Chapeau! That's really a lot of work to be done, a lot of concentration and power. But well, doctors and nurses, for example, do a great job, too ;-).

ancientsgate wrote:

kornmuhme wrote:

Well, I'm just a fan of finding compromises :-).

How do you compromise about a black and white (literally) situation?  The little red lights facing the stage and the bright white LED phone and tablet viewscreens facing the rest of the audience are either off or on. How does one compromise about that?  Just curious what your idea might be.
 

No photo-taking/filming durin the performance, but at the end of all, maybe after the applause.
Once again, I totally agree with you that during such a performance all people must follow the rules - and if they say no, then there is no inbetween.
What I was a bit angry about were a few statemants about people obviously not being able to "enjoy the moment". Well, some might just like taking photos or filming during a show to watch it later in private. What's wrong about this? That's my only critics.
 

Well, I'm just a fan of finding compromises :-).

As I already mentioned, I DO understand your position, and I totally agree that it is very impolite to take photos of or even film a show if it is clearly forbidden.
What I criticize here is the judging of a certain kind of behaviour. Some people just like having some memory of a certain unique moment, as I already said, and I think it's a little unfair to judge it. Some people want to enjoy the live moment, others want to make sure that they get very good pictures. That's totally ok - as far as I am concerned.

As much as I can understand your opinion I can also understand the people who want to take photos. Sorry, but it's a natural kind of habit to take pictures for one's own memory, esp, if it's a unique event/moment. Of course that is annoying in theatres, cinemas, even concerts (I myself hate people filming a concert several minutes just in front of me with their hands up in the air so that I can't see properly anymore!), but I've always found it a nice gesture to allow people take their photos maybe at the end of the show or even during the performance for a certain period (so it happened during a Loreena McKennitt concert; we had the permission to film and take phtots during the performance for about 5 minutes). I myself have only had good experiences with this, and at the end everyone is happy and nobody gets distracted.

Welcome back, Phantom!

I just wanted to say, that in the show Sherlock is the good guy and Moriarty the bad one, but it could also be possible, that Sherlock turns bad (which doesn't mean Moriarty plays the good part). Just as Donovon said in the very first episode that once Shelock might be the person who "put the body there" (or so). So there seems to be a certain danger of Sherlock getting in touch with the evil, also in himself.

Almost:

Moriarty is dead.
Molly will not date Lestrade (if she will date anybody different, I cannot say)
Molly and Sherlock will kiss
Mary and the baby will appear in episode 1.

kornmuhme wrote:

- Moriarty is dead (definately)
- no date between Lestrade and Molly (why should they have?)
- intensified contact between Sherlock and Molly (CALLED IT *ggg*)
- Mary's and John's baby will be born and live

Quoting myself :-).
Well, Molly herself said sociopaths "are maybe just my type". She broke up with Tom and is free again. What kind of interest could the show and its makers have to bring Molly and Lestrade together? Ok, why not, you might say. But I can't see any sense in it, it wouldn't have any effect on anything (if we assume that Sherlock isn't interested in Molly AT ALL).
Edit: Yes, we will see Mary and the baby in the show, at least in episode 1.
But what I would like to add: As much as I hope for a tiny romance between Sherloch and Molly (yeah, maybe a kiss), I'm pretty sure Sherlock's asexuality will be kept up. It's just him and follows canon.

nakahara wrote:

Lola Red wrote:

Sort of Mycroft teaching him what happens if you care about people?

Sort of.

Mycroft doesn´t want to punish Sherlock for real, but at the same time, he doesn´t want to make Sherlock feel that he can get away with murder just like that (such a thing could make him too cocky, arrogant and spoiled in the long run). So he stages this fake "punishment" and lets Sherlock stew in it for a while, before he releases him.
 

More than he already is? Hmm, unlikely ...