sj4iy wrote:

And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing.  Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him?  If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing.  Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world.  He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.

I'm not talking about his writing, I'm talking about this interview with him. I love all episodes of Sherlock, but his attitude in the interview is arrogant, which is him as a man, as a writer.

Yeah, that's the only conclusion I could finally come up with - he must have been overconfident. Still, it's not very logical for a master criminal of his status who thus far has not been caught or thwarted. Also, even if he is overconfident, did he specifically instruct his security staff not to search them, even though they come to his home, and he is likely to make them angry? The sloppiest of searches would have turned up a gun in a jacket pocket.
It's sloppy writing, and I think Moffat is letting his position as God of TV Series getting to his head.

Ok another one, off the top of my head: The Blind Banker. Sherlock deduces the girl hasn't been in for a while due to some wet post in front of the door. There are several bells at that door, several levels of apartments. Where are all the other people who live there? Again, they *could* collectively have gone on holiday, but it's not logical.
Sherlock Holmes, who notices everything, misses completely that the girl had started translating part of the code. Again, not very likely.
And last but not least, when someone points an elaborate machine to shoot you, and then gets distracted, leaving you tied to a chair, you fall over out of the arrow's path. Sheesh, damsel in distress, have half a brain.

Look, I'm not saying Moftiss are bad writers - they are brilliant and I love their work. But saying their plot holes don't exist and people are just not being clever, is too arrogant. As a writer you should believe in your stories, but also take legitimate criticism to heart. Whether or not you believe this criticism is legitimate... we appear to disagree on that.

silverblaze wrote:

CAM believed that he had Sherlock and John in his power. He felt safe.

Unlikely. He must have known that they would get angry when they found out that there was no vault, and they'd really been cheated in the deal. He must have known that both Sherlock and John had a history of violence. He had no reason to feel safe.

this is easily explained by a lazy villain.

But CAM isn't a lazy villain. He's shown as methodic, thorough, knowledgeable, hard-working, omnipresent. Hardly a showcase for a lazy villain.

... yeah... I still have trouble believing Sherlock wouldn't notice a shot of spirit into his beer... likely by that time he didn't care ;)

Is that ok to do here; what are the rules on spoilers outside the appointed forums for the episodes? I didn't put a spoiler tag in the title of the thread.

The reason I posted the definition was that it's different from what Moffat says, which is "A plot hole is actually something that can’t be explained."
If it can be explained, but only by going against the rest of the storyline or logic; it's still a plot hole.

Steven Moffat fires back at complaints over 'plot holes' in Doctor Who + Sherlock

One of the biggest complaints about Steven Moffat’s tenure at the helm of Doctor Who has revolved around perceived plot holes, and now the man himself has fired back at those allegations.

The Who and Sherlock showrunner told BBC Radio 2 that most of the complaints about “plot holes” in his work are fairly unwarranted, as any point that isn’t completely explained onscreen can sometimes be pigeonholed into the term.

According to Moffat, he expects the audience to be smart, and any “plot holes” are actually just threads he believes the viewers should be wise enough to connect on their own:

“I think people have come to think a plot hole is something which isn’t explained on screen. A plot hole is actually something that can’t be explained. Sometimes you expect the audience to put two and two together for themselves. For Sherlock, and indeed Doctor Who, I’ve always made the assumption that the audience is clever.”

There’s no denying that Moffat is clever, but as some of his Who season finales and the season-two ending of Sherlock can attest, he’s been known to occasionally bite off more than he can chew along the way. His take on “plot holes” is definitely a unique one, and makes a lot of sense, but it's hard to say if every instance over the past few years can be explained with his reasoning here.

What do you think? Are Moffat’s plot holes really “holes,” or have we just not figured it all out ourselves?

http://www.blastr.com/2014-1-14/steven-moffat-fires-back-complaints-over-plot-holes-doctor-who-sherlock

I don't agree, Steve. I'm quite clever, an avid fan, and always happy to bind less likely plot lines together with possible explanations, but some of your holes are too big even for me. This is even more grating in Sherlock, a show based on logic, than in Dr Who, where we can explain away things we don't underst

I feel she really got the worst deal - her best friend AND her boyfriend are only with her to get to her boss, who *flicks her eyes*. She's got a cottage now, but I expect she'll be sitting there not trusting anyone ever again ever.