Sherlock [** SPOILERS **]

razorblunt

brick tamland wrote: »

Not sure what to make of it TBH. Ending felt very rushed after 90 mins.

Andrew Scott getting out of the helicopter to Queen was easily the best bit of the whole episode

That was such a cruel throwback too, "hey kids, remember when this show was brilliant?".
I have to admit though I laughed way too hard at the "Red Alert ... Red Alert ... big red bouncy red alert", from that to his meeting in the basement, it was like a different show entirely.

Basq

Andrew Scott was great... personal favourite line:

"I wrote my own version of the nativity when I was a child - The Hungry Donkey. It was a bit gory. But if you’re going to put a baby in a manger you’re asking for trouble."

NIMAN

I thought it was a terribly poor final show.

I think this show has run its course.

Mr.Prodston

Any chance we could have a spin off from the point of view of Moriarty? :pac:

B.A._Baracus

I'm in the camp of that Sherlock has slightly been declining for a while now. Still enjoyable and entertaining episodes it's just that it's very easy to nitpick certain story elements as it goes on. Not that I want to, it's just... Things are niggling.

Vojera

Mr.Prodston wrote: »

Any chance we could have a spin off from the point of view of Moriarty? :pac:

Moriarty and Mrs Hudson in cahoots. Lots of car chases and tea cosies. I'd love it :pac::pac::pac:

Basq

Basq wrote: »

Andrew Scott was great... personal favourite line:

"I wrote my own version of the nativity when I was a child - The Hungry Donkey. It was a bit gory. But if you’re going to put a baby in a manger you’re asking for trouble."

confirmed himself as liking the lads also, if there was any doubt left. art imitating life.


Governor: Mr. Moriarty.
Moriarty: Big G! Big G means "governor" in street speak. I'm relatable that way. Do you like my boys? This one's got more stamina, but he's less caring in the afterglow.

Greyjoy

Greyjoy wrote: »

After the episode finished I couldn't make my mind up whether I liked it or not. There were bits in it that I enjoyed but it ultimately felt unsatisfying. Then it struck me that what Gatiss & Moffat had written was a Dr Who script. There was no real 'mystery' to solve instead we had a series of puzzles revolving around difficult moral choices. That's the style of Doctor Who not Sherlock.

I began to suspect that the 'plane' was a deception long before the episode ended as it was getting dragged out far too long for Sherlock to solve. But then that makes the initial scene on the plane when the girl wakes up a complete trick by the writers - Eurus isn't speaking to Sherlock or Mycroft, Gatiss & Moffat try to trick the viewer into thinking Moriarty has engineered this threat.

All Steven Moffat writes is tricks. He just thinks of what would 'look cool' but doesn't put any work into making it a believable story. He's a magician, all style and no substance. The most annoying thing is they don't even have to think of plots for Sherlock themselves, there's hundreds of Sherlock Holmes stories they could have adapted. :mad:

Kirby

I suppose I'm easy to please as it seemed everyone else in here hated it. Obviously I'm the only one in the thread who enjoyed it. Yikes modern day audiences have high standards it seems. :P

Even if you hated it, surely there were impressive bits to it you liked? The scene with the glass/not glass cell was really well put together, no? Some of the back and forth dialogue? Seeing Moriarty saunter out of the chopper?

Belle E. Flops

I thought it had it's flaws, but I really enjoyed it all the same.

Mitch Connor

I hated the tranq explanation of the previous episode cliffhanger - and there being no real discussion of why that scene happened at all. So odd.

Beyond that I enjoyed the episode. Though the phone call to the little girl at the start.... Euros rang herself? Did she know that or was there a split personality thing?

alchemist33

Eurus' X-men-like powers of persuasion were what bothered me the most last night, but when I thought about it she might not have had superpowers after all. She may well have been persuasive, convincing some vulnerable person to come around to her point of view but after that she might have used that person to get to another by blackmail (e.g. she said she has sex with one guard - she bumped him off but she could have blackmailed him either) or threats, establishing a network of people she could influence which grew until she ran the place. And they couldn't kill her off because of Mycroft keeping an eye on her.

rainbowtrout

There was a Q&A with Moffatt and Gatiss after a preview showing earlier this week. In it they said that they would like to write again in the future, and gave the usual waffle about difficulties in getting the actors at the same time.

That's not hard, you commit to a series and sign them up. Would suspect that Cumberbatch/Freeman would commit if they were given quality scripts.

