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

I didn't think this was a superb episode either; as people have pointed out above, the actual plot is full of holes. But I think it managed to do the things it absolutely needed to do (showing how people react to Sherlock's return, giving some explanation to how he survived, re-establishing his relationship with Watson) in a satisfactory way, while also providing a couple of neat character moments for Mycroft, Mary, and Molly. Let's just hope the next two episodes can build on that, with better mysteries.

TBH I was maybe expecting more of this episode because the recent Dr. Who movie Gatiss wrote was so great, much better than his Dr. Who and Sherlock episodes of the past... But that movie was all about the characters and their interaction, whereas Sherlock requires some intricate plotting too, and it just doesn't seem like Gatiss is very good at that.

(xpost)

that scene was less tense for me because it's certain that he will be there on time as watson will not die. but that really is just me watching TV incorrectly!

― ^ sarcasm (ken c), Friday, 3 January 2014 14:29 (9 minutes ago) Permalink

no i think this is watching tv correctly, or being good at watching tv

like if there are plainly no stakes then the only interesting thing is the novelty of the solution to the nominal problem, and the solution to the nominal problem was dull

as was everything with thinking bullet time, or with the mobile/internet superimposed text device -- devices i liked fine when well-executed -- which were just clunky here

elementary's first season actually did better at setting up situations where something is at stake i think. and this is an american tv model which one expects to be way more about slate-wiping. like the question of whether sherlock will kill moran in that, e.g., even when he doesn't the way in which he doesn't has outcomes, ramifications.

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/jan/03/sherlock-doctor-who-fans-influencing-tv

This seems true for Sherlock, but less so for Dr Who. I haven't actually watched Dr Who for years and haven't seen the episode in question, so I could be wrong, but the whole 12-regenerations thing is quite a fundamental thing that would have been picked up on by the majority of viewers, I would have thought, rather than just a small number of obsessive fans, so it needed to be sorted out. Probably wrong thread.

I agree with Tuomas that the episode demanded too much plot from Gatiss when he's much better at character and emotion. I was thinking the other day about Brian Michael Bendis and how I adore his intimate work on Daredevil and Alias but can't connect with him at all when he has to do the kind of intricate plotting demanded by multi-title arcs because he doesn't have enough grasp of pace and exposition to keep all those plates spinning. To be honest, few writers do. Even Moffat, who did some great plate-spinning with the Riversong storyline, got in an almighty tangle with the latest Doctor Who, and I remembered that the epsiodes of his that initially engaged me, like Blink, The Empty Child and The Girl in the Fireplace, were small, character-driven stories. And that's where the first few episodes of Sherlock also excelled - you could enjoy them in isolation. Which is my long-winded way of saying I can live without complicated continuity and geek pandering.

My theory was always that Sherlock didn't tell Watson he's alive because he wanted to protect Watson. He didn't want Moriarty's crooks to try to get to him through Watson, as they had done in the past.

If M's henchpeople suspect S is alive and wanted to get to S via W, that's not at all contingent on whether or not W is aware of S's vitality.

we still don't whether the third account was the correct explanation for how Sherlock did it.

Agree with this.

I wasn't really pulled into this, but I thought the Sherlock death conspiracy group was a nice touch.

the way to make this episode great is to get so stoned you can't keep a train of thought for longer than about 45 seconds, which is the longest stretch in this episode where anything makes sense plotwise. it feels like they randomly cut out about a third of the story and just kept the bits with the best dialog.

ok I accept my reaction to Ep1 was a bit off beam but I think this is quite a good episode of bob hope and bing crosby.

loool why does he need five laptops to have five chat windows open?

Would watch Drunk Sherlock & John Investigate in a heartbeat.

you are.

I've already assumed this is the guy from the kitchen with the waterproof phone.

This was really fun!

And I was wrong, obviously. This has been really fun though.

someone on Facebook has just pointed out that he was in Nathan barley...

loool why does he need five laptops to have five chat windows open?

it's a cute visual parallel that sells what the link is with the preceding thing immediately? i don't think it's meant to be not ludicrous

this was fun and reassuringly not awful

yeah ok. I still think both stories have struggled with pace, alternating fun bit/solvy bit, so that you get a thin case and the personality stuff seems fevered rather than carried by the energy of the narrative.

mark s has pointed out there's a few father brown refs going in as well - the waiter/guest ref (the queer feet), the Invisible Man in this one, and I thought the commander who survives the death of all his troops was a ref to The Broken Sword.

That was mostly boring for the first two thirds then pretty good

poor molly

That was mostly boring for the first two thirds then pretty good

The first two thirds had me convinced that this was going to be a shaggy dog story with lots of Sherlock/John/Mary feels, and then it suddenly had to go and resolve itself. Impressive.

Still waiting on the headless nun though.

poor molly

ikr?

First hour was a shark-jump. Last 30 minutes just about saved it.

