UKC

Seems to have lost its edge this series for me. Really disappointed after the last 2 series, but one more to go might redeem it.

Is it just me?

In reply to balmybaldwin: I thought there was a fabulous one hour programme there.

Sadly, it lasted 90 minutes and the padding made it rather tedious whilst you waited for the plot to move on.

T.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Nope not just you, I enjoyed the last two but nothing near as much as the first one I saw. Seems to be in danger of disappearing up its own ar*e a la Dr Who...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I watch on i-player so I haven't yet seen 3.2, but I thought 3.1, compared with anything from the first two series, was good fun, but quite slack and self-indulgent--a lot of knowing winks, mugging and gurning and playing to the gallery. It has dawned on them that they're big-time, unfortunately. Knowing that they're stars has ruined many stars...

Example: the business about not explaining how Sherlock faked his suicide. In the process of horsing around and not explaining this, they did a lot of mocking of earnest Sherlock fans who have been propounding online theories. Which is sort of funny, but also kind of up-themselves.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Get me and my shallow superficiality. I really enjoyed them both. Proper Sunday night TV. funny. Clever, or so I thought.

You'll be sorry when it's Call the Midwife and all it's misery memoirness.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I must be in the minority as I found the last two episodes, and tonight's especially, entertaining stuff.

I'm only sad as there is just one episode left.

In reply to The Lemming:

Its not that these 2 were unwatchable, or that id rather watch something else, they are still good, but just a few levels below the last 2 series.

Maybe its the introductioin of more core characters that dont quite blend as well?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I really liked tonight's episode, I quite like the fact that it wasn't so apocalyptic as previous.

And a nice, if too brief, reappearance of the woman

Yep there are similarities with Doctor Who, not surprising given the Moffatt/Gatiss connection, but I reckon they are doing a pretty good job on both, though Sherlock is definitely the better of the two

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Seems its gone a bit flouncy. I miss the sharpness.

In reply to balmybaldwin: I'm sure there are cases where people are stabbed without noticing, but aren't they usually pumped full of adrenaline or alcohol at the time?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I must admit I've thoroughly enjoyed them too. I particularly liked the Stag Do scene and following investigation.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Sounds like a good plan, show his death any way you want, then just wait for all the theories to spill out on the media, then write the ending.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Not found it dire, but unlike the previous series I'm not glued to it. This 3.2 seemed an improvement on 3.1 but I still found myself distracted by anything and everything and so will need to go back to the recording and try again.

I think it just has more padding and isn't quite as sharp as the previous episodes, but that is just my view.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Getting episode 2 off the torrents now, as S3 is not released in Aus for bloody weeks yet. Enjoyed 3:1 muchly, the beasting Watson gave Holmes was great fun. Some smart nods to the canon in there too, loved the play on the "origins of tree worship," made me hoot.

I agree it's not as edgy as S1 or S2, but still quality.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think it has lost its sinister dark side from the last two series and become a little more soap opera. The episodes are less distinct from each other. We don't seem to have an uber-bad guy any more although there was some suggestion of one at the end of 3.1 who will probably appear next week.

Overall though I thought it was just as entertaining and significantly funnier.

Alan

I'm going to tell you something that will shock you to your very core and has lost me many friends...

I prefer 'Elementary'.

:-P

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'm not sure it's lost its edge.

They set the bar pretty high with S1/2. I found last night's episode to playful, knowing, clever and little self-indulgent. Given the overall quality of the writing, direction and acting I am prepared to forgive a little self-indulgence when the result is a drama that is steps ahead any other produced in the UK and shown at prime time.

As others have said we should be thankful for the few episodes we have, pearls before the swine of 'call the midwife', 'Larkrise to Candleford', 'Heartbeat' and the other Sunday night Mogadon.

In reply to TMM:

Not the best of the series, but still with merit, I hope it doesn't finish without hitting a high point again.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'm still puzzled about how the attempted murders were done, maybe I nodded off at some point, it was a little soporific at times, but can anyone tell me how he did it: was the murder weapon a very thin knife? If so is it plausible that you could be stabbed and not feel it, then the wound opening later on, or have I missed something?

PS. My vote is that this episode was a little poor, too much "human interest" and not enough real Sherlocking. Apparently it is very popular in China so maybe they are aiming at the export market, all those shots of guards and so on?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Basil Rathbone did Sherlock much better but the earlier series were pretty good and I liked the first one of this series but tonights was padded and drawn out and far fetched, I mean a murder at Watson's wedding, pleeeasse. It was almost painful. The next episode better be good or I'm out.

In reply to ti_pin_man:

Far-fetched?

And there being someone like Sherlock in the first place--that's *not* far-fetched?