The other interesting thing they said in the Q&A was that in the original stories that Holmes and Watson are first introduced to the reader when they are middle aged and we don't get the back story. And that if they wrote in the future that these four series could serve as the back story as to how they came to be the pair that they are. Granted many of the characters have now been introduced and are dead, but it would give them leeway to hit the reset button and write self contained episodes where Sherlock solves a mystery.

I just can't see them going back to that though after going this far away from it with the Bond styling of series four.

There would be nothing to stop them creating a brand new moriarty character but rather than building up to a huge crescendo just leave it as solving mysteries/crimes each week and have this character featuring on and off like moriarty did in the first two series.

pinkypinky

I think we have to accept that the first two series were nigh on masterpieces and the fact that the two main actors became massive stars because of it necessarily meant there was a ridiculous gap between the second and third seasons, which led to a monumental internet conspiracy and far too much meta analysis. After that, season 3, and to a lesser extent, 4 could never live up to the early heights.

It feels to me like there'll be no more and I'm ok with that. Season 4 was good but not great, but Sherlock has turned into a good man by the end of it. There were some lovely parallels with the first episode.

CelticRambler

The Prisoner of Azkaban meets the Deathly Hallows ... :rolleyes:

suitcasepink

Like I was actually enjoying it but the last 10 minutes were just unforgivable?? Honestly wtf are we meant to take from that. "Right lads 10 mins to go we need to wrap this up quick"

reason vs religion

Where were all you nay-sayers last week when my long post making many of the same points was completely ignored?! Anyway, ever the contrarian, I quite liked this episode! I agree it ended abruptly, that the plane "metaphor" was lame, that it picked up as if the previous episode hadn't happened, that the psychology was questionable (did childhood loneliness really motivate her to kill, and could she really remain an open wound for so long? And are we really supposed to accept that Sherlok's sociopathy/Asperger's was alleviated once he'd uncovered those hidden memories?). But I disagree about there not being suspense in those puzzle scenes - the death of the governor proved life was potentially on the line - and I for one quite expected Mycroft to be shot..dead. I thought Eurus was played excellently, and liked the character, even if I had to suspend judgement somewhat on how she cobbled together the crystal maze and achieved some of her other stuff. There is something utterly terrifying to me about a plane in which everyone is asleep/dead, which of course we saw before. So that was a treat. And Andrew Scott lights up the screen, so loved that too. It also felt less up itself - first time in a while the blog wasn't mentioned. All in all, I liked it. But you have to accept, it's a different show from seasons 1&2.

Two inadvertent things that amused me:

Besides the tombstone anagram thing Sherlock did, there was only one other live deduction, something that had become so central a feature in the show: Sherlock used his astounding mental powers to eliminate as suspects in a sniper shooting a man who wears glasses and a man who has a tremor. Nice work.

In Mary's video she urges Sherlok and Watson to get back to solving crimes. Yes, Mary, we've been saying that for two seasons now! Your bloody wedding was arguably the catalyst for the deviation.

pickarooney

That was a hot mess. Seven years to make 13 episodes, 4 of which were top notch and the rest running the gamut from so-so to risible.

This business about having to fit in filming around the actors' schedules is a nonsense. How hard is it to get them to sign a contract to commit to what amounts to 2 hours of screen time a year? Cumberbatch was a nobody before this show, and going on as though he's doing the producers, and by extension the audience, a favour by making a few episodes once in a while is annoying.

Kirby

pickarooney wrote: »

That was a hot mess. Seven years to make 13 episodes, 4 of which were top notch and the rest running the gamut from so-so to risible.

This business about having to fit in filming around the actors' schedules is a nonsense. How hard is it to get them to sign a contract to commit to what amounts to 2 hours of screen time a year? Cumberbatch was a nobody before this show, and going on as though he's doing the producers, and by extension the audience, a favour by making a few episodes once in a while is annoying.

For most movies, you show up for a month and then go home or move onto the next project. Sometimes there is prep involved such as altering your body, dialect work, training and so on but even that is new and exciting. You don't have to think about the role again for likely another year until you are asked back to do add ins or some ADR followed by the promotional tour.

TV work is a slog by comparison. Ask any actor and they will tell you the same. 14 hour days, every day, for six months. Thats what would happen if they signed up for even a ten episode run. By only doing 3 longish episodes every few years, they actors likely keep it fresh and fun for themselves. There is nothing worse than watching an actor play a part when its clear he doesn't want to be there.

livedadream

i feel like im the only one who loved it!
yes it was trippy and crazy at times but i kinda feel like that was supposed ot make us feel like they did...
if it is the end i will be gutted but Sherlock realising that he is stronger than Mycroft and Eurus, that for years he has pushed his emotions away to try to be as intelligent as his brother.

i love that he realised that although he isnt as IQ based intelligent as his brother, that his feelings, being able to have emotions and relate to people is what makes him better than Mycroft.

