There were 12,000 plus ahead of me in the queue when booking opened at 10.00 yesterday. Hung on for an hour before I had to give up and go to work.  By the time I got home there was nothing left on the Barbican site.  I then discovered that ATG was selling tickets and tried there with no luck. Finally ended up booking a (very expensive) theatre break through Capitalbreaks.   Very glad I got the tickets in the end, but I could have done without such a stressful day and was sorry that I didn't find out about ATG earlier. My credit card company will be happy though!!!!

SusiGo wrote:

@Zatoichi: I think it would be terribly sad if showing them in a love/sexual relationship would incite hatred, disgust or other negative feelings from fans. I really thought we had moved on. I am not saying that it is going to happen in the show (I mean, who ever knows what they come up with next?) but I would be more than okay with it. 
And as for canon - I suppose you know what ACD himself said when someone asked his permission for an adaptation: "Kill him, marry him, do whatever you like with him." And since the Johnlock idea is not new, it would not be really farfetched. 

I agree with you as well as with the points that Solarsystem makes in her post. BBC Sherlock is often a long way from canon, their take on Irene Alder being another example of moving the goalposts a long long way.  Johnlock could be made believeable on screen built on the foundations they've already laid if they decided to go down that route. I also think that a gay hero could be acceptable to the public (look at Torchwood) and that we have moved on a lot in recent years. For example a gay peck on the cheek kiss in the BBC soap opera Eastenders in the 1980's caused outrage, but a recent full-on gay snog shown before the watershed resulted in two complaints out of an audience of about eight million. The times they are a changing and maybe Sherlock should change with them. I think it could be a very postive portrayal and at the end of the day I'm a hopeless romantic. I don't want to see sexual scenes, but love and romance is a different thing entirely.

In the end I feel rather let down because they haven't done it after all the hints and so-called jokes in the first two series. And don't tell me that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously they knew exactly which fire they were playing with.

 

zeratul wrote:

I'm not ready to wait another two years!!!

Sometimes I wish, I'd have never started to watch Sherlock.
It is just cruel... three episodes, then again two years...
And of course there always has to be an cliffhanger...
Do they want to torture us? Or do they fear nobody would be interested in the next season?

Also Moftiss talked about how nice it is, that they have young Sherlock and Watson to show much of their life... Ben and Martin will not become younger by waiting two years everytime...

I feel much the same as you do. While I understand that there are logistical problems, actors/scripts etc I do worry that they may overeach themselves with these two year waits between series. Especially as the series 3 cliffhanger wasn't nearly as exciting/dramatic/heartbreaking as the series 2 one was. I can't help wondering if the fans and/or the general audience will start to lose interest if something else comes along in the meantime to grab the public imagination.   A Christmas 2014 episode would have helped to bridge the gap. There's a lot to be said for striking while the iron's hot.
 

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

Well Mark and Steven could have written "a gay romp" but that wouldn't be very interesting would it?  Getting the two romantic leads actually together pretty much kills the chemistry of the unresolved sexual tension.  So I see your point, but not necessarily agree with you here.
One of the things I love about BBC Sherlock is that he never feels obliged like John to deny that he is gay.  He just is who is- and yes, I think that is progress!

Well, they could have written "a gay romp" or even a serious, respectful 'this is no big deal' gay relationship. Resolved sexual tension allows a relationship to progress and I always lose interest in the shows where they string it out for too long. In the end I don't care whether they do or they don't!

However, as you say above BBC Sherlock never denys that he's gay, maybe because he is gay? That's my take on it anyway from watching the series, not a romance or a bromance, but a gay man who's secretly in love with his straight best friend. Pretty much like in 'The Private LIfe of Sherlock Holmes' which Mark Gatiss so often mentions.  Not that I think they'll ever say that's what's intended, at least not until long after the series is finished, but that's my take on it. I could go into a lot of reasons why I think that IMHO, but this post would be three miles long.
 

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

I wonder if it would have been possible to lock CAM up and deprive him of access to his papers and the ability to give orders for them to print anything. 

Seems like between Sherlock, John, the gun, and Mycroft's team it wouldn't have been that hard to physically overpower CAM. 

And the question is not so much, "What harm can he possibly do if he doesn't have physical proof?" as "Why he is ESPECIALLY dangerous?" Theoretically, every owner of a tabloid or media chain, or anyone adept at planting gossip on a broad scale, (or even doing it accidentally) should pose the same danger.

Also, his admitting to his lack of physical proof to Sherlock Holmes (someone closely connected to Mycroft Holmes who IS the British government) strikes me as a stupid thing to do...admitting a weakness...surely even if he CAN hurt people without proof, he would be in a BETTER position if they did believe he had proof? From TVtropes Headscratchers:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Sherlock

In the UK it would be quite possible for the government to slap an injunction on CAM and his papers and then lock him up if he broke it.  Lady Smallwood could have gone that route, so could Mycroft, even fairly minor TV personalities have used them to stop divorce cases etc being reported in the news. For all the scare stories about the press no one has more power than the goverment, but it wouldn't have been as much fun that way

I agree with everything else that you've said - CAM needs proof to make it stick, real phyiscal evidence.  Actually I'm not entirely convinced that everything was in CAM's head, series 4 will tell, but if it was a trick it was one that he didn't live to regret.

