bedelia1984

Another agreement that he was killed too soon. Of course, they also didn't have the courage of their convictions to keep him dead (he's still popping up in TFP), so it is quite conspicuous that they miss him. I think one issue is that the energy and fun that Scott brought to the character just works so well in the medium of television. It's such a big performance, and it is funny, and in a way it's like he walked on from some other show (kids tv?). The rest of the cast are wonderful but there is a more sombre quality to the show when he isn't in it- I think it's that likeable villain thing where you know you shouldn't be enjoying his presence but you are- that brings another level to the show, and then when he's gone things feel that bit flatter. They have never found another villain to equal him, sadly, and I think there is something about seeing him and Sherlock onscreen together that makes it feel like they are getting to the heart of what the show truly is about- that moment when you see Sherlock with a worthy opponent, and you're also seeing how much of Sherlock just enjoys the game too, it's a bit different from his 'hero' side and arguably more compelling. They've gone off in some tangents since they lost Moriarty too- Eurus, Mary's story... and struggled to make the audience care as much as they did when the show was it its peak.

Sorry I am coming to this side of the conversation a bit late. I think the BBC also differs from a lot of other channels in that there are no advertisements on it, even though it is a free public channel. Maybe PBS is similar in the states, though I don't think I've heard of many shows it makes? But I'm not sure we can compare like for like taking a police show made by channels trying to garner a certain demographic for adverts to what is being done on Sherlock. Being Irish, in our house we always admired the stuff the BBC produced/ aired for its high quality and individuality compared to things made by advert-laden channels (including the Irish ones). Not that the BBC is perfect, but the combination of public funding and lack of advertisers mean they have an ability to be more supportive of the artistic vision of a piece than a lot of other channels. As I understand, any channels in the states that are advert free are ones you need to pay for- and they produce great stuff too, but possibly a different kind of great to what the BBC can do, as they still need to sell something (the channel itself) to the audience. Not that ratings won't play their part, but the BBC are able to give people a bit more time and leeway creatively. Also, when shows are built around adverts that format is highly limiting- they have to build up to each ad break to make people want to come back for more. Sherlock's writers don't need to worry about that, it gives them far more freedom to potentially do something closer to a film style narrative. Yes- I'm Irish but we'll have seen a lot of similar stuff. I don't honestly think in general British TV has more plot holes than most, I think there are less of the type of detective shows that have a lot of spoon-feeding made in Britain- then again, there are less shows produced in general- America has greater quantity overall, so naturally it has greater amounts of mediocre shows. Season four just has a lot more flaws and a rushed feeling than the others. But it's not representative of the whole series, in fact the only other episode that really gave me that feeling was The Blind Banker. The plot holes in season 4 wouldn't even bother me if the thing had been well done over all. The second episode was brilliant, but the first and third both have issues. It's just hard to accept when the TLD showed how good they can be when they are on the top of their game. Sherlock is a bit unique in that there is a fair bit of genre-jumping going on- touches of sci fi, comedy, comic book style adventure. Of course The League of Gentlemen and Doctor Who could be said to have influence over those aspects of the show. I'm a bit of a Morse fan, but it is an incredibly different show (and getting addicted to Grantchester now too). I think aspects you could compare in Morse are the quality of the acting, the depth of the character study at work from episode to episode, the importance of the friendship of the main detectives (the brilliant one and the admirer), the uniquely British sense of place, and the flawed detective with an addiction problem as a central character aspect- you see that again in the original Prime Suspect too. I do see it in US shows as well, but I think the British like to go especially dark with their detective-heroes. British comedy also is a very individual sort of animal- totally different to what the US produces and more often surreal, from what I've seen, so that influence will be at play in Sherlock too. One Irish writer who works in the UK that I adore is Graham Linehan, he's a channel four man, but there are some aspects of his Bernard Black character in his Black Books series that I can see as similar to our modern Sherlock- in that Black is a sharp-tongued, antisocial alcoholic who dresses like a goth and experiments cruelly on his best friend and roommate.

I agree with that, J.P., you can forgive a little liberty taken every now and again in terms of believability but they do rather pile up in season 4. About your earlier question about how Victor died, I had assumed he was tied down with chains as John was, but logistically this seems unlikely for someone Eurus' size at the time to pull off- unless there was a tunnel? It's a bit like her custom fake glass- technically these things are possible, but because they would be so logistically difficult it is hard to believe they would happen in real life. I think that showed a hint of laziness in some of the writing this time around- the fact that once they had something that could by any stretch of the imagination occur, they no longer felt the need to delve deeper or write something that felt more natural in terms of the story.