I thought this was an excellent episode, and I liked the first hour too, before the tying-everything-together finale... I felt that at this point the series had earned a plot-light breather episode with a character focus, and this was written and performed exceptionally well. (In fact it was the finale that was perhaps the weakest part, as it felt a bit too neat; what coincidence that the two cases Sherlock brought up during his best man speech were related to each other and to John's wedding, even though Sherlock didn't know it when he mentioned the cases.)

There were some hysterically funny bits (the whole "drunken detectives" episode, especially seeing how Sherlock's "Sherlock scan" works while he's drunk), as well as poignant ones (Mary manipulating both John and Sherlock into thinking it's the other one who needs take a new case to take his mind of the wedding, when in fact it's both of them who need it; again pointing out that Watson is in for the thrills almost as much as Sherlock is). And the main emotional theme of the episode, Sherlock's fear that his best friend is gonna abandon him once he's married was handled exceptionally well, and in a way that us non-sociopaths could also relate to him.

So yeah, once I got over the "there's not gonna be a big and thrilling mystery in this one, is there?" disappointment, I simply enjoyed the episode for what it is... And even though the detective stuff at the end was awfully clever, I don't think it was the meat of this episode, the character development was.

Oh, and when the series eventually ends, they're gonna pair Sherlock and Molly together, aren't they? They can't do it yet, because at this point any lovey-dovey stuff would ruin the character dynamics between Sherlock and Molly, as well as Sherlock and Watson, but again in this episode it was hinted that Molly still has feelings for Sherlock, and that Tom is mostly just a poor woman's substitute. (This was especially poignant in the scene where Molly felt the need to tell Sherlock that she has lots of sex with Tom; since sex is the one thing Sherlock seems to be mostly disinterested in, it felt like Molly was saying, "Well, at least he's better than you in that regard!")

The missing train bit is taken from the Doyle story "The Lost Special". The secret passage was a disconnected side line into a mine. They should have included a bit about it having to be reconnected in the show. (Interestingly, this is one story where Holmes gets the solution wrong.)

I dislike the "master criminal sends clues to Sherlock" device. It's lazy writing, and it reminds me of the Riddler on the Batman TV show.

xp agree w/your first post, but Irene Adler is the only 'the woman' for Sherlock. I don't want him to pair off!

Yeah, I don't want him either, he doesn't really work as a romantic character, but I'm sure the writers have figured this out too, that's why I think they're not gonna pair the two until at the end of the series. (It would also provide a neat conclusion to larger character arc they seem to have planned for Sherlock, one where he gradually tries to figure how to connect with other people and have feelings for them.)

it was hinted that Molly still has feelings for Sherlock

"hinted."

Anyway, I don't think he ~needs~ to be rehabilitated, even if it's at the end of the series.

fun, enjoying the new daffiness cumberbatch is bringing this year. mystery was a ridiculous cheat again and also completely beside the point again. sherlock failing to pull and skulking out to go home and listen to 'how soon is now' on blast was great. my fave middle episode so far but the competition is weak.

it took me three tries to finish the first episode but this one kept me hooked way past my bedtime. just great. the elaborate staging of the chat window conversations melding into mycroft-as-obi-wan was just brilliant, as good as it gets on stage or screen imo.

though i have to confess i still don't really understand the murder weapon :(

super-thin stabby thing, so tight you don't feel. belt stops you bleeding out till released - like a pre-set tourniquet.

but you'd feel it or see it when putting the belt on. and if it's super-thin why doesn't it get bent down?

i dont think it was part of the belt, it was just stabbed through the belt

yes - stabbing takes place through the belt, while wearing the belt - in the whizzy how-it-happened summary we see culprit coming up close to both guardsman & sholto to do the stabbing.

found it a lot of fun on every level - incident, character business, structure. don't know which of the writers built it, but it had a lot of what I've always liked in Moffatt since Press Gang, pleasure in form + bright chatter.

Even if the murder weapon thing was explained, there were still loads of holes in the resolution. Like, even if you're using a super-thin blade, is it really possible to lethally stab someone without him noticing it at the moment of stabbing? Why didn't the Royal Guard dude start bleeding immediately after he took off the belt, why did the bleeding start only after he'd undressed completely and walked to the shower booth? If the photographer guy's motive was to avenge the death of his innocent brother, how could he justify killing another innocent soldier as a way of rehearsing the murder? If the murder had to happen in the wedding because army guy was living in secret place, and all of his staff had sign a confidentiality contract that they wouldn't disclose any information on him, how did the photographer find all those women working for him? Did he just randomly date thousands of women until he happened to come across the right ones? But if the location of the army guy's residence was a secret, he wouldn't even know in which city to begin the whole dating thing. And what if the army dude's female employees had all been married or in an exclusive relationship? Also, how could the photographer be sure the army guy would wear his uniform in the wedding? It wasn't a military occasion, so he could've showed up in his civvies.

even if you're using a super-thin blade, is it really possible to lethally stab someone without him noticing it at the moment of stabbing?

i also don't really believe that you wouldn't feel a blade being slipped into you, no matter how nano it was, but it's not as if i have a lot of experience with that, and the show seemed pretty sure of it, so hey, you go with it; sherlock's smarter than i am!

