besleybean wrote:

Well I take your point.
But I consider Shakespeare to be the original that others have adapted.
ACD is the original, that the BBC adapt and it's their adaptation I love and want to continue watching.
But again you remind me of another interesting point: Mark and Steven both acknolwledge the Canon they work from is far from perfect and I feel that issue may at least mark the BBC series in some way.

Slightly off-topic but interesting:

Many of Shakespeare's plays are based on much older sources. I am not into it too deeply but I am sure many forum members are. So no, Shakespeare is not the original in many cases.

In fact, I remember my literature professor saying that there has been no completely original piece of writing for at least 2,000 years.  ;-)

Liberty wrote:

It's possible Toby isn't the arch-villain of S4. I think it's OK to say this as there is "spoiler" in the thread title, but I got the impression that he is cast for Ep2 and we know who he's going to play.   The villain of Ep2 of S3 was a rather minor character.   I know Toby will be much a bigger character, but we don't know for certain if he's the archvillain for the final episode yet, do we?

Even though this might not really belong in this thread, let me just say that I would love it if they abandoned their usual pattern for their three episodes - I think it would be nice if they didn't concentrate on the third episode for the big showdown and then the cliffhanger. I mean, they could give us two showdowns and just spread them over two episodes or something like that. Let's face it, pretty much everyone expects the third episode to once again be the crucial episode of S4. And I know that something dramatic has to happen in that episode, but they have lots of possibilities... they could give us a climax that deals with Mary and a climax that deals with their villain (or their villain and Mary combined).
 

Last edited by SolarSystem (June 11, 2016 10:39 pm)

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

Well, in some ways they might like to have a villain we already know.  They do seem to keep sticking with Moriarty, who has been the archvillain at the end of S1, S2 and TAB, so far.   If not him, it might be a good twist to make is somebody we know but haven't suspected as a villain.  And the longer Mary stays in the show, the more likely it is that she'll be one, I think (if we knew she was gone at the end of Ep1, I wouldn't expect her to be a villain - I feel that needs more build up.   The only thing is that Mary is the most obvious, maybe too obvious (she's already had that reveal in HLV).  Mycroft's probably the only other possible contender (although I've considered the others).   Villain or not, I strongly feel there has to be more to Mary's story.   

CAM did match for me, given the little time we had with him.  I loved Moriarty, particularly in TRF, but there's something more ephemeral about him - I don't feel I really know him, we don't see where he (really) lives, his network is vague, he's unpredictable and seems mentally unstable, possibly, and he has an obsession with Sherlock (almost a mutal obsession) that reminds me of the point in the film Unbreakable about a nemesis needing a hero and a hero needing a nemesis.   CAM wasn't like that all.  He was a member of the establishment, exercising control over government in obvious ways, he didn't need a hero, but just to enjoy power, we saw where he lived, where he worked, how he operated.  I'm glad they chose a very different kind of villain, and I think it worked brilliantly. 

Yes, Moriarty is dead but Sherlock knows what he'll do next - I suppose Emilia died, but set up a situation where other women could pretend to be her, and carry on her "work".   I just feel that a Moriarty substitute won't be as good as Moriarty, or a new villain.

My personal favorite, in terms of MP timelines would be for it to start right after the Watson Domestic. Sherlock could be in a coma, and everything we saw from that point on could be MP.

Okay guys, say goodbye to the theory. The tie and the scarf were indeed a case of missing props, and the differences between the two airplane interiors came through simple technical limitations.
It's a first hand information.

It's good to know at last.  I know people will say that they lie, but they don't really need to over this sort of thing - they can just deflect the question (as they often do).  At least this time, we'll find out soon enough (only three short months to go!).

JP wrote:

Okay guys, say goodbye to the theory. The tie and the scarf were indeed a case of missing props, and the differences between the two airplane interiors came through simple technical limitations.
It's a first hand information.

I read your Twitter convo with Arwel and Douglas Mackinnon. What struck me was that Mackinnon himself brought up the idea that the TAB plane might not be real although you had not mentioned it at all if I remember correctly. 

Yep, this one is bugging me a little, but well, we'll see. Both "technical mistakes" are not a proof that the scenes were real after all. So my "say goodbye to the theory" might have been a bit exaggerated. "Say good bye to the importance of those details" would probably be better. :D