Sherlock series 3 episode 1 title revealed

News Louisa Mellor 18 Mar 2013 - 08:19

Sherlock's third series begins filming today, and Mark Gatiss has just revealed the name of the first episode...

The Empty Hearse. That's the cheeky title Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat have given episode one of Sherlock's third series. There's an obvious reference there to the not-really-dead trick Holmes pulled in the series two finale, and Conan Doyle readers will recognise a characteristic pun on his post-Reichenbach story, The Adventure of the Empty House.

Spooks director Jeremy Lovering has been confirmed as replacing Paul McGuigan for the series and helming two of the forthcoming three episodes (including this one), with Colm McCarthy going behind the camera for the remaining instalment. Filming begins today, for an expected winter 2013 air date.

What's that you say? Dancing excitedly in our chairs? Us? Never.  


Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript


Very exciting. I'm more excited for this than Doctor Who and that's saying something!

Wow, you folks have a lot of good news about favorites, today!

Clever title. But we can't really assume that the ep opens with a hearse sans Sherlock, can we?

I suppose it would be very foolhardy to try to divine the plotting in this very clever show so far in advance.

Doctor Who is terrific fun, but this show packs a lot more intellectual firepower, especially since DW plotting has gone down the rabbit hole.

didn't think we'd see a new Sherlock so soon after the last one! Pleasantly surprised!

Very nice.

Yayyyy, it's coming back!
But no, please don't replace Paul McGuigan, booooo.

Cant wait! I hope they hurry!

I can't believe how excited I am about this.

Yay! They're doing The Adventure of the Empty House! Really hoping they'd kick off with this as they should. Pretty sure it won't be like the short story but I liked all adaptations so far so I'm pretty sure I'll like this one as well. Wonder what other stories they're going to adapt this season. Really hoping for The Adventure of the Abbey Grange allthough I doubt they'd go for a less well known short story this early in the series's run. Maybe they'll go for The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire. Also not very well known but it has a nice ring to it and it's decent story. Pretty sure they will go for The Valley of Fear this season as it's the only novel they haven't adapted yet. (Well technically they haven't really adapted A Study in Scarlett yet either but they've allready used the title more or less.)

Yeah, gone are the days of dobby Doctors and belching trash bins and companions being granted magic powers every finale *sigh*

Sorry, I'm a Californian. I have no idea what you just said. Well, the dobby Doctor part at least.

What I mean, of course, is that Moff's stuff is great but the pay-off is not. So now I just enjoy the show and don't pretend that it actually makes sense.

Then pay more attention, makes a hell of a lot more sense than the word vomit RTD spat out.

Sorry that you've missed my point.

I paid attention, and my attention was not rewarded. The Moff plotting was brilliant in Season 5, but went sharply downhill after that.

And no, I'm not getting into the middle of the pointless drizzling match between the RTD and Moff partisans.

Each has their good points.

So in other ways you feel it had a one series spike and a one series trough (given we're only 1/3rd into series 7), that's not really a downward trend... or are you claiming seasons that ended with tractor beaming the earth were also high points?

I would say it has not gone back up.

Much as I enjoyed and was moved by the departure of Amy and Rory, the plot doesn't actually make sense.

But it did have the virtue of not being pointlessly complicated, so I enjoyed it.

Gone back up to what standard though? I happen to think that series 5 was the best plotted season since the 70's, but I'd take 6 and 7 over anything 1980 onwards (excluding season 26)

They've adapted as much of a Study in Scarlet as a modern interpretation ever will. Plus they changed the villain so the whole back story part of the novel is pretty pointless in the show's context.

Hmm apparently I don't recall A Study in Scarlett very well. As far as I recall the cases were totally different but I guess it's time for a reread. Btw it wasn't meant as criticism. I have very little to criticise this show over and I'm a bit of a Sherlockian purist.

Gone back up to making it worth my while to pretend the story makes sense.

So not series 1-4 then

You aren't following what I'm saying.

I think I am, they were a total nonsense

Oh, you are most definitely not getting what I said.

>And no, I'm not getting into the middle of the pointless drizzling match between the RTD and Moff partisans.

Well then you failed to answer the question about whether it was a decline following a single year of success or if you thought that tosh was fine.

Actually, you still fail to understand that sentence. If you did, you wouldn't have written what you wrote for however many times I'm not going to count.

Nor, since you mention it, have you even attempted to explain why Moff's plotting has fallen off so badly.

But your repetitiveness in ignoring clear statements makes it obvious this exchange is pointless.

I understood you fine - but you can't have a decline from a single year which is an anomaly, hence my question - that would make series 5 an anomaly a peak, it wouldn't make series 6 a trough.
I haven't attempted to explain that as I don't think it has - his season openers for all 3 years have been fantastic, under him writers like Tom McRae and Neil Gaiman have truly excelled - I only feel that series 6 didn't tie together well enough - obviously series 5 left dangling pieces but series 6 left too many to feel cohesive. Series 7 I have no issue with other than Chris Chibnall.

As I said, pointless.

Which is internet speak "for I've got nothing to fall back on but I'm going to make out like I've won the debate regardless"

We were never having a debate.

I would never waste time debating with someone who consistently fails to understand a simple declarative sentence.

> I'm not getting into the middle of the pointless drizzling match between the RTD and Moff partisans.

You quoted it numerous times, it's not a matter of comprehension - your original statement does not make sense if you do not believe that that era was of a higher quality as you can not have a decline from an isolated peak. This is not a complicated point and it is one I have re-iterated on numerous occasions if the meaning of it is eluding you you really ought not to be insulting anybodies comprehension abilities.

Enjoy your solipsistic day.

The resulting cases were different and they never went near the Mormon side-plot, but a lot of little features appear in both, like Moffat reversing the 'Rache' clue to name one. Those little details seem a little too significant in the larger picture to do an adaptation of Study in Scarlett proper now. Hope that helps. :)
And also, very excited for this now! :D

Sad to see Paul McGuigan not with the team this time around. Big boots to fill. With a fourth series already pencilled in l wonder how long it will be before the director is chosen for that.

As an impartial, I happen to agree with William.

In the second message he sent to you, quite clearly I might add, was that he wasn't going to get into a sparring match over RTD and Moffat episodes. You blatantly and obnoxiously ignored this, as even as over multiple replies, he referred you back to this said statement.

Personally, I think you should be slapped with a temporary ban from DOG for borderline harassing the guy, trying to pull him into a confrontation.

You need to grow up, and learn that whilst people want to express their personal opinions, they don't always want to debate them. This is how comment sections work. If every opinion expressed here came with a 20 message follow-up argument, then what the hell is the point? Grow a pair, negative vote his comment, and shut the hell up. These Tumblr-esque fandom arguments don't belong here.

Wasn't this article about...Sherlock? Funny, I'm convinced it was...

You may very well think that.

I couldn't possibly comment.

Valley of Fear can't be adapted. One, it takes place before The Final Problem. Two, Moriarty is dead.

Although certainly good points I think they can. I mean they can easilly change the culprit as they have done many times.

Also this is rather off topic but why did my post go voted down? It wasn't offensive. It didn't even contain criticism. In fact the tone's donwnright enthusiastic. So what did I say wrong?

when will whole season falls on BBC One ???

Sponsored Links