True. They kind of backed themselves into a corner there. Somebody had to kill him so I guess they just went for shock value.
I think the Conan Doyle story this is loosely based on sees Holmes turn a blind eye to murder in any case.
Sherlock
- Thread starter CheadleBeagle
- Start date
True. They kind of backed themselves into a corner there. Somebody had to kill him so I guess they just went for shock value.
I think the Conan Doyle story this is loosely based on sees Holmes turn a blind eye to murder in any case.
The idea of a "rooting for the murderers" episode of anything is quite good tbf, if they know they're going it. I don't think this episode was remotely conceived like that though (unlike, say the White Bear Black Mirror episode, or Psychoville) they just thought it was absolutely fine to have these characters do this because they'd set up the "Sherlock & Mary = good. Creepy baddie with creepy glasses = bad" conceit and, pfffft, everyone will go with it. There's a big difference between playing with the audiences expectation of good and bad, and just assuming your characters can do anything now because the audience are on their side.
And even then I'd go with it if they actually followed through with it. Showed him going to prison or going off to Russia or something he'd have to work his way back from as a consequence of this massive and monumental decision...But they just completely copped out and pulled a fast one (it seems)
And even then I'd go with it if they actually followed through with it. Showed him going to prison or going off to Russia or something he'd have to work his way back from as a consequence of this massive and monumental decision...But they just completely copped out and pulled a fast one (it seems)
Aye while it was satisfactory to see Magnusson get shot (closest we will ever get to seeing Murdoch get shot in the face), he would have made a terrific villain next season. Sherlock looked distraught in CAM's vaults and would have been interesting to see how he could have crawled out under the thumb.
Moriarty is dead and whilst I don't mind the occasional appearance in Sherlock's mind palace, bringing him back smacks of lack of imagination. They should have just ended it with Sherlock flying away to Eastern Europe.
Rooting for murderers at least in Sherlock's case isn't a huge deal. I'd imagine Magnusson has done far more damage than Sherlock ever has.
Well, this is Moffat's problem (and I like Moffat) he can't kill his characters. And if you can't kill your characters, you should really stop using their deaths as a dramatic device over and over and over again.
Apparently it's based on one of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories, in it a blackmail victim of the Magnusson equivalent is about to kill him, Watson goes to stop her but Holmes tells him not to and doesn't turn her in. Moffat has this theory that Watson was just protecting Holmes in the book, and that it was Holmes that actually killed him, ignoring the fact that Doyle's actual ending is far better because it opens up an interesting ethical question, is letting someone murder another when you can stop it the moral equivalent of doing the murder itself?
Also, did Sherlock know about Mary being an assassin before this episode? I find it hard to believe that he did no research on the woman who was marrying Watson considering we saw him before the wedding grilling one of her male friends for talking to her on twitter. It wouldn't have even taken him that long, he figured it all out in half a day when he was high on morphine and had a bullet hole in his chest, and when I found out who Magnusson's PA was it became obvious Mary had to be involved somehow, it was too much of a coincidence. It's a problem when I'm ahead of supposedly the greatest detective mind on the planet, because I'm a moron. However, despite all the plot inconsistencies, it is very entertaining.
I realise I'm just agreeing with you a bit too much here... but still, I also thought this. Without rewriting the ending (by doing exactly that)... say Sherlock got a reduced prison sentence (so basically doesn't get life) perhaps due to Manslaughter (say due to Mycroft... which would add a further shade of grey to his character) and then a year or two into a prison sentence, Moriaty resurfaces with Sherlock in prison and so you have S4 with Sherlock having to be given aerly release and readjusting to the world after a time in prison - which is far more interesting then just the plain and simple Sherlock we'll get.
Instead, it was played for comedy... and whilst I've been a fan of the comedy in the series, I didn't think it was needed here.
While I am still enjoying it very much, the quality of it has significantly decreased.
I don't see how and why Moriarty should return. He was a fantastic villain but he should stay dead.
I don't see how and why Moriarty should return. He was a fantastic villain but he should stay dead.
