the bbc sherlock series by the dr who 'bloke' and starring tim from the office

https://twitter.com/#!/StarShaped_Girl/status/199913017574563840/photo/1/large

I watched Hound of the Baskervilles on the plane recently, and actually enjoyed it despite some of the cheesy bits. Cumberbatch is quite a good Sherlock! Think I will investigate more of them.

That's the weakest of all of the episodes --which is not to say I didn't enjoy it -- so I think you'd better.

Second weakest. Skip S01e02 altogether Veg.

you're not the boss of me

http://youtu.be/yrDVSxNycKc

Trailer thingy for CBS' own Sherlock Holmes series, Elementary. Looks like a rather generic police procedural with a 'quirky' lead character - a la Monk - to me.

If I want a Yank Sherlock I'll watch House, I think.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m45a6hTNoB1rr2txjo1_1280.png

What is it with America casting short arse Sherlocks. Johnny Lee Miller isn't Robert Downy short but he's hardly tall and striking. (one of the reasons that Cumberbatch makes a good Sherlock)

what is it with american television and british film actors of the 90s

i keep walking past an HMV window with big boardwalk empire and mildred pierce displays with winslet and mcdonald and thinking, just, huh

Johnny Lee Miller isn't Robert Downy short but he's hardly tall and striking. (one of the reasons that Cumberbatch makes a good Sherlock)

I really don't think Cumberbatch is all that much taller than Miller, it's probably due to the costume choices. Miller is dressed like an overgrown teenager.

idgi

I am you
you are me
wth

yeah?

ya

Jan. 29 on these freedom-loving shores, lolling @ u, Blighty!

the BBC has the “first window” rights to air the show, so UK fans can at least take heart in knowing they will almost certainly get season 3 sometime before Jan. 19

Surely it'll be a flagship Christmas/New Year showing?

the BBC has the “first window” rights to air the show, so UK fans can at least take heart in knowing they will almost certainly get season 3 sometime before Jan. 19

USA! USA!

I liked it when Derren Brown did it, the actual explanation was more plausible but less television-y I suppose.

The episode itself was pretty good even if it owed a debt to V For Vendetta. Do we really need another series arc super-villain though? And I'm still not keen on the 'thinky time' special effects, even if they were less Minority Report this time round.

didn't think much of it really. lopsided with all the 'coming back' stuff at the beginning. editing/pace was a bit weird more generally - wooshy 'speed up/slow down' stuff over an unnecessarily prolonged motorcycle race. can't remember what colonel moran did in the original story (other than taking a shot at the silhouette of holmes? was it that one?), but big terrorism feels like it's not a great fit for sherlock. felt like an episode where a lot of stuff had to be got out of the way/set up. holmes #bantz bit overplayed. wicker man guy fawkes stuff was fun. compared to the excellent first episode of s2 (admittedly probably the best so far), it all felt badly hobbled.

use of london topography is still a strength i think - the lines of information and communication.

tho the ACD stories after holmes returns are also comparatively lumbering and clumsy, so perhaps it's cunning meta.

Well what did you all expect? This was a Gatiss episode.

Gatiss episodes still >>>>> Thompson episodes on average (esp if you count that Moffat plainly wrote much of Thompson's S2 ep)

God this was terrible. Just an appalling mess. I thought it was just the middle episodes that sucked so hard?

'elementary' lookin pretty good now huh you pseuds

Ha! I actually love 'Elementary'. Sure it's police procedural and an entirely different thing from 'Sherlock', but I'm basically cool with JLM and Lucy Liu just hanging out solving crimes. JLM is incredible in it.

was about as good/bad as any of the other mediocre episodes i thought. banter was cute. also im not sure that were meant to take the "actual" explanation as the "actual" explanation? but idk

ok - shd watch elementary. this episode of Sherlock just gets worse and worse as I think about it. a non-case only solved by the agency of the extremely unlikely figure of someone whose job it is, from home, to review tube security tapes before wiping them, who then gets in touch with Sherlock rather than his manager. is an expert on tubes, and categorically states there is nothing between two tube stations whereas in a fact there is an entire siding and station (leading nowhere - why was it built?). this is a version of the "secret passage" get-out much abhorred by golden-age crime and detection writers (Sherlock, with its methodical clues and solutions, partakes of this genre as the original Sherlock Holmes stories did much to produce it). the absence of valuable rolling stock is not noticed by anyone.

there was a lot of horrible public-school/establishment bro behaviour - present in the other episodes obviously, but probably more acceptable (if it is at all acceptable) because they are more vulnerable.