Sian burke jesus christ she is incredible! defo not the last we've seen of her... and poor Molly... it broke my heart.

I did think it was amazing!

jpm4

Were the writers taking inspiration from the Jap horror film Ringu? Erubus sure reminded me of Sadako, and the whole "drowned in a well" thing also.

What the hell was the whole bomb thing about?

rainbowtrout

pickarooney wrote: »

That was a hot mess. Seven years to make 13 episodes, 4 of which were top notch and the rest running the gamut from so-so to risible.

This business about having to fit in filming around the actors' schedules is a nonsense. How hard is it to get them to sign a contract to commit to what amounts to 2 hours of screen time a year? Cumberbatch was a nobody before this show, and going on as though he's doing the producers, and by extension the audience, a favour by making a few episodes once in a while is annoying.

From what I've read before, it takes a month to film each episode. They typically film January - March, then it's all the editing etc and broadcast the following January.

It's not even Cumberbatch and Freeman's schedules. How long does it take Moffatt and Gatiss to write an episode?

Clareman

Ì don't think I could go about watching the recent episodes again, but I would say the reason it takes so long to do each episode is because of the schedules of the main actors, they didn't share a lot of screen time together and when they were on screen together they were often at different sides of the screen which suggests to me that the scene is spliced together.

Clareman

On an unrelated note, in a recent episode of "The Good Place" there is reference to a show that's been on the BBC for 16 years and has had 30 episodes, nice dig at how slow the beeb is to make shows.

Basq

^ Yep, but considering the horrific pacing of 24 episode dramas in the US, I wouldn't change the Beeb's often slow but rewarding format. There's more worthwhile dramas on the BBC in a single year than there has been on network TV in the US in the last 5.

* a tad off-topic so apologies!

Clareman

The most recent series had episodes of just short of 90 minutes, in the US that would 2 episodes of TV when you take ads into account so the BeeB are doing well to get so much out of Sherlock in such a short period of time, might be better to think of it as 3 TV movies rather than episodes.

rainbowtrout

Clareman wrote: »

The most recent series had episodes of just short of 90 minutes, in the US that would 2 episodes of TV when you take ads into account so the BeeB are doing well to get so much out of Sherlock in such a short period of time, might be better to think of it as 3 TV movies rather than episodes.

All of the 13 episodes have been 90 minutes each.

goose2005

brick tamland wrote: »

Not sure what to make of it TBH. Ending felt very rushed after 90 mins.

Andrew Scott getting out of the helicopter to Queen was easily the best bit of the whole episode

the writers REALLY regret killing him off

B.A._Baracus

goose2005 wrote: »

the writers REALLY regret killing him off

Totally agree.
They hit gold by casting Andrew Scott but then regretted it. Doubt Moffat would admit to that but it's painfully obvious.

Never understood why they killed him off in the first place tho. He is like the joker to batman. Why kill your main villain early on? Better to save it in the back pocket for the series main finale.

rainbowtrout

Very true. Reichenbach could have had much the same ending except for Moriarty remaining alive.

Vojera

Clareman wrote: »

they didn't share a lot of screen time together and when they were on screen together they were often at different sides of the screen which suggests to me that the scene is spliced together.

They're also on camera alone a lot of the time, so I'd say they were acting against stand-ins fairly often.

Clareman

Vojera wrote: »

They're also on camera alone a lot of the time, so I'd say they were acting against stand-ins fairly often.

Yup, that's why I still think the whole balloon thing was an inside joke how it was always with standins or reference points, bit like Gandalf
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/ian-mckellen-broke-down-over--hobbit--green-screen-scenes.html

764dak

Basq wrote: »

^ Yep, but considering the horrific pacing of 24 episode dramas in the US, I wouldn't change the Beeb's often slow but rewarding format. There's more worthwhile dramas on the BBC in a single year than there has been on network TV in the US in the last 5.

* a tad off-topic so apologies!

More episodes equal more fun.

eric hoone

eric hoone wrote: »

Bring back basil rathbone and the likes, sherlock holmes with helicopters, MI6 and all that nonsense is an insult to the authors legacy

Did you notice the little nod to Basil Rathbone in the final scene?

Greyjoy

Basq wrote: »

^ Yep, but considering the horrific pacing of 24 episode dramas in the US, I wouldn't change the Beeb's often slow but rewarding format.

