koliko987

*looks down at the Batman t-shirt she is wearing* Well, seems I'm a bit suited for this! Without doing too much analysis of Batman/Joker here, there is certainly a connection. However, the mediums are very different. Batman doesn't kill the Joker because without the Joker Batman would lose control. He would give in to that urge to kill and possibly be lost to it (Under the Red Hood and the recent Death of the Family in New 52) point his thoughts on this out. I don't think Sherlock views Moriarty in the same way. Sherlock is interested in Moriarty's actions, yes, and they are very similar, but Sherlock doesn't have a need to keep him alive. He enjoys the puzzles Moriarty gave him, but he knew Moriarty was dangerous. I can see plenty of reason why Sherlock would be willing to conspire with Mycroft to rid the world of him. Especially if you take into account the fact that Moriarty likely crossed a rather vivid line in Sherlock's rules by using John against him. Batman doesn't kill. That's his moral code. We don't see that code from Sherlock. Joker doesn't kill Batman because Batman is the only one Joker feels compliments him. Same might have bee said for Moriarty, we don't know. So, I don't think the fact that Joker (Moriarty) never kills Batman (Sherlock) really is the same. We also have to look at DCU versus Sherlock. DCU brings people back all the time. All the time. To the point where we assume no one is ever dead. Catwoman got shot in the head and I for not a moment worried she wouldn't show up in the next volume, because that's how DCU works. And a lot of people in the DCU fandom are getting annoyed with it there. Sherlock? Not so much. Irene and Sherlock have come back. Sherlock would need to come back to have a show, so that's not surprising. It's also in line with ACD canon. Sherlock is meant to be real-world. And people don't just always pop back from death in the real world. It takes away from the grittiness of the show and the relatability when everyone in Sherlock come to be superhuman. I've seen less people saying it's an insult to Moriarty to bring him back and more people saying it's an insult to the integrity of the show's storytelling, which I can see. I didn't view Sherlock and Mycroft's plan as making Moriarty an idiot. In fact, he still did all the very, very clever things he did, he was just being watched as he was doing them. Thanks for the reply. I meant to keep the Batman analogy simple. The Joker doesn't kill Batman because he amuses him. Moriarty doesn't kill Sherlock because he amuses him. And leave it at that. Please read my more detiled reply to the other person.

Oh sure! And I do not expect you to agree with me, either. I like disagreeing with people - spice of life Welcome to the forum, by the way. First of all: I love Sherlock. I want him to be great and and brilliant and of course I want him to win in the end. Always. He can and should struggle, he also should fail a few times (like he did with Magnussen - that was failure in my eyes), but ultimately, I want him to be better than the villains. That, in my opinion, is what a hero is for. And Sherlock can deny it as much as he likes, he is a hero. A hero in such a strange way that I like him - and I detest heroes in general. Sherlock sacrifices a lot to win. To get the better of Moriarty, he sacrificed his reputation, his home and his friendship with the person who meant most to him. He underwent a lot of hardship and ultimately torture to take down Moriarty's organization. If it now transpires that was all for nothing, because Moriarty is still alive and back in the game, then that means all those sacrifices were absolutely unnecessary and Sherlock might as well have stayed at Baker St. Also, I am a sucker for "epic moments". Like Moriarty's death. If it turns out that was not real, then I feel betrayed. If nobody ever dies for real, there is a definite lack of suspense on a show. There is no possibility of true tragedy. I just think that is a terrible artistic choice. The only person I can forgive for coming back from the dead is Sherlock Holmes. If everybody does that, it makes him look less special. Which is probably what bugs me the most. It's all a matter of taste really. If you are happy with Moriarty being alive and having somehow managed to blow his brains out but not really, then good, because that is what I think we will get anyway, so you might as well be pleased with it. I just can't. Thanks! I do love Sherlock but I also think BBC Sherlock's Moriarty was one of the awesomest villain I've ever seen. And I think Andrew Scott really got too little screen time. I do want Sherlock to win, but I want him barely to win, not have the upper hand the whole time. And I'm sure there will be real tragedies but why rush into it? Moriarty also sacrified so much. All the imprisonment and even torture, all the brilliant planning. And it was damn brilliant, The Reichenbach Fall is definitely the best episode, how he turned the whole world against Sherlock. The scene when he pretends to be the storyteller and you can see glimpses of his diabolical smile while explaining Moriarty doesn't exist. That was all for nothing if Sherlock and Mycroft knew what he was doing the whole time. And to me that was far more disappointing than bringing back a genius super villain, if he really is back. I do love Sherlock but I love Moriarty equally. Not everyone comes back ,just Sherlock and Moriarty and it just makes perfect sense. Sherlock and Moriarty go in pair, they're the same, Moriarty should be equal to Sherlock. At the very end of the series, Sherlock should be proven to be just a little smarter than Moriarty, not like this. And faking a gunshot to the head is easier than faking jumping off a building. A packet of blood and a blank shot would've done, as many people have said. Convenient how he shoots himself so there's no visible entry wound. Also would it be that impossible that the thought had occurred to Moriarty that he might have to fake his death? .

Why would bringing back Moriarty be such a bad thing? People have been saying stuff like "It would be so stupid to bring Moriarty back. It's like the writers don't have any more ideas. Two super geniuses faking suicide on each other. So dumb." I don't really understand this reasoning. So two geniuses outsmarting each other suddenly doesn't make sense? Moriarty is Sherlock's number 1 arch nemesis, what Joker is to Batman. Magnussen was the Riddler. of course it makes sense to bring him back showing he won't be be defeated to easily. People say it would be an insult to Moriarty's character to bring him back now. Well what would be an even greater insult is if they let it the way it was. So Sherlock and Mycroft had Moriarty the whole time and Moriarty was basically a f*cking idiot compared to them, the whole time. But that's so nice to do to one of the greatest arch villains of all times, kill everything that made him awesome and move on. Nice. Is it really that implausible that Moriarty knew that he might have to fake his death so he had a fake death to go? Exactly like Sherlock and THEY ARE THE SAME. What so implausible???? And Moriarty lives to mess with Sherlock, it's his purpose. Maybe he even knew Sherlock's plan. It would be in his interest to prolong his entertainment with Sherlock. Just like Joker never kills Batman. So can you explain again why it would be such a bad move to have Moriarty return?