 2017)

Come the fuck on - throwing yourself in front of a bullet that's already been fired?


----------



## wiskey (Jan 2, 2017)

I fell asleep and cba to rewatch. 

As previously mentioned the production values are really good imo but the plot sometimes leaves me behind.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I kinda hope not. It would be much better if they just left it as it was - a glimpse that he's not so perfect as we thought, he has flaws just like everyone else.



But Watson wasn't like that..
I like the series immensely, but part of it's charm is in knowing the characters from the original books...when they do something that is so out of character as Watson having an extra marital whatever, then I think it loses something.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 2, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Come the fuck on - *throwing yourself in front of a bullet that's already been fired? *



I'm quite glad that I have no idea why that's impossible  

Never having encountered a gun in real life anywhere, and not having taken much/any interest in technical stuff about them.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 2, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> I'm quite glad that I have no idea why that's impossible


Bullets travel at speeds up to 2500 feet per second. How fast do you think you can go?


----------



## kittyP (Jan 2, 2017)

Whilst of course Jeremy Brett's Holmes was the definitive for me, I think you're all a bunch of cynics and I really enjoyed it


----------



## zoooo (Jan 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> But Watson wasn't like that..
> I like the series immensely, but part of it's charm is in knowing the characters from the original books...when they do something that is so out of character as Watson having an extra marital whatever, then I think it loses something.


If it was just an affair that would be really disappointing. 
She must somehow be something to do with the rest of the series. I think they've made us think he was cheating on his wife just to say 'nahhhh course he didn't' later on. (Hopefully.)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

zoooo said:


> If it was just an affair that would be really disappointing.


well it won't be any more, now he's off the hook


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

zoooo said:


> I think they've made us think he was cheating on his wife just to say 'nahhhh course he didn't' later on. (Hopefully.)


he's only texted her. not right, but not quite cheating


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 2, 2017)

TruXta said:


> Come the fuck on - throwing yourself in front of a bullet that's already been fired?



If you watch closely, you'll see it was one of those (magic?) really slow bullets (look at the time it takes to get from the gun to Mary - you can actually SEE the bullet in the air as it's travelling).

Which is just as well as Mary's jump wasn't _too _spritely, she seemed to hang in the air herself a bit. 

All good in the end tho. The canon armageddon is lessened slightly (still the baby to get rid of ).


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he's only texted her. not right, but not quite cheating



Ah....the emotional affair.?
He wasn't bringing her round for tea with Mary though..was he.. That's the test.

Said with a definite nod.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 2, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he's only texted her. not right, but not quite cheating


Let's not get into it on a TV show thread! But if my husband was flirting with some random woman over text in secret after I JUST gave birth to his baby, he could very much fuck right off.

But like I say, I think we're being played and there's a better explanation.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> well it won't be any more, now he's off the hook



Watson, being the decent guy he is, will suffer with his guilt.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

zoooo said:


> Let's not get into it on a TV show thread! But if my husband was flirting with some random woman over text in secret after I JUST gave birth to his baby, he could very much fuck right off.
> 
> But like I say, I think we're being played and there's a better explanation.



Yes.....maybe she isn't actually dead and is off on some missiom...and she'll be back.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 2, 2017)

Or maybe the BABY is a spy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

zoooo said:


> Let's not get into it on a TV show thread! But if my husband was flirting with some random woman over text in secret after I JUST gave birth to his baby, he could very much fuck right off.


oh i completely agree - i just thought you were suggesting he was shagging bus girl


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Watson, being the decent guy he is, will suffer with his guilt.


well he's clearly not that decent. he just looks human next to Holmes


----------



## Voley (Jan 2, 2017)

zoooo said:


> Or maybe the BABY is a spy.


I liked the bit where Sherlock was having a go at the baby. ''You see but you do not observe, Watson'' etc. Made me chuckle.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> well he's clearly not that decent. he just looks human next to Holmes



I mean the character of Watson. I relate to the originals and view the current Watson as having a glitch in his otherwise decent portrayal.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 2, 2017)

Voley said:


> I liked the bit where Sherlock was having a go at the baby. ''You see but you do not observe, Watson'' etc. Made me chuckle.



Yes...and the lecture on the logic of not throwing the rattle if he wants it back..


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I mean the character of Watson. I relate to the originals and view the current Watson as having a glitch in his otherwise decent portrayal.


I meant the character too - no excuse for that sort of behaviour.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 3, 2017)

Tbh I just see Martin Freeman as the kid from the office, just at different stages of his life (including his fantasy bit as the Hobbit, and his secondment out to Fargoland).

Only The Office has been such a successful fit for his deadpan approach, and he's struck gold (again) here. I really do rate him as the only person that be such a good foil for Cumberbatchs (almost overly epic, even if I actually prefer Jonny Lee MIller for a modern day SH) Holmes. 

Tim from the Office, nor S1 JB Holmes (for me the finest, though it's pretty standard posh dude stuff with little more than "give the ball to Jeremy" to his tasks/range) would even entertain texting another woman! Ergo, nor would Tim From The Office In Sherlock (of all his faults (bloodlust?) he's hardly unconscientious, and she has just had his baby!).

As it goes, I don't really recall any chinks in the ACD Holmes?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 3, 2017)

Some truly woeful scenes in that. The whole death scene at the end. Watson's weird cheating montage. The heads-being-smashed dream sequences. Travelling the world on the roll of a dice while monologuing a goodbye to your husband in voiceover. There might have been 45 minutes of watchable telly in there somewhere but so much pointless dreck besides.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 3, 2017)

Freeman is not a good actor.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Freeman is not a good actor.


He's amazing in Fargo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He's amazing in Fargo.


I loved Fargo, and, he was ok, despite the terrible accent, but he does a lot of mugging.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 3, 2017)

I've only ever seen one episode before but my boy was excited and wanted me to watch it with him. I didn't really have much of a clue what was going on  but some bits were quite exciting and I found it watchable, enjoyable nonsense.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 3, 2017)

I've gone off cucumberpatch and bilbo. Moffats a dick as well.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 3, 2017)

The best bit about that episode was the gap year kid getting killed. He was clearly going to grow up to be an utter dick.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 3, 2017)

The first two series were good then it's been dragged on since then.
The writing seems lazy and has less depth.
They have had three years and this is as good as they can present.
Not bothered if this is the last series, Jeremy Brett rules.
Also the best thing I have seen Mark Gatiss in lately was as Joan Crawford in Psychobitches.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He's amazing in Fargo.