plot holes or lack of realism aren't a problem (for me anyway) as long as the emotion or entertainment conveyed is successful, but this was a total hodge-podge, designed to Holmes and Watson to do an unfunny and actually quite repulsive comedy turn.

yeah this "mystery" was one of the absolute worst in terms of plot holes

there was a lot of horrible public-school/establishment bro behaviour - present in the other episodes obviously, but probably more acceptable (if it is at all acceptable) because they are more vulnerable.

what do you mean by this?

yeah i get the mystery was going to be a minor part of the 'omg you alive' episode but Q: how does this train car disapper in between stations? there are no secret stations or passages between stations so how? A: there is a secret passage between stations! is really just too lazy

It made me want to revisit Jonathan Creek (which doesn't happen very often) to see if my memory of it combining convoluted and improbable mysteries with moderately clever solutions much better is correct.

The whole episode felt like a hook for the bantz, which might be fine if most of the bantz wasn't a tired variation on 'you are gay', 'your moustache looks silly', 'lol @ the woman who is in love with the mighty Sherlock', 'everyone's an idiot apart from me', etc, etc.

I enjoyed this episode as long as I didn't think too hard about it but honestly I just sigh whenever I see Gatiss's name on anything I like these days. He's not a particularly good writer he's basically just a tiresome fanboy for certain kinds of Victorian murk without much of an idea of how to make things genuinely mysterious or creepy. Which is weird because I liked him as part of the League of Gentlemen but every time he tries to write anything straight (or straight-ish ie Sherlock or Doctor Who) it falls flat.

Gatiss episodes still >>>>> Thompson episodes on average (esp if you count that Moffat plainly wrote much of Thompson's S2 ep)

Do we know for certain that Moff had a hand in the S2 finale, or are we just inferring from its quality (and how groansomely bad Thompson's S1 episode was)?

Did everybody look strangely at Molly's new boyfriend Tom near the end just because he resembles Sherlock, or was there something else notable about him that I missed? It seemed like the camera lingered on his shoes, but I have no idea what the significance of that was.

Jonathan Creek is brilliant, and it did that 'boyfriend who looks/dresses exactly like the main character' thing years before this.
Xp I think it was just that he looked like Sherlock

The Avengers showed Mr Peel just slightly before Jonathan Creek

Do we know for certain that Moff had a hand in the S2 finale, or are we just inferring from its quality (and how groansomely bad Thompson's S1 episode was)?

Its basic quality, parts of it's detailed interconnectedness to the series arc, and how groansomely bad both Thompson's S1 ep and his Who ep were that year. It's like how Chibnall obviously disappears from the room ten minutes before the end of the Silurian 2-parter.

Yeah, it was just that he looked like Sherlock, I think. I sort of enjoyed this without actually liking it, it was utterly ludicrous (a bomb with an off-switch? Really?! plus yeah secret underground stations that aren't actually on the line, wtf?), the fake-out explanations were annoying, and if that WAS the explanation, then fuck Moff and his "no-one on the internet sussed it" schtick because I'm pretty sure this very thread alone mentions the replacement body, the cyclist knocking Watson down on purpose, and the squash-ball-under-the-armpit trick.

Thanks sic.

If Sherlock was going to use the squash ball trick, what was the point of the replacement body then???

Actually, I might need to watch again, I think that was maybe a fake-out explanation as well.

I think the third explanation was indeed another fake-out.

everyone is saying that but I didn't get that at all. But then I didn't understand the bit when he disappeared away after telling that guy.

How was the bomb triggered to go off? I really think I might have fallen asleep at a couple of points :-(

The bad guy had a big remote control box with a red button on it in his suitcase.

I also was suspicious of the third(?) explanation, like, why was Sherlock spilling to that fan guy? Plausibility-wise, the second explanation is still in the lead, AFAI care.

Did Col. Moran trigger the countdown? If so why trigger a countdown instead of triggering the actual bomb to go off? I didn't get why it had to be on a timer.

Aye, the need for a timer was the bit I was struggling with.

Plausibility-wise, the second explanation is still in the lead, AFAI care

The gay kiss explanation???

it was just that he looked like Sherlock

I'm glad that's been explained to me because I didn't have a clue why everyone did a double-take when they saw him - I thought maybe he was a character from a previous episode that I either hadn't seen or forgot about. He didn't look anything like Sherlock to me.

He had hair and a coat and was a bit thin.