I'm another that still loves the show- if it ends there, it is still one of my top shows ever. It's just season 4 that is not my favourite- though TLD is one of my favourite episodes of the whole show. I think it is hard to re-watch season 4 because everything is so final, from Mary's death to the book-ending of Lestrade's line in TFP. It makes me really sad to think it might be genuinely over. Even TLD is hard for me to re-watch, though I love it, because of the seeds they are sowing for TFP and the culmination of the emotional aftermath of Mary's death- I loved that that moment between Sherlock and John happened, but it is also another of those moments that is so personal it is almost hard to watch.

Wow, interesting, because I don't see that at all! I think Moffat bends over backward to keep us (well, me at least) guessing what's going on in that funny little head of Sherlock's. Seriously, I have no idea, based on my viewing of ASiB, what Sherlock feels for Irene, or what his actions regarding her says about him as a person. And I think we spent weeks on this forum debating whether Sherlock shooting CAM was an act of anger, desperation, hatred, pure love, cold logic, or some combination thereof. Whole conspiracy theories have been based on Moffat's ambiguity! Not just his, either, they both love to torment their audience, imo. d I do have to take both your points about the ambiguity still at play with Moffat's version, though I still feel like there is something more inextricable about the way Moffat writes some important character aspects- the Irene code is a great example, and for Magnussen's shooting, it is more what is says about Sherlock that he did it at all, without any immediate physical impetus- and what that says about Sherlock, than whether it was for a specific emotional reason- I think that would place Sherlock's character in a very tiny percentage of people who would be capable of reacting that way, which is what I was getting at when I said Moffat is describing the character in a more tight sense than Gatiss. In Scandal, it is actually Irene herself whom Moffat really pigeon-holes- first she's a lesbian domian*trix, but then she's so attracted to Sherlock (a man) that she risks her career and her life by using his name as a code? And of course, one thing he is saying about Sherlock is that he's super-irresistible, which, point taken, but also seems a bit like a form of writerly wish fulfilment, more than especially useful to telling a believable story. Maybe it is my own cynical nature that makes me feel I can see Moffat's take on Sherlock so clearly- you know, a hero, who will kill a bad guy, even if he might not have to, because he doesn't play by the rules and is a bit of an action hero style maverick, and then also, he'll always get the girl, even if she happens to be a lesbian. I know I've said it before, but hello, mid life crisis! At least Mrs Hudson was driving the fancy car in this universe and not Sherlock himself.

Well, he doesn't "get" scripts, he writes scripts. :D If they're less showy, that's because it's his style, methinks. But I think TEH is pretty dang showy; just in a good way. Although many critics (and fans) berated it for being too "over the top." That's one of the things I enjoyed about it, actually. So ... once again, no accounting for differences in taste. I ought to have said plot points, rather than scripts- I sometimes feel like the 'big' moments like Sherlock shooting Magnussen are deliberately given to Moffat because they think he handles broad strokes better, when I would like to see Gatiss tackles some of these sorts of aspects, as he has a talent for making nice small moments out of bigger ideas- though again, if I examined TST closely I would eat my words so quickly- Mary's death was one of the two biggest botched moment of the show IMO- the other being the shooting of Magnussen. The shooting was more artfully portrayed, but as you mention elsewhere that's more a direction issue. It feels to me like the Moftisses are using the same show to tell different types of stories. Gatiss is the acknowledged "Doyle expert" of the two, and to me, his scripts reflect that ... more direct references to canon, more emphasis on the detection side of Sherlock. Moffat's more interested in relationships. And they both come from a comedy background and are disposed to sacrifice continuity for humor, imo. And I do think Gatiss' humor is a bit more, er ... subversive. I think he could be quite cutting if he wanted to be, but he's also a bit more of a gentleman. Moffat reminds me of a big bumbling puppy who just wants to play and doesn't realize how he's trampling on everything. Or at least, that's how they come across to me in interviews and such. Of course I have no way of knowing what they're really like, nor is it really any of my business. But I can't help but think a writer's nature is somehow reflected in his scripts, so it's hard for me to avoid speculating. ;) I think they are both interested in relationships, but they write said relationships in very different ways- with Moffat I feel like he's describing the characters through their relationships, in a more finite way- e.g., Sherlock will make himself a murderer for John and Mary, this says X about Sherlock, Irene is the one woman who can beat Sherlock, this says X about Irene and X about Sherlock. Whereas, I think Gatiss uses the writing he does about Sherlock to raise questions rather than answer them- his actions don't always have clear motivation, so you are left to guess, Why does Sherlock think it is okay to experiment on John? Why does he ask Molly to help him solve crimes? Gatiss, from the interviews I've seen, seems to get a little thrill out of the fact he's written something that will make people wonder. I'm no Doyle expert myself, I have to confess I find ACD a little dry when I try to read his stuff, (the relationships etc the guys have embellished are probably what have drawn me in to the story, plus the acting of course) but I do feel like Gatiss has more of a grasp of the intangible quality at the heart of the Sherlock character- that idea of his always having maintained a bit of mysteriousness at his core- whereas Moffat is often trying to pin him down too much, and in the process irritating people more familiar with the original than I am. I agree totally with how you describe the difference in temperaments between the two writers, I feel like I see that in interviews, and also in their writing.

