• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
As far as I'm concerned, they've got one episode to show they've left behind non-linear narratives and endless directorial 'flare', and got back to mysteries and the solving of them through deduction, or I'm abandoning what was one of my favourite series.
 
As far as I'm concerned, they've got one episode to show they've left behind non-linear narratives and endless directorial 'flare', and got back to mysteries and the solving of them through deduction, or I'm abandoning what was one of my favourite series.
Ah, don't be so critical.

My worry is I may not live to see a 2017 series.
 
Moffat was saying this week that the next series will probably be the last because the stars are so successful now they don't need to do TV, and they're only doing this series now because they enjoy it.
 
Moffat was saying this week that the next series will probably be the last because the stars are so successful now they don't need to do TV, and they're only doing this series now because they enjoy it.
Probably true. But while I have Cumberbatch fatigue and a couple of times I've thought Freeman quietly a little up himself, they're both talented and I don't doubt their integrity. I suspect they'll continue to want to do roles they enjoy, and will probably only chase vapid Hollywood options to pay a few bills. Who knows, though? I've noticed in recent years movement between TV and cinema has been a little more free flowing than in the past.
 
True, but it obviously takes so long for the stars to align and gather all the talent in the same place at the same time that I wouldn't be too shocked if the next series wraps things up, then we see a revival in twenty years that's a bit of a letdown.
 
... I suspect they'll continue to want to do roles they enjoy, and will probably only chase vapid Hollywood options to pay a few bills. Who knows, though? I've noticed in recent years movement between TV and cinema has been a little more free flowing than in the past.

Perhaps the future production agenda will end up emulating The X-Files - i.e., shifting from TV to movies.
 
Probably true. But while I have Cumberbatch fatigue and a couple of times I've thought Freeman quietly a little up himself, they're both talented and I don't doubt their integrity. I suspect they'll continue to want to do roles they enjoy, and will probably only chase vapid Hollywood options to pay a few bills. Who knows, though? I've noticed in recent years movement between TV and cinema has been a little more free flowing than in the past.

The only film actors who don't tend to do TV are the absolute current megastars. At the moment that would be Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lawrence, Leonardo De Caprio, as well as the icons, Robert De Nero, Al Pacino, etc.

Sad really as I reckon De Nero and Pacino could really use an interesting tv show.
 
Oh-ho, I want to see the next episode now, stick it on iPlayer. Must admit I never really bought Mary as a black ops deadly assassin, but that aside... intrigue and lots of it. I wonder if Mrs Freeman's real life marital status had any effect on the ending of tonight's?! Bit drastic. Nice replacement of Napoleon with Thatch! Actually felt quite sad at the end, please make up!
 
I was more impressed by last night's Sherlock than I have been by series 3 and than nonsense last year. It felt as though we were back to solving mysteries with deduction, without as much non-linear storytelling and delving into Sherlock's head. Hopeful for the new series.
 
Well, someone has to be a party pooper from time to time, so let it be me this time.

I cut short my viewing of a reasonably interesting Titanic documentary to watch Sherlock, and my expectations were high. While I admit that it was a fairly enjoyable 90 minutes of drama, I thought that this was probably the worst Sherlock yet. The actual story veered between the utterly unbelievable to the pointless. The dead boy in the car was a total red herring - why bother? - and, like others here, I find Mary a strangely unengaging character, believable neither as a super-soldier nor as wife to John.

On top of all that, the trailers had been completely misleading (and not just clever misdirection, which I could forgive!). Toby Jones' character had been thrust front and centre in the trailers, and if I'm not mistaken, we got a half-second glimpse of him on a poster at a bus stop, and that was it. I can only assume (hope?) that the 3 stories in this series are linked, which will bring Mr Jones and the bus-girl into the story.

So, as a stand-alone tale (forgetting that it's Sherlock), I'd give it 7/10, and most of that is for Mycroft.
If it is indeed part one of 3 of a larger tale, then I'll cheerfully eat my words if it improves, but as a Shelock Holmes mystery, it's only a 4/10 from me.
 
Well, someone has to be a party pooper from time to time, so let it be me this time.

I cut short my viewing of a reasonably interesting Titanic documentary to watch Sherlock, and my expectations were high. While I admit that it was a fairly enjoyable 90 minutes of drama, I thought that this was probably the worst Sherlock yet. The actual story veered between the utterly unbelievable to the pointless. The dead boy in the car was a total red herring - why bother? - and, like others here, I find Mary a strangely unengaging character, believable neither as a super-soldier nor as wife to John.

On top of all that, the trailers had been completely misleading (and not just clever misdirection, which I could forgive!). Toby Jones' character had been thrust front and centre in the trailers, and if I'm not mistaken, we got a half-second glimpse of him on a poster at a bus stop, and that was it. I can only assume (hope?) that the 3 stories in this series are linked, which will bring Mr Jones and the bus-girl into the story.

