Sherlock finale thread- WARNING SPOILERS

[Allthingsprettyreturns]

Starting the thread in antcipation!

We'll see :). I hope it's not too disappointing for the die hard fans.

Disclaimer: have never read even one of the books.

Very strange episode. Magnusson was delightfully revolting.
I thought the writers had categorically said that Moriarty is definitely dead though? So I assume someone else has set up all the screens in order to provide intrigue for the next series.

I do wish they were longer than three episodes, even though this lot have been so odd.

Thank you AndiMac that was nice to watch. I have a little more respect for the US series now.

Yes, it is definitely more in keeping with the character of Holmes; a man who refined his personality and his education precisely for the purposes of his career and interests.

To become emotionally involved or attached would have hindered his mind and that would never have been permitted. In fact I think Elementary may have even taken a line from one of the stories there.

I think they are in danger of letting the special effects and 'is this happening or is it in his imagination/flashbacks' etc taking over.

I was bored for the first half an hour.

I read SH books when I was 11-12 and loved them.

I can't quite get my head around how the series' messes about' with the character compared to the original.

I also feel we are being toyed with as the audience by being led to believe - over and over- that SH is dead or the series is over, then he makes a come back.

There's a limit to how long you can keep playing the same trick.

They mention the speckled blonde, Rhubarb, in series 1, I think.

Like many others I found last week's episode a sentimental pile of poo and started enjoying this weeks until it started going up its own arse in clever clever nonsense. The Moriarty stuff at the end was just silly.
It was great to have Troels in something again, pleased to see him making a foray into UK dramas not just Scandinavian ones.
Sherlock is a druggy because in the books he's a druggy.
Magnusson was just a blackmailer though and it never made sense that Mycroft would be that bothered about a blackmailer.
Watson is coming across as seriously dim in this, he is miscast, agree that Martin thing just plays a hobbit in whatever he's in (the office etc).

Holmes wasn't a druggy. He took drugs when there wasn't a case to engage his mind. It was to relieve the boredom. When he was in the Opium Den it actually was because he was undercover looking for information. Holmes' drug of choice was cocaine, but when on a case he didn't need the artificial stimulation.

clara must have missed that reference.

2rebecca have you seen Nigel Bruce's performance? Freeman is actually playing a better Watson than many of his predecessors. That was quite funny, "you should have that on a t-shirt" "and there's the back of the t-shirt" to be fair, Watson in the stories is easily astounded.

Loved the episode (my fave) until the childish Moriarty crap, and the voiceover bloke making us sit through the credits for DICK ALL reason.

I am so totally in disagreement with all you purists. That's so done & dusted (I think I've read lots of the ACD stories, btw, including a book full only 4-5 yrs ago). I don't like superhero stuff, I would be very happy with slower pace, but recreating the book characters as written would have been so very very dull. I'm glad this is inspired by but not faithful to the original.

Next you lot will be complaining about Molly because she wasn't in the original books either.

So, erm, what do you all think of the Robert Downey Jr version of Holmes then? I loved the first film and found the second boring
Iver watched a LOT if Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett but I am getting very few if the references. Need to watch again. Think I'll kindle some books and get the 3free SH books offer from a Radio Times.

I think there is a middle way between being a purist and taking a vague notion of the original characters and recreating something entirely different.

Sherlock has gone a bit "Johnathan Creek" esque in this series- just a bit too daft to be worth watching and only about 50% as clever as it thinks it is

I agree with THERhubarb that they have taken too many liberties with Sherlock's character - they just seem to have lost all sense of who he is which is weird given how well they wrote him for the first two series and what big fans they are of Sherlock generally.

I wonder if they just lost the whole feel of the thing during that long hiatus, became too distracted by other projects too get back into it. The problem with Sherlock certainly seems to be exactly the same as that with Dr Who - they are messing about with basic concept of the show/character and so they have lost it's heart and meaning.

to and its

They are incorporating the original stories in a way. Mary dies in the original books and she has died in a way in this version. I agree that Moriarty is probably dead and this is a set up.