I think the mix of standalone stories with an overall series arc in a shorter mini series hamstrung the BBC Sherlock. In a mini series such as this a dud episode eats up a fair proportion of the season unlike a longer series where a weaker episode won't stand out as much. Also a longer run allows the writers to properly develop a villain's threat over the course of the entire season. Whereas as in Sherlock even though the individual episodes were longer the overall arc of each season always felt rushed at the end to me.

Compare Holmes' addiction in both Sherlock & Elementary - in Sherlock it's something that he can pick up and put down seemingly at will. It's played for comedic value every now and then but never any long term consequences. In Elementary the longer season allows the writers to reference the addiction more - it feels like something Sherlock is genuinely wrestling with in an ongoing basis.

pickarooney

I wonder what an 8-10 episodes a season of Elementary with proper story arcs could have been. That show is plagued by the exact opposite problems to Sherlock.

Turtle_

Well that was rubbish.

The first two series were sublime. This series simply plays to an attention deficient American audience. Muck. Waste of my evening watching that.

sadie06

Only caught up last night and I really enjoyed it! Yes it's different than the first couple of seasons, but Mary's monologue at the end hints at a return to plain old mystery solving in the future.

It felt a lot like wrapping things up, but I think there is so much potential left. They can't really end the whole series with a character as beloved as Molly in such distress and no further explanation. She's on my mind!

Also, in terms of character development, are we really to believe that Sherlock is 'normal' now that his demons have been faced? I think not, and when he realises hat, his addiction will resurface.

It is more difficult to see how the dynamic between Sherlock and Mycroft can be continued now that it has been shown that Sherlock is in fact the cleverer of the two.

Things I loved were Moriarty's uber-camp emergence from the helicopter, his positioning of all the animals stalking baby Jesus in the crib, the fact that Eurus is playing with a toy plane in the flash backs and her repeated imploration 'play with me Sherlock' coming to fruition with his visiting her in prison to play violin together.

I really, really hope it's not all over.

Avatar MIA

sadie06 wrote: »

They can't really end the whole series with a character as beloved as Molly

I thought she was pretty weak, and not a loss to the series going forward.

And the one "mystery" I'd like solved is Sherlock surviving the fall from the building, but I guess we've been trolled on that one and it wont be mentioned again.

But, the lead actor is probably too famous now to be doing much more BBC series. He's pretty much an A list star.

OldRio

Utter tripe.


If you like detectives solving crimes Endeavour is worth watching. Nothing flash or big budget or self indulgent. Just good storytelling.

Avatar MIA

OldRio wrote: »

Utter tripe.

Is that you Moriarty? :pac:

brian_t

The Next Sherlock

Not many people know it, but in 1903 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a short story, “The Adventure of the Empty House,” where after faking his his own death at the Reichenbach Falls, Sherlock Holmes travels to Scandinavia, on the run from nemesis Professor Moriarty.

Under a false identity – an explorer named Sigerson – Holmes settles in dark and cold Lapland, in northern Finland, sparking a culture clash between the upper-class, fast-talking and eccentric Brit and the down-to-earth Nordic characters.

He is a cocaine user, and although he has promised his brother Mycroft that he won’t do this, he starts solving local small crime mysteries, which lead into some bigger issues, helped by a Finnish former woman doctor, Johanna Watson.”

Finnish writer-director-producer Juha Wuolijoki will run the upcoming 10-hour television series “Sherlock North,” which he introduced yesterday as a work-in-progress at the TV Drama Vision section of the Nordic Film Market in Göteborg’s 40th Film Festival. He aims to shoot the series in the winter of 2018, at the latest 2019.

Goteborg: Finnish-American Snapper Films Unveils ‘Sherlock North’

Max Prophet

Is there new series on the way?

Basq

Max Prophet wrote: »

Is there new series on the way?

I doubt it.. last I heard Marl Gatiss was saying it could potentially come back but there was no plans.

brian_t

Not for at least 2 years.

“We haven’t got an immediate plan, but I would remain surprised, given the collective enthusiasm we have for it, if we didn’t do it again.

“We’re doing Dracula, which is going to take two years at least,” Gatiss added, explaining that the pair’s new upcoming project was one of many reasons for the series break.

“We’re not going to do Sherlock whilst we’re doing Dracula. So it’s not going to happen in the immediate future. Never say never, but no – we don’t have an idea

.”

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2018-02-01/steven-moffat-on-sherlock-maybe-the-time-for-a-longer-gap-is-upon-us/

Hector Bellend

I'm extremely late to the party and could be extremely wrong here but is your man Culverton Smith a Jimmy Saville rip off

pinkypinky

Yes