So, as a stand-alone tale (forgetting that it's Sherlock), I'd give it 7/10, and most of that is for Mycroft.
If it is indeed part one of 3 of a larger tale, then I'll cheerfully eat my words if it improves, but as a Shelock Holmes mystery, it's only a 4/10 from me.
Sherlock Holmesfield is always pretty unbelievable I think. I often read the stories thinking, 'Really?' That's the nature of it though. Like everyone, apparently, I don't like the Mary character much. She has become more ridiculous with each episode in which she's featured. I liked the boy in the car story, just because I found it encouraging that they were just solving a mystery again. I was worried when it veered off into more Mary nonsense, but that turned out to be not so bad in the end. We'll see where it all goes.
 
Is it really possible to jump in front of a bullet? ...

No - not in the manner portrayed in last night's episode.

The rapid transition sequence in question struck me as especially weak and ill-constructed, given the prior track record of superlative production values. Throughout the episode I'd noticed the production staff had gotten a little carried away with digitally-sophisticated transitions (wipes; fades). The expository value of such graphical cuteness all came undone at this climactic juncture, when they tried to cram 'way too much auxiliary process into too small a timeframe - resulting in their frankly screwing up the temporal context to the point it seemed a certain character had acquired the Flash's speed.

The character's move would have had to have been initiated much earlier than the final editing suggested.

This glitch soured my viewer engagement at the culmination of a theretofore pretty good episode.
 
I took the "taking a bullet" scene as Mary realising Sherlock was in danger and jumping before it was fired, thereby getting in the way.
 
I took the "taking a bullet" scene as Mary realising Sherlock was in danger and jumping before it was fired, thereby getting in the way.

Yep - I believe that's what they intended to portray. The overly elaborated sequence of visuals strung it out to the point the act didn't seem spontaneous, and maybe not even physically possible.
 
Lots of eagle-eyed viewers have pointed out that Watson's blog is actually nothing more than a jpg.


Martin Freeman’s character Dr Watson was writing a blog post when fans noticed the gaff
 
Yep - I believe that's what they intended to portray. The overly elaborated sequence of visuals strung it out to the point the act didn't seem spontaneous, and maybe not even physically possible.

If they have fluffed that scene, then that makes a mockery of the opening sequence where they doctor the footage of Holmes shooting the guy from the last series. Of course that's now 'the official version'. I can only assume the whole thing is a setup as details are REALLY important in this series.
 
If they have fluffed that scene, then that makes a mockery of the opening sequence where they doctor the footage of Holmes shooting the guy from the last series. Of course that's now 'the official version'. I can only assume the whole thing is a setup as details are REALLY important in this series.
Could it be that somehow Mary's not dead, and the whole thing is a conspiracy to make everyone think she is? If so, I'll try to care!
 
Could it be that somehow Mary's not dead, and the whole thing is a conspiracy to make everyone think she is? ...

If the one guy who was stalking Mary with lethal intent remained alive, I could see that as a possibility. However, he's out of the picture ... So ... From whom would a Mary-is-dead conspiracy be protecting her?
 
Unless Sherlock, who promised to protect her, has set the whole thing up to remove her from future harm. Especially if you consider he MUST have noticed Watson was having an affair. We all know by now how convoluted these solutions can be.
The game is on. And so is the wig on the woman on the bus.
 
I'm fairly sure Mary will stay dead, she dies in the books. I thought the bus lady was a bit off for Watson, he's planning a bit of adultery when he has a new baby? There better be a good explanation for that.
 
I'm fairly sure Mary will stay dead, she dies in the books.
Exactly, this is to my mind, simply a nod to the original canon.

Watson's affair? Not sure, we only ever see 'text' communication. Might be his sister.
 
I'm fairly sure Mary will stay dead, she dies in the books.
Except, wasn't there a bit with Mary in the trailers that didn't appear in this episode? That makes me think we may not have seen the last of her. IMDB, as it happens, shows the actress in all 3 new episodes, though there may be some flashback scenes to explain that.
 
Sherlock: 33 nerdy spots in The Six Thatchers

Did you spot the tease for next week’s episode in the Sherlock series 4 opener? See that and more details from The Six Thatchers…

After taking a fine-toothed comb to new Sherlock episode The Six Thatchers (well, watching it with one finger hovering over the pause button) here are a few items of note discovered, in addition to a handful of discoveries made by some very fine Sherlock detectives elsewhere…


Read more: http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/sher...erdy-spots-in-the-six-thatchers#ixzz4Uo0Ys8qq
 
Back
Top