I've just been catching up on this thread and there are so many interesting points about the writing of Sherlock himself. I thought Sherlock as a character had a lot of great moments in TEH- the hat deduction, I love, the Molly scenes, the revelation at the beginning with John. I think even though Gatiss doesn't get as many of the more showy scripts, he does subtle character moments really well. In general, I find that Gatiss writes Sherlock as a character in a more subversive way than Moffat- like in Hounds, the experiment he tries to perform on John shows a particular side to Sherlock that is a bit cold and clinical, but in my mind it is less extreme and unbelievable than the way he behaves in HLV. Similarly, if you compare how he wrote the scenes with Molly in TEH to how Moffat wrote the Irene scenes in SIB- there is so much less subtlety there in the meaning and the way the characters are interacting, in my view, in those Irene scenes. They just seem so obvious and like they could be in any other show, not just Sherlock. The only time Gatiss has kind of let me down is in TST. Some of the things Sherlock did in the episode really annoyed me, and how he did them annoyed me too, especially all that second guessing Mary stuff. I do think Sherlock's best moment of season 4 was his scene with John near the end of TLD, so Moffat certainly deserves credit for that.

I actually buy this for Sherlock, but on arguably harmless level like sensitivity. And for Sherlock, it's more like he is trying very hard, too hard to surpress all those although I'm a bit confused because sometime he seems totally unaware while other times he seems sad and struggling. I'd say he is so good in it that he fools himself too. But for Eurus., I don't know. I treat her level of intelligence as someone who should be able to diagnose herself before others do. She knows what she is and what she needs, and when she doesn't get it, she acts up. The thing that she fails hard is how to express or communicate it. Like many bloody geniuses, I guess she forgets that ordinary people may have difficulty of trying to understand her. So if, if, someone managed to solve her riddle and found Redbeard, there would be two possible outcomes. One, maybe they would understand and cater to her need, brushed it off as extreme child play and convinced themselves that she would tell them anyway. Two, most probably they would lock her up anyway, because it is a horrible thing to do but at least it's known before more damages are done and maybe they would try to 'fix' it in better way. In one sense, I do get the idea she should be able to 'diagnose herself' due to her genius. Then again I think it is quite human to find ourselves to be the hardest people to correctly diagnose/ perceive/ help. Especially if you consider that she couldn't identify the emotion of pain- that would be a huge hindrance to being able to diagnose whatever psychological issue she was having, if she couldn't even identify what she was feeling. About her riddle: I do think this is the root of our difficulty in understanding Eurus' motive, and the root of our reluctance to write her off as 'just evil'- she created that riddle wanting someone to solve it, wanting to be understood, wanting to be helped and perhaps on some level not truly wanting Victor to die. I wonder if that is partly why Moriarty has often made a more appealing villain than others also- because he allowed the chance for redemption, he seemed to partly want to be stopped by Sherlock at times. Of course, there is that enjoyment of the game also. There are a lot of grey areas for both Moriarty and Eurus,- they are both the sort of villains that are in it partly for the sense of human connection, through finding a worthy opponent, they can finally be understood. That's something a lot of us can understand, though hopefully most of us find it through friendship, family or our significant others. .

