The first episode of season 2 of this isn't very good at all, they seem to have made a filler episode for character development but not developed anything. I'm only halfway through it (at some agonising christmas scene) so I hope it picks up
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:28 pm
by Herdanos
Irene Demova wrote:The first episode of season 2 of this isn't very good at all, they seem to have made a filler episode for character development but not developed anything. I'm only halfway through it (at some agonising christmas scene) so I hope it picks up
The next episode is the best episode.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:32 pm
by Irene Demova
So in the Hounds of Baskerville why the strawberry float was the killer even there with them at the end?
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:18 pm
by Memento Mori
That episodes is probably the worst thing this show has ever done.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 3:16 pm
by Monkey Man
Details on the Xmas special -
Steven Moffat says Sherlock special is set in Victorian era
At SXSW, the Sherlock writer confirms Christmas special will see Holmes and Watson depart their usual contemporary setting
Sherlock fans were confounded by the mystery of a recent promotional image showing Holmes and Watson dressed in Victorian garb – a throwback to Arthur Conan Doyle’s original setting for the detective, rather than the usual contemporary setting of the TV show. The speculation deepened when stars Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman were recently seen filming in Victorian costume.
Now the riddle is somewhat unravelled by the show’s writer Steven Moffat, who revealed some details of the forthcoming special of the BBC series. Speaking to Entertainment Weekly ahead of a SXSW panel, he said:
"The special is its own thing. We wouldn’t have done the story we’re doing, and the way we’re doing it, if we didn’t have this special. It’s not part of the run of three episodes... It’s Victorian. [Co-creator Mark Gatiss] and me, we wanted to do this, but it had to be a special, it had to be separate entity on its own. It’s kind of in its own little bubble."
He apparently added that production was nearly complete, and he was very happy with the result; Moffat is of course well versed in hopping between eras, having written numerous episodes of Doctor Who.
What the gooseberry fool is this. Get Sherlock on already
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:37 pm
by Preezy
First time watching this and I thought it was rubbish, don't know what all the fuss is about.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:39 pm
by PatSharpsMullet
They would have been much better off not chopping and changing between between the two eras in the last half an hour. It all became a bit of a mess.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:39 pm
by Peter Crisp
That wasn't very indicative of the series as a whole to be fair as it was obviously just a sideshow for the series as a whole.
I quite liked it but I prefer the normal Sherlock.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:40 pm
by Skippy
Started well but descended into utter shite as soon as they started jumping back and forth. Figured they'd use the case to explain how Moriarty faked his death but then they just... didn't. Also Moffat gets accused of being misogynist in his writing so he goes and makes the suffragettes a cult of murderers.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:45 pm
by Imrahil
I think Moffat needs to press the reset button or something. He's gone completely doolally with his writing in recent years. I'm not even sure if he can tell any more whether his scripts actually function or not.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:46 pm
by HSH28
I really quite enjoyed it, thought it was pretty damn good.
I'd definitely be interested to see them do more episodes set in the alternative Victorian timeframe.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:50 pm
by Memento Mori
I would have preferred it if it was entirely set in the 1800s.
Skippy wrote:Started well but descended into utter shite as soon as they started jumping back and forth. Figured they'd use the case to explain how Moriarty faked his death but then they just... didn't. Also Moffat gets accused of being misogynist in his writing so he goes and makes the suffragettes a cult of murderers.
He was using the suffragettes in place of the KKK from The Five Orange Pips but the suffragettes were still wearing KKK hoods. Bizarre.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:13 pm
by Kanbei
Liked it but should have kept the modern stuff until right at the very end and not jumped back and forth.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:15 pm
by Floex
Felt that really worked and synced up surprisingly well with the modern day stuff.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 10:19 am
by satriales
I thought it was excellent. I wasnt expecting any ties to the main series so it was a nice surprise that it did advance the plot a little. I would have rather they did give us a solution to Moriarty faking his death instead of just confirming he is dead, but other than that it was great.
Re: Sherlock
Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:56 pm
by Herdanos
I think a few fans of the main series will have skipped this thinking it's unrelated when it isn't. Also after they'd shown Mary as part of the VfW campaign Mycroft's "battle we must lose" made it obvious that it'd be the suffragettes behind it all. So that was predictable, although the jump back to the modern era certainly wasn't. I agree that they should have actually explained how Moriarty survived - the bride's death was explained, why couldn't his have been? (Although of course he wasn't carrying another gun.)