I really don't see what the point of this series was. It was just shit. I wouldn't have minded them going for a plot that carried through the whole series if they'd actually done it well.
Episode 1 should have wrapped up how he survived the fall/faked his death, and instead all we got was John going "I don't care" and some half-arsed explanation to that beardy bloke. Even the beardy bloke had unanswered questions about the apparent method used, never mind what the audience thought. So either the way he survived was really shit, or they still haven't told us. If what he told El Beardo Weirdo was the truth, then basically he faked his own death just for the sake of pissing off John, because he revealed that Mycroft managed to sort out the assassins anyway.
The 'plot' of episode 1 wasn't really a plot. It was just some stuff happening. The whole terrorist, train bomb thing was apparently down to one bloke in a hotel, which served no further significance to anything. The actual disarming of the bomb was incredibly easy, and Sherlock, after revealing to John that he faked his own death for the hell of it, used the opportunity to wind John up some more. Oh, and Mupert Rurdoch arranged for John to be kidnapped and put into a bonfire to see if he was Sherlock's pressure point despite that being pretty obvious to everyone anyway.
Episode 2 was a load of sentimental guff and a load of random shit that was all conveniently tied together by an extremely huge coincidence. As with Ep1, it basically took no effort on Sherlock's part to 'solve' the mystery, and again stuff just sort of happened.
Episode 3 had Sherlock randomly off his tits in some abandoned house, apparently on a case, but this wasn't at all revisited. It didn't properly reinforce that he has a drug habit either, because they had both Sherlock and CAM saying that it wasn't a real habit. Then there was the whole Mary thing. She saved Sherlock's life by shooting him, or something, despite him actually dying and only saving himself by thinking about John. They revealed that Mary wasn't just ex-secret service, and was in fact a gun for hire and a murderer. Despite this we're supposed to accept that she's all cool and that John forgiving her is perfectly normal. Sherlock again didn't really solve anything and sorted everything out by shooting CAM, but then had absolutely no repercussions for this because a dead man wasn't dead. Before what was supposed to be a fatal mission, following an episode that fell just short of Sherlock and John making love to each other, they didn't manage more than an awkward handshake and Sherlock saying Mycroft was a shit brother growing up.
Going back to Moriarty not being dead, if he's not dead, then presumably he's still got some sort of network going on. And if that's true, then what the feck was Sherlock doing when he faked his own death? Not only was Moriarty not dead, whatever Sherlock dismantled clearly wasn't done properly. If Moriarty isn't dead, then what the feck is going on, and why did we see him in the post credits scene? Considering the big cliffhanger they left everyone with at the end of S2 was very disappointingly dealt with, I wouldn't be surprised if this new corner they've written themselves into isn't just as disappointingly dealt with, if not more so. Moffat's not even got the tired 'paradox' fix that he's used countless times in Doctor Who to save him.
Episode 1 should have wrapped up how he survived the fall/faked his death, and instead all we got was John going "I don't care" and some half-arsed explanation to that beardy bloke. Even the beardy bloke had unanswered questions about the apparent method used, never mind what the audience thought. So either the way he survived was really shit, or they still haven't told us. If what he told El Beardo Weirdo was the truth, then basically he faked his own death just for the sake of pissing off John, because he revealed that Mycroft managed to sort out the assassins anyway.
The 'plot' of episode 1 wasn't really a plot. It was just some stuff happening. The whole terrorist, train bomb thing was apparently down to one bloke in a hotel, which served no further significance to anything. The actual disarming of the bomb was incredibly easy, and Sherlock, after revealing to John that he faked his own death for the hell of it, used the opportunity to wind John up some more. Oh, and Mupert Rurdoch arranged for John to be kidnapped and put into a bonfire to see if he was Sherlock's pressure point despite that being pretty obvious to everyone anyway.
Episode 2 was a load of sentimental guff and a load of random shit that was all conveniently tied together by an extremely huge coincidence. As with Ep1, it basically took no effort on Sherlock's part to 'solve' the mystery, and again stuff just sort of happened.
