dartmoordoggers wrote:

They said they used the truck as a red herring when filming. Someone from Setlock checked the truck and they had even gone so far as to equip it for a stunt fall.

Maybe we will get some more explanations tomorrow. As the fall is one of the DVD extras.
 

We don't get the DVD in the US for another couple weeks, until the US TV showings are over.  I'd be interested to hear if anything more was explained.

sj4iy wrote:

"The Empty Hearse" wasn't my favorite episode, but I enjoyed it nevertheless.  People are simply upset because they want a 'definitive answer'...which, really, doesn't happen that often in real life...why do we expect it of our entertainment?

Why do we expect it?  Because of what Moffat said:

"So many people theorising about Sherlock's death online – and they missed it! We've worked out how Sherlock survives, and actually shot part of what really happened. It all makes sense."

And that was just one interview.  Please don't mind-read the fans who are upset and think you know what we are upset about.  You don't, apparently, and have no wish to admit that Mofftiss went to some trouble and expenseto insult the fanbase and cast us as misfits and morons, not to mention mental cases.   There was NEVER  going to be a "definitive answer."  Any Reichenbach theorist who studied the evidence disspassionately knew that.  NOTHING he could have written would have made sense in terms of what we saw.

But instead of acknowledging the intelligence and creativity of all the other Sherlock fangirls and boys out there, instead of saying, "Well, you guys stumped me," and doing the exact same show - he said this: "If anyone wants any further explanation they are just one of these idiots. - Be like John Watson and move along." 

sj4iy wrote:

Well, let's see...

The third one, if you're going to be pedantic about it

Considering that I came up with that exact explanation...

I see.  This is a victory claim.   The point is, we all came up with parts of all these explanations long before the show aired, and I suppose we can all claim victory.  The fact, however, is that they chose not to offer any explanation.  This is what they said. If recognizing a fact is ""pedantic" I guess I'll just have to live with being someone who recognizes a fact as a fact.

Feel free to come up with a more plausible explanation if you wish, but I'm done.

I already did.  And you have a lovely day.

anjaH_alias wrote:

The missing clue is that the whole story started with a plan of Sherlock and Mycroft (becoming famous, eliciting Moriarty out of his spider web). Not the other way around as TRF might look like at first. And this is explained in the thrid solution of TEH as well.

That's not what he said.  He said we missed a clue on the roof because Sherlock did something "out of character."  Besides, the fact that Sherlock and Mycroft had been putting the plan into action back in Baskerville and purposely making Sherlock famous, wasn't missed at all, for instance, it was explained in a series of posts that start here: TRF 1 back in March.  Excerpts:

Mycroft knows what he is about to release into the world: Sherlock Holmes' destruction.  He has purposefully sent the evil [Moriarty] that would obliterate  Sherlock, the brother he has protected for most of his life, in order to stop more deaths  of innocents. Mycroft must trust Sherlock to stay one step ahead in understanding, while appearing three steps behind to Moriarty.  Mycroft has to be ready to act instantly at Sherlock's call, without knowing what he'll be called on to do and not act until Sherlock tells him.  Moriarty cannot know that the Holmes boys work together. ...


... Moriarty must believe he is making all the moves and Sherlock must manipulate things to his advantage as much and as subtly as possible.  So Sherlock, who always shunned personal publicity, turns himself into a tabloid media star. He accepts accolades and gifts, submits himself  to publicity photos and video cameras.

sj4iy wrote:

The answer was basically: here's a plausible explanation, you can choose to accept it or not.

Not sure which of the mash-up of explanations they offerred you thought was plausible, but it was very clearly stated by John: "You're not going to tell me how you did it..."  They didn't.

sj4iy wrote:

1. It was answered and suitably so to anyone not bent on conspiracy theories.
.

No, it wasn't.  In fact, they made a point of saying quite specifically at the end that Sherlock would never explain it.  See Fan Bashing and Fan Service, the Solution Substitutes

Moffat was left with no explanation that fans hadn't already deduced, perhaps in parts, but thoroughly, and found the flaws in.  His whole schtick about the fans "missing a clue" on the roof was tripe, and the only way out was to either admit he didn't fool anyone or refuse to give any explanation.  Then he made Reichenbach theorists out to be kooks and weirdos and mentally unstable so anyone who called him on it would be trashed by other fans.

