Mnemosyne wrote:

besleybean wrote:

And can I just say at this juncture:  LIVE tweeting during a 1st viewing of  a Sherlock episode!  What's that all about?  No wonder people miss so much, nobody concentrates on anything these days...
This is top quality TV, multi layered and faceted...ok, I'll get my coat.   Not THE coat you understand, just a  coat!

I agree. Most TV doesn't grip me that much so when it does I would like to be able to give it more than a cursory glance. When I am 'enthralled' I don't want anyone to even look sideways at me, I think some would agree it's off-putting.

@Morton: I had to leave the house and go for a walk to calm myself down after Reichenbach. The last time any TV left me that riled it was the last episode of Lost. It's not obsessive; just a testament to good storytelling. Good stories stay with you for life and is huge kudos to everyone involved in its creation. It also takes intelligence and imagination to go deeper into any story beyond what is written on the page/presented to you.

I make a point of ignoring anyone who trounces the passions of others. They either lack any passion in their own lives or they just wish they could be brave enough to follow your example.

I agree with besleybean what IS the point of tweeting "I don't get it" when they've not been trying to.

There's precious little on the telly that can make me swear, in a good, appreciative way, the way I did at the end of Reichenbach.

Obsession isn't it just a word we assign a meaning to, mm? and in this century it seems it's not cool to have an obsession or be enthused.  It was absolutely fine, a virtue even, to be obsessed in Victorian Britain though. Some of of our greatest collections of objects were only accumulated by a great passion for them and for collecting. I dunno it seems that some people do think that passion is a commodity to be kept in a bank like money and that it can be run out of by spending it.

kazza474 wrote:

Earlier this year Steven Moffat suggested that feverish fan theories as to how Holmes had faked his own death had missed one vital clue. So does Gatiss think the truth could now be out there? "There's some very clever theories, some of them elaborate, and I enjoy them all. But if I were to tell you if someone had worked it out then it wouldn't be a secret." Which, of course, isn't an answer. So I try again. Has somebody somewhere now worked it out? "It may be, sort of, in some of the theories. There's a lot of very clever people out there … "

Gatiss points to certain theories beyond his wildest imagination, and admits to being happily shocked by the frenzy that surrounded Holmes' jump. "I've never known something become such a public talking point." And one that shows little sign of abating. "It'll be worth the wait," he promises.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2012/mar/15/being-human-mark-gattis?cat=tv-and-radio&type=article
Most likely, with people's theories, people have got one part right but not all of it. I don't think anybody's got absolutely everything right

Gotcha! You thought you'd get some hints here huh?