He is indeed. 
I think he's an excellent actor..


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I loved Fargo, and, he was ok, despite the terrible accent, but he does a lot of mugging.



That's the way they talk...his accent was spot on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 3, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> That's the way they talk...his accent was spot on.


no it wasn't - he sounded like Tim from The Office putting on an American accent - the other actors managed fine but his was rubbish


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no it wasn't - he sounded like Tim from The Office putting on an American accent - the other actors managed fine but his was rubbish



He sounded exactly right for Minnesota.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 3, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He sounded exactly right for Minnesota.


he stuck out like a sore thumb


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he stuck out like a sore thumb



I didn't think so...but you're entitled to differ. They all were pretty good at the accent. 

Care to give it a try?
How to Talk Minnesotan


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 3, 2017)

His Hobbit was a bit dodgy too!


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2017)

Well that was....a curate's egg.  To be generous.

It has its usual good bits, some very funny dialogue and individual scenes, nice chemistry between the players, well paced, some nice nods to other Holmes stories, and a fairly decent modernisation of the original story (in which Mary is also revealed to have died).  But....

My god but there were plot holes you could drive an Abramovich yacht through.  The gap year student explanation was just bloody stupid.  Why one earth would he cover himself in a mock up of a seat cover rather than just hide in the footwell?  And why have police forensics deteriorated to the point where they couldn't tell he was covered in one of those two kinds of vinyl, after his absurdly timed attack of the whatever it was?  Nonsense. As was the idea that Holmes could quickly spot a blood stain, but the police couldn't on the bust of Thatcher. 

Then there's the whole 'throw a dice randomly' thing, and yet still end up at exactly where the passport drops were, and where she wanted to be later.  Just silly.  Although not as silly as the idea that a bunch of highly secretive mercenary assassins would wander around with everything needed to destroy them casually hanging around there necks. What did Mary think happened to the other three drives?  Are they meant to spontaneously combust when their owner dies?

Holmes might always leap to assumptions that dont hold up when thought about for some time, but such utter nonsense would never have been allowed.

Hopefully the next two might be more 'traditional'


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> His Hobbit was a bit dodgy too!



Ah now...lol


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he stuck out like a sore thumb


The Americans seemed to disagree. But what do they know?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 3, 2017)

belboid said:


> The Americans seemed to disagree. But what do they know?


maybe his performance as Tim was so strong that it spoiled my enjoyment of his in Fargo. But anyway, he's still a shit mugger of an actor


----------



## Shirl (Jan 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He's amazing in Fargo.


I've liked him in everything I've seen him him. I'd make a big effort to watch a drama or film if he was in it.

I'd miss corrie for it


----------



## Espresso (Jan 3, 2017)

I watched a children's film over Christmas - Nativity! - just because he was in it. I think he's absolutely excellent in anything I have seen him in.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 3, 2017)

Espresso said:


> I watched a children's film over Christmas - Nativity! - just because he was in it. I think he's absolutely excellent in anything I have seen him in.



That was very good... hilarious in parts


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2017)

Decent piece from the Grauniad - Sherlock is slowly and perversely morphing into Bond. This cannot stand


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 4, 2017)

belboid said:


> Decent piece from the Grauniad - Sherlock is slowly and perversely morphing into Bond. This cannot stand




Yes that's a good read and analysis TBF.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> Decent piece from the Grauniad - Sherlock is slowly and perversely morphing into Bond. This cannot stand



Gatiss has responded to this. In the form of a poem:


_



			With reference to your recent article (Sherlock is slowly and perversely morphing into Bond. This cannot stand, theguardian.com, 3 January), and with apologies to AC Doyle:

Here is a critic who says with low blow 
Sherlock’s no brain-box but become double-O.
Says the Baker St boy is no man of action – 
whilst ignoring the stories that could have put him in traction.

The Solitary Cyclist sees boxing on show, 
The Gloria Scott and The Sign of the Fo’ 
The Empty House too sees a mention, in time, of Mathews, 
who knocked out poor Sherlock’s canine.

As for arts martial, there’s surely a clue 
in the misspelled wrestle Doyle called baritsu. 
In hurling Moriarty over the torrent 
did Sherlock find violence strange and abhorrent?

In shooting down pygmies and Hounds from hell 
Did Sherlock on Victorian niceties dwell? 
When Gruner’s men got him was Holmes quite compliant 
Or did he give good account for The Illustrious Client?

There’s no need to invoke in yarns that still thrill, 
Her Majesty’s Secret Servant with licence to kill 
From Rathbone through Brett to Cumberbatch dandy 
With his fists Mr Holmes has always been handy.
		
Click to expand...

_
I bet he wasn't even drunk when he wrote it.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2017)

Terrible episode.  But at least we've lost a terrible character.


----------



## IC3D (Jan 5, 2017)

Pile of doo doo.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jan 5, 2017)

Sounds like the law of diminishing returns continues with Sherlock. I'm almost glad I can't see the new series yet so I can try to remember the glory of the first two


----------



## tim (Jan 5, 2017)

belboid said:


> The Americans seemed to disagree. But what do they know?



Since most American films and series I seem to see have at least on British thespian yanking it up I assume they're probably inured to to Mid-Atlantic.


----------



## BoxRoom (Jan 5, 2017)

Shit Sherlock.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2017)

The villain is Geoffrey Boycott


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> The villain is Geoffrey Boycott


Crossed with Jimmy Savile


----------



## Supine (Jan 8, 2017)

Enjoyed it last week. Struggling now though


----------



## zoooo (Jan 8, 2017)

I kind of loved this week's.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Crossed with Jimmy Savile


Pretty much, yup.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 8, 2017)

Bit disappointed she didn't take off her make-up to reveal Moriarty.


