The ranking in ascending order from worst to best:

9 TEH
8 TSoT
7 HLV
6 TBB
5 THoB
4 ASiB
3 ASiP
2 TGG
1 TRF

This is very interesting as it maybe reflects the opinion of casual viewers more than that of hardcore fans. (I have also read reviews by professional critics ranking TSoT as one of the best episodes ever.)  
And I think it shows that those who participated are not open to the creators going new ways like they did with series 3 - and probably will do with the special as well. They probably prefer the case-centred approach of the earlier episodes although this is quite a superficial assessment as the show was always about the characters and not just - or foremost - about the cases. 
 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 11, 2015 6:17 pm)

1. tHoB
2. tSotT
3. All others ex-aequo except
...
9. hLV

I have to admit that I struggle with ranking them as there is no one episode that stands out as the best one for me. There are several, not to mention several individual scenes that stands out. But what I do have, is a very clear least favorite episode - TBB.

I can pick a number one--TGG--but I'd put it only juuuust above ASiP (which fails to tie only because of a flaw the resulted from expanding it from an hour to ninety minutes--Sherlock can't deduce it's the cabbie in the expanded version). TSoT is a close third, and the rest are all in fourth place. (Well, maybe TBB comes in at 5th, but not by much.)

I can't rewatch TRF or HLV, but not because they're less good but because they're excellent--and make me far too tense and unhappy while watching!

All of which puts me at polar opposites from that list--I'm in it for the characters first, their adventures second, and mysteries a distant third! (Although I do love the deductions. )

Welllll...If you read the original stories (which I have done far too many times to count!), you'll see that as mysteries they are mostly rubbish. They don't play fair with the reader--Holmes solves them, most often, from information we aren't given, or from "evidence" that doesn't, in actuality, prove what he says it does, or by just running in and demanding answers. Several aren't even mysteries at all--A Scandal in Bohemia leaps to mind, as does The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton and The Adventure of the Illustrious Client.

They are, however, brilliant adventure stories (most of the short stories are even titled "The Adventure of"!) and wonderful studies of an extraordinary character and a deep friendship. Since that's what I fell for in the ACD stories, that's what I love about this version of them.

ETA: Yes, I think there needs to be an adventure in the stories, some danger and excitement (which every episode, including TSiT, has had), but there doesn't have to be a mystery. That's keeping it true to the source material, to my mind.

Last edited by REReader (January 12, 2015 4:30 pm)

REReader wrote:

Welllll...If you read the original stories (which I have done far too many times to count!), you'll see that as mysteries they are mostly rubbish. They don't play fair with the reader--Holmes solves them, most often, from information we aren't given, or from "evidence" that doesn't, in actuality, prove what he says it does, or by just running in and demanding answers. Several aren't even mysteries at all--A Scandal in Bohemia leaps to mind, as does The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton and The Adventure of the Illustrious Client.

They are, however, brilliant adventure stories (most of the short stories are even titled "The Adventure of"!) and wonderful studies of an extraordinary character and a deep friendship. Since that's what I fell for in the ACD stories, that's what I love about this version of them.

ETA: Yes, I think there needs to be an adventure in the stories, some danger and excitement (which every episode, including TSiT, has had), but there doesn't have to be a mystery. That's keeping it true to the source material, to my mind.

REReader, if you reread my original post, you will notice I was hardly trying to make a literary critics of an ACD canon - I was speaking about something entirely different. (Also, even if the canon was an absolute shit, there´s no point in modern adaptation making the same "mistakes", when it has every means at hand to make the mystery side of the stories better).

Still, it slightly unfair to criticise Doyle that he wasn´t writing detective stories in a classical style, when:

A - aside from Poe, Wilkie Collins and Dickens no English or American writer ever attempted to write detective stories before Doyle and it was actually Doyle who created the first outlines of a new genre (which, because it was new, still lacked certain features we connect with detective stories now.)

B - Doyle´s stories were not yet classical detective stories as we know them now, but they were excellent mysteries. They had a perfect atmosphere of unearthly, puzzling and fear-inducing things happening and Doyle was not as much interested in solving these mysteries in a perfect style (which, you must admit, is quite hard to write), as in the mystery itself. That´s why some Sherlock stories lack satisfactory solution - but that´s also why these stories still retain certain charm that the many classical detective stories (more true to "the formula") already lost.
 

Proto-mysteries is a good term, I think. 

Whisky wrote:

I agree with nakahara I think.
I always could "see" Sherlock's character best when he was solving cases. ... It's just, the cases, the detective part, they are somewhat the base of Sherlock's characterization, and pushing them further and further in the background makes me loose the feel for Sherlock's character, rather than showing more of his personal development. And that goes along with the uneasiness to see Sherlock failing more and more often, which isn't really the case in the original works either. (I mean, yes, he does fail, but in series three I thought that nearly all of the genius-Sherlock was gone) 

Very well put, Whisky! Let me just agree that the "character-driven" approach paradoxically made me feel Sherlock´s character less,too.. I don´t know exactly why this is though. Maybe because the case-work is supposed to be such a big part of him - he interacted with people, yes, but mainly he delighted in solving crimes and we delighted in watching him doing so. It has never just been the "Mystery of the week" - it has always been his reactions to the mystery of the week and the development his character underwent because of the things he learnt on the way.. and it was great, that´s just who he was.

Now, his journey to a more integrated human being.. who happens to have some frankly ridiculous adventures (not my words) on the way while mostly building up some unlikely friendships and struggling to come to terms with his emotions and his place in the world.. while I can see why people enjoy it for me it feels too much of a coming-of-age story to delight in it. I know many fans think such a transition was needed and adds to his character.. I tend to disagree, but anyway. It actually felt a lot like adolescence - in a big way new traits are adopted and old traits diminish..  the lines are blurred, that´s probably the answer to why we can´t feel Sherlock´s character as clearly as before. I hope the journey takes him to a good place.. a place in which I can delight in watching him again. This transition has been, as transitions generally tend to be, painful and slightly awkward to watch..  it has been good TV, the numbers and awards speak for themselves.. just not the program I would have chosen if I had known before what I was in for. 

Last edited by Zatoichi (January 13, 2015 7:16 am)

This^^

I think there is no danger of the minor characters distracting from the main focus - provided that minor characters are not turned into major characters. 

What I love about the established minor characters is that they do not distract from Sherlock and John but are used to reflect on their relationship or on their characters. Just think of Molly's "You look said when you think he can't see you" or Mrs Hudson acting as a prophetess at the beginning of TSoT. This is a very clever way of using these character without making them mere mouthpieces. The same goes for Billy Wiggins in HLV, especially in the lab scene.