Episode 3 had Sherlock randomly off his tits in some abandoned house, apparently on a case, but this wasn't at all revisited. It didn't properly reinforce that he has a drug habit either, because they had both Sherlock and CAM saying that it wasn't a real habit. Then there was the whole Mary thing. She saved Sherlock's life by shooting him, or something, despite him actually dying and only saving himself by thinking about John. They revealed that Mary wasn't just ex-secret service, and was in fact a gun for hire and a murderer. Despite this we're supposed to accept that she's all cool and that John forgiving her is perfectly normal. Sherlock again didn't really solve anything and sorted everything out by shooting CAM, but then had absolutely no repercussions for this because a dead man wasn't dead. Before what was supposed to be a fatal mission, following an episode that fell just short of Sherlock and John making love to each other, they didn't manage more than an awkward handshake and Sherlock saying Mycroft was a shit brother growing up.
Going back to Moriarty not being dead, if he's not dead, then presumably he's still got some sort of network going on. And if that's true, then what the feck was Sherlock doing when he faked his own death? Not only was Moriarty not dead, whatever Sherlock dismantled clearly wasn't done properly. If Moriarty isn't dead, then what the feck is going on, and why did we see him in the post credits scene? Considering the big cliffhanger they left everyone with at the end of S2 was very disappointingly dealt with, I wouldn't be surprised if this new corner they've written themselves into isn't just as disappointingly dealt with, if not more so. Moffat's not even got the tired 'paradox' fix that he's used countless times in Doctor Who to save him.
Moffat is just a very poor writer when it comes to making massive over arching plots. He can't do it, simple as. Which is why Doctor Who is so hard to follow when you have missed several episodes.
He can't do anything well.
He wrote a few good stories when Russell T Davies was the producer, but yeah he can't do shit. I feel very sorry for Matt Smith, he is a good actor and actually a pretty good doctor let down by poor writing and bad companions (apart from Rory). Amy Pond and her actress are extremely overrated like Donna and Catherine Tate. She had no chemistry with him at all, I don't understand why she came back during his fecking regeneration as if she loved him, I thought she loved Rory more and he was just platonic, yet throughout the series you think she's going to cheat on Rory at some point. The deaths of them was stupid to, as was the River Song is her daughter bullshit, it was not believable at all. Then there's the current one, all I have seen of her, is she's just rubbish. River Song was this mysterious woman who fancied the doctor, and ends up being his wife, yet it is made creepy and ruined by her being some kind of time lord ish person and basically being a kid who has regenerated too many times. I just don't buy that the tardis has magically gifted this baby time lord powers, it suggests that the doctor fecked amy pond, not Rory. its so STUPID.
Rory was a breath of fresh air, unlike Micky or Captain Jack who were usually just thrown away like any other male companion in the modern series, he actually stuck around to be developed. He didn't develop much, because he kept dying all the fecking time which was just over done to death. He actually had chemistry with the doctor and I would have preferred to see it with him and Matt Smith. I can understand during the whole 50th anniversary hype, that the current series has done a lot for LGBT rights, but why the feck does every main co star have to be female? Isn't that the same as the doctor not being female? So much bullshit I could talk and complain about!
This series was just a little too soap-opera for my taste. Its now become almost solely about the characters with a little bit of crime mystery thrown in because they have to.
As Alex has said above, they have written in season ending cliffhangers that they can't solve. Great for the viewing figures though, so they probably don't give a feck.
As Alex has said above, they have written in season ending cliffhangers that they can't solve. Great for the viewing figures though, so they probably don't give a feck.
Nonsense. The first 3 seasons of Coupling were tremendous... as were the first 2 seasons of Sherlock (and this season was still very good). I don't watch Dr.Who but shed loads of people love that.
I don't think I've ever seen Coupling but a quick Google search has revealed that it ran from 2000-2004, so I'm not really sure how something he wrote over ten years ago proves that he can write well now.