----------



## A380 (Jan 8, 2017)

Better, I think next week has the possibility of making these three brilliant. Maybe.


----------



## moonsi til (Jan 8, 2017)

Mrs Miggins said:


> Sounds like the law of diminishing returns continues with Sherlock. I'm almost glad I can't see the new series yet so I can try to remember the glory of the first two




Second episode was awesome which I know because I was whooping on the sofa.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 9, 2017)

Totally Saville. Thought Toby Jones was chillingly good.

And Sherlock was no smug, superior Louis Theroux, either.


----------



## Santino (Jan 9, 2017)

I enjoyed it up until the Eurus reveal.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 9, 2017)

(Spoiler following I guess, if you haven't seen it yet...)

It's weird, because during the show I did fleetingly think all those women looked the same, but the ending still didn't remotely occur to me.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2017)

zoooo said:


> (Spoiler following I guess, if you haven't seen it yet...)
> 
> It's weird, because during the show I did fleetingly think all those women looked the same, but the ending still didn't remotely occur to me.




You might of thought a master of observation, such as Sherlock is supposed to be, would have had a similar feeling, especially as its his fucking sister


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Crossed with Jimmy Savile



Much better episode.

Definitely Saville. Kudos for he BBC for going 'there'.

Some ace bits of dialogue ("I caught 4 cases of food poisoning there/you haven't heard the half of it") as usual  Mrs Hudson on fire.

The stylising seems to jump the shark at some points, the series is fucked if it keeps going "well, actually everything we've shown was all a figment of the imagination or an illusion and actually s/he's alive/it never actually happened"

Didn't see the end bit coming. Felt suitably dim as a consequence


----------



## zoooo (Jan 9, 2017)

gosub said:


> You might of thought a master of observation, such as Sherlock is supposed to be, would have had a similar feeling, especially as its his fucking sister


Lol, that is a fair point.
I guess they're going with the idea that he was off his face in the scenes they shared. (I think?)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 9, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> Much better episode.
> 
> Definitely Saville. Kudos for he BBC for going 'there'.


Though he had the voice and style of Boycott


----------



## zoooo (Jan 9, 2017)

I hope they were fake teeth.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 9, 2017)

zoooo said:


> I hope they were fake teeth.


Aye, he doesn't speak like that in other roles


----------



## Maggot (Jan 9, 2017)

gosub said:


> You might of thought a master of observation, such as Sherlock is supposed to be, would have had a similar feeling, especially as its his fucking sister


I was wondering this. Maybe next week they'll explain that she was estranged or something.


----------



## Espresso (Jan 9, 2017)

Toby Jones was incredibly ace, as he always is. 

I could have lived without ghostly Mary explaining everything to us, but the last bit in Baker St seems to suggest that she's been put to bed as a plot device, fingers crossed.

This one was enormously better than last week' s. And we must have Moriarty to look forward to in next week's finale. Splendid.  But I don't want Shezza chasing after Irene Adler, ta very much.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2017)

Espresso said:


> Toby Jones was incredibly ace, as he always is.
> 
> I could have lived without ghostly Mary explaining everything to us, but the last bit in Baker St seems to suggest that she's been put to bed as a plot device, fingers crossed.
> 
> This one was enormously better than last week' s. And we must have Moriarty to look forward to in next week's finale. Splendid.  But I don't want Shezza chasing after Irene Adler, ta very much.



Both Mrs Watson and Moriarty are in the cast credits for the last episode.  No Adler


----------



## Espresso (Jan 9, 2017)

gosub said:


> Both Mrs Watson and Moriarty are in the cast credits for the last episode.  No Adler


Two out of three ain't bad, according to me.
And Meatloaf.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 9, 2017)

My pop has just got a DVD which seems to be a one-off special with Cumquatsnatch and Freeman in the 19th century - is that better than this shit?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2017)

No. It wasn't a one off really, would probably have worked better if it had.


----------



## Espresso (Jan 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> My pop has just got a DVD which seems to be a one-off special with Cumquatsnatch and Freeman in the 19th century - is that better than this shit?



That was last year's Christmas one and I thought it was utter tripe.

Mind you, I liked last night's and you seem not to have done, so maybe you will like it. 
All down to personal preference, I soppose


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 9, 2017)

So....Miss Me is actually _Miss_ Me!


----------



## Voley (Jan 9, 2017)

Really enjoyed that. Proper 'ooh, fucking hell!' bit at the end.


----------



## kittyP (Jan 9, 2017)

Maggot said:


> I was wondering this. Maybe next week they'll explain that she was estranged or something.


Yes I got the feeling that Mycroft and Sherlock know of her existence but may not have seen her since she was a child and/of thought she was dead....?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 9, 2017)

That was fantastic


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2017)

Una Stubbs ran away with that.

'Of course I didn't call the police, I'm not a civillian'


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Una Stubbs ran away with that.
> 
> 'Of course I didn't call the police, I'm not a civillian'



prefered "of course I don't know what speed I was doing , I was on the phone"


----------



## wiskey (Jan 10, 2017)

That was one of the best 55 minutes of telly I've watched since Marvellous (also with Toby Jones). Some Sherlocks are a bit meh but I really enjoyed this episode. 

except the last 5 minutes which felt a bit unnecessary. 

Cucumberpatch might be a big smug but he acts well I think.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:


> prefered "of course I don't know what speed I was doing , I was on the phone"


And "I am the widow of a drug dealer and I own property in central London - of course that's my car"


----------



## wayward bob (Jan 10, 2017)

better 2nd ep, but as usual even a good ep is 30 minutes of decent detectivey stuff wrapped in an hour of pointless "character" shit. and people coming back from the dead. repeatedly


----------



## CrabbedOne (Jan 10, 2017)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 10, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Una Stubbs ran away with that.
> 
> 'Of course I didn't call the police, I'm not a civillian'


14 Times Mrs Hudson Was The Best Thing About "Sherlock"


----------



## wiskey (Jan 10, 2017)

what is a salad drawer anyway?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2017)

wiskey said:


> what is a salad drawer anyway?


