I feel the same way, been rather underwhelmed by these first two episodes. It almost seems as they've been treating it as a bit of a laugh. As much as I like the characters I like them in the context of solving mysteries. It's a big step down from where season 2 left off (to be honest it was always going to be hard to follow that).
Maybe that's deliberate, soften up the audience and lull them into a false sense of security with the first two episodes. Then next week the shit hits the fan and Moffat does fandom torture porn.
Sherlock's best man speech was the most embarrassing, funny, awkward, spontaneous, surprising, ridiculous, endearing best man speech ever. I loved the vignette of small cases throughout the speech, with two of them coming into prominence in the final act. I didn't really think about it, but I think everyone is right about Mary. It's a bloody shame because I adore her and I love her interactions with Sherlock. I also loved the blink-and-you-miss-it cameo for Irene. I hoped we would see her again, albeit more than a cameo. Maybe next series.
Enjoyed that one much more than the first. Was all over the place but the characterisations and what little plot there was were a lot of fun.
I'd agree with that. They're just leaning a little heavily towards character rather than story this time, IMHO.
That would be hilarious, but I suspect John and Mary know better...they'd probably ask Mrs Hudson instead!
We find out behind Moriarty, and everything else is Mrs Hudson who is just keeping Holmes occupied and happy.
RevdKathy and I have a theory... We're going to be disappointed if we got it right and also if we got it wrong. How about if Mycroft has a new companion who happens to be the blackmailer or working with the blackmailer, he comes to Sherlock for help with resolving it. In the course of which Mary gets involved and has a history with CAM that we learn about later on. Once Sherlock and Watson find him and are in the process of destroying his blackmail material Mary sees him returning and takes the opportunity to take her revenge on him, shooting and killing him, leaving Watson in the position of if he "does the right thing" that means he puts his pregnant wife in prison.
Watched the second episode of series 3 last night, and it occurred to me that those two are the Marvel Ultimates version of Frazier and Niles Crane.
Both episodes thus far have disappointed me. I love the characters and their interaction, but I also love the mysteries. I think the first two series had a perfect balance of the two, each episode had a solid mystery plot and fantastic character development. With series three they have focused too much on the characters to the detriment of the story. By no means is it all bad, Sherlock's best man speech was brilliant and I loved it, but at the same time there were moments during the episode when I found myself bored and wishing for things to move along. Something I never felt during any of the series one and two episodes. I truly hope that episode three returns to the formula of earlier episodes and has a more developed mystery plot to go along with the Cumberbatch/Freeman banter.
What BobTheSkutter failed to mention is that our weird theory is based on the original CAM story in the book. Holmes and Watson break into CAM's home as the only way to protect a blackmail victim, and end up witnessing his murder. They decline to help Lestrade solve it.
Wanda Ventham is BC's Mum? She was one of my teenage crushes (UFO, The Lotus Eaters, Dr Who, etc). Thought they were good eps, a little light on story but excellent character work. I really hope there isn't a cliffhanger because we won't get a resolution 'til 2016.