Looks like it worked perfectly. 

Gretel wrote:

My obsession is new enough, yet powerful enough, that I have read all 60 pages of this thread in the past few days. Some very interesting ideas here...

Newbie that I am, may I make a comment about "spoilers" and setlock? I can't find the link, but I watched an interview with Gatiss, Moffat, and Cumberbatch and in it they assured the interviewer in no uncertain terms that watching the filming was not in any way going to help anyone figure out the solution to our own Sherlockian Final Problem. (anyone have that interview?)

So I have been looking at any "spoilery" things I can get my eyes on, just out of curiosity, but nothing I have seen has made me any more or less sure of any theories I've got going on than I was before. I mean, let's face it, given what the guys said in that interview, I'm not going to look at some online photos and go, "OMG!! Look, there's a big snarflegluff right under the borchtboiler, and Sherlock obviously frgbled onto it between prylsting and whirnelling!" or, "OMG!! Look, there's a professional celebrity cheekbone-sharpener approaching Benedict and honing them into even more lethal weapons (and re-vorpaling his brglesnot at the same time), so that proves the theory about his cheekbones cutting the cement till it bleeds IS the correct one!" (whoever's cheek-implanted tongue came up with that one, about 30 pages ago, I applaud you, I love it.)

So...while I do respect the desire for no spoilers, and beyond the above I will endeavor not to indulge in any, I think Moffniss also desires no spoilers and will keep us honest. I have as much faith in them that they will make sure nothing as prosaic as exterior filming ruins our experience of the next episode as I do that they will give us three more lovely, elegant, witty adventures to wrap around ourselves like tea cozies...

...before leaving us in shocked agony for another 3 years or so while they film the next set.

Welcome to the thread.  And the forum. 

butterfly grl wrote:

Sherlock doesn't bother to eat or sleep while on a case.
I'm not at all certain how he does that without a brain numbing headache. I'm bad about eating enough, and I'll call an energy drink and a power bar breakfast and lunch. Sometimes, I may skip dinner as well.


Mind over master goes only so far.

And I've done the not eating for 2-3 says in a row. It messes up your GI track somethingsomething awful.

I'm not sure how much "mind over matter" is necessary, because the cases we've seen rarely last more than 24 hours.

Sherlock seems just fine with eating when he is not working and is still quite lean and that suggests a high metabolism.  People who have a higher ratio of muscle to fat, easily convert fat to sugar and so, keep a normal blood sugar count which avoids headaches. 

However, it's TV and it's fiction.  Plenty of what goes on in the show doesn't make a bit of sense in reality.  So, we just "suspend our disbelief" and ....


 

sj4iy wrote:

Okay, so, now that's over, onto the theories.  Here is my theory (with pics and videos for support)!  What do you think?

I think you need to explain why Moriarty is wearing Sherlock's coat and is on such friendly terms with Mycroft outside Bart's.




I've said this before and I'll say it again: you cannot prove anything with setlock.  As I said on the page I posted here, I find the pictures support my theory more than, or as much as, yours. It just depends on how you interpret the pictures. Besides, Moffat/Vertue are messing with us, quite obviously. 

Of course there is an airbag, of course he gets helped off, the viewpoint from the helmetcam will tell us nothing but that there is an airbag, not where it is or who is falling onto it.

Your theory makes no sense to me. (This doesn't mean it's wrong necessarily, Moffat is fine with things not being sustainable in reality) but the question I have is:

IF Sherlock falls from the corner where John is looking and lands on an airbag at the Point of Impact, why do they need a dead body dressed as Sherlock to be lying on the POI when John comes around the corner?  Why not just have Sherlock lie down as they drag away the airbag?  They can still hit John with the bike to finish up the blood and so forth. 

So, let's pretend the production needed a double at the POI for some reason.  That would support my theory.  That it wasn't Sherlock John watched fall.  That Sherlock got to the ground elsewhere. That he had to hide nearby to get to the POI asap for blood-dressing and before John got up.

All these pictures can be interpreted to support either theory and probably some other ones.

BUT - the real point, I think, is that Moffat said we have all the information on screen to figure out how it was done.  Long before they start