The transparent plastic drawer in your fridge


----------



## wiskey (Jan 10, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> The transparent plastic drawer in your fridge



ohhh ok, I think of it as a veg box


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 10, 2017)

wiskey said:


> ohhh ok, I think of it as a veg box


It's called a crisper too


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 10, 2017)

gosub said:
			
		

> You might of thought a master of observation, such as Sherlock is supposed to be, would have had a similar feeling, especially as its his fucking sister



He _was_ off his tits at the re-encounter though.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 10, 2017)

Isn't there another brother too though


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 10, 2017)

Episode 3 might develop that aspect ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 10, 2017)

Overall I thought it was excellent this time. 




			
				Espresso said:
			
		

> *I could have lived without ghostly Mary explaining everything to us*, but the last bit in Baker St seems to suggest that she's been put to bed as a plot device, fingers crossed.



But yes I agree with this, I found it annoying ...  so let's hope that's the end of that aspect.

Otherwise, great


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 10, 2017)

Espresso said:


> ...I could have lived without ghostly Mary explaining everything to us....


Really....a woman no-one else can see when there's a woman we couldn't see?   I thought it was quite funny.


----------



## Idaho (Jan 10, 2017)

Watched half of it. Total gash in my opinion.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 10, 2017)

wiskey said:


> That was one of the best 55 minutes of telly I've watched since Marvellous (also with Toby Jones). Some Sherlocks are a bit meh but I really enjoyed this episode.
> 
> except the last 5 minutes which felt a bit unnecessary.
> 
> Cucumberpatch might be a big smug but he acts well I think.


55 minutes? I think you must have missed some......


----------



## ginger_syn (Jan 11, 2017)

Enjoying it so far, Toby Jones was excellent as always, some great lines from Mrs Hudson  and I was ok with dead Mary as a plot device. It was good TV entertainment for me, which is always a good thing.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 11, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> 55 minutes? I think you must have missed some......



Oh was it 90 minutes?

In that case 85 were interesting


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2017)

Enjoyed this a lot more than the first one.

This morning though, after the inital "oh my God, everything I've just watched needs to be reassesed!" craziness it occurred to me we've got yet another situation that revolves around the main protagonists and their insular personal dramas, and that one of the things I'd enjoyed about last night's Sunday's episode is that the drama came from an external threat/match for Sherlock.

I think I would have much preferred Toby Jones' character to prove more of a long-lasting foil for Sherlock. Oh well, will at least be interested to see what happens in the last episode.

Also missed the 'live' episode last night because I was catching up with Sunday's episode


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 11, 2017)

As anyone else noticed, out of the last six episodes, five had Mary Watson as the key character?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> As anyone else noticed, out of the last six episodes, five had Mary Watson as the key character?


So? She was


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 11, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> So? She was



Just asking if anyone else noticed, that is all.
I was just thinking that the plot seems to be mirroring Dr Who and the inclusion of River Song who was also married to a doctor and got deaded, yet reappears from time to time (no pun intended).
I wondered if this was just script reanimating for a quick, successful and simple formula for Mr Moffat and Mr Gatiss to fill episodes out. All we need now is for Sherlock to regenerate when the actor portraying him becomes a Hollywood mega star.
That is all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Just asking if anyone else noticed, that is all.
> I was just thinking that the plot seems to be mirroring Dr Who and the inclusion of River Song who was also married to a doctor and got deaded, yet reappears from time to time (no pun intended).
> I wondered if this was just script reanimating for a quick, successful and simple formula for Mr Moffat and Mr Gatiss to fill episodes out. All we need now is for Sherlock to regenerate when the actor portraying him becomes a Hollywood mega star.
> That is all.


Why does it need 'noticing'? She's the third lead. Or was.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 11, 2017)

Sorry


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2017)

Just confused!


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 11, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> As anyone else noticed, out of the last six episodes, five had Mary Watson as the key character?


Interesting. tbh, it's not that accurate imo. Are you saying she was 'the' key character at her wedding because I'm pretty sure it was SH.

And even when she plays a large part it's often as a device to hone Watson or inform his relationship with SH. I'm not sure she even had her own story arc until the epi she died in (though I might be wrong!) ..



Orang Utan said:


> Why does it need 'noticing'? She's the third lead. Or was.


This might surprise Gatiss.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 11, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> Also missed the 'live' episode last night


What was that?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> This might surprise Gatiss.


I'm obviously missing something here as Sprocket. and your posts are confusing me.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 11, 2017)

Bless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2017)

The Fornicator said:


> Bless.


I thought you were talking about billing? Was I wrong?


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 11, 2017)

Surely, like all versions of Sherlock Holmes, in Sherlock the "leads" are Holmes and Watson, and not their hangers on. Mary wasn't any more a lead than Mrs. Hudson is.


----------



## The Fornicator (Jan 11, 2017)

I understand they pointedly called it 'Sherlock' to remind the audience it's a reimagining based on the Conan Doyle canon, sometimes loosely, sometimes more closely - as The Lying Detective epi illustrates.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Just asking if anyone else noticed, that is all.
> I was just thinking that the plot seems to be mirroring Dr Who and the inclusion of River Song who was also married to a doctor and got deaded, yet reappears from time to time (no pun intended).
> I wondered if this was just script reanimating for a quick, successful and simple formula for Mr Moffat and Mr Gatiss to fill episodes out. All we need now is for Sherlock to regenerate when the actor portraying him becomes a Hollywood mega star.
> That is all.



The reveal at the end of that last episode was basically the same reveal as Missy in Doctor Who.


----------



## T & P (Jan 11, 2017)

Enjoyed this one much more than the first but I wish the villain character had been given more airtime, and had a bigger battle of wits with Sherlock than we end up seeing. Too much build-up talk about him being the most evil man ever and blah blah for the payload that was delivered.

The first twenty or so minutes were brilliant though. Sherlock's overnight London walk with the woman when he explained how he deducted everything he'd told her was as good as the series was at its peak during the first and second seasons.


----------



## Spod (Jan 13, 2017)

They were OK. Not reaching the brilliance of the episodes with Moriarty or Irene Adler etc. But its ok and worth watching. 
Oh and on the River Song thing in Dr Who that was annoying. Not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is telly.