I wonder is it possible to look at Eurus as a type of savant- she is very talented at some things- music, manipulation and yet quite slow to understand or empathise with others, not especially self aware?

I find it really hard to believe that Mycroft is more intelligent than Sherlock following the events to TFP- especially his over-estimation of his ability to deal with the 'incandescent' Eurus. I suppose it depends how limited our view of what constitutes intelligence is, should it not include the emotional at all? How was it that Sherlock figured out in a short time of knowing her how to reach Eurus when Mycroft had failed for over a decade to do so?

And then it's never mentioned again. To me it sounds like it was Mummy's hairband, Eurus just wanted it and got Sherlock to steal it. In your studies, Bedelia, have you learned what they do with people who have these conditions, if they are dangerous? (I.e., murderous.) Just lock 'em up and throw away the key? Ah, I read way too much into that, clearly. I thought the mother was holding the hairband in hopes of getting her to talk, but now I don't know why. Interestingly, the trainer we had mentioned that a high percentage of people with developmental disorders end up in prison, through what the educators would consider unfair circumstances of a misunderstanding of their disorder- e.g. they are incapable of understanding the law in an adult manner, or are way more susceptible to peer pressure than to a common sense of ethics, due to the immense problems they have fitting in- if you can imagine how many young people who have some undiagnosed developmental issue but are viewed as 'slow' or 'weird' by other kids, will participate in a crime in an attempt to gain acceptance. In an odd, reversed way, I can see what Eurus did in that light, as a really extreme reaction to not 'fitting in' with Sherlock and Victor. The trainer said to us not to expect that some people will ever develop 'fully'- they might be intellectually fully developed, but never be emotionally capable of an adult relationship, etc, etc. Or, for other people it could just take a super long time for them to develop emotionally, much longer than the average person. In general, we probably fail to recognise less extreme examples of this all the time- like when we take about 'late bloomers' etc.. It is interesting to me that the process of individuation can vary a lot from person to person- you can see strong examples of that in Sherlock with both Sherlock himself and Mycroft too, to my view- they are both so developed professionally, but not so much in some social/emotional aspects.

It has been too long since I watched this one, but I think there was also some mention of the mother possibly taking away Eurus' favourite hair band to try and get her to tell where Victor is? The impression I got was that the mother and Eurus had a more antagonistic relationship, whereas Mr. Holmes was possibly more distant/ in denial about how bad Eurus' problems were. About the Borderline personality disorder (sorry I can't quote on my phone) she does IMO resemble people who have this, I have worked with some, especially the manipulative/ charismatic aspect. But I also see some kind of developmental disorder in her, probably partly because I have been studying the area recently, in some emotional areas Eurus seems to not have left her childhood self behind, and also her sense of empathy is greatly underdeveloped. It occurred to me while reading people's thoughts about the parents that perhaps in a way the Governor and his wife were surrogates for the parents, but why did Eurus not tackle them head-on in some way? Or was that part two of what she had planned?

I suspect that part of the problem we all are having interpreting Eurus stems from the fact that the main logic governing her actions was that they served narratively to tie up any loose threads characterisation-wise between Sherlock and those closest to him. The one thing I gleaned from Eurus was that she placed little value on human life but quite a high value on the idea of being loved. To me, this explains her fixation on Sherlock- most loved by his parents, the only Holmes child with a close friend from outside the family... In ways what she did with Molly puzzled me- because why not kill Molly? But I think there, perhaps the question of reciprocation was driving her- she wanted to see how Sherlock would react in a pressurised situation there- and somehow it was different, in the eyes of Eurus, to Victor or John, because those relationships are more defined. I still think Eurus was under-estimated by Sherlock by the end of TFP- the senseless violence she was capable of doesn't go away just because they are playing a few duets together. Apparently they played music together as children (which seems a retcon of sorts, but still), and it didn't change her for the better then.

I don't know whether it will actually cool down, but I'm a bit hopeful that with a young family in England he might want to take more British based roles which would be good for us. And he seems to actually like doing TV, which is wonderful. It annoys me when actors who build their careers in TV abandon it, especially when a lot of the best parts are on TV these days.

I wonder if maybe they used some points (like Eurus) that they had planned for 5 but left some out just in case?