Why didn't the Royal Guard dude start bleeding immediately after he took off the belt, why did the bleeding start only after he'd undressed completely and walked to the shower booth?

cause the wound is tiny and it takes a while for the blood to start gushin.... but once it does, watch out

If the photographer guy's motive was to avenge the death of his innocent brother, how could he justify killing another innocent soldier as a way of rehearsing the murder?

uh cause he's a...... MURDERER? and therefore pretty psycho already?

how did the photographer find all those women working for him?

research, i guess. who knows how long he'd been working on this?

what if the army dude's female employees had all been married or in an exclusive relationship?

then.. i guess it wouldn't have worked and he'd have had to try something else

how could the photographer be sure the army guy would wear his uniform in the wedding?

he couldn't, it might have just been a strong hunch, but too good of an opportunity to pass up

He was sure he would wear the uniform because the army guy had asked for special dispensation to be allowed to keep it. The kind of person would do that is the kind of person who would wear his uniform to a wedding.

Especially the wedding of someone he'd served with.

The case of the flummoxed Finn

People do occasionally get stabbed without realising it irl and the fact that he was on duty would have meant he'd probably not have been able to visibly react to any mild discomfort.

stabbing someone through a leather belt like that is going to take some force though.

i was pretty consciously rolling with the tv/film physics, ie a) any sufficiently fine or sharp edged weapon can go through anything p easily & b) you can even be beheaded by a sufficiently sharp/fine blade and not notice until you cough or scratch your ear or similar.

a wire, yes, with both ends attached. but a fine blade would buckle when used in a stabbing motion.

sorry, i have turned into the sort of person i debookmarked the dr who thread because of 8(

Why didn't the Royal Guard dude start bleeding immediately after he took off the belt, why did the bleeding start only after he'd undressed completely and walked to the shower booth?

cause the wound is tiny and it takes a while for the blood to start gushin.... but once it does, watch out

If the wound is so tiny it takes minutes for the blood start coming out, how can it be lethal?

If the photographer guy's motive was to avenge the death of his innocent brother, how could he justify killing another innocent soldier as a way of rehearsing the murder?

uh cause he's a...... MURDERER? and therefore pretty psycho already?

But he wasn't presented as a psycho who randomly kills people, he had a clear, moral motive for the one murder he set out to commit: to punish a person he thought was guilty, to avenge someone he thought had died unjustly. So it felt a bit odd he would unjustly and immorally murder another innocent person to achieve this. If the photographer was so amoral that an innocent person dying didn't matter to him, it would seem he wouldn't want to risk a life in prison to avenge his brother in the first place.

how did the photographer find all those women working for him?

research, i guess. who knows how long he'd been working on this?

"Research" isn't a magic wand, though. If the Major was living in a secret location, and if all his employees signed an agreement of confidentiality, how was he able to locate not one but five them among millions of Britons, and on top of that find their dating profiles? (The Major didn't seem like he was exorbitantly rich, so those five women must've represented quite a large proportion of the number of single women working for him.)

And of course the biggest inexplicable bit was that the two cases Sherlock brings up during his best man speech just happen to be linked to each other and to the wedding at hand, even though Sherlock didn't know about that when he started the speech. But I'm willing to let that one slide, because according to the rules of fiction it would've been pointless for him to blabber about some other cases that had nothing to do with the main plot.

you can get some of the way with that one by saying that his unconscious had some outstanding/unsolved bits and pieces that it was trying to fit together… military murder… sholto at wedding… maybe the middle name thing… & that's why they're in the speech - but then he normally has extremely good conscious access to that preprocessing part of the mind, & it seemed deeply surprising to him, so I don't think that quite does it.

And Tuomas claimed NOT to be a sociopath.

Yeah, I guess you could explain the speech thing with unconscious thought processes, but that still doesn't explain why, if Sherlock gets hundreds of potential cases in his inbox, right before Watson's wedding he just happened pick two cases that relate to each other and also to the wedding. There's no way he could've known about those connections when he chose to investigate the cases.

(x-post)

you can get some of the way with that one by saying that his unconscious had some outstanding/unsolved bits and pieces that it was trying to fit together… military murder… sholto at wedding… maybe the middle name thing… & that's why they're in the speech - but then he normally has extremely good conscious access to that preprocessing part of the mind, & it seemed deeply surprising to him, so I don't think that quite does it.

I can get with this; the wedding speech nerves would hamper his usual conscious access to these links.