Moffat's credited with writing the first episodes of the first two seasons, as co-writing the second episode of this season, and the last episode of this season. S1E1 was good, but was by no means 'very good', largely serving as an introduction to the characters. S2E2 has a shout at being very good, but even then he used a very tired trope and again refused to kill off a character. S3 has been shit. E2 was a load of sentimental rubbish and load of random nonsense that through massive coincidence tied together at the wedding. E3 was possibly even worse, with it leaving us with yet another big cliffhanger that will undoubtedly be dealt with in an extremely disappointing way.
The less said about Moffat's time as main writer for Doctor Who the better. He solves everything with a 'paradox', refuses to kill off characters, writes extremely one-dimensional characters, and has this weird idea that you can base a whole series on a word game.
The man's in love with himself and has no where near the writing ability he thinks he has.
If you didn't like Moffat's other 2 Sherlock episodes, then you didn't like Sherlock. They were by far the best ones.
I didn't say I didn't like them. I said that one was good and there's definitely an argument for one to be called very good. Despite this though, one was an introduction to all of the characters and one, whilst entertaining, used some very tired tropes and saw Moffat using his favourite trick again. Season 3 has been complete rubbish. They clearly wanted a plot that ran throughout the series whilst trying to maintain the one-episode-one-case format, but they managed not to do either part of it very well. Episode 1, whilst admittedly not written by Moffat, didn't answer the question hanging on everyone's lips from S2, and the case was solved by Sherlock and John stumbling into the underground and Sherlock flicking a switch. Episode 2 was just a Sherlock/John love-in for the most part, with a huge coincidence tying together what, up until the last 20 minutes or so, seemed like a load of random rubbish. Episode 3 had Sherlock acting on behalf of a murderer, murdering someone and getting away with it, and the re-introduction of a guy who shot himself in the face a season ago.
Moffat's Doctor Who writing, whilst throwing up some entertaining episodes every now and then, has also been largely terrible.
Introductory episodes are by far the hardest to write. Why would this be a negative? As for Dr Who, personally the bulk of episodes I've enjoyed are Moffat ones. They're certainly better than Russell T Davies's X Factor audience pandering nonsense (which tends to be born out by other writers, since nearly every Dr Who episode to have won an award for writing since it's return to TV has been written by Steven Moffat)
As far as dialogue and concepts go, I think he's a TV writer par excellence, but he has repeating traps he falls into, and I agree his resolution of arcs are usually very disappointing. Still, I'd never claim he was a poor writer. Occasionally good writers write crap. To claim he does "nothing well" is frankly nonsense. This is his show. If you've ever liked anything about it, chances are it was due to him doing something rather well.
As far as dialogue and concepts go, I think he's a TV writer par excellence, but he has repeating traps he falls into, and I agree his resolution of arcs are usually very disappointing. Still, I'd never claim he was a poor writer. Occasionally good writers write crap. To claim he does "nothing well" is frankly nonsense. This is his show. If you've ever liked anything about it, chances are it was due to him doing something rather well.
Obviously I was exaggerating when I said he did nothing well, but the guy can barely write a good character to save his life, particularly in Doctor Who, and his stories often have very disappointing conclusions. I think it's a fair comment to say he's a poor writer. He writes dialogue well and has had some interesting concepts, but he's an extremely lazy writer that repeatedly wheels out the same characters (often literally) and plot devices time and time again. Personally I think he's run Doctor Who into the ground, and if this series of Sherlock is anything to go by he might have a hand in doing the same there.
Well he's done a good job of running Dr Who into the ground, considering it's debateably more popular than it's ever been in it's entire history.
Popularity=quality now? I imagine part of the reason that Doctor Who has become more popular is because of the bombardment the BBC audience gets. Moffat-era Who has been awful, with pretty much every major plot being resolved by a word puzzle, a paradox or both. Doctor Who usually has a few plot holes by the very nature of the show, but Moffat's writing has had loads of them.
Matt Smith's Doctor has probably been the worst of the modern Doctors, and that's not through any fault in his acting. Clara is by far the worst companion in modern Who, and one of the most poorly written female characters I've seen in a prime-time TV show. In fact, pretty much all of the women Moffat writes are awfully one-dimensional characters.