C'mon... FICTION

In reply to balmybaldwin:
I've not yet seen 2.2, but thought 2.1 was a bit long on style and short on substance compared to series 1. Having said that, it's still very watchable and enjoyable. I'd agree with the earlier comment about it being an hour long show with padding, which was perhaps less obvious in Series

1.Edit: hmmm, did I miss a series somewhere?! Looking at TC's earlier post I think I must have!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes, I was left feeling a little "so what'ish" after last night's episode. The murder details were a bit poor although, to be fair, the original books were often fairly light on real detail and basically not that great as true who dunnits or whatever. The real detail was in the characterisations - which this was admittedly very good at. I think what we were missing was some darkness and the feeling that something bigger was afoot in the background.

Unfortunately, I kept expecting some dwarves or a dragon to appear at the wedding to cause chaos...

In reply to Fraser:

Yes, this is series 3 (although only 3 episode long it seems).

In reply to balmybaldwin:

As a Sherlock Holmes fan i really want to like them but are tedious. As someone has said there is too much padding and not enough problem solving. They are trying to be too clever or dare i say its too modern for me.

Jeremy Brett was by far the best Holmes and even the Basil Rathbone collection from the 1940's would get my vote to re-watch rather than the current episodes.

In reply to KarlH:

The Basil Rathbone collection had one major flaw - Watson was portrayed as an idiot. Quite the opposite of ACD's character and one which made no sense. I like the way this series gets its laughs by poking fun at Sherlock (e.g. playing Operation with Mycroft)

Jeremy Brett was pretty good as a victorian Holmes, but I do think Cumberbatch is better and Freeman is also the best Watson I've seen.

But what I really like is the way it has been successfully modernised, whilst still retaining the essential charactistics of original.

"Before the gods who made the gods woke up and made the gods, that's when you first got into the Manics."

In reply to Richard Carter:



Correct...Saw the first episode of Sherlock ('The Empty Hearse'?) The one about his faked death and it was so far up it's own arse it wasn't even funny. Infantile, self-absorbed pish (see also Dr. Who!)

In reply to Tim Chappell:
I am happy to suspend disbelief to a point, however I think this episode needed so much suspension it was bordering science fiction.. it was borderline last night.

In reply to KarlH:


Aargh, I couldn't disagree more regarding Jeremy Brett, he portrayed Holmes as a completely smug, obnoxious individual, so far removed from the Conan Doyle character I so loved to read about. I have to leap for the remote whenever he appears on screen. Rathbone remains my favourite and, to my mind, the most faithful to the original, followed by Cumberbatch.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Mycroft is excellent in the new series.

In reply to SteveoS:

Is Mycroft his brother?

Great character.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Can no one explain to me how the villain wounded the guard and the officer? My wife fell asleep too and I can't think of anyone I know in Britain to telephone who watches the telly. BBC replay doesn't work from abroad or I'd watch it again myself.

In reply to andymac:

Yes

In reply to andymac:

Yep.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It showed the photographer/villain stabbing him from behind through his belt, which other than some mild discomfort appeared to go unnoticed. The idea being the tight belt stopped any bleeding (for several hours) until the belt was removed. The guardsman removed his belt before showering and hence died. The officer at the wedding was stopped before he did that although we didn't see how John stopped the bleeding etc when he did.

I thought it was one of the more ridiculous episodes I've seen but, as I said above, to be fair some of the crimes and mysteries in the original books are pretty far fetched.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes ( spoiler alert)



















the perpetrator used a skewer through the belt of each victim well ahead of the crime being noticed. The belt kept the wound together, and the damage only occured once the belt was removed. Not altogether believable mainly due to the thought that surely the victim would have felt it on both occasions. The first victim was just a rehearsal for he important victim.

In reply to balmybaldwin and skyfall:

Thanks to both of you, that's about what I guessed but it seemed just too far fetched that someone could be stabbed and not feel it... perhaps I should try a few experiments to see if it works?

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Apples and oranges a bit though isn't it? Brett was the classic "Holmes" Holmes, playing as true to the canon as possible. Whereas BC is a "Holmesalike" for the modern age.

Freeman could be a great Watson, but he's playing a Watsonalike.

In reply to andymac:


Not a fan of the Canon then?

"The conclusions of every department are passed to him, and he is the central exchange, the clearinghouse, which makes out the balance. All other men are specialists, but his specialism is omniscience."

Gatiss is a fantastic Mycroft, but not one true to the canon.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Oh yes it does....

May require some annual payment or can be done for free (usually slow to stream though).

b

In reply to ben b:

Using a proxy server? I've heard of this but never go round to trying it, I can watch BBC etc using a satellite dish in the Paris region it's only playback that I can't. There's only so many hours in a day anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I got both episodes off the torrents.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

true, which is why it is nice to decide when you want to spend some watching the telly!

