Er, the projection was insurance against his leaving the building safely. And the poker game was with a criminal, so he was almost certainly undercover on a case. Keep in mind that goddamn near everyone in Britain has read some Conan Doyle -- so the writers have to balance giving us semi-familiar plots but also adding twists to them. 3x03 did this extremely well; familiarity with the plot of the Milverton story actually makes it more difficult to predict what's going to happen. I like the changes to Mycroft. Stories where he featured were always my favorite part of Conan Doyle's writing, and I always wanted more. Would he be more effective in the shadows? Depends on what you mean by effective. Scarier and more ominous, maybe. But he wouldn't contribute to the 95 minutes of television as well. There's only so far you can go with two actors flying solo.There is a moment in this newest 3rd episode where Mary meets Sherlock at Leinster Gardens, he projects her face on the building and proceeds to tell us that he won that particular facade in a poker game, betting with his kidneys. At this point he became to me completely unrecognizable. Who is this man who lives in his mind yet goes through the trouble to set up an elaborate projection? Who is he that plays poker at such grandiose levels? (Perhaps it was an attempt at humor, something I've always appreciated about the Holmes mythos compared to your other cop and intrigue dramas, but where it succeeds most is in the smart and small moments)
I know it was insurance, but off the top of my head I can think of countless other ways to protect himself. The writers put it in that way for a reason, and I didn't like it (or it just seemed like a good symbol for the way they have written this new season). Honestly there's nothing about your criticisms I don't agree with. In a me watching Sherlock watching me way, the stories are still pretty good, but they seemed to lose that whiff of real life.
Yeah, they have. I guess I'm not sure I ever expected 'real life' from Sherlock Holmes anyway. (Although -- Jesus, I've had multiple acquaintances who thought he was a real person.) The more involved the grandiose plots get, the less relatable [why is that not a word suddenly firefox] is Sherlock. Which is why Martin Freeman as Watson is series-saving casting. Cumberbatch is great, but let's be honest, Monk was dull for a reason. The Milverton story is actually my favorite, maybe, of all of Conan Doyle's efforts, because it's so anti- what they turned it into at BBC. Still scintillating TV, but no longer a small story solely about a facet of Sherlock Holmes' character. I know what you mean.Honestly there's nothing about your criticisms I don't agree with. In a me watching Sherlock watching me way, the stories are still pretty good, but they seemed to lose that whiff of real life.