Lol, it was just an example. There are many such stretches in the episode. Most importantly, may be, there was not way for Moriarty's assassin to know where they should position themselves to kill Watson, who was on move: there was no way to forsee that he would arrive to Barth in a given moment and stand in a given place. (mrs Hudson and Lestrade were more predictable). Also, Sherlock could just call Watson and tell him not to come in taxi to Barth, but to go and hide somewhere else . I am not nitpicking here, just telling that it is better not to de-construct the script too much, for our own sake.

Swanpride wrote:

The assassins were hired by Moriaty, and if I were Moriaty, I would be able to predict that John would come straight back as soon as he realizes that Mrs. Hudson is okay and this was just a ruse to lure him away.

^This.

belis wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

There are fans here with a medical, scientific or forensic background and we have to suspend disbelief all the time, 'cause the technical side doesn't make sense all the time either. Some people can, some can't and that's fine, difference of taste, I hope they find something else that they do like. Something really realistic perhaps.

This. I could write a book about medical inaccuracies in this show if I went on a nit picking mission. They don't bother me or affect my enjoyment of the show in anyway though. Getting things 'right' can really get in a way of creating good entertainment sometimes. I realise that a bit of dramatic lisence is needed from time to time to propel the plot.

The writers have said numerous times that Sherlock is set in a 'heightened' world.  It's not an exact parallel to our own, so there are always going to be incredible coincidences and an unbelievable lack of consequences...but that's the point- it's fiction.  The original stories were written in the same way...it's quite easy to nitpick Doyle's work, especially by today's scientific standards.  But that misses the entire point...I'm not looking for 'real life'...I'm looking for 'excitement' and 'fun'.  I see the same thing happen in so many fandoms...LotR, Doctor Who, and now Sherlock.  People fall in love with a certain 'version' of it, and can't stand to see that formula changed at all, even if it's in the best interest of the show.  "Sherlock" needed a formula change this series, because they needed to focus on the characters and their relationships with one another in order to create drama.  Not everyone is going to like that, but it doesn't mean that something is wrong with the show.  It simply means that the writers felt that it was more important to focus on John, Sherlock and Mary in the first two episodes in order to make "His Last Vow" stunning...which it was.  We've yet to see how this will work in Series 4, but I think it was important to see the characters change and grow this series, otherwise, what would have been the point?

Of course it was a ruse. But really there was nothing to prevent Sherlock (especially once Moriarty was dead) to call Watson and tell him not to come to Bart. Only it would ruin the drama, wouldn't it? In any case, this conversation is going out of track a bit Were were discussing the risks of getting over-involved emotionally in a piece of fiction to the point of loosing the distinction between the rules of the real life and tv show. It is not to say, that a movie shouldn't be tightly written and intelligent (and possibly hide plot holes smartly). But can't we agree that movie logic works just a tiny bit differently from the everyday life logic? I am sure that if the author of the linked review were able to distance herself just a bit from her beloved characters, she would be able to come to a more lucid judgement of the show.

Tee Hee.

sj4iy wrote:

1. It was answered and suitably so to anyone not bent on conspiracy theories.
.

No, it wasn't.  In fact, they made a point of saying quite specifically at the end that Sherlock would never explain it.  See Fan Bashing and Fan Service, the Solution Substitutes

Moffat was left with no explanation that fans hadn't already deduced, perhaps in parts, but thoroughly, and found the flaws in.  His whole schtick about the fans "missing a clue" on the roof was tripe, and the only way out was to either admit he didn't fool anyone or refuse to give any explanation.  Then he made Reichenbach theorists out to be kooks and weirdos and mentally unstable so anyone who called him on it would be trashed by other fans.

Looks like it worked perfectly. 

It's easy to recognise the weirdos. They blame Moffat for things that Gatiss wrote.

Sorry, I ran out of patience with these things. 

I've read the "review" and while I don't like the way it's written, many points have crossed my mind, too. There are of course parts where I will stand back and admit: it's just a show, and my expectations were (maybe too) high or it's just not my cup of tea. But there are also parts where I still honestly think: that wasn't necessary and could have been done better. And if many people point on the same scenes, then maybe these specific scenes didn't deliver as well as hoped for. I think such criticism should be allowed, and it doesn't necessary mean people are too obsessed with something. It just shouldn't be overrated, because in my opinion, there were also loads of brilliant scenes, which I for my part loved and adored. What I don't like about the review is that it focuses mainly on the negative experience, which doesn't do the series justice as a whole, imo. Also it annoys me that the writer of that review seems to think nobody put any effort into the series... which really isn't a fair thing to say, because we all know they did.

Last edited by Whisky (January 20, 2014 1:14 pm)

sj4iy wrote:

 Moffat is responsible for everything, even when it happened in the show YEARS before he became a writer.  It's all his fault that Doctor Who had a 12-regeneration limit, you know.  It doesn't matter that it was written by another writer back in the 70's...it's still HIS fault.

LOL. Never mind that Moffat was the one who actually fixed that problem. They never seem to mention that.
 

silverblaze wrote:

It's easy to recognise the weirdos. They blame Moffat for things that Gatiss wrote.
 

Gatiss and Moffat split credit, but Gatiss didn't sit down in a room all by himself and come up with the Fall scenarios.  Or anything else.  Every time they speak of it, they say "we" when discussing plot decisions.  But it was Moffatt who gave the interviews about how the fans all "missed a clue" on the roof and how he had it all worked out before they started and how they already filmed part of the explanation.  The Fall was Moffat's baby. 

I think it's quite rude to refer to posters and people whose ideas differ from yours as "weirdos."  But then, that's what they wanted in The Empty Hearse, to characterize people as losers and misfits and madmen who saw through the BS.   They wanted excactly this: that if we objected to the no-explanation explanation, other fans would attack us. 
 

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (January 20, 2014 8:16 pm)