anjaH_alias wrote:

I also don´t think that Sherlock was really at Anderson´s flat. But I think Anderson, in his obsession, nailed it finally (like he nailed that Sherlock´s still alive, like several of the fandom more or less nailed it in their theories after some time). And this was the (funny, elegant, extraordinary) way to tell us how Sherlock survived the fall. Through the eyes of his former favourite victim, who´s confused and full of shame. Better than doing it how everybody expects it to be, e.g. through a long and maybe sentimental explanation to John.

I think I like that idea - the scene is not real but the explanation is.  And this would also explain the name thing. He imagines how the former freak/now hero shows his appreciation by calling him Phillip. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 2, 2014 1:11 pm)

Isn't that a little far-fetched? There isn't really anything that would point to Sherlock not really being there.

The scene was just too weird.

SusiGo wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

I also don´t think that Sherlock was really at Anderson´s flat. But I think Anderson, in his obsession, nailed it finally (like he nailed that Sherlock´s still alive, like several of the fandom more or less nailed it in their theories after some time). And this was the (funny, elegant, extraordinary) way to tell us how Sherlock survived the fall. Through the eyes of his former favourite victim, who´s confused and full of shame. Better than doing it how everybody expects it to be, e.g. through a long and maybe sentimental explanation to John.

I think I like that idea - the scene is not real but the explanation is.  And this would also explain the name thing. He imagines how the former freak/now hero shows his appreciation by calling him Phillip. 

That´s exactly what I think. And yes, he calls him "Philip" in his vision because Anderson wants to get appreciated by Sherlock. And he wants to be forgiven, so he imagines Sherlock coming to him of all people. And even realizes the unlikeability later himself. What does not mean that he is wrong in his theory.
I like that idea and I can connect it perfectly with the word "elegant".  I honestly doubt that we get a fourth explanation in future. But this we will probably see on Sunday night.

But there is a discrepency. As I've said, if Mycroft could get rid of one of the snipers, why couldn't he get rid of all of them? Also, they could've done without the corpse, yet Sherlock suggested that Molly's part in the plan made it all possible.

Holmes explains his escape from the Reichenbach Falls to Watson in The Empty House, but refuses to do so in the TV version. In a recent interview, Steven Moffat and writer Mark Gatiss hinted that even the explanation Sherlock tells Anderson at the end is probably fictional. Gatiss remarked enigmatically, ‘It’s a very plausible solution.’

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/02/sherlock-series-3-episode-1-the-empty-hearse-vs-the-empty-house-11-references-you-may-have-missed-4246955/ (source)

mujie wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

The needed the corpse to bridge the period of time between Sherlock landing on the airbag, the air-bag being put away and Sherlock being placed and made up. In TRF we/John see "Sherlock" lying on the pavement before John is run down by the bike. 

Hmmm... I suppose. I thought that if most of the makeup was done while he was lying down, why not all of it?

Plus, what about Mycroft? Again, if it was so simple to get rid of the snipers, it would have avoided the whole mess.

''Hmmm... I suppose. I thought that if most of the makeup was done while he was lying down, why not all of it?'' - mujie

when i looked back at the actual Reichnbach fall in series 2 the doctor who supposidly puts the fake blood on sherlock when he is lying down, seems only to run over to sherlock and check his pulse in his neck, he doesnt appear to be doing anything else, so i think i agree with you on that one

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Having thought about this more overnight, I'm convinced that the entire scene with Anderson was lies.

The most obvious clue in all this, is the fact that Sherlock CALLS ANDERSON BY HIS FIRST NAME.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE DO THAT? He can't even remember Lestrade's first name, someone he's worked with for many years and whom he has a certain amount of respect for. He's always, always, called him Anderson. Why would that suddenly change now? I think it's more like Anderson's personal fantasy that Sherlock would call him by his first name because now he's Sherlock's number one fanboy.

Then there was the fact that Sherlock basically just disappeared and it was a bit of a weird jump cut that looked like funny editing - or on purpose editing.

Then there was the fact that the entire scene was just stuck rather awkwardly in between the middle of the dramatic train scene.

The whole thing made NO SENSE.

Why would Sherlock go to Anderson? Why would he sit and be recorded for an interview for his ridiculous, idiotic fan club group by a man he spent his entire time with Scotland Yard deriding and making fun of? WHY? Why would he tell Anderson and not John?

This is Anderson's fantasy.

Anderson would love to be able to turn around and tell Sherlock Holmes that how he did it wasn't particularly clever or exciting.

You totally convinced me with this. I was already wondering WHY would he go to Anderson of all people to tell him? It just doesn't make any sense.

A bit disappointing.

mujie wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

The needed the corpse to bridge the period of time between Sherlock landing on the airbag, the air-bag being put away and Sherlock being placed and made up. In TRF we/John see "Sherlock" lying on the pavement before John is run down by the bike. 

Hmmm... I suppose. I thought that if most of the makeup was done while he was lying down, why not all of it?

Plus, what about Mycroft? Again, if it was so simple to get rid of the snipers, it would have avoided the whole mess.

It´s not about the makeup - Short before the bicycle "accident" John gets the chance to lure the lying corpse. And this can´t be real Sherlock for obvious reasons. So for a short moment they needed a body. If not the pavement had been empty .
The makeup was planted during John´s knockout, not before.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 2, 2014 2:07 pm)

shylock wrote:

Anyone else considering that the very title 'The Empty Hearse' could be a clue?

Anderson's theory involves a lookalike being in the coffin!

this is another thing I keep wondering about: why the title? Anderson's fanclub is called The Empty Hearse, but this alone can't be the reason why they called the whole episode like this (and I also know that there is a reference to "The Empty House" canon story, but again: this alone can't be the reason for a title) and of course there is sub-text that Sherlock's hearse was actually empty. But compared to the other episodes I can't see (yet) a lot in the episode related to the title.