Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Artemis@BC, Jan 14, 2014.
it's that time of the year, the fandom will explode after too long hiatus!
I re-watched all of season 3 yesterday "in preparation."
Tonight's the night! Who else is giddy with excitement?
Looking forward to it!
I have missed that insane editing!
I'm sorry, that after this "standalone" episode, we will have to wait so long for more!
Just finished here. It was fun, not exactly the satisfaction of a regular full episode, but a nice gift as we wait for the next season. we will rewatch many times I am sure.
I didn't like this episode. The good parts were drowned in self-referential pretentious BS.
I agree it was self indulgent, and was clearly done with tongues firmly planted in cheeks, but I still thought it was great. Can't wait until I get the DVD so I can watch again and spot all the references to the original stories that I missed (I'm sure there are more, as I spotted a lot). Also liked the nods to the Rathbone/Bruce and Brett interpretations. I don't think it was meant to be taken all that seriously, so I'm happy with it as a (sort of) standalone. The extras included with the cinema screening were also very interesting,
Let me see if I understand the basic story being told here...
2014 Sherlock is perplexed to learn that Moriarty, whom he saw die, is back. So, on the plane as it returns to the ground, he goes to his mind palace to investigate a 120-year-old mystery he had heard about that had some similar features -- someone shot herself in the head and later returned to kill others, apparently as a ghost. The mind investigation proceeded along the lines of "How would this have gone if Watson and I had lived back then and taken the case?"
And then there were two solutions to that case: 1) The very public self-shooting was a trick and she didn't really die (quite yet), and 2) subsequent manifestations of The Bride were other women Emelia's or their own revenges against men who done them wrong.
Anyone have a different interpretation?
What does this mean for the Moriarty parallel, which I expect will be followed up in season 4? My guess would be something more like the second rather than the first solution, since the first has too many similarities to Sherlock's own supposed death.
A Facebook friend posted that he was going to try DVRing that "new Sherlock" and see what all the fuss was about. I replied something along the lines of "Um, have you seen the previous seasons? Because if not, this is going to be kind of confusing . . ."
I'm afraid I may have unintentionally put him off. But I think he would have been even more put off if he had gone into this episode without any idea what the series is like!
gkelly....that is my interpretation of what happened. Sherlock's "mp" is an interesting place. And then if any experience is "enhanced" then you have an interesting episode. I'm going to watch it again.
gkelly: I too agree with your interpretation of the plotlines.
I thought it was great -- perhaps not the best episode ever but still a solid 8 at minimum. Yes, it was self-referential, and if it were regular 22-episode series full of that I'd find it insufferable. But the self-referential stuff is I think part of why we love this version of Sherlock, and so a single 90 minutes of it is fine. Particularly when it's so well written.
It was more than a little disjointed while I was watching it -- time travel will do that to you -- but all the piece felt together by the end. And then again for the second ending.
Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat never do things the way I'd expect them to, but that's why I love their writing: it's not predictable like the majority of everything else on TV. And like so many well-written things, it gets better the more you think about it. I will definitely watch it again soon, maybe in a week, maybe in a month.
So many clever lines as always, and as always they go by so fast I can hardly keep up. Favourite one that I can actually remember: Mrs Hudson saying "I'm your landlady, not a plot device." (followed up by Sherlock's line when she wasn't speaking, something hilarious about her taking satire to the next level)
And I loved how they made Molly a male doctor, and just when you think it's too silly they turn that notion on its head too.
Yep, I think that about sums it up, and agree regarding the second solution. I'm guessing they'll introduce a Col. Sebastian Moran type character to carry on where Moriarty left off, to tie it in with the canon.
I did like that the Victorian versions of the characters became Sherlock's view of both himself and his friends/acquaintances once you realised it was all in his head, e.g. Watson never following Sherlock's train of thought, Lestrade being incompetent, himself being far more polite than he in the modern world etc.
ETA: @Wyliefan - a friend of mine who had never previously watched Sherlock saw it and liked it, so maybe not so necessary to have watched it previously.
I really enjoyed the stuff about Mrs. Hudson, the 1900s version, and her criticism of her character.
It could be (1) that or:
(2) In 1895, Sherlock Holmes is consulted by Detective Inspector Lestrade and then several months later by then by Lady Carmichael about a series of incidents that appear to begin with the suicide of Emilia Ricoletti and culminate with an incident involving Lady Carmichael's husband. He may already be using cocaine as the incident progresses -- hence the bizarre scenes at Mycroft's and at the Reichenbach Falls -- and when he cannot protect Sir Eustace Carmichael, he overdoses. Under the influence of cocaine, he imagines himself in a fantastic world 120 years in the future (the world in which the series Sherlock is set), where people travel in flying machines and can retrieve arcane information on strange, hand-held devices, or
(3) In 1895, John Watson turns the raw material of the investigation into the Ricoletti matter into a publishable story, imagining alternative storylines which are set a world in which (a) Sherlock Holmes fully acknowledges Watson's intelligence, (b) Watson can ask Holmes about Holmes' sexuality, (c) crimes are solved by a different Holmes and a different Watson, (d) Watson saves Holmes' life, and (e) we can catch glimpses of a world 120 years in the future, or
(4) In 2015, John Watson writes a story called The Abominable Bride, set 120 years in the past but inspired by the apparent real-life return of Moriarty.
I think it's supposed to be all four.
The show had a lot of good bits, but overall I thought it was too clever by half.
I really want to hear the (present-day) followup to Holmes and Watson's conversation outside the Carmichaels' house. And I want the show to stop with all these Irene Adler teasers and get to whatever storyline all the buildup has been leading to.