For those wondering...
http://www.london24.com/entertainme...r_crypic_tweet_from_show_s_producer_1_3055327
http://www.london24.com/entertainme...r_crypic_tweet_from_show_s_producer_1_3055327
Sherlock returns on January 1st
- Thread starter Lonemagpie
- Start date
So the old rumor is finally confirmed? Good to know. I can't wait. 
So the old rumor is finally confirmed? Good to know. I can't wait.
Yep, the Beeb had a hearse going round London this morning with a floral tribute reading "Sherlock: 01-01-14"
http://originallonemagpie.tumblr.com/post/68457924278/dduane-lost-my-bet-dont-care-new-years
A
Amaris
Guest
That's too long. I want it now.
Drat! I don't want to wait any longer. Oh well. At least there's not much on at that time, anyway.
I can't wait!
That just makes me want the third season right this very moment!
That was pretty good.
Wonderful. But I want more!
A Buzzfeed article -- ""Sherlock" Fans Are Not Emotionally Prepared For This New Mini-Episode."
The first five things it mentioned, I'm all good with. The Canonical fanwank (the Head Lama in Llasa, the parsley in the butter, the Trepoff murder case, from EMPT, SIXN, AND SCAN respectively) was layered on so thick I needed a towel.
But then when it gets to Watson, it runs off the rails.
Yes, what happens at that point has charm. But it also doesn't make any sense. Because either Sherlock was such a tactician that he could fight chaos theory to such an extent that random encounters two years hence would fall into his plan, or everything we saw was simply a coincidence that humans with their tiny little brains could make patterns where none existed. Plus, the coincidences aren't aimed at the characters in-universe, especially the wink at the end; they're aimed at the audience, breaking the fourth wall.
That's really my problem with it. Whoever wrote this (Moffat? Gatiss?) chased suspension of disbelief down an alley, mugged it for kicks, and left it for dead.
I feel churlish for criticizing it, but like some of the Doctor Who minisodes, it's very well made and entirely superficial. I enjoyed watching it, but when I thought about it and rewatched it, I didn't like it very much. The magic was gone.
The first five things it mentioned, I'm all good with. The Canonical fanwank (the Head Lama in Llasa, the parsley in the butter, the Trepoff murder case, from EMPT, SIXN, AND SCAN respectively) was layered on so thick I needed a towel.
But then when it gets to Watson, it runs off the rails.
Yes, what happens at that point has charm. But it also doesn't make any sense. Because either Sherlock was such a tactician that he could fight chaos theory to such an extent that random encounters two years hence would fall into his plan, or everything we saw was simply a coincidence that humans with their tiny little brains could make patterns where none existed. Plus, the coincidences aren't aimed at the characters in-universe, especially the wink at the end; they're aimed at the audience, breaking the fourth wall.
That's really my problem with it. Whoever wrote this (Moffat? Gatiss?) chased suspension of disbelief down an alley, mugged it for kicks, and left it for dead.
I feel churlish for criticizing it, but like some of the Doctor Who minisodes, it's very well made and entirely superficial. I enjoyed watching it, but when I thought about it and rewatched it, I didn't like it very much. The magic was gone.
The beginning says they both wrote it.
Wow. I think you actually got then point of this mini-episode, but then you go completely off the rails dismissing it. Yes, there are winks to the audience (both literal and figurative), and no Sherlock didn't plan for events 2 years in advance to align with his plans. Yes it does play off the character's and audience's yearning for the return of Sherlock. At no point are the writer's taking themselves so seriously to imply that everything that happened was the literal truth and should be accepted at face value.
If you can't accept the fun and lighthearted approach to this return of Sherlock, maybe you should take a little breather and get a little distance on the project.
Blimey! This is a bloody awesome series! I just only started watching Series 3 and became hooked shortly afterwards, although I had previously read very good critic reviews.
Tonight's season finale was quite intense. Mary was not who she appeared to be. She had a dark secret, one she was willing to kill for. While she was ready to shoot Magnussen, the scumbag newspaper mogul who had a penchant for blackmailing powerful people, Sherlock walked in and ended up getting shot by Mrs. Watson, though not fatally. He and John soon learned of her past, much to Watson's dismay, though she wasn't completely a bad person. All she wanted to do was to protect her secret and be with John.
And Sherlock was to be recruited by his brother Mycroft on a covert MI 6 mission? I didn't know that about him. I also didn't know his full name was William Sherlock Scott Holmes. Lots of fascinating revelations tonight!
Tonight's season finale was quite intense. Mary was not who she appeared to be. She had a dark secret, one she was willing to kill for. While she was ready to shoot Magnussen, the scumbag newspaper mogul who had a penchant for blackmailing powerful people, Sherlock walked in and ended up getting shot by Mrs. Watson, though not fatally. He and John soon learned of her past, much to Watson's dismay, though she wasn't completely a bad person. All she wanted to do was to protect her secret and be with John.
And Sherlock was to be recruited by his brother Mycroft on a covert MI 6 mission? I didn't know that about him. I also didn't know his full name was William Sherlock Scott Holmes. Lots of fascinating revelations tonight!
That was William S. Baring-Gould's supposition in his book, Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street.
I forget how Baring-Gould decided on "William" as his first name.
Scott is a pun, derived on "Charles Augustus Milverton." In that story, Holmes goes undercover as a man named Escott. Pronounce that, and it sounds like "S. Scott," hence "Sherlock Scott."
Similar threads
