![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsBefore we talk about me, Moffat and Gatiss have tweeted that there WILL be a third season, that it was already commissioned. Huzzah!
Now, tonight.
I've been offline all day so I haven't seen anyone else's reactions yet, and I really want to see this episode (and the previous one again) before I go into lots of detail. But that's not going to stop me from having (quite) a few first impression opinions.
The main one is that watching slow character assassination was actually loads more painful than watching a manhunt for 90 minutes. Especially when it looked like that slow character assassination was going to bring down Lestrade as well as Sherlock. (Anderson, really, do you hate Sherlock SO much that you're going to bring down your governor as well? If so, you deserve every nasty thing Sherlock ever said. And Donovan? Sherlock didn't do it with "just a shoeprint." He did it with a shoeprint, understanding of biology for stride and height, and rather a lot of painstaking chemistry, something that New Scotland Yard is theoretically capable of reproducing. Yes, if Sherlock had planted it then what NSY found would be what he said, BUT the fact remains that NSY detectives should be able to find the same data. It *wasn't* "just a shoeprint.")
I'm assuming that the three years dead will be resurrecting Sherlock's reputation instead of dismantling Moriarty's web. Or both. Mind you, the dismantling shouldn't be that hard, not *really* not with Moriarty himself gone. I watched in the company of a theater manager and a journalist; the theater manager was going on and on about how she'd contact all the theaters and see if "Rich Brook" really did have a part in all of those productions, because it's so unlikely that Moriarty actually acted as part of his cover story. The journalist had plenty to say about her counterpart on screen, and how true investigative journalism involves research, not taking the word and the paperwork of the guy you're boffing. (Hmmm. I suddenly sense an SJA crossover.) We all wanted to know two things:
1) Why was the crown jewel display so obviously, patently fake? Three Americans knew it was all wrong; we assume that all of England was pointing and laughing. And
2) There was incontrovertible evidence that Moriarty broke into the crown jewel display. What judge worth his law degree would put aside the tapes and the eyewitness account of the arresting officers on the say-so of an obviously tampered jury? And if the judge was also tampered with, why was the case not appealed? (Please tell me someone is working on a Law and Order UK crossover. Pers? That would be up your alley.)
How Sherlock managed to commit suicide in front of John and not die is a mystery that I dearly hope will be cleared up in the next season that I dearly hope will happen. Molly has got to have had something to do with it; too much was made of Sherlock soliciting her help.
On the converse, I hope that nothing was faked about Moriarty's suicide. He was such a whackaloon that there really didn't seem to be any other way out, and the idea that the Sherlock Holmes story would be reduced to season after season of the Sherlock-vs-Moriarty story really depressed me. Holmes isn't Batman, forever locked with the Joker. He really did detect crime and did not need a Napoleon of Crime to make his career worth living.
I'm surprised that Mycroft was that blindsided by Moriarty. Isn't My supposed to be the smarter of the two brothers? Because after all that time protecting Sherlock, it's gotta sting to know that you're the reason why Sherlock's nemesis could ruin him.
And I gotta say... after 90 minutes of bleeding for Sherlock and worrying about Lestrade? I'm so glad we got that last shot. I NEEDED that last shot.
Bottom line: I had a lot of angst about this one going in; not just because of the storyline, but because I had no confidence in the writer. However, this? Was way better than I feared it would be.
Now, tonight.
I've been offline all day so I haven't seen anyone else's reactions yet, and I really want to see this episode (and the previous one again) before I go into lots of detail. But that's not going to stop me from having (quite) a few first impression opinions.
The main one is that watching slow character assassination was actually loads more painful than watching a manhunt for 90 minutes. Especially when it looked like that slow character assassination was going to bring down Lestrade as well as Sherlock. (Anderson, really, do you hate Sherlock SO much that you're going to bring down your governor as well? If so, you deserve every nasty thing Sherlock ever said. And Donovan? Sherlock didn't do it with "just a shoeprint." He did it with a shoeprint, understanding of biology for stride and height, and rather a lot of painstaking chemistry, something that New Scotland Yard is theoretically capable of reproducing. Yes, if Sherlock had planted it then what NSY found would be what he said, BUT the fact remains that NSY detectives should be able to find the same data. It *wasn't* "just a shoeprint.")
I'm assuming that the three years dead will be resurrecting Sherlock's reputation instead of dismantling Moriarty's web. Or both. Mind you, the dismantling shouldn't be that hard, not *really* not with Moriarty himself gone. I watched in the company of a theater manager and a journalist; the theater manager was going on and on about how she'd contact all the theaters and see if "Rich Brook" really did have a part in all of those productions, because it's so unlikely that Moriarty actually acted as part of his cover story. The journalist had plenty to say about her counterpart on screen, and how true investigative journalism involves research, not taking the word and the paperwork of the guy you're boffing. (Hmmm. I suddenly sense an SJA crossover.) We all wanted to know two things:
1) Why was the crown jewel display so obviously, patently fake? Three Americans knew it was all wrong; we assume that all of England was pointing and laughing. And
2) There was incontrovertible evidence that Moriarty broke into the crown jewel display. What judge worth his law degree would put aside the tapes and the eyewitness account of the arresting officers on the say-so of an obviously tampered jury? And if the judge was also tampered with, why was the case not appealed? (Please tell me someone is working on a Law and Order UK crossover. Pers? That would be up your alley.)
How Sherlock managed to commit suicide in front of John and not die is a mystery that I dearly hope will be cleared up in the next season that I dearly hope will happen. Molly has got to have had something to do with it; too much was made of Sherlock soliciting her help.
On the converse, I hope that nothing was faked about Moriarty's suicide. He was such a whackaloon that there really didn't seem to be any other way out, and the idea that the Sherlock Holmes story would be reduced to season after season of the Sherlock-vs-Moriarty story really depressed me. Holmes isn't Batman, forever locked with the Joker. He really did detect crime and did not need a Napoleon of Crime to make his career worth living.
I'm surprised that Mycroft was that blindsided by Moriarty. Isn't My supposed to be the smarter of the two brothers? Because after all that time protecting Sherlock, it's gotta sting to know that you're the reason why Sherlock's nemesis could ruin him.
And I gotta say... after 90 minutes of bleeding for Sherlock and worrying about Lestrade? I'm so glad we got that last shot. I NEEDED that last shot.
Bottom line: I had a lot of angst about this one going in; not just because of the storyline, but because I had no confidence in the writer. However, this? Was way better than I feared it would be.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 04:16 am (UTC)It isn't, alas, but it is time for me to go to bed or I'll be brain-damaged at work tomorrow. Am saving off this comment and your post (& some others) for actual response tomorrow.
I will say... does even the Sun take "the guy I'm sleeping with showed me some stuff" as proof? Because with the phone hacking scandal it's unethical and illegal and all kinds of wrong, but it's also not making up evidence based on the word of the guy who's apparently living with you. I'd think that would be beneath even the Sun.
More tomorrow...
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 11:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 01:22 pm (UTC)Scum.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 11:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-06 06:51 pm (UTC)Journalism standards in the Sun
Date: 2012-01-16 05:21 pm (UTC)Presented without comment.
Re: Journalism standards in the Sun
Date: 2012-01-17 11:33 am (UTC)