Whilst he writes the occasional entertaining episode of something, he consistently falls at the same hurdles.
Matt Smith's Doctor has probably been the worst of the modern Doctors, and that's not through any fault in his acting. Clara is by far the worst companion in modern Who, and one of the most poorly written female characters I've seen in a prime-time TV show. In fact, pretty much all of the women Moffat writes are awfully one-dimensional characters.
Whilst he writes the occasional entertaining episode of something, he consistently falls at the same hurdles.
No, but equally it's a better barometer than your angry opinion. I thought everything I saw of Davies/Tennant/Piper Who was pure unmitigated shite but obviously it hit the right notes with some people. Dr Who is full of fans who love one era and hate the next. That's why they're the go-to joke for nerdy over obsessives. From what I was aware the 50th anniversary episode was watched by loads and critically praised all over the shop.
Well that was a bit shit for me.
The 50th anniversary episode was shit. It was just another big ego stroking exercise for Moffat. He completely rewrote Who lore and again solved everything with a paradox and a word game.
Whilst the pre-Moffat stuff didn't have massively ambitious arcs, for the most part the episodes were entertaining on a standalone basis, and when necessary added to the arc. Moffat is incapable of writing anything that is entertaining in isolation whilst adding to the arc, and his arcs always end disappointingly. The companions were fleshed out characters, the same plot devices weren't wheeled out time and time again, and when someone died, they generally stayed dead.
Since Moffat took over it's been a bit of a shambles. God knows how many things have been explained away as a 'paradox', and as you've commented on yourself, no one ever actually dies anymore. Clara is a cardboard cut-out that can completely change personality from one episode to the next, generally being an adaptable plot device - "oh we need someone for the Doctor to save, lets make Clara all helpless", "oh we want the Doctor to appear vulnerable and in need of saving, lets have Clara suddenly be able to sort everything out". Amy wasn't much better either. Despite being completely devoted to Rory, she was always on the verge of tearing the Doctor's clothes off, and apart from being feisty had no other discerning features. I saw it pointed out somewhere that the companions pre-Moffat were companions because the Doctor liked them and wanted to show them all of time and space, whilst in the Moffat-era they've been companions primarily because the Doctor wants to find out something about them. Even when he writes new characters for a one off episode he ends up recycling old characters, with the priest woman in the last Christmas episode essentially being River.
How you can say someone who repeatedly solves things with "it's a paradox", bases whole arcs on wordplay that isn't even that clever, writes incredibly poor characters, and continually fails to deliver the big endings that he sets up for himself is anything other than a poor writer is beyond me. Obviously his snappy dialogue and concepts overcome these failings for you, so we'll just have to disagree, but I don't think critical acclaim for something that was set up as being the best thing in the world before it had even been filmed, and a rise in popularity since the BBC started bombarding its audience with everything Doctor Who are a better barometer for measuring Steven Moffat's writing ability than you know, actually looking at what he's written.
Most things I've seen of Moffat, plot wise, are like being the mind of a child with ADHD. Great concepts, dialog and it's entertaining but he often just seems to jump all over the place plot wise. This seasons been a massive disappointment, it actually reminds me a little of current doctor who with its mad 100 mph plots.
Doing the image of Dr Who fans proud. That was the worst "we'll just have to disagree" I've ever seen.Aside from high ratings and critical acclaim he's won more writing awards for Dr Who than any other Dr Who writer. Unless that's also the BBC bombarding it's audience with lies, propaganda or simply strapping them down and forcing them to watch, it's seems like you simply don't like the guy for ruining your Dr Who, so I'll leave you to your megaranting.
Aside from high ratings and critical acclaim he's won more writing awards for Dr Who than any other Dr Who writer. Unless that's also the BBC bombarding it's audience with lies, propaganda or simply strapping them down and forcing them to watch, it's seems like you simply don't like the guy for ruining your Dr Who, so I'll leave you to your megaranting.
