Sherlock

[her_welshness]

5 minutes to go, can't wait  We get to see Moriarty too.

[itsbruce]

Did you notice that one of tonight's murderers rode a fixie?  Clearly, it is the mark of Cain.

[David Martin]

Would be nice if light doesn't go round corners.

[nicknack]

I see they've just gone over the falls.

[Regulator]

Moriarty...

I would....

[geraldc]

That was good tv that was. Moriarty did remind me of Father Noel Furlong, Graham Norton's character from Father Ted  

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

I can't be arsed with 90 minutes of it. An hour would be fine. I struggle to maintain my concentration for the whole show.

[Deano]

I still enjoyed it, but I know the original novels and stories well, so I'm too aware of how similar and different they are to be able to make a fair judgment.

Having said that, Moriarty was the least frightening villain since Frank n furter.

[David Martin]

I still enjoyed it, but I know the original novels and stories well, so I'm too aware of how similar and different they are to be able to make a fair judgment.

Having said that, Moriarty was the least frightening villain since Frank n furter.

Isn't that the point? Physically he has no presence. The Golem was pretty good.

[Deano]

My first sentence refers.  In the novels and stories where he briefly appeared, Moriarty did possess physical charisma, and was more than just the power behind the scenes.  IIRC, Conan-Doyle took pains to make it so.

[her_welshness]

That was good tv that was. Moriarty did remind me of Father Noel Furlong, Graham Norton's character from Father Ted  

I know, I was thinking of Graham Norton too 

I thought it was a great episode tonight. Bloody dark too. That old woman's face will haunt me for some time.

[itsbruce]

My first sentence refers.  In the novels and stories where he briefly appeared, Moriarty did possess physical charisma, and was more than just the power behind the scenes.  IIRC, Conan-Doyle took pains to make it so.

We can allow them some license, though; these stories have been dramatised so many times, there's little point in just replaying them literally.  Besides, I've also read all the Holmes stories and while some of it is very fine genre writing indeed, some of it is quite ropey, so there's room for improvement in a TV version.

[Deano]

Fair enough, but Moriarty even failed to live up to the build-up within the show itself, IMO. 

Anyway, I don't want to get hung up on this minor quibble, as I liked it, on the whole. 

[TheLurker]

Thoroughly enjoyed it, good escapist fun and one had absolutely next to no trouble suspending disbelief for the requisite 90 minutes...

but, but, but, but, but... the Browning.  How the hell did Watson manage to hold on to that?  He's not still a serving member of HM Forces is he?  Didn't the post Dunblane regs make it impossible or very near impossible to keep a pistol?  Where's the lockable gun cabinet?   

Ah well never mind.  It wasn't pretending to be a documentary.  High quality nonsense.  More please.

[geraldc]

Watson's gun is no doubt illegally held as a war trophy. It will also be on  the database for unsolved crimes. He killed someone with it in the first episode (which Holmes helped cover up). Then he killed someone with a crossbow in the second episode, but I guess that one was in self defence.

[mattc]

A pretty good finale to a really superb new series. No significant criticisms from this livng room. 1st show was by far the best.

(How come noone's mentioned the opening murderer pedantry scene - that was hilarious!)

Moriarty was interesting - he had a definite charisma, without being physically intimidating. Which makes a nice change from 99.9% of screen villains.

The Dr Who team could learn a lot from the more subtle use of music in this series.

[Oaky]

What was the incidental music they used (I'm thinking of the piece with a kind of slavic dances feel to it)?

[Mr Larrington]

BBC News - Updated Sherlock 'will be back'.

Yay!

[Tim Hall]

Watson's blog, which Holmes kept referring to in episode 3. It's out there for real.

[citoyen]

I found that via a link from Sherlock's Science of Deduction website, as seen in the last episode. 

d.

[Tim Hall]

'zackly

Sit watching Episode 3 grabbed by get_iplayer, with laptop on, er, lap.

See Sherlock/Watson waving laptop about on screen.

Read page.

FWSE.

Bob's yer wossname.
 

[Si]

Sorry to say that i wasn't all that impressed by the series. The first had promise but the other two didn't really come through for me.

But then again, I often find Holmes disappointing.  I always watch them expecting a good juicy whodunnit.  But the thing about Holmes is that it often isn't really proper whodunnit stuff, like, say, a Christie is.  To me proper whodunnits are logic problems with lots of red herrings thrown in, but with Holmes much of the deduction depends on the encyclopedic catalogue of knowledge in his head - he has access to a load of info that the average viewer doesn't, thus we don't have the same opportunity to solve the mystery as, say, Poirot (sp?) does.

Anyway, Bazza Rathbone is still Homes for me.

[mattc]

To me proper whodunnits are logic problems with lots of red herrings thrown in, but with Holmes much of the deduction depends on the encyclopedic catalogue of knowledge in his head - he has access to a load of info that the average viewer doesn't, thus we don't have the same opportunity to solve the mystery as, say, Poirot (sp?) does.

Totally agree. Fortunately, I'm not a real murder mystery fan, so this doesn't bother me! I just like being dazzled by his mental gymnastics, and the clever tricks in the plot (leave a body on top of a train - neat).

This 'style' makes for a much pacier drama - the characters don't waste much time with exposition, and we avoid the 15-min drawing room finale!

The catalogue of knowledge thing is just a brilliant running gag to me. I do hope he identifies a bicycle tyre tread at some point ...

[border-rider]

Lowlife type: "I were going...."

Sherlock: "It's was.  I was going..."

 It somehow made me feel right at home.

[itsbruce]

But then again, I often find Holmes disappointing.  I always watch them expecting a good juicy whodunnit.  But the thing about Holmes is that it often isn't really proper whodunnit stuff, like, say, a Christie is.  To me proper whodunnits are logic problems with lots of red herrings thrown in, but with Holmes much of the deduction depends on the encyclopedic catalogue of knowledge in his head - he has access to a load of info that the average viewer doesn't, thus we don't have the same opportunity to solve the mystery as, say, Poirot (sp?) does.

You what?  Christie cheats all the time.  She pretends to be doing a solvable whodunnit but regularly hides information (not entirely sure if this is intentional or carelessness).  In "Hercule Poirot's Christmas", for example, there are several important visual clues which are never given to you (the colour of one girl's eyes, the close physical resemblance of two key characters).

I think a lot of people's perceptions of Christie are filtered partly through the myth that's been built up around her and partly through the TV adaptations, which provide much that is missing in her writing like period detail and character delineation (she's not the only one who benefits from that; Colin Dexter's books are plotless, meandering bilge but he's judged by the TV version of Morse) .  For me, she's on the Dan Brown level.  Many far better crime writers around, dead and alive.  Russell Davies's worship of her in Dr. Who was just more evidence for why he had to go.