Talk:The Empty Hearse

Sources section needs sources

It is all Original Research unless backed by Reliable Sources. So unless these are found, this section shall be removed. Users have 30 days to find them or the section will be removed. MisterShiney ✉ 02:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. There are too many "may be a reference to". The Hounds of Baskerville is a good model -- we need reliable sources from the producers/writers explicitly stating their inspiration for different elements, rather than fan speculation about allusions. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the {admirable) work that has been done -- citing the relevant elements of the canon -- constitutes 'original research', because you, the Wikipedia editor, are still making the analysis (even if the analysis is really, really obvious). We cannot ourselves publish our answer to 2 plus 2. We need to cite reliable sources demonstrating that 2+2=4 . So, it would be acceptable to cite an article of a decent newspaper or other reliable source, interview with the producers, or, as The Hounds of Baskerville good article has done, the DVD audio commentaries. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was Watson kept in the dark?

It's not (yet) clearly explained why Sherlock kept John in the dark for so long. In the original, the real reason is that Doyle had intended to kill off Holmes entirely, and therefore Holmes really *was* dead (until 2 years later, when Doyle changed his mind). In the present series (as of the end of series 2), one originally would think it was for John's own protection, BUT in this episode we are shown that Mycroft already pre-empted the assassin that was to shoot; also, Sherlock never actually tells John/Mrs Hudson/Lestrade that he jumped to save them (because we know they wouldn't have been killed, thanks to Mycroft). So... apart from pure lack of empathy, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but this talk page is to discuss improvements to the Wikipedia article; it shouldn't be used as a discussion forum about the episode itself. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

underground coaches glitch?

A train geek tells me that the underground coaches were the wrong type for that line! PamD 07:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC) PamD 07:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not really relevant for a Wikipedia article. The 'errors' section of the IMDb page is the bets place for trivia like that. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's far from trivia and there are plenty of available sources for it.

TL;DR: Almost everything involved in the running of London Underground and its portrayal here is glaringly inaccurate (the trains even change colour at times). Even the things that would be easy to fix, like background signage.

What would be nice to find would be a sourced statement that the director knew this and made a choice to just not care about it, obsessive fans despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, if the production team discuss it at some point (e.g. within a commentary), then it might be included. Without meaningful discussion, though, it is profoundly trivial. Wikipedia articles about TV and film do not include mere lists of 'gaffs'. There are plenty of places on the net for those. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Filming

I could be wrong but were small elements of the reveal scenes not filmed at the same time as the The Reichenbach Fall. Sure I remember reading that when the series was recomisioned. Blethering Scot 23:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds familiar. Moffat said something about learning lessons after having to restage the swimming pool scene from "The Great Game" for "A Scandal in Belgravia". If only I could remember where he said it... The JPS^{talk to me} 23:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock's "parents"

Not that it added to the various plots of the episode, but should there be a mention of Sherlock's parents visiting him? It was yet another nice reveal in the episode for the viewers and John, even if, later on, proves to be a ruse. — Wyliepedia 06:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Abbington resembles Katherine Parkinson

There is a confusing, unacknowledged, distinct facial resemblance between John's new girlfriend, Mary Morstan (Amanda Abbington), and trouble-making journalist Kitty Riley (Katherine Parkinson) in the previous episode. And this is perhaps weirdly related to Molly's new boyfriend assertedly resembling Sherlock, within this show? -71.174.188.43 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Woke anti-scientific nonsense

"Don't be silly. Some women have large heads, too." Sherlock's subsequent look of guilt is a satirical allusion to the controversial and pseudoscientific phrenology involved in the original short story, where Sherlock Holmes deduced that the owner of the hat was intelligent based on the size of his head, remarking "a man with so large a brain must have something in it."

There's nothing "pseudoscientific" about the fact that larger brains (particularly in early childhood, but also for adults) are correlated with higher intelligence. Or that females have on average smaller brains/heads (though the average IQ remains the same via greater cerebral surface area and probably other factors.) Correlations obviously aren't certainties, but then the vast majority of Sherlock's deductions require leaps of faith. Blue Rock (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Deducing about Mary

Isn't it spoilerish to say Mary recognising skip code helps Holmes deduce her true identity? Isn't it better to be neutral like "Sherlock deduces smth. about Mary...". Gevorg89 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER DonQuixote (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)