Watched twice. First time I didn't like it, but I was tired. Second time liked it, not loved. There were nice moments: Gorgeous wedding dress (love the details); the soft glow at the wedding (if a bit bright), the violin waltz "gift" dance---ah, so sweet; and Lestrade's temper tantrums--amusing. Not so fond of the extended drinking scene, seemed to go on too long, went too far. But then I have to remember this is a young Sherlock who will change over time and probably quite deliberately.  

I didn't realize it would be structured as it was with the wedding interwoven with past events and the case. Always well-done, skipping around in time like they do on this show. It takes good writing to be able to do that without confusing the viewer. The editing, as well as the graphics, seem unparalleled. They dazzle me. 

So, good episode if not what I expected. Long best man speech but perhaps not soooo long if not chopped up with scenes of past events, etc. Rather hard to believe all those guests would patiently sit still--would they really be that polite? Be that enthralled by Sherlock? 

I do think the writers can quit repeating now in different ways how much Sherlock and John admire one another and get back to action/adventure. And the sign of three reference at the end seemed forced and weak. Didn't really fit. What fit was Sherlock walking off alone at the end; that was in character. I've read other comments about how much Sherlock has changed and I think they are worth discussing. But for now...

Dazzle me, next epsiode. 

 

I had a thought today....maybe this fits with the "first thoughts" thing a little bit. IMO the show needs a couple of new writers, not to replace the current three, but to work alongside them. And if they brought in one or two female writers to the team, that'd be even better. IMO again, the show could use a new writing POV. I realize that might all happen when pigs fly, but I thought I'd put the idea out there.

I really cannot see this happening.
As much as I hate to even nod to gender differences, maybe you are right about the sexes writing differently...
But I think we will be stuck with the 3 boys and I for one am happy with that.
This is the best TV writing we have ever seen.

Last edited by besleybean (February 2, 2014 8:26 am)

It's hard to come in so late. Everything's probably been said by now, and I certainly will never catch up on all the posts. I enjoyed the lighter atmosphere of this episode on the second viewing. And of course, the counterpoint of Sherlock leaving alone at the end. We wouldn't want him to make too much progress in being socialized, would we? Then where would there be to go?

This has been my fave episode so far.  Yes for the hunamising of Sherlock but I dunno I just loved it.  

She's laughing at the thought of Sherlock reading all those lovey-dovey notes with sweet sentiments. And she was right -- look at him reading 'lots of squishy cuddles' and 'poppet.' Too much love. He can'st stand it!

Mary

I kept thinking about TSoT, and after rewatching it I realized the main point why I have difficulties liking this episode: it feels so very manipulative to me. We as the audience are flat out told how to feel about things several times. It makes me very wary if two of the best storytellers and known clever manipulators of fangirl feels blatantly tell me how I'm supposed to feel..

It starts with Mrs. Hudson's babble about the end of an era and how sad it is to leave a wedding early.. I couldn't help rolling my eyes at this scene, because it is so obvious that we are going to see Sherlock leave the wedding early, and are supposed to be very sad about it.
Next we have Mary, telling John to take Sherlock out on a case, because the poor guy is so desperate and panicking (paraphrasing here) about the wedding business. So thanks to that we know how to feel about Sherlock's feelings now..
Then Molly talks to Lestrade and Mrs. H about the speech, with actual people actually listening. Here we are told that Sherlock is going to be so rubbish at it, and it's going to be hilarious.

I can't help feeling played with, to me it feels too forced to really buy it. There would have been ways to show Sherlocks feelings without having other characters spelling it out, so why did they use this tool? Either they use their old trick to tell one thing and show the other, or it is because Sherlock is supposed to be so repressed ttat there is no other way to get the message across in another, more direct way?

