Sherlock without the humour would not be Sherlock to me. I think a bit of the humour showed in the very last scene in the trailer... 

The three words are interesting. Thatcher- no idea, might refer to the 80s and therefore to Sherlock's childhood, Smith is probably Culverton Smith and Sherrinford the third brother. I recently watched TAB again with a friend, and we talked about the "It's never twins" thing, assuming it might somehow be used in reference to Moriarty. But what if Sherlock had a twin and at some point assumed his identity for some reason? He said "I made me" in TAB and there was talk of ghosts, after all.

Argh, could January roll around sooner, please?

Liberty wrote:

I just posted something similar in the other thread!  Thatcher indicating Thatcher era, Culverton Smith and the other one.   And yes, I agree, there's something about the "it's never twins" which makes me think they've got to put a twin in there at some point!    I didn't think of assuming the identity though. 

Oh, I didn't see that, but I'm glad that it seems feasible at all. =)

"Maybe it's Moriarty.  Maybe it's not".  But I like your version!

(I don't always hear well either!).
 

Last edited by Liberty (July 24, 2016 9:25 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

I also find it interesting that there is not one single scene that shows any kind of domestic bliss or cosy moments. No baby, no Watson household bliss - not even a single scene between Sherlock and John that is relaxed in any way.

I don't think there will be much focus on "Uncle Sherlock" in this season as some feared.

It's funny, because only yesterday I saw posts on tumblr saying stuff like "They will probably give us a trailer with the baby and the dog, but don't panic, they know that's what we're all expecting so they're giving it to us but it won't mean anything!" - ha, and today we're getting a trailer that gives us all sorts of things, but no baby and no dog. Fandom can be so interesting.
 

woohoo

But seriously folks........

Haven't been feeling well this afternoon and just got up from a nap to see all this.

Sweet Bleeding Jesus that trailer is a gut punch.

Random:
*I can't believe no one has mentioned the shot of John standing in front of a hospital bed!  A hospital bed which to me appears empty.
*My personal theroy was that episode 1 was going to be flashback heavy.  The words Thatcher only strengthens that feeling.
*What if it's Mycroft that is dealing with demons and consequences?
*Do Not feck With Hudders.
*Damn John looks Hot.
*The only scene where we see Mary's face and she's holding a gun.
*Things we didn't see.  The dog.  The baby.  The Lady in Red. Any scenes on the bridge or near the Eye.

I'm sure I'll have more but right now I need to watch it 12 more times.
 

tonnaree wrote:

*Things we didn't see.  The dog.  The baby.  The Lady in Red. Any scenes on the bridge or near the Eye.

I'm sure there will be enough room in S4 for everything: Baby, dog and devastation.

Liberty wrote:

After promoting a really dark series, I'd have been surprised to see scenes of domestic bliss in such a short trailer (unless it was for contrast - a nice scene suddenly interrupted by an explosion, a gun going off, etc.).   But I agree that it doesn't look like they're doing the Three Men and a Baby type thing at all, thankfully. 

Or two men and a baby in this case, which is what it would have to be if Mary died and the baby lived (and I believe that she will die, since she died in canon--she and the baby both).  And thank goodness!  (Not that the baby will die, I mean!)

 

Liberty wrote:

Yes, the shot with John and the hospital bed is odd - we only see him from the back, and then again from the back in 221B (plus Moriarty from the back).  It reminds me of all those back of the head shots that Mark tweeted.
 

Could this be a cinematic technique to show us John´s "sad bereavement". Somebody close to him died and he looks at the empty bed from which the body was already removed forlornly?

Or did Sherlock escaped from hospital once more and John is just resignated, thinking "Oh, not again!"