----------



## aqua (Jan 15, 2017)

Bored already


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2017)

aqua said:


> Bored already


Taken 40 mins I see


----------



## aqua (Jan 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Taken 40 mins I see


Tbf it was less than that but I was busy playing a game before I posted


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 15, 2017)

Not very good.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 15, 2017)

I thought that was excellent. If that truly was the last ever one, I'd have chosen to end with Sherlock playing violin with his sister, but eh.


----------



## zoooo (Jan 15, 2017)

I LOVED episode 3.
But the montage at the end made me want a nice simple fun Sherlock series about their adventures in London, like the first series was.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 15, 2017)

As with the others, I didn't have the foggiest idea what was going on but I thoroughly enjoyed it!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 15, 2017)

Don't get the negatives on tonight's episode. I thought it was by far the best of the three.

Thoroughly freaked out by it, and scared at points too.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 15, 2017)

William of Walworth said:


> Thoroughly freaked out by it, and scared at points too.



It went to some dark places.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 15, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> It went to some dark places.




Indeed, but I thought the scariest/darkest parts of the episode were the best parts.


----------



## belboid (Jan 15, 2017)

Easily the best of this series, despite the slightly naff ending. 

Apparently the dead Viking at the end was Paul Weller.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 15, 2017)

That was superb. Dark, tense, but still with some fantastic one liners and moments of humour.

Could easily be the last one and a great end to the 4 seasons or could serve as a nice reset for further adventures with new adversaries. I'd be happy either way tbh.

Loved it


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 15, 2017)




----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 15, 2017)

Darn it.
I missed it....


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 15, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Darn it.
> I missed it....


Sherlock, Series 4: 3. The Final Problem


----------



## zoooo (Jan 15, 2017)

OH. This excuses Watson's texting affair. Phew! She used her genius hypnotisey magic on him.

I actually do feel better about that now.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jan 15, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> Sherlock, Series 4: 3. The Final Problem



Got all excited there ...but it only works in the UK... apparently.. 

Thanks though  I appreciate that you linked it..


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 16, 2017)

So as she spent so much time with him, how come River Tam, I mean Ariana Dumbledore, no I mean the Holmes' little sister didn't mind control John Watson?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 16, 2017)

If it hadn't been Sherlock it would have been a fun, if daft, standalone thriller.

But it was Sherlock, and thus it wasn't Sherlock.

Solve fucking crimes, not epic family dramas, for fuck's sake...


----------



## ginger_syn (Jan 16, 2017)

Another bit of enjoyable entertainment.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 16, 2017)

Nice bit of family resolution always works, his mate's wife is gone, but we made things up with our sister so all ends well!
Too cynical?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Nice bit of family resolution always works, his mate's wife is gone, but we made things up with our sister so all ends well!
> Too cynical?


No


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jan 16, 2017)

Thought it was quite good but ruined by a rushed, shmaltzy ending. 

Evil genius is cured by a bit of a hug. 

She wasn't locked up because it was only a dog she killed, but it wasn't only a dog, so how did that work?

And where was the well that no one else who lived in the house was aware of? In her room?


----------



## chilango (Jan 16, 2017)

Didn't think much of that. On the basis of last night really can't see what the fuss is about. Liked Moriarty though.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 16, 2017)

Really enjoyed it, scary and exciting ... but ...

 I want Sherlock to solve crimes dammit


----------



## aqua (Jan 16, 2017)

felixthecat said:


> Really enjoyed it, scary and exciting ... but ...
> 
> I want Sherlock to solve crimes dammit


it was just too, well, toooooo stupid for me. I just got cross a lot


----------



## TruXta (Jan 16, 2017)

Pile of shit.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 16, 2017)

I once watched a small part of a Saw movie (never again!!). Sherlock last night reminded me of that. 

It just didn't seem right for an episode of Sherlock.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 16, 2017)

felixthecat said:


> Really enjoyed it, scary and exciting ... but ...
> 
> I want Sherlock to solve crimes dammit


Well, assuming there is another series (apparently by no means certain due to the rise in stardom and thus  schedule of the two lead actors) its a nice neat reset for the two of them to be back doing just that.

Fingers crossed anyway.


----------



## moomoo (Jan 16, 2017)

I had really bad dreams last night! I knew I found it pretty disturbing but hadn't realised quite how much!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 16, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> Thought it was quite good but ruined by a rushed, shmaltzy ending.
> 
> Evil genius is cured by a bit of a hug.
> 
> ...


Yup. Once again it felt like they had all these cool little ideas and set pieces that they then needed to tie up at the end. It wasn't quite spacey-wacey, timey-wimey, but it was kind of "nicey-nicey, shhhh don't think about it-ey".


----------



## Santino (Jan 16, 2017)

moomoo said:


> I had really bad dreams last night! I knew I found it pretty disturbing but hadn't realised quite how much!


I had a bad dream about it in which I was trying to explain the plot of the episode to someone who had never seen the series before.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 16, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Nice bit of family resolution always works, his mate's wife is gone, but we made things up with our sister so all ends well!
> Too cynical?


"Our sister who caused the deaths of many people", and that's before we blame her for anything Moriarty did.

And, of course, they organised all that stuff, all of it, in a five minute conversation. Or, I suppose, she got control of the base and then they had plenty of time for chats and strategy meetings and flip charts?

But then why would she keep going back. She can reprogramme people - _which is basically a superpower, btw_ - and is aware of, y'know, the internet. She presumably knows about YouTube and its ilk, which would be viewed by millions. She could reporgramme the wooooooorld!

But then, she just wanted to play pirates with Sherlock. Ok then, happy families, forget the deaths and destruction.

Forget them.

Forget. Them.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 16, 2017)

I thought the flashback Moriarty sequence was almost note for note a rehash of John Simm's Master on board the spaceship with the million-year-old Doctor.  Even down to the campy musical interplay.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Jan 16, 2017)

I was really disappointed with this season; the first was enjoyable, the second less so, last night? Boring as fuck. More holes than plot, just couldn't get involved with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2017)

AnnaKarpik said:


> I was really disappointed with this season; the first was enjoyable, the second less so, last night? Boring as fuck. More holes than plot, just couldn't get involved with it.


i thought the first was shit, the second was reasonable and the third was just bewildering


----------



## zoooo (Jan 16, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> Thought it was quite good but ruined by a rushed, shmaltzy ending.
> 
> Evil genius is cured by a bit of a hug.
> 
> ...


