As I have understood the information, he's playing Khan like from a parallel universe, since the original Khan story leaves no room for a prequel. As Khan tells in the clip, I posted, he and his crew got frozen and sent into space in 1995; Kirk found and defrosted them 200 years later and marooned them on the planet Ceti Alpha 5. That's where the movie 'Wrath of Khan' picks up, which ends with Khan's death. The makers of the new movie said, that Khan was the most formidable enemy, the Enterprise crew ever had, an arch enemy, so to speak, and he must always exist somewhere. Sounds a bit, as if they want to cash in on the popularity of Khan, and the concept of an arch enemy is not only savoured by Sherlock and his fans.

I've heard this nice little theory, which involved fish: Sherlock survived the fall by secretly flagging down a Vogon spaceship in his moment of privacy. He got chucked out onto the pavement quite rudely, though, because he did not fully appreciate Vogon poetry. And the fish, where does the fish come into play? Ah, yes: Sherlock communicated with the Vogons by putting a Bable Fish into his ear, which was a present from the actor Martin Freeman. He had kept it after playing Arthur Phillip Dent in the movie 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. Sherlock also got a ring, which made him invisible, from Freeman, and used it to walk out of the hospital unnoticed. Freeman had nicked this very useful item from a creature, called Gollum, which he had met during the shooting of his latest movie.

Thanks, Irene, Ben is good at doing Rickman, though I have to say, that Rickman is doing better as himself, lol!
Here's a clip for those interested in Ben's 'Star trek' work. He's stepping into the shoes of the great Ricardo Montalban, whose most celebrated role was Khan in one of the early 'Star Trek' episodes and later in the film 'The Wrath of Khan'. He's considered to be one of the greatest movie villains. The maker of this clip called it 'Through the eyes of Khan'. I would have called it 'Through the voice of Khan'.

http://youtu.be/xPBWodbk3YY

wholocked, my ideas are not about whether they will bring Irene back or not, though I wouldn't mind either way, and anyway,they don't stick stricktly to canon all the the time.

Yeah, that's true, Sherlock, there would have been many more options for both John and Sherlock to save her, and I really felt for her. Her death seemed unnecessarily cruel to me and made no difference to the story line.
Also I missed Lestrade. He was introduced as such a compelling character and had great dynamics with Sherlock (the drugs bust scene is absolutely priceless). So why did they abandon him in the very next episode?

Interesting info about a different director for the TBB. It definitely lacked tempo and pace, but I simply couldn't get into the story either. I found it a little tedious. Also I resented, that the Chinese girl had to die. Was there no way to save her? For me, A Study in Pink is still the shining jewell of the show, so TBB fared especially bad in comparison. It had some great moments, but for me they were overshadowed by the general lack of coherence. It's simply astonishing, how the same writer could come up with the brilliantly and tightly constructed Reichenbach Fall script.

Toomanyfandomstofunktion:
I like the idea of a deadly killer catwoman! Introduce Kate Moran, loyal assistent and secrete lover of the late Jim Moriarty! And there is still the female assassin(e) unaccounted for. Unimportant lose end or brilliant plot twist, lol?

So you guys found out, that Moriarty gave the kids low grade chocolate. He's a nickel pincher! The witch in Grimm's fairy tales at least provided top notch quality, lol! 

At the wiki/tv tropes page about Sherlock, I linked yesterday, I read a very interesting comment from a guy, who has Asberger's. He said, that Sherlock's quip about being a high functioning sociopath, was just that: a punch line to annoy Anderson. Unlike sociopaths, who can mimic emotion for their own egocentric purposes, but never be genuinely concerned about others, people with Asperger's can LEARN to feel true emotions and concerns about people of their immediate surrounding, like we might learn a second language at school, and get really good at that language. People, who don't belong into that inner circle, are more like objects to them. So it's awfully clever of Moriarty to target Sherlock's friends, for whom he has eventually developed a heart and true feelings.(GG:Sherlock: 'I've been reliably informed, that I don't have a heart'; Moriarty: 'But we both know, that it's not quite true'.)Moriarty could have threatened more abstract things with a very high body count, like taking down a jumbo jet or detonate a bomb somewhere, and he would not have put nearly the same pressure on Sherlock. In 'Great Game' Sherlock is interested to solve the riddles; the victims don't mean anything to him. Even his concern for the child is minor, and his glee to have solved the riddle of the forged painting almost destroys the child, since Sherlock wastes precious time by enjoying himself, but he is genuinely rattled, when John is in danger.
So I think, his emotions on the roof are genuine, but nevertheless I don't believe into the tears. If he was really a fraud about to commit suicide, yes, he might very well have cried - but, don't forget, he was in the middle of a very complicated operation, where every misstep could end in disaster. His mind had to work on it's highest level; he could not allow himself the release of tears. Someone, who is about to commit suicide, might very well feel release, because, whatever his ordeal was, it's soon to be over, but for Sherlock, nothing

Ha, ha, just, when you think, you have a new idea, you find out in the days of www. that someone else was there before you!

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

"During the case with the abducted children, Sherlock, out of the blue, starts digging out details from his imagination - he talks passionately about how the little boy obsessed with spy stories would deal with the second or so of time between seeing his kidnapper and being taken, he re-enacts the kidnapper silhouetted as he approached the door. What are the chances that Moriarty deliberately set the crime up to mirror an experience from Sherlock's own childhood? Considering that Sherlock's family is rich and powerful, the youngest child getting kidnapped for ransom is not much of a stretch, and he would absolutely be the type to try and leave a meaningful trail behind. Moriarty knows Sherlock's life story by now and would undoubtedly delight at the chance to give the crime a personal touch (as with Carl Powers's trainers). Most importantly, Sherlock identifying with the victim causes him to come to his conclusions in a way that's even less transparent than usually - he really does seem to know things he could only have known if he'd been there. Since Moriarty wants the police to start suspecting Sherlock, this would fit right into his plans. It would also explain why Sherlock is so unexpectedly vicious to the teacher who was supposed to be watching the children."

The whole website is worth checking out. Much food for tought. Drawback: You have to register in order to unlock the spoiler protection, but it's easy and totally worth it, if only for the thread "WMF (Wild Mass Guessing)", but also for "Fridge Brilliance" and "Fridge Horror".