No, truth be told I prefer it. Most of my friends like to talk during movies which I find infuriating.

Hey now. I watch Titanic every time it's on TV. Which is multiple times a day on USA. So I have problems, is what I'm saying.

Yeah! Heh, like who would see Star Wars FA 5 times in the theater, right? Heh…I mean, that would be sad. Especially if you saw it by yourself a couple times…heh. Sigh.

Him? What, is he funny or something?

I also really enjoyed it. I think I saw it like 5 times in the theater. It was just a simple story well told. The script was just not memorable, though. That's why I never revisit it. So I'm looking forward to seeing what Cameron does with the next one, because it could potentially go in some interesting directions.

I watched The Staircase immediately after MaM, so I'm starting to blur the two together.

Yeah that seems like a fair comparison.

Yeah, it's a bit silly. The press at the time—which is all still available—was dead set against Avery from day one. They're just showing the other side of the case. I think their bias is obvious, but I don't think every documentary should be completely objective. It's not possible.

Haven't you ever changed your mind about something?

Yeah not to be hyperbolic or inflammatory, but if you're outraged about your favorite band changed their mind about breaking up and wanting to make new music, you're a fucking piece of shit.

Damning!

"Damning" is a little hyperbolic. It certainly sounds bad in the absence of all the other facts, but even with this information there's still mountains of reasonable doubt, and the fact remains that there is no conceivable way that the murder could have happened in the manner the prosecution asserted. In fact there's…

This is the problem I have with this whole thing. There is no conceivable way that the rape/murder could have happened as described. If it happened in either the bedroom or garage, it would have taken a professional cleaner days upon days to clean it up completely, and Avery isn't a professional anything. There is…

I agree, but I actually think this show typically *does* have great mysteries. They are always just slightly ludicrous in the same way Conan Doyle's mysteries were. I think it's fair to say the mysteries are no longer the focus of the show, but I still think they're quite fun in the moment. In this episode as well. I…

Yeah this is what I was hoping for. A one-off episode in the 1800's is something I've always wanted from this series, purely because I feel that Cuberbatch and Freeman are the best Holmes and Watson, even if the show itself is not always the best. A self-contained "what if?" story could have been a great way to simply…

Or the season 3 finale?

I believe the point of the episode (other than just trying to be very clever) was for Sherlock to try to put himself in that case from the 1800's so that he could, to the best of his ability, exhaust every possible hypothesis. He had to go through every possibility (culminating in the intentionally ridiculous Women…

This was my thought as well. Sherlock asserted that she made a huge display so get as many witnesses as possible.

Your post didn't really make a lot of sense, so I'll just say it's very possible to be a diehard fan of the show (which I am) and still dislike things about it.

It was odd because it was undercut by the ghost of Moriarty saying that Sherlock had completely made that up. So that revelation wasn't even real, it was just one of Sherlock's hypothesis. But if that's the case, why bother? Why have this gigantic reveal? I didn't have problems with the feminism stuff, I had a problem…