Discussion forums for the premiere fan community for and by fans of film director Christopher Nolan.
http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/
How does it suck? Production design itself wouldn't let anything less than slick shots, especially in this wedding episode. It's more experimental, sure, but to me it felt more interesting that way.James wrote:Cinematography sucks so far this season. Episode 2 was slightly better. Its a different cinematographer on the next episode.
Shame they couldn't get Fabian Wagner who shot all of season 2.
Your right. Edited the post.Vader182 wrote:Sucks is mighty excessive.James wrote:Cinematography sucks so far this season. Episode 2 was slightly better. Its a different cinematographer on the next episode.
Shame they couldn't get Fabian Wagner who shot all of season 2.
-Vader
After having slept on my thoughts on the episode, I feel like the second act felt like it dragged on because I really needed to go to sleep. I'd say it's my third or fourth favourite episode.4N Legend wrote:I agree, but the intro robberies with the Watters family and Lestrade didn't seem useless to me personally. The second and third act's timing is correct, they paced out differently but it was enjoyable. It reminded me of A Scandal in Belgravia in the way the story was told. Loved the episode and the focus on the characters. Definitely better than the Empty Hearse episode but I wish they would've incorporated Magnussen in the episode somehowdarthnazgul wrote:I actually loved this episode. The tone was different and more varied than other episodes, but I quite like it when a show can flick from comedy to suspense in a flawless move, which this episode did in my opinion. In fact, it sort of had the brilliance of a good mystery that the previous episode was missing. It felt like a much better balance between character and plot, but it still leans heavily on the character arcs. Couple problems, the episode opens with the promise of an interesting case that gets dropped without full resolution before the opening titles kick in. Also, Lestrade doesn't investigate robberies, yet he's shown investigating one. While the mystery is largely well done, a couple of points could be figured out before the great detective even twigs onto them. The second act dragged too long while the third rushed by, andAll in all, not the best episode, but far from the worst.
Pratham wrote:I don't get the harsh reviews over season 3. People are complaining that the show has changed. Well, it is true. Because the character of Sherlock has changed. After spending two years dismantling Moriarty's network, he is back in his city, with his friends.
I think that the last two years have made him appreciate what he had and now that he is back where he belongs, he is or at least trying to be a different person.
And as for the villain, season 3 is progressing just like season 1. Villain is revealed at the end of episode 1, is absent in episode 2 and returns in episode 3.
I agree with you. I loved this episode, and I felt the crime case was actually very well done. Even my father (big Sherlock fan as in the actual stories/books) who extremely disliked the first episode really liked this one.Vader182 wrote:Everybody keeps writing The Sign of Three didn't feel like Sherlock at all, but am I alone in plainly disagreeing? Unlike the first episode, which sours in memory the more I think on it, this episode felt classic in every way. Tonally, structurally.
-Vader