She WAS locked up wasn't she? That's where she disappeared off to.
Sherlock was the only one who thought it was a dog, not anyone else.
(I think?)


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2017)

This last series, even more than the previous, was like a kind of asset stripping of the basic premise set up for the writers by Mr Conan Doyle.

Having now thoroughly wrung it dry, hopefully they won't try and write any more.

And it just doesn't really work when characters are supposed to be loads cleverer than the people writing them.


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jan 16, 2017)

zoooo said:


> She WAS locked up wasn't she? That's where she disappeared off to.
> Sherlock was the only one who thought it was a dog, not anyone else.
> (I think?)


She was locked up after burning the house down or so Mycroft said. And why was that house left empty for 20+ years. The parents are still alive, they just walked away and left it? 

And as Mycroft knew Redbeard wasn't the dog, why would he withhold that fairly important information from Sherlock while they were going through the rooms? "Oh I've got this vital piece of info, but I don't want to upset Sherlock"? He didn't seem to have any problem upsetting him at other times.

Just didn't tie up in any sensible way.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 16, 2017)

The end resolution with the mind palace/plane crash and how the fuck he got out the well just got completely glossed over didn't it? 

A bit meh.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 16, 2017)

The ending was a bit rushed, felt like it could have done with another 15 mins or so to get it all in properly.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> how the fuck he got out the well just got completely glossed over didn't it?



They showed a rope being thrown down to him.

Really handy when your feet are chained to the bottom of the well.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 16, 2017)

teuchter said:


> They showed a rope being thrown down to him.
> 
> Really handy when your feet are chained to the bottom of the well.


I assumed a key had been thrown down first.

As I said, all a bit rushed, just needed a few more minutes of time to fill it all out.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jan 16, 2017)

My main problem was actually with Sherlock.

He wasn't Sherlock the high-functioning sociopath.  He cared too much about everyone.   It wasn't him.

Although Mrs Hudson hoovering to an Iron Maiden soundtrack was good.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 16, 2017)

That was the point though, surely? Sherlock only made it in the end _because_ he cared.


----------



## wayward bob (Jan 16, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> ...felt like it could have done with another 15 mins or so to get it all in properly...


dear god no  tbf i fell asleep before the end cos it was so ridiculous and annoying.


teuchter said:


> And it just doesn't really work when characters are supposed to be loads cleverer than the people writing them.


also this


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That was the point though, surely? Sherlock only made it in the end _because_ he cared.


= yawn


----------



## belboid (Jan 16, 2017)

teuchter said:


> = yawn


That is perfectly in keeping with ACDs Sherlock- he wasn't a high functioning sociopath, that was just a good line.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 16, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> Although Mrs Hudson hoovering to an Iron Maiden soundtrack was good.



I fucking LOVE Mrs Hudson


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2017)

belboid said:


> That is perfectly in keeping with ACDs Sherlock- he wasn't a high functioning sociopath, that was just a good line.


"He only made it because he cared" as the point of a finale is a bit yawn whether or not it's in keeping with the original character. It's just the same schmaltzy ending we've all seen in a million other films.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Jan 16, 2017)

This series has jumped the shark by increasing heights, week by week.


I am intruiged to know what the extra 15 minutes they showed at the cinema are, though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 16, 2017)

Throbbing Angel said:


> I am intruiged to know what the extra 15 minutes they showed at the cinema are, though.





beesonthewhatnow said:


> The ending was a bit rushed, felt like it could have done with another 15 mins or so to get it all in properly.


Too much to hope...?


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2017)

DexterTCN said:


> My main problem was actually with Sherlock.
> 
> He wasn't Sherlock the high-functioning sociopath.  He cared too much about everyone.   It wasn't him.
> 
> Although Mrs Hudson hoovering to an Iron Maiden soundtrack was good.


Unemotional analytical Sherlock is deep down the emotional one all along. 
Pile of wank.


----------



## Maggot (Jan 16, 2017)

What happened to the girl on the plane?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 16, 2017)

Maggot said:


> What happened to the girl on the plane?


I think you may have somewhat missed the key point at the end


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2017)

Sherlock and the case of The Divisive Episode!


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2017)

Maggot said:


> What happened to the girl on the plane?


She and the whole plane crashed into a metaphor and died.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 16, 2017)

I had a rant on FB about a spoiler being in a tv mag I had to get for my Dad, which said right on the front page 'Meet Sherlock's sister'.

I hadn't believed the twist at the end of the second one, but it seems other folk did. She was unreliable as fuck - why would you believe she was his sister when she impersonated loads of people? I just thought it was something to do with Moriarty - some kind of trick or invention.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 16, 2017)

AND......it's just occurred to me that the whole Molly phonecall was left hanging as well. What, she's fine now, is she?


----------



## Shirl (Jan 16, 2017)

I started watching E3 on iPlayer about 20 minutes ago. I've stopped paying attention now as I think it's more like an episode of Doctor Who than Sherlock Holmes. 
I thought S1 was excellent but this series has been really disappointing


----------



## moomoo (Jan 16, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> AND......it's just occurred to me that the whole Molly phonecall was left hanging as well. What, she's fine now, is she?



That confused me as well. 

Actually the whole thing confused me.


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jan 16, 2017)

The episode got the lowest UK overnight ratings of any Sherlock. I don't think the Beeb can blame that entirely on the Russian leak. 
Sherlock finale ratings hit all-time low


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 16, 2017)

wiskey said:


> Isn't there another brother too though


 
There was no appearance or mention of a third brother, or of any other relatives, in the original written works of Dr John H Watson published via Arthur Conan Doyle, other than one occasion when SH tells JW that his ancestors were country squires.

The name of Sherrinford / Sherringford Holmes appeared in some notes made by Conan Doyle.