 

krissylou wrote:

So we are learning some interesting things about Mrs. Hudson's background and I have a theory.

We learned in ASiP that Mrs. Hudson owes Sherlock a favor because when her husband was sentenced to death in Florida Sherlock was able to help out -- ensuring the execution.

In Series 3 we learned that he ran a drug cartel but Mrs. Hudson "just did the typing."

I do believe that the technical legal term for "just doing the typing" is "conspiracy."

I.e., Mrs. Hudson was in a whole lot of hot water herself.  And there are plenty of people (often women) in prison who were involved in Very Very Bad Things in a very tangential way but can be on the hook for much more because they were involved in "conspiracy" -- but then because their personal involvement was so small they don't know enough to turn evidence against someone else, and that is generally how you strike a plea bargain so they can end up with what seem to be extremely disproportionate sentences when you look at what they actually did.

My theory is this is the situation that Mrs. Hudson found herself in.  She will be grateful to Sherlock forever, not only because he assured Frank Hudson's execution but also he kept her out of many many years in a Florida prison herself.  He found the critical evidence that she was able to trade for a plea bargain that let her off with probation.

That's an interesting idea and one I never thought of. Actually it may cast another light that blackmail trigger of marijuana, which I took to mean her use of 'herbal soothers' but it could refer to something a lot more sinister than that.

Actually it was quite a background they invented for her...and I thought she was such a nice old lady. No, actually I didn't, but I didn't expect a couple of the things that came up on that pressure point list.

tonnaree wrote:

besleybean wrote:

I for one am delighted he appears to have maintained his purity.

 
He's saving it for when he marries John.

*runs and hides*

That made me smile. Seriously though, my take on all this is that Sherlock's gay, but he's never had a relationship and then he goes and falls for a straight man, for John who loves him but who will never be in love with him, which I find rather sad. 

mrshouse wrote:

I see a lot of hints here in various threads that the development of the series is most welcome. But in this thread I have a bit of a feeling that this is not so very welcome concerning John, on whose moral guidelines we could rely for eight episodes. He has a lot to sort out and in my opinion this is more complex than being the good-balanced buddy all the time, making right decisions just out of thin air.

I agree completely. To me at least John's moral compass seems to be way off balance in episode nine.

Ozma wrote:

There won't be an explanation, not for this. I think this whole thing isn't over - look at how many of us are upset/confused/angry at her - she needs to redeem herself, because technically she is not a villain. Look at what they made Sherlock do to pay for having hurt John so much. I do believe they didn't put all this in the story just for it to become a footnote in John and Mary's happy life together.
But- they will not expand on this, I don't think.

As for the previous point, about her not being able to kill CAM because she didn't know of his mind palace - what was her plan then?
Can you honestly believe she waited MONTHS after he sent her those texts and put John into a bloody bonfire, befriended his PA, and possibly other things, just to throw all this down the toilet by just strolling into his office one day and then panicking about being found out? No, come on.
 
What did she intend to do?
And anyway…by shooting Sherlock she just added to CAM’s info about her and gave him more ammunition. COME.ON. Really? The first thing John does, THE VERY FIRST THING when he sees S on the floor is to bark, Who shot him!?
 
I thought she was supposed to be clever? Doesn’t seem like that to me?
Even CAM smirks at that.  Even him.
 
This to me just looks like a plot device to make everything more dramatic. Anyone who writes fanfics has done it before – you want to add something for drama, something which sounds romantic and super angsty, and you do it even though you perfectly realise there are some points that don’t connect.
 
I don’t think Moffat can afford that. Come on. He is better than that.

I agreed completely with your analysis of the shooting scene. Whatever we think about Mary and I do see her as a villain, shooting Sherlock to wound and letting CAM witness it and live just doesn't make sense. Her only real option when Sherlock walked in was to kill them both - not that I wanted Sherlock dead [img]http://cdn.boardhost.com/emotico

Swanpride wrote:

She is not simply a murderer, she used to be working for the CIA - it's hard to judge her actions if we don't know exactly her reasons, but in priciple, there is not THAT much of a difference between killing someone as a soldier and doing it as a secret agent. There is this believe that it is okay to kill if you do it for the right reasons. John has done it, Sherlock has now done it too...so we can hardly judge her without knowing her reasons.

It's not so much the CIA part, I can accept that as a one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter type of thing, but somethnig is said to the effect that she went freelance afterwards and she herself calls her actions crimes. Of course, this is just my take on this and I realise that there are other ways of viewing the evidence we're given in the episode.