The ep continues conjuring a certain image of Sherlock by associating him to a child at least three times (i'll ask a grown-up, I'm not a child anymore, you don't need me around now you have a real baby on the way), showing him endearingly clueless (oh so the tea doesn't just magically appear? Oh so I'm actually John's friend? More so than Mike Stamford and Geoff Lestrade?) and being all cute and clumsy while drunk. I suspect what they were aiming at was giving us all mummy-feelings for Sherlock, just to crush them in HLV and make the emotional impact even bigger..? (Moffat said it was all about traumatizing a generation after all ;p) Because to me it feels too much over the top to be a sincere attempt at shedding a light on Sherlock's vulnerability and emotional investment (which I'd love). But maybe it is just their way of storytelling? I still can't really get my head around this episode..

Zatoichi wrote:

I kept thinking about TSoT......
The ep continues conjuring a certain image of Sherlock by associating him to a child at least three times (i'll ask a grown-up, I'm not a child anymore, you don't need me around now you have a real baby on the way), showing him endearingly clueless (oh so the tea doesn't just magically appear? Oh so I'm actually John's friend? More so than Mike Stamford and Geoff Lestrade?) and being all cute and clumsy while drunk. I suspect what they were aiming at was giving us all mummy-feelings for Sherlock, just to crush them in HLV and make the emotional impact even bigger..? (Moffat said it was all about traumatizing a generation after all ;p) Because to me it feels too much over the top to be a sincere attempt at shedding a light on Sherlock's vulnerability and emotional investment (which I'd love). But maybe it is just their way of storytelling? I still can't really get my head around this episode..

I can't remember if it was that episode (TSoT) that made me feel this way, or the whole season, but I suspect the latter.  The writers gave Sherlock what I like to call a personality transplant. I hope S4 brings the old Sherlock back.
 

I'm still coming to terms with the episode too.  

I do think Sherlock already has some childlike qualities, but he's forced into a child role far too much here.  The moment that really makes me cringe is when he asks John if he's said something wrong, in the way a child might.  It's not Sherlock.  I don't mind the relationship with Mycroft  - that is a hangover from childhood.  But Sherlock claiming he was John and Mary's baby?  No thank you.  

Steven Moffat has admitted to two big influences - wanting to have read the best man's speech when he was 12, and the ending of a particular Doctor Who episode.  They're both childhood influences, and I even wondered if the little boy, Archie was Steven putting himself, as a child, into the story.   I wonder if it's because Moffat was recalling childhood memories that he tried to make Sherlock more childlike - not just in his behaviour, but in his role? 

And yes, I do feel we're being manipulated a bit too much.   I loved the way other episodes make us think and draw our own conclusions.  And it was unnecessary (if you're right about the intention behind it, Zatoichi - to give us "mummy-feelings").  I was already feeling protective about Sherlock, after TEH - but that was noble, suffering, heroic, "one of the angels", still supremely clever Sherlock.  I didn't need/want him to be infantilised.

Another gripe I have is the vow to the "three".   It feels a bit out of place, but then when it's absolutely necessary for the next episode, it feels like we've been set up.   Of course Sherlock had to act the way he did (killing Magnusson, dragging himself out of hospital, etc.) because he'd made that vow at the wedding.  But it never really made sense for him to make that vow. 

Liberty wrote:

I do think Sherlock already has some childlike qualities, but he's forced into a child role far too much here.  The moment that really makes me cringe is when he asks John if he's said something wrong, in the way a child might.  It's not Sherlock.  I don't mind the relationship with Mycroft  - that is a hangover from childhood.  But Sherlock claiming he was John and Mary's baby?  No thank you.  

 

I do have problems with some moments in this episode but these are not among them. His words during the speech for me were a reminder of the role John always had for him - serving as an interpreter for "normal" people's behaviour and emotions, what is a bit not good, what is the right timing. I actually like the moment just because we get a bit of the old dynamic between them that has nearly disappeared in series 3. 
The baby thing for me is a nothing but a weak joke, Sherlock trying to ease the awkwardness of the situation by saying this (a mechanism he uses again in the tarmac scene). 

One moment I really, really do not like even if it may be played for fun is John calling Sherlock a drama queen after having done so much for him before and during the wedding. This is one of the moments that make me cringe.