That's right VBS, so the answer is he could cry, alone and in terrible circumstances. I'm willing to ignore what Moffat may have said when the performance (Ben's) seems so genuine. I think almost everyone is capable of crying when alone.

I think of Mycroft as a bit of a voyeur. Probably all those cameras he's controlling.

If I remember right, it was very slap dash, some one liner from Sherlock about how his next date wasn't the one. Very much a feel of 'Sherlock mocks Lestrade's love life, box ticked, moving on.'

I actually thought Sherlock was going to cry when he was very drunk and listening to the girl in TSOT talk about being abandoned by the Mayfly man... but then he pulled himself together. It's so nice Ben can be honest about that, he's so genuine. I bet Mycroft is a crier, when he's watching a tearjerker in his home theater.

I've been noticing different fanfic writers have different takes on Sherlock and crying- some will do only a slight manly moistness at the eyes, whereas others go full-on weeping after waking up from a nightmare (which seems a bit OTT to me). Do people here see him as a crier, and how much so, on a super sad occasion?

Was there some sort of hint that Lestrade could have had a romantic entanglement with her? If so, it was very poorly fleshed out, and perhaps better cut. Speaking of Rupert Graves, I watched the Forsyte Saga (2002) this weekend, a bit melodramatic but he is so good in it!

I don't know if in some way he wanted to make Sherlock and Irene similar in that for both it was impossible to have a romantic interest in the other- for Sherlock because he was married to his work, and for her because she preferred women. The way Gatiss describes the relationship about being more about an enjoyment of the game and an intellectual attraction makes more sense to me in how they set up the beginning of the story. But Moffat seems to have a different idea, as evidenced by his 'mostly' comment. It's such a big character point that I wonder they didn't agree on it before hand. Then again, even though Irene was portrayed as a lesbian, I didn't get much sense of a deep relationship between her and the woman that she lived with. Actually, there was more chemistry between her and Sherlock in that regard, from what we saw.

What I find mad is that in the above interviews Moffat will dismiss Johnlock because John isn't 'wired that way' but then thinks Adlock is fine because Irene is 'mostly' gay. I have to wonder if he at one point had actually written the line as her saying she was 'mostly gay'- and then someone had to tell him it wasn't a thing. I would think it was fine if he said overall he thought all people were just on a spectrum, like the Kinsey Scale, but I do wish he would settle on the same perspective for all the characters, that being the case.

I meant to ask you about this but I had forgotten. Can you think of a way any honest conversation with Molly and Sherlock could have ended with Molly happy to be just friends with Sherlock? Who in real life is happy to remain friends with someone who doesn't reciprocate their feelings when in essence it's a form of rejection? Or are you just accepting it because they tell you it happens? Well, I suppose one version of that is: They talk about it, he explains that he doesn't have those feelings, they would probably spend some time apart, Molly would meet somebody else, and then they could be friends. I don't think Molly would hold it against him, she's not that sort of person. It might be hard for them to be around each other for a while. Then again, it might be a relief for her, to finally be able to move on, she might actually feel happier afterwards. I don't know if it is realistic in the timeline suggested by the montage, but I do consider it possible.

I think there is a significant gender issue here- even for a man to say to woman 'know when you are beaten' in that context is totally different, than it is with a woman saying it to a man. And of course logically, it shouldn't be, and men are sometimes the victims of abuse just as women are. Ireland is quite puritanical too, but then England is also quite reserved in its own way. I can't help but think there is something in the vein of the classic English literature examples of stern governesses, schoolteachers, headmistresses etc. that has produced a sort of sub-genre of the modern English domin8trix. I think there is something quite English about the idea of a man's resolve and stoic-ness being tested, being an opportunity to prove his mettle. In a way I can understand that more than where the examples of the sort of domin8trix from CSI that has come from in the states. Maybe it (the resurgance of the domin8trix) is just a world-wide phenomenon as a result of feminism and a perceived emasculation of the modern man, taken to a sort of extreme in fiction? To try and bring it a bit back on topic- Sherlock also provokes John into hitting him more than once. There is Scandal, yes, but then in TEH, Sherlock realises the moustache thing is a trigger and knows how John will react- again, if this was a man hitting a woman, it would be instantly seen as wrong, but in this context, well, it does seem a bit as if Sherlock at least doesn't mind the violence and perhaps on some level sees it as a return to their old level of closeness? I do realise there is something quite off about this from the point of view of what is emotionally healthy.