The theory has been developed that Sherringford was the eldest brother, who inherited the house / estate, on the basis that if Mycroft had been the eldest, he would have done this rather than joined the civil service.  More here.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 16, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> The episode got the lowest UK overnight ratings of any Sherlock. I don't think the Beeb can blame that entirely on the Russian leak.
> Sherlock finale ratings hit all-time low


Think you might get low ratings?
Leak the episode beforehand.  
Blame the leak. 
Sorted innit.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 17, 2017)

Just watched it .... meh. It was far too long (whereas last week seemed like it was only an hour this one felt like 3) and it was just daft as a plotline. 

E2 of this series was the highlight. Let's hope they've finished now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2017)

WHY DID NOBODY CHECK MRS HUDSON WAS OK?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 17, 2017)

Next time I find myself getting really really REALLY into something, and perhaps feel uneasy at the amount of time it's taking from me...

...I'm just going to get these twats to make a TV show out of it, to fully knock it out of my affections.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Jan 17, 2017)

There's always series 4 of the bridge to look forward to.


----------



## Gromit (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> WHY DID NOBODY CHECK MRS HUDSON WAS OK?


That was Mycroft's job. Remember he asked why him.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

I enjoyed it while I watched it because it had great scenes.  But in retrospect, it makes no sense and that ruins it.

There are too many examples of why it makes no sense.  Here's another to add to the pile: why set up an elaborate maze of puzzles, going to all the work of capturing people and building rooms etc... And then almost certainly kill the three people you are building it for by sending a motion-sensing grenade into the room with them?  The odds were astronomically against all three surviving, relying on dumb luck of positioning as much as anything else.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2017)

And why would a grenade that's designed to go off as soon as anyone moves have a 3-second delay built into it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 17, 2017)

nm needed coffee


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 17, 2017)

Quick question (I dozed off through some if it and kept having to rewind, so I might have missed it...) Why did Art Malik get thrown in with Holmes's/Watson and then have his wife murdered (minutes after capturing them for the sister)? Just, because she was psychopathy or did I miss something?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> And why would a grenade that's designed to go off as soon as anyone moves have a 3-second delay built into it.


Yes, I was going to mention that too but forgot.  And if she tampered with it to give it a three second delay, how would Mycroft know that, because he recognised it off-the-shelf. 

But why pick on that one scene, I suppose?  Pretty much every scene similar failed in its own internal logic.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> Quick question (I dozed off through some if it and kept having to rewind, so I might have missed it...) Why did Art Malik get thrown in with Holmes's/Watson and then have his wife murdered (minutes after capturing them for the sister)? Just, because she was psychopathy or did I miss something?


Why, from Eurus's point of view, you mean?  Rather than from the point of view of the general plot momentum.

I think we are supposed to believe she wanted to convince them she was more than happy to kill and to force them to compromise their moral code for what came later.  Or something something evil.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> And why would a grenade that's designed to go off as soon as anyone moves have a 3-second delay built into it.



So that it doesn't go off mid-air?


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Why, from Eurus's point of view, you mean?  Rather than from the point of view of the general plot momentum.
> 
> I think we are supposed to believe she wanted to convince them she was more than happy to kill and to force them to compromise their moral code for what came later.  Or something something evil.



Yes, from Euros's point of view. He captured Holmes and Watson, then ends up in the cell with them.

I mean, we're rationalising what has become little more than Bobby Ewing in the Shower, but still...


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> So that it doesn't go off mid-air?


It is remotely activated, though.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Jan 17, 2017)

Ted Striker


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2017)

It was good how the public shipping forecast had the top secret area inserted into it when people were near to the top secret area, because that totally makes sense too.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It is remotely activated, though.


Oh right. I missed that bit.  The whole "wanting to kill Sherlock" bit doesn't hold any water anyway.


----------



## pesh (Jan 17, 2017)

what a load of shit


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jan 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> It was good how the public shipping forecast had the top secret area inserted into it when people were near to the top secret area, because that totally makes sense too.


And was pretty much irrelevant to everything. Why did they even bother?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> Why, from Eurus's point of view, you mean?  Rather than from the point of view of the general plot momentum.
> 
> I think we are supposed to believe she wanted to convince them she was more than happy to kill and to force them to compromise their moral code for what came later.  Or something something evil.





spanglechick said:


> Oh right. I missed that bit.  The whole "wanting to kill Sherlock" bit doesn't hold any water anyway.


Eurus' motivation in general was quite unclear. Like, at the end it seems we're apparently supposed to think she was just acting out of loneliness and a desire for friends, but as you say, in that case why was she trying to kill Sherlock?

And if it was all to force them to compromise their moral code, again, to what end? To punish them? From what I could tell the set up was that she was trying to 'understand' aspects of humanity she didn't experience herself, but she seemed altogether too emotionally invested in their suffering for that. A scientist doesn't play with their lab animals like that...


----------



## Lazy Llama (Jan 17, 2017)

I think to sum up, it's become a lot like modern Doctor Who:

Lots of terribly entertaining things happen on screen.
The writers delight in showing what clever ideas and plot twists they can come up with.
Everything is sorted out through emotions, because being clever isn't, apparently, enough.
But it's all actually nonsense with no internal logic or reasonable explanation for the plot.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

Lazy Llama said:


> I think to sum up, it's become a lot like modern Doctor Who:
> 
> Lots of terribly entertaining things happen on screen.
> The writers delight in showing what clever ideas and plot twists they can come up with.
> ...


It's a shame.  If they could harness the cool stuff (like the fact that there was no glass in Eurus' cell) to a half-way decent plot, it would be great.  And isn't that what they actually managed in the first series of Sherlock?  And in Tenant-era Who too, for that matter?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's a shame.  If they could harness the cool stuff (like the fact that there was no glass in Eurus' cell) to a half-way decent plot, it would be great.  And isn't that what they actually managed in the first series of Sherlock?  And in Tenant-era Who too, for that matter?



The first series of Sherlock maybe. But Tennant era Who had Doctor Jesus and the magic prayers so it wasn't exactly watertight in the plot department a lot of the time.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It's a shame.  If they could harness the cool stuff (like the fact that there was no glass in Eurus' cell) to a half-way decent plot, it would be great.  And isn't that what they actually managed in the first series of Sherlock?  And in Tenant-era Who too, for that matter?