He's won one award since becoming main writer, and that was for a Hugo award for a two part finale in 2011, hardly the most illustrious thing he could have won.
He wrote some good one offs, Blink probably being the best, but as I've said repeatedly now, he's terrible at anything other than that.
So many walls of text everywhere in this thread!
I wanted to ask about the other brother: is this the first reference we have to there being one, or were there clues in the previous episodes (and seasons)?
I have to say this season the thing I've enjoyed the most is Martin Freeman's acting, he's been superb.
feck feck feck feckITY feck
I haven't watched the episode yet, I go on Twitter and guess what the trending topic is? feck's sake.
Edit: Just watched it. Martin Freeman is such a good actor, what was with the face flicking, and the ending was totally spoiled for me because of #Twittertrends.
Poor Redbeard
Oh, and does anyone else think Janine is connected to Moriarty?
I wanted to ask about the other brother: is this the first reference we have to there being one, or were there clues in the previous episodes (and seasons)?
I have to say this season the thing I've enjoyed the most is Martin Freeman's acting, he's been superb.
You should, they still hold up pretty well.
Also, the first episodes of seasons 1 and 2 are fantastic - and the best examples of Sherlock and I would even say, British television in general, for the past 10 years or so.
So is the season 2 ending being left ambiguous for season 4 now?
Also, read they have got a go ahead for 5th season too.
Also, read they have got a go ahead for 5th season too.
It's done mate. Bouncy Castle it is then...
Yep. I always thought the "no, no, they haven't actually answered it" was wishful thinking to begin with.
Well, it's understandable that people aren't entirely sure if it's been properly explained considering that the one character that was told immediately had some questions about certain aspects of it, never mind the show's audience.
Yeah, it didn't seem clear at all. They've handled that poorly.
I still think they're going to do a callback to that scene, probably when they explain how Moriarty is alive, if that turns out to be the case.
That's my understanding. Hope they do although as already told there can only be so many ways.
Finally got round to watching the episode and I thought it was okay. Magnusson was a bit of a let down, I thought he had the potential to go further and extend to the next season. It felt too easy just to kill him like that, although I suppose it did show Sherlock cares enough about Watson that he will kill to protect him (a recurring theme through-out this season).
"I still don't understand." "And there's the back of the t-shirt" -
Overall, I thought this season wasn't as good as the other 2 but still more than decent. Cumberbatch & Freeman remain fantastic in their roles.
Not sure how Moriarty comes back. If he's not dead, how is he not dead and if he is dead, how did Sherlock fail to close his network? Also, I'd like to know more about the other brother and what happened to him. It will be interesting to see what role Mary plays in future episodes - will she be a stay at home mum or will her assassin skills be put to use?
Hopefully there's not another 2 year wait for the next season.
"I still don't understand." "And there's the back of the t-shirt" -
Overall, I thought this season wasn't as good as the other 2 but still more than decent. Cumberbatch & Freeman remain fantastic in their roles.
Not sure how Moriarty comes back. If he's not dead, how is he not dead and if he is dead, how did Sherlock fail to close his network? Also, I'd like to know more about the other brother and what happened to him. It will be interesting to see what role Mary plays in future episodes - will she be a stay at home mum or will her assassin skills be put to use?
Hopefully there's not another 2 year wait for the next season.
Maybe the Moriarty of the earlier seasons is not the "real" Moriarty and was just the puppet of another mastermind. I'm clutching at straws I know but I just don't like the way the third season ended. It was stupid IMHO.
I enjoyed the show because it's great but the plot was fecking ridiculous.
Laugh out loud moment in the cab driving back from the lab when he interrupts himself to ask "Hang on, weren't there other people?"
Laugh out loud moment in the cab driving back from the lab when he interrupts himself to ask "Hang on, weren't there other people?"
Finally got round to watching the episode and I thought it was okay. Magnusson was a bit of a let down, I thought he had the potential to go further and extend to the next season. It felt too easy just to kill him like that, although I suppose it did show Sherlock cares enough about Watson that he will kill to protect him (a recurring theme through-out this season).
