195 replies to this topic

[Christian U]

Ultimately, I feel like Moffat's mysteries usually work about as well as the other episodes but have more style and humor to carry us over the inconsistencies, plot holes and stupid elements.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it. Well, that and they're also somewhat cleverer, despite their inconsistencies. Molgravia had a lot of clever turns and twists as well as stupid moments; Baskerville had far more stupid moments.

I liked the first half of it fine, I thought the character moments worked well and it was all good fun; I also liked the shots of Dartmoor and all that. Then, once the real story of the hound got going... not so much anymore. That said, I still enjoyed it all in all.

If it had been the first episode of the season it would have been fine.

Yeah, the first one was certainly a hard act to follow. I feel similarly about this one as I did about the second one of the first season, that didn't impress me much either.

[steveuk]

I'm still happy to say what I said before; the episode was bad on it's own terms. No just as an adaption of the original story, or as a part of 'Sherlock' or even because it followed a very enjoyable Moffat episode.

There's no reason to look for an explanation that goes beyond the episode itself.

It wasn't just bad in comparison to anything else, it was simply bad.

[walsh06]

I find it strange that everyone seems to hate Hound of Baskerville while I loved it. I thought it was really good.

[stephanie familiar]

I find it strange that everyone seems to hate Hound of Baskerville while I loved it. I thought it was really good.

they're all crazy, especially steveuk.

[Nicholas Taggart]

Seeing all the complaints is raising the episode further in my estimation. And not in a being contrary way, just seeing the things people are complaining about and completely disagreeing has made me realize how much I enjoyed those things. Great episode!

[stuperrins]

tv show of the year, hands down

[Christian U]

I'm still happy to say what I said before; the episode was bad on it's own terms. No just as an adaption of the original story, or as a part of 'Sherlock' or even because it followed a very enjoyable Moffat episode.

There's no reason to look for an explanation that goes beyond the episode itself.

It wasn't just bad in comparison to anything else, it was simply bad.

And I agree with that, to an extent. But contrast always makes things stand out more; if this one had followed a weaker episode or been the season's opener, you still wouldn't have liked it, but you probably would've judged it less harshly

[brucegray666]

A heads up for anyone that missed ep 2 last week - it's being rerun on BBC3 in about 20 min (7 pm).

[brucegray666]

To all complaining about the Baskerville episode I say "meh". Sat and watched it in silence, with no dicking about on the internet, etc, totally enwrapped by it.

[Mike]

they're all crazy, especially steveuk.

He has recanted his heresy.

It wasn't as good as the first episode of the series; it loses some tightness about the halfway mark, it's let down a bit by some half-hearted acting from Tovey, and some of the jumps required of the plot are not as well supported as they might have been BUT it's still great television, with a first-rank lead cast, sparkling one-liners and, like Bruce, my attention was held.

[steveuk]

He has recanted his heresy.

I don't recall our conversation that way Mike. Cancelling the order of firewood and a screaming mob isn't a good idea just yet.

It wasn't as good as the first episode of the series; it loses some tightness about the halfway mark, it's let down a bit by some half-hearted acting from Tovey, and some of the jumps required of the plot are not as well supported as they might have been BUT it's still great television, with a first-rank lead cast, sparkling one-liners and, like Bruce, my attention was held.

All those problems and its still "great television"?

Nevermind, I think this dead horse is sufficiently beaten for now? At least until we see the third episode on Sunday night? Then the game will be afoot again!

[Mike]

I don't recall our conversation that way Mike.

[Steve Sensible]

This is much better than last weeks. Toby Haynes is a good director - always liked his Doctor Who stuff.

Also, :heart: Molly.

[steveuk]

This WAS much better than last week. Now we have a Chief Superintendent who's had his head in the sand for two years and the big consequences of that which are unfolding now.

Let's see how the second half plays out?

[John Mosby]

I'm pretty sure I can work out how Moffat can explain that pivotal end, but the whole episode feels very uneven... no real logic just a runaway train with an established endgame.

My review of the series (spoilers, obviously)

http://www.impactonl...ries-two-review

[Mike]

Obviously the Sherlock that died was the Tesselecta. D'uh.

OK, I can't see the shape of it. Molly did it, but how then John?

[steveuk]

Well I'm sure theories will abound to cover the ending, but if Moffat can get everyone back for another episode in a year or two we'll find out what his explanation is?

I liked that a lot more than last week, the big road bump for me was the way they got Sherlock's world to turn on him. It was messy.

The rest of it I can go along with.

[Steve Sensible]

Enjoyed that a lot. I couldn't care less if it moved too quickly for you to notice the gaps in logic - it was a great ride.

[Dave Wallace]

That was great, can't wait for next week's conclusion where they find a way to make everything actually make sense.

What's that you say, that was the end of the series? Oh dear.

[Ben the Obiwomble]

the big road bump for me was the way they got Sherlock's world to turn on him. It was messy.

Yeah, that was my problem with the episode too. The rest was OK, but then I guess any episode would have trouble matching the first one of this trio.