The acting is fantastic but the relationship between Holmes and Watson has become a bit saccharine. The idea that Holmes is so devoted to Watson is being milked a bit too much in my opinion, and this kills some of the tension which made the original stories so good.

It's a great drama though and I just hope that in the next series they use a lighter touch when writing the emotional dialogue. In this respect I think the first series hit the right note.
(Still want to know the official way he survived the fall!)

Really enjoyed the episode - but can't get over Sherlock shooting someone in cold blood at the end. I was shocked at how he treated Janine, but couldn't believe they turned him into a murderer - just wrong!

The way Sherlock has suddenly started referring to himself as a 'high functioning sociopath' this series is bugging me. Apparently Moffat has said this is not to be taken literally - it's more what Sherlock aspires to be... But why promote misconceptions between sociopathy and autism - and why mention it at all? I'd rather they just kept psychological references below the surface and let the viewer work it out (as in The Bridge and the wonderful Saga Noren).

On a shallow note I was really looking forward to TROELS being in this episode, but it was hard to watch him playing such a revolting character! Lars Mikkelsen is a great actor though. I had hoped he'd turn into a new arch enemy, but nope, it's back to Moriarty again...

Loved the documentary afterwards. Must read the books again...

BEST SHERLOCK EVER = Basil the Great Mouse Detective.

NO contest.

lljkk not a purist at all. I loved series 1 and how they brought Holmes to the modern era.

But like winterkills and Jaffacakes point out, there is a difference between taking liberties and totally changing the central core of the main characters.

I don't care what new characters they introduce or that BC looks nothing like the illustrations of Holmes. What has irked me is that it all started so well, they stayed faithful to the character of Holmes even if they didn't religiously follow the stories, but now they seem to have done what they did with Doctor Who and made it more about relationship dynamics and less about crime solving.

I don't care who Mary Morstan used to be or what Watson's pressure point is, I want to watch Holmes use his deductive powers to solve crimes and mysteries just as I want to watch the Doctor outwit the Daleks and save humanity - not get all emotional with his assistants and start talking about his bleeding childhood.

We don't want our favourite character psycho-analysed. We love them they way they are, without question. They don't need to have "relationships" that just humanised them and made them like any other character on TV. We want something different and both Doctor Who and Sherlock promised something that lifted us out of dreary crime dramas and into escapism.

Only now I feel they've reneged on that promise. For me anyway.

Agree Currer, would have been a much better use of Mikkelsen if they had played up his sex appeal more - it was so powerful in The Killing and would have given his character more reality and depth - the aphrodisiac of power and all that.

Maybe they thought BC wouldn't like the competition...

Currer, he describes himself as a 'high functioning sociopath' in the first episode of the first series. In fact that line in this episode: 'Do your research: I'm a high functioning sociopath' was a direct repeat of the line in the first ever episode. He says it to Anderson when Anderson accuses him of being a psychopath.

It's something that's been in the show, albeit mostly below the surface, right from the start, and I don't think a couple of explicit mentions in nine episodes is overdoing it. Incidentally I think The Bridge lays it on with a trowel about Saga and isn't really anything to aspire to!

I agree that Sherlock just executing Hot Danish Villain was a very big wrong note. Didn't sit right with me at all. I wanted sleuthing, deductions and outwitting, not just murder. Disappointing.

Can someone explain the homoeroticism between Sherlock and Watson. Was that in the original books?

I loved it from start to finish. Love the characters, the plot, the dialogue - loads of funny lines. One of the best things on TV.

Was the reason Sherlock waited to kill him so that Mycroft could protect him and ensure he wasn't shot in retaliation by security gurnards/the security services?

I liked all 3 eps. All very different. Ep 2 I wasn't massively keen on at the time but it keeps lingering in my head so it must've been fairly good.

My favourite bit of the whole series was the drunken bit.

wombles no it wasn't, but the rumour has always been there and exploited in the Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Gatiss explained that this is what they drew on and decided to tackle that relationship head on.

My favourite bit of the whole series was the drunken bit.

Ditto.

"He's cluing for looks"