"I still don't understand." "And there's the back of the t-shirt" -
Overall, I thought this season wasn't as good as the other 2 but still more than decent. Cumberbatch & Freeman remain fantastic in their roles.
Not sure how Moriarty comes back. If he's not dead, how is he not dead and if he is dead, how did Sherlock fail to close his network? Also, I'd like to know more about the other brother and what happened to him. It will be interesting to see what role Mary plays in future episodes - will she be a stay at home mum or will her assassin skills be put to use?
Hopefully there's not another 2 year wait for the next season.
Agree that they should have kept him for another season.
That was beyond stupid, he did it to protect mary who tried to save him by shooting at him? Why not let mary kill him in the first place? The ending basically provde that magnusson was superior to sherlock. In the first episode of season 1, sherlock says how boring when the taxi driver pulled the gun. This season has being a major let off.
Oh and how can you know that many secrets about every person in the world before someone decides to kill you. If I was president of a country and someone blackmailed me, I will hire assassins to kill him. Not bend to his will.
Magnusson was a brilliant villain, his flicking of the face and telling Watson that 'I don't understand' should be on a t-shirt were genuine laugh out loud moments (the 'and that would be the back of the t-shirt' had me in hysterics), so killing him off seemed a real shame, and the way they killed him off was just, well, rubbish. Sherlock just shot him in the face? Oh right, thats clever. Why not just let Mary shoot him in the first place?...For such a good character I though he 'deserved' a better, cleverer ending.
As for the season, I can't help feel that it was a let down. Brilliantly acted though it was, Cumberbach and Freeman are absolutely fantastic (I can't emphasise that enough really), and I thought that Mary was really well acted too (and a really good character). But the plot lines just let them down imo (in the same way that I felt Matt Smith was let down by the plots he was given). The reveals of how Sherlock faked his death started off well, the couple of fake reveals were good, but then the actual way he did it was pretty crap. I know he mentioned he closed off the street so that all the people there were part of his underground network, but what about, you know, all the people in the buildings around that area in London? Was knowing looking out the window? Does no one in that area own a mobile phone with a camera?...It just seemed a real cop out. And the actual reveal seemed strange as it seemed to hint at the fact that it doesn't make sense and there are plot holes (I'm still hoping it wasn't the real explanation). Also, didn't Moffat say in an interview that the there was a big hint the the episode where he fell as to how he did it and that everyone was missing it? I swear he did...so if so, what was that hint?
With Moffat, I think he's a good writer, but that he sets things up to be far more complicated then they can be on the small screen (what with time and budget restraints) and that actually he'd make a better writer for big screen films. He always seems to come up with these massive plots that are going to be huge and in theory could be fantastic, but that never actually come to fruition and end up with rushed and half explained endings.
As an aside, Janine
As for the season, I can't help feel that it was a let down. Brilliantly acted though it was, Cumberbach and Freeman are absolutely fantastic (I can't emphasise that enough really), and I thought that Mary was really well acted too (and a really good character). But the plot lines just let them down imo (in the same way that I felt Matt Smith was let down by the plots he was given). The reveals of how Sherlock faked his death started off well, the couple of fake reveals were good, but then the actual way he did it was pretty crap. I know he mentioned he closed off the street so that all the people there were part of his underground network, but what about, you know, all the people in the buildings around that area in London? Was knowing looking out the window? Does no one in that area own a mobile phone with a camera?...It just seemed a real cop out. And the actual reveal seemed strange as it seemed to hint at the fact that it doesn't make sense and there are plot holes (I'm still hoping it wasn't the real explanation). Also, didn't Moffat say in an interview that the there was a big hint the the episode where he fell as to how he did it and that everyone was missing it? I swear he did...so if so, what was that hint?
With Moffat, I think he's a good writer, but that he sets things up to be far more complicated then they can be on the small screen (what with time and budget restraints) and that actually he'd make a better writer for big screen films. He always seems to come up with these massive plots that are going to be huge and in theory could be fantastic, but that never actually come to fruition and end up with rushed and half explained endings.
As an aside, Janine