Proxies are available quite easily e.g. foxyproxy (many others too) - can work in a specific browser (eg just Firefox configured to appear to be in London whilst Chrome connects directly from wherever I am) or for the whole system (eg laptop appears to be in London).

Fortunately radio is free, and proxy only required for TMS.

b

In reply to PeterM:


It was not the best one to watch first, even if you had managed to see Reichenbech Fall it would have been a better way to get onto the series.

In reply to The Pylon King:

But isn't that because Sherlock intellectually understands his autistic detachment and was synthesising what he thought were the appropriate emotions? I thought the awkwardness at the wedding was pretty believable. Worryingly so, since I have to do the best man thing again this year for the first time in many years and I'm not exactly a party animal.

I think the series is a genuine attempt to reimagine the original stories. The episodes are based on bits from various Conan Doyle episodes (and the titles are nod to the original titles) but they aren't slavish rewritings. Purists probably won't approve, although disapproval has been pretty muted.

I agree with the comment that the more technical the solutions become the less believable they tend to be, but that's me being a bit Sherlock. Gatiss is imaginative and a good plotter but I'm guessing isn't very techie (the Hounds of Baskerville episode woefully failed to grasp even the principles of genetic manipulation, but I tried not to let that spoil it for me!)

In reply to stroppygob:
his specialism is omniscience."


I think I'm going to have that on my business cards.

In reply to stroppygob:

Mark Gatiss is great.

Mr Chinnery and the butcher with the 'special sausages' are still fresh in the memory.

Gatis's name appeared several times in the Sherlock credits the other night.

Production team?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I still love it. It's sharp as a razor, full of bright wit, and is warm and mesmerising and joyful and painful.

Holmes is at his best when there is some big, dark evil afoot - so in order to see how he copes with everyday life we have to see him when there isn't. I'm glad it's not just more of the same, and the actors have both been given so much more to do. Still one of the best things on television.

I haven't read Sherlock Holmes in a while... was the case he offhandedly mentioned -- I believe it was 'The Poisoned Giant', or something to that effect -- a nod to the Aborigine pygmy who fired poisoned thorns in The Sign of Four?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-01-08/sherlock-weve-plotted-out-the-who...

In reply to andymac:



You've obviously not read ACD's Sherlock Holmes series, in that he was always reffered to as Sherlock's smarter brother.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Well that one was a vast improvement. Very good

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I thought the dialogue was good, with some very amusing exchanges.

But where was the plot?

IMO, these stories should be about solving mystery or crime and there has been precious little of that. It all seems like build-up for the next (and the next) series.

In reply to lowersharpnose:


You mean apart from the one where the Media Mogul blackmails everybody with his gigantic Memory Palace?

And that the other two episodes have snippets of the plot in them such as Watson being stuck in a bonfire so that the media mogul could get leverage on Holmes?

Or finding out that Mrs Watson is actually Mrs Psycho, who rents her skills out to the CIA?

In reply to The Lemming:

I am not denying that things happened, but what did H&W solve?

I liked it, but it was a bit crazy. Too many people are coming back from the dead too often. It's getting so you don't, as it were, trust the narrative ground under your feet.

And I thought the Murdoch character's death was kind of unsatisfactory. Sherlock is not Rambo. Why would he just shoot him?

In reply to lowersharpnose:


I enjoyed a ripping good yarn over three evenings.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Because Murdock had knowledge on Mary, only in his brain and not on paper.

And Sherlock is a psychopath solving the problem of stopping a brain from divulging secrets.

In reply to The Lemming:

I know that, but it's what I don't find satisfactory. Surely the thing for Sherlock to do if he behaves in character is find Magnusson's pressure point, and blackmail the blackmailer.

I thought the script was actually pointing us in that direction--it's surely the direction SH should have gone in. And then bang. Disappointing. Obvious. Boring. Am I beginning to sound like Moriarty?

In reply to The Lemming:

He's not a psycopath, he's a high functioning sociopath

Agreed though that shooting him wasn't very "Holmes". Perhaps it was a way of snappily demonstrating Sherlock's commitment, love, friendship to Watson by sacrificing his freedom. Holmes didn't seem to have a plan at that point.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

yes but still any dick can fire a gun, its not holmes style and spoiled an otherwise mediocre plot

In reply to Tim Chappell:

You're assuming Magnusson is dead just because he's been shot at point blank range. This doesn't seem to be sufficient to kill anyone else!

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Yeah, maybe it will turn out in the next episode that SH shot him with a tranquilliser dart, and Magnusson is actually working for Mycroft, who, however, is an al-Qaeda sleeper.