The parallels with Who are, indeed, quite apparent, and the shame's all the more for it. Everything has to keep getting ramped up, and more and more emotional and fantastical and epic until it distracts you while you're watching it but leaves you with nothing but holes and questions at the end.

Except you can't even try and bloody claim "oh, but it's just a kids' show" with Sherlock


----------



## Santino (Jan 17, 2017)

Plumdaff said:


> The first series of Sherlock maybe. But Tennant era Who had Doctor Jesus and the magic prayers so it wasn't exactly watertight in the plot department a lot of the time.


The use magic prayers was set up by the Master's use of the same tool (the psychic network established by his mobile phones) to take power in the first place, so as a pure matter of story mechanics it was perfectly justified.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 17, 2017)

Santino said:


> The use magic prayers was set up by the Master's use of the same tool (the psychic network established by his mobile phones) to take power in the first place, so as a pure matter of story mechanics it was perfectly justified.


...but still utter bobbins, nonetheless.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2017)

So all that fuckery Euros was up to in the previous episode, getting John to text cheat on his irritating wife, pretending to be a therapist, getting Sherlock to take down yer man Toby Jones...what was the point of any of that? Because it was all forgotten immediately 

Didn't even watch Mary's speech at the end. I know it was gonna be awful and still there's no explanation for why people keep watching her fucking DVD in little snippets instead of playing the whole thing.

Also Euros seems to basically have magical powers, which is stupid.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> ...but still utter bobbins, nonetheless.


I like ridiculous things provided they have axiopisty.  That's what I watch Who for, in fact.  It's when a story fails by its own logic that I get pissed off.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I like ridiculous things provided they have axiopisty.  That's what I watch Who for, in fact.  It's when a story fails by its own logic that I get pissed off.



Liked for the word 'axiopisty' which I don't think I've encountered before. It amazes me how any writers don't bother to look over something they've written to check that it's consistent with itself.


----------



## Santino (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Liked for the word 'axiopisty' which I don't think I've encountered before. It amazes me how any writers don't bother to look over something they've written to check that it's consistent with itself.


I think this is understandable. Every script goes through a number of drafts, often with lots of contributors, and it's easy to become over-familiar with something and not notice something that seems obvious to someone reading/seeing it for the first time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 17, 2017)

Santino said:


> I think this is understandable. Every script goes through a number of drafts, often with lots of contributors, and it's easy to become over-familiar with something and not notice something that seems obvious to someone reading/seeing it for the first time.



If I was an architect could I use the same excuse to justify designing houses that keep falling down?


----------



## Santino (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If I was an architect could I use the same excuse to justify designing houses that keep falling down?


No, because the processes are quite different.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 17, 2017)

Santino said:


> I think this is understandable. Every script goes through a number of drafts, often with lots of contributors, and it's easy to become over-familiar with something and not notice something that seems obvious to someone reading/seeing it for the first time.



Which gets to the heart of the problem; Moffat is a great writer, can be superb when produced by other people - but he can't show run; over and over his shows lose this basic consistency.


----------



## Shirl (Jan 17, 2017)

mystic pyjamas said:


> There's always series 4 of the bridge to look forward to.


REALLY?

eta just checked and yes there is. Pity it's not until next year though


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If I was an architect could I use the same excuse to justify designing houses that keep falling down?



No, you would not need to make any excuses as that would be the blame of the structural engineer or builder.

BUT yes you might try and use that excuse for flaws in the architectural design because any design process is vulnerable to this problem (ie. Santino is wrong)


----------



## zoooo (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't even watch Mary's speech at the end. I know it was gonna be awful and still there's no explanation for why people keep watching her fucking DVD in little snippets instead of playing the whole thing.


It was another DVD.

There are a lot of legit concerns on this thread. But half of the complaints about 'plot holes' I've seen online are due to things that the viewer either misunderstood or missed because they went to the loo, or because they switched off half way through because they got bored! (Not addressing this to SpookyFrank, btw.)


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Liked for the word 'axiopisty' which I don't think I've encountered before. It amazes me how any writers don't bother to look over something they've written to check that it's consistent with itself.


Me neither!
I googled it, and it seems to be a rather obscure word with no stated etymology!

Tagging existentialist just because I know he is sesquipedalian 

_To save you dragging through the thread in search of a word which may or may not be interesting - it is "axiopisty"_


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

I got axiopisty from here:

The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Bowler: 9781408806357: Books

Most of the other words I picked up on from that book I have subsequently forgotten, but that one stuck with me.  Probably because it's actually pretty useful.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I got axiopisty from here:
> 
> The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Bowler: 9781408806357: Books
> 
> Most of the other words I picked up on from that book I have subsequently forgotten, but that one stuck with me.  Probably because it's actually pretty useful.


My favourite big word is sesquipedalian, which I use whenever I can. Which is not often. 

Is that in there?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 17, 2017)

I searched "axiopsity etymology" and the second result was batterfang


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> My favourite big word is sesquipedalian, which I use whenever I can. Which is not often.
> 
> Is that in there?


It is, but it's a word I already knew.  So I don't count it as coming from that book.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2017)

Lord Camomile said:


> I searched "axiopsity etymology" and the second result was batterfang


Did you actually mistype it in the google search?

Batterfang is a brilliant word


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> It is, but it's a word I already knew.  So I don't count it as coming from that book.


Well, of course you did - knowing your own foibles?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 17, 2017)

Guineveretoo said:


> Did you actually mistype it in the google search?
> 
> Batterfang is a brilliant word


How _dare_ you?!  

Nah, I copy and pasted it that time  I think it's just in the list of other words at the bottom of that page.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2017)

kabbes said:


> I got axiopisty from here:
> 
> The Completely Superior Person's Book of Words: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Bowler: 9781408806357: Books



Was it a present or did you buy it for yourself?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Was it a present or did you buy it for yourself?


It was presented to me and I was initially delighted but later wondered at the veiled (or not so veiled) insult.


----------



## Dandred (Feb 12, 2017)

Fuck me, that was cack.


----------

