Zain

You mean Magnussen. Well, we were all wondering why did Magnussen texted Mary and not Sherlock in TEH when John was in danger? And why did he rewatch over and over that scene as Sherlock saved John from the fire? After watching the wedding scene in TSOT an idea popped in my mind, when Sherlock reads this particular telegram: SHERLOCK: “... Oodles of love and heaps of good wishes from CAM.” (Mary’s smile fades. Sherlock continues reading the message.) SHERLOCK: “Wish your family could have seen this.” John was put into a bonfire, not because of Sherlock, but because of Mary. Magnussen maybe threatened her to kill her whole family if she didn't 'obey' her and he actually did kill her parents. Now John is in danger because they are getting married, so he is going to be Mary's family member, so to say. Magnussen threatened her once again putting John in danger but he made sure that Mary has the time to save him. At the end I think Magnussen is quite surprised to see a man next to Mary who actually pulls out John from the bonfire. He freezes the footage when Sherlock's face appears and looks at him with rapidly contracted pupils. So I think he is surprised to see Sherlock (remember, Sherlock's coming back has been the previous night and his public appearance is on the next day). My other idea is, that maybe Mary was somehow involved in her parents' deaths and Magnussen knows this and is blackmailing her. We know that she is a nurse and maybe her parents needed some drugs to take and Mary has accidentally overdosed them (for example insulin for their diabetes etc.). Maybe this idea is too far-fetched... I agree with the points you named, but I came to a very different conclusion; I don't think Magnussen is after Mary. To me, it seems like he's interested in Sherlock, instead. John was abducted in front of Baker Street; in daylight, on an open street. Far from practical. It's symbolic. A sort of provocation. I also think he never intended to play with Mary, even if he originally texted her. Mary simply becomes the messenger; she brings Sherlock the code, brings him "into" the game. All following messages are directed to Sherlock. It's actually not Mary whose arrival Magnussen times; it's Sherlock. On a different note; yes, Magnussen is more than weird when he watches the footage. I wouldn't say he was surprised to see Sherlock. he expected him. The camera is directed at him; it follows his movements, not Mary's. This is deliberate; the camera is shaking slightly when it moves to the side, it's actually a person filming the entire scene. And that person's focus lies on Sherlock. I doubt it's coincidence. Magnussen expected Sherlock (the messages!) and the camera man focuses on him. To me, that's enough to conclude that his interest lies with Sherlock. No. Magnussen wanted Sherlock there, and he wanted to see him "perform." Otherwise he'd not have timed things just that nicely. And wouldn't have bothered with the "quite the Guy" comment. I don't know what this will lead up to, but the Bonfire Incident seems like a test run. I agree. Mary is more than likely being blackmailed by Magnussen, and it seems like it has got something to do with her family, most likely with her father (for canon's sake). I already saw some signs in The Empty Hearse, and Mary's reactions in The Sign of Three confirm a lot of my suspicions. I hope it'll be a great third episode. Unlikely that the Magnussen plot will be coming to an end, I however hope Sherlock unravels Mary's "lies" and finds out her secret.

Magnussen is someone with lots of power and a public image, very likely a politician, and unlike Mycroft not "in the shadows". In The Empty Hearse, his name is mentioned on TV (scene with the Empty Hearse group, beneath the title 'Hatman alive' or something, there's a mention that Magnussen appears before parliament. I hope that helps.

Is it just me or does Cam's message sound incredibly fishy? I mean, it's almost too obvious to state it, but... poppet is an older spelling of the word "puppet". I know I see things that fit with my theory but... it fits. While it is a term of endearment, it could be interpreted that way, too. Cam's her puppeteer. And he's reminding her through his words of who's in charge and who's dancing to whose song. The mention of her family probably is essential, too. A reminder of what's at stake. I still think she's being blackmailed into keeping an eye on John. Or rather, Sherlock. I believe he's not after her, instead he's using her. It's almost too obvious (reaction to pregnancy, Guy Fawkes Incident..), and that's what's worrying me. I seriously will be disappointed if she's not at least somehow involved.

Actually, that is not completely true. Sarah was never truly the factor that rose the level of suspense; character deaths only rise suspense when they are tragic, when the protagonists' flaws lead to it. Sherlock arriving late certainly doesn't qualify, nor does John watching her. The level of suspense was created by making John watch Sarah. It's his suffering that leads to true tension. This, by the way, is standard, too. Standard doesn't mean bad, it's merely the construct that writers built their works upon. It's not avoiding "clichés" that make things interesting, it's how you play with them. The Empty Hearse could have been done better, certainly. But as long as I don't put out an alternative version, I do not feel in any way capable to give constructive criticism. The construction of the episode is not flawed, at least. And personally, I expected more of the content, too. But I am not in any position to claim that my head canon is better than Gatiss' head canon. I agree with T.o.b.y. - the quality of writing hasn't taken a dive, it's just the style that has changed.

Well, ambivalent feelings about this episode. There were lots of good parts, interesting parts, well, but in the end it was kind of sad. Funny how lots of anti-Mary fans proclaimed that she would "get between" John and Sherlock. In the end, the writers seem to agree on that. