Who says, that it will be a two year wait again? Didn't they say, it might be shorter this time around?

gently69 wrote:

Well... everyone has a different taste. I'm fine with how it is now. There are so many adaptions of the canon and most are in ACD style I think. So if somenone wants to watch "pure" canon stuff... has to switch the programme... IMO

gently69, I think, the writers are free to do with the show, whatever they want. It's their artistic decision, and the overwelmingly positive reactions prove them right. And I'm really not that hung up on canon. I just expressed my personal disappointment about that change from a detective show to a show about a detective. We have to wait and see, how it will turn out in season 4. In season 2, they managed very well to handle both aspects of the show. Maybe, they will manage that again in season 4.

Stayin Alive, Interesting, that you didn't like that episode, even though they gave you some hope, that you were right all along, and that Moriarty MIGHT be alive after all.
But I didn't like it either for most of the reasons, you gave above. I liked the first 20 minutes, and then it lost the plot completely IMO. I didn't even find it tear jerking and emotional, since Sherlock came back after 4 minutes. There's a review of HLV at overlycriticalreviews.wordpress.com, which adresses a lot of points, mainly, that you are left with the impression, that you cannot take anything serious, you are presented with, anymore. And that is very much against the spirit of the original Holmes stories, which make the point that everything is explained, even if the plot strains reality quite a bit. And while I have high hopes, that quite a few points will get adressed and explained in season 4 after all, I'm not exactly looking forward to it,as I did after season 2. You can string along your audience only for so long. After 3 or 4 years, the carrot dangling in front of your nose, gets stale.
This is just my personal opinion. Good, that many others liked it.

ozma, I don't think Mycroft even knows about the stick. He probably doesn't even know, that Mary shot Sherlock. Only Sherlock and Mary know that between the two of them. And CAM did, of course.
But no matter, if the stick at Chrismas is meant to be a clue or not, I really don't think Sherlock would allow this info to get lost forever.

It's true, that whoever wanted to know about Mary, didn't have to make a new stick, since it just could be copied.
BUT, if this is really a clue, it is the only way, the makers can hint to us, the audience, that this info about Mary might not be lost after all. And the longer I think about it.... I don't think, Sherlock would let go of vital information....

Agree with those, who read Molly's remark as being highly sarcastic. Of course he wasn't clean. But I do believe, it was for the case. Even, when John finds him, he's too much in control of everything.  Also, if this was just recreational, Sherlock would probably do it at home and not in a shooting galery. But Anderson& Co didn't find anything in his appartment. The closed bedroom door, which made them and Mycroft highly suspicious, was because of Janine. I love Anderson's changed role a lot, btw. Heck, he's even featured as a helper in Sherlock's near death experience!
That said, Sherlock probably likes his drugs, and there are many subtle allusions throughout the show, that he has used, even after John moved in. Remember the 'Drugs Bust', which indicates past problems, Mycroft's fears and allusions, the search in 'all the usual places' as well as 'Don't mess up my sock index' in SiB, which indicates, that they have searched before, and that there must've been stuff, otherwise there are no 'usual places' or 'Danger nights'. And I really don't think, they'd make such a fuss about cigarettes.
But his drug use in HLV is not such a relapse. So far, we've never seen a relapse on screen (except with ciggies), and I don't think, we ever will. The shooting galery was a nod to canon.

CAM and die? No way, we don't even know him, yet. They can't introduce again a new villain in season 4. Mary? Too obvious, and besides, she is married to Martin Freeman, so it might be harder to get rid of her, lol! John and Sherlock? No way, it's completely against canon, and without them they can as well terminate the show. Lestrade and Molly or Mrs. Hudson? That would make me really sad. Mycroft? Does Mycroft die in canon? Can't remember, he isn't such a major player. His death would make me really sad, too. Would Mark Gatiss write himself out of his own creation? Has Mark too great a work load. Since they shoot only three episodes per annum (or less), I can't imagine that either. This death problem is really a teaser, since I just cannot imagine the show without someone of the above. Donovan or Anderson? I have a hunch, that it will be Anderson.... which would make me sad, too, because I just started to like him. But, since he's not on the job anymore, he's expendable, he's not from canon, and I have some specific reasons to believe, it might be him.

Agree with Sherlock Holmes. AC Doyle had to come up with an explanation after the fact, since originally, he had no plans to resurrect Holmes. He was lucky, that Holmes' original fall to death left big loopholes, so it wasn't even that difficult to come up with a lame but plausible explanation. The readership didn't expect something elaborate anyway. They just wanted Holmes back, no matter how.
With Sherlock, it's very different. Mofftiss created a death scenario, which was incredibly difficult to explain away in a satisfiying fashion, yet they raised the expectations sky high by planting all sorts of clues, and telling people, there is an elegant solution, parts of it were on film already, and it was solvable, if you just pay attention to all the details. And then they bail out with an ambiguous solution full of holes. And very inelegant to boot, at least IMO.  If they really insist on leaving things like that, it's sloppy story telling to say the least. But I have still hope, that hints will be given in tomorrow's last episode, and more info might come up in season 4.
To give you another perplexing example of sloppyness in theory 3: I went through the footage again yesterday, and something about the conditions and the atmosphere didn't feel quite right. They used part of the old footage of TRF again, but something in the new footage was different. First I suspected the weather inconsistencies, but that was discussed after TRF at length already, and is probably due to the changing weather in England, lol! Then it hit me: In some sequences on the ground you can see, that the trees have no foliage, they are bare! In TRF, they are in full foliage, which creates a very different street atmosphere. So, is this just another incredible sloppyness, or is this a hint, that Sherlock is pulling Anderson's legs. You have to remember, that TEH takes place in November. Might Sherlock just have used in his head the CURRENT conditions? After TRF, Mofftiss said, they had already sh

silverblaze, I'm a leftie, too. And I can write mirror image pretty well. That's, why I scrutinized that scene intensely.
Yes, we tend to overanalyze, and we should really cut them some slack, if not all the blood patterns match up after two years, when they recreated the fall, but I still maintain, that a continuity clunker, like Moriarty using one hand to mirror write in the 'live version' and using another in the surveillance video of that exact scene, shouldn't slip by. What were Andrew  and the editors thinking, lol?

silverblaze, personally I didn't think, Moriarty was attractive at all, but I somehow liked him and felt for him. I had a hard time to believe, that he is completely bad, without any redemptive qualities. How could he be, when he's stealing the crown jewels, accompanied by Rossini's 'Thieving Magpie' on his ipod? And going to trial accompanied by Nina Simone's version of 'Sinner Man'? I can see, where the fans of 'Moriarty/short version/not dead are coming from. But Andrew being at the final at least gives me hope, that we will see him in some flashbacks.