Swanpride wrote:

I only wanted a "TV explanation", not one which actually works in real live. So I am satisfied.

 
Excactly this.

SolarSystem wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

And tbh I am a bit fed up with all the complaints from people who are not satisfied. As Mark said there are only so many ways how to survive a fall from that height. I never assumed it was magic or pure genius. Some things might have been explained a little better - the snipers, how John did not see the airbag when arriving by cab - but all in all can live quite well with this explanation. I do not think that in series 4 there will pop up some unexpected fourth explanation.

Well, I don't expect them to come up with another explanation in S4, either, simply because: if they had a waterproof explanation, they would have given us this explanation in TEH. That's the way I see it. They simply don't have one, and what they gave us in TEH doesn't really work for me. And IMO they never had one, no matter what they said in interviews over the last two years.
A lot of people now say that Gatiss and Moffat probably had to rethink their explanation because the fans dissected every thinkable scenario over the last two years and thereby obviously detected holes in Mofftiss' theory. Well, all I can say to this is (again): if Mofftiss really had had a waterproof explanation, there would have been no holes in it to detect, no matter how mercilessly the fans might have thought everything through.

That's the way I see it. And I don't complain. But I can understand that some fans might be... disappointed. The easiest thing for Gatiss and Moffat would have been to keep their mouths firmly shut after TRF. But they went and raised the expectations, IMO. And they promised an answer. And yes, we apparently got one - but it just doesn't work for me. But there's lots of other stuff in TEH that does work for me, so I'm past lamenting.

Question: How would it have been remotely possible for them to 'keep their mouths shut' for two years with press and fans hounding them at every corner, dissecting every single thing they said to death?  The only people who 'raised expectations beyond belief' were the fans by coming up with thousands and thousands of theories, watching the episode over and over, screencapping and analyzing every frame of it.  There isn't a writer on earth that could come up with an acceptable 'solution' after that.  Which is why they decided to keep it open-ended, so that people wouldn't feel like they did all of that work for nothing.

Well, to be fair, you usually don't express the GFP in the entire animal. Or in its fur. But for TV-logic a glowing animal is close enough, it's not impossible. 

I'm kinda wondering whether the two stage trick that they talked about in the podcast would have been more convincing. As I understood, that's something real magicians do, or have done in the past. 

There are two issues for fans who react negatively to S3E1 and they are instrinsically bound.  First, fan-bashing.  That's obvious.  The fans, whom Benedict never disses, are often done so by Moffat publicly.  Now Mofftiss has managed to make that contempt visual and part of the show.  In order for anyone to feel they are not included in the group of weirdos and misfits, morons and madmen, they have to accept whatever Mofftiss dish out.  If you question them, well, you are just Anderson in his flat having a breakdown.

Two: No explanation without ever publicly acknowledging that.  NOT "no explanation" because that was obvious, they would have none.  BUT - "without publicly acknowledging that." 

Surely many will cling to the scene in Anderson's flat as THE explanation, ignoring John saying at the end that Sherlock has never explained it.   This is true of some reviewers, also.  But not others:

How did he do it?

It was the question going into the series premiere of Sherlock. How did the great Sherlock Holmes make the world believe he died after falling off the roof of Saint Bart’s hospital? ....

.... Yet explanations weren’t forthcoming. Instead, the opening episode delighted in teasing its audience with a series of spurious explanations, each more ridiculous than the last.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/02/sherlock-the-empty-hearse-review

Going into the premiere, the big question was, "How did Sherlock survive the fall?" "The Empty Hearse" gave a look at a few possible explanations, from a mask put on Moriarty to a puppet Sherlock thrown over the ledge as Sherlock and Moriarty watched, giggled, and moved in for a kiss to an elaborate set-up that included an air bag, a look-alike from the morgue, and a squash ball under the armpit, but were any of those true?

Sherlock did tell a story on camera, but was it just another lie? Why would he tell Philip Anderson of all people the truth? Even Philip knew how unlikely that was, and it seemed like the mystery would remain unsolved. However, did that mean we weren't satisfied with how the premiere addressed that question? No, it didn't. In fact, in a way, the not knowing made it even more satisfying because it was more "Sherlock" than if he had come out and told the truth. And after all this time waiting for the truth, wouldn't the truth, whatever it was, have been just a "bit [disappointing]"?

http://www.examiner.com/review/sherlock-the-empty-hearse-review-not-dead-but-how

If people want to accept that Sherlock would go to Anderson and tell him the facts to be broadcast on his YouTube account, and believe somehow John Watson missed it and that Sherlock then refused to explain it to John, well, they can believe that.

But it's also okay for others to feel insulted when they see themselves insulted and not respect people who are incapable of simply saying, "Wow, you guys are good, and here's what we are doing about that." 

What is not okay is for someone to be unable to express an opinion without getting snarked at by other posters who are unable to address a topic without snide asides to one another and ad hom comments.  Makes me understand why Mofftiss have no respect for us. 

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (January 22, 2014 1:44 am)

Mod's note:
I just found a link to this very thread on tumblr. And I really regret very much if people would take THIS as an example of how things are discussed here. This is a place for tolerant and respectful discussion, not for personal insults and general condemnation. Mysteria, if you are as disappointed with the episodes as you seem to be, fine. But please refrain from attacking people who do not share your views. By now you should have realised that not everyone seems to share your opinions.  

On a personal note - I never regarded theories 1 and 2 in any way as fan bashing as most fans have come up with far cleverer explanations, a fact that has been noticed and appreciated by Moffat and Gatiss. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 22, 2014 7:57 am)

I read that after five minutes viewer rates dropped by 500,000. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 22, 2014 8:11 am)

The person who wrote the review made a correct description and pointed out the differences between the two previous series and the third. The third one is surreal, over the top much more than before.
I don't really like it because Sherlock is not himself. Everything is just wrong, exaggregated. Not suble but spelled out, not balanced but too bright and too dark. As if the subconscious mind runs amok.

And of course they are the same writers and they didn't catch a mental illness after TRF. Everybody is slightly out of character or seen in another light. The question is what is all this about? What is the explanation? There has to be one. Otherwise the review would be right and we are all victims of our imagination and they are just whisk the canon untill nobody knows what's going on.

Let's assume they know what they do. Let's assume it's done on purpose. We just need to find the right perspective. 

I suspect something.
Just look at Anderson in John's jumper.

That's what I wanted to say. I haven't got the DVDs yet. And what is realistic in Sherlock's pirouette for example? It's clearly too much. Nobody would do that outside a dance studio.

Be wrote:

That's what I wanted to say. I haven't got the DVDs yet. And what is realistic in Sherlock's pirouette for example? It's clearly too much. Nobody would do that outside a dance studio.

Does it have to be realistic? What is realistic in the series? People do not jump from buildings and play dead for two years. So why not a pirouette whilst being alone with just one other person in the room? Sherlock just solved a case/saved a life and and does something he likes, that is dancing. Why should we not grant him this short moment of exhilaration?
 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 22, 2014 11:19 am)

I didn't say that I can't appreciate character developement but in series one and two the developement was subtle and reasonable. Comedy elements were planted carefully and had a purpose. For example Sherlock in a sheet was funny, had a purpose, pointed out the character, his relationship with Mycroft and the establishment.
Now the comedy elements have almost a life of their own. Sherlock's mind doesn't work "as solidly as before"." It's a surreal situation, especially for John."