And so on. And so forth. Everyone loves a plot twist, but there's a danger of being all twists and no plot. This kind of stuff just gets exasperating after a while. You get that garden-path feeling.

In reply to cuppatea:



I think that he has now won the medal of Psych with distinction.

Now if you were to rate these three, what order would you put them?

James Bond
The Joker (Dark Knight)
Sherlock

In reply to Tim Chappell:



Mid Summer Murders does quite well from this. That village should be empty by now.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
I don't know really. On the one hand I agree it wasn't the most satisfactory ending and not very Holmes but it was quite clever in another respect. I worked out what was about to happen at almost precisely the point it did. I'd already worked out the only way to really secure a victory was to kill him, was assuming Watson would try, then thought Mycroft was about to "arrange it" when they arrived, then decided the security forces had no excuse (though that didn't stop them with Duggan...) when, suddenly, bang, Sherlock, obvious really. It led me to the same conclusion at exactly the right time, so quite clever in that respect. As was being sent on the mission as the price to be paid. I think the Moriarty bit at the end was an unnecessary step too far.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I have to say that, much as I want Moriarity in future episodes, the fact that he was faking it on the roof doesn't say much for Sherlock's supernatural powers of observation and deduction (although, admittedly, he did have other things on his mind).

Moriarity was only in last night's episode for about 30 seconds and completely stole the show.

In reply to Tim Chappell:



My take on it is that Sherlock's reaction was a result of his one pressure point (JW) being in peril as a result of the leverage Murdoch had on MW (JWs pressure point).

Once pressure was applied to Sherlock the smart answers and deduction dry up and he is forced to take more direct action. I thought that this and the more overt references to his addiction and childhood showed some interesting character development.

I enjoyed it.

In reply to TMM:

Personally, I thought the funniest thing of the entire series was last week, when a pissed Sherlock dug out the smallest magnifying glass to look for clues on the carpet and then promptly spewing up.

That was a belly laugh moment.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I have to say I have found this series rather disappointing. What happened to the problem solving and intriging clues. The writers and producers seem to have forgotten that the character is a detective! NOT Dr Who.

I read the other day that series 4 and 5 are already written, so I suspect this series is just setting the groundwork for the next series.

Heres hoping for better to come.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Quality reference to the Rathbone era last night:

"There's an east wind blowing..."

A reference to the Second World War back then.

In reply to gavster2405:


Having defended the series after the second episode, I'm less impressed having just watched the finale.

Mrs Hudson having a colourful back story is one thing, but Mary Watson as a CIA killer is too much.

But the main problem is that, when faced with a cleverer opponent, Holmes simply resorts to violence and kills him. Sorry, but that is not true to the character.

The portrayal of Murdoch on the other hand was great, him flicking Watson's face a great analogy, but they ought to have found a fair means to beat him. Mind you it was very Orwellian, the boot smashing upon the face forever.......

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Ah, but part of the cleverness there is that the Murdoch character's ego is so large and his lack of empathy so total that he fails to spot his pressure point. It's simply himself. He misses the possibility Sherlock might effectively sacrifice himself for the greater good, friendship etc. he's not the first villain to be portrayed in that way. Anyway, at the end of the day, isn't that really how Sherlock defeats moriarty in the books? He can't outwit him so they fight, both dying just outside Meringen (before sherlock's resurrection).

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Meh. He had his moments in the past, but he's ultimately just a boring, motiveless, invincible villain with near-magical powers of influence and infinite resources. Unkillable and unpunishable.

That's a standard action film and comic book opponent (quite a few parallels between the new Moriarty and the Joker, no?) because so many writers can't think of any other way to make a credible adversary for their superhero.

It is disappointing that none of the Sherlock team seem to be able to think of anything better, and in the series finale we find they coudln't even think of a way to have the hero out-think their all-powerful bad guy.

In reply to Shearwater:


I think that was a good characterisation of him. He played his last card and it wasn't enough. He felt backed into a corner, and so he panicked. There was only one way out from there (he was out of time), and that was to kill him. John could have done it but would have gone to jail. Sherlock was technically untouchable because of who he is. He can't be imprisoned (due to reasons explained) and he wouldn't be executed because this is England.

In reply to Taking the Mick?:

I don't think it was supposed to be panic, I think it was calculated as a last resort - when they left the house earlier he asked John if he had his gun.

I quite liked it as a character development, because through the series other characters had suggested Sherlock might do that sort of thing, though as a viewer you didn't believe he would - and finally he did. What would have been much more predictable would be if Sherlock had prevailed with intellect, as usual.

And who cares if it's not consistent with the books? They've already thoroughly departed from the original characters and setting.

In reply to Andy Moles:



Which is probably why the show is so popular and entertaining. And dare I say, better than that Iron Man chappie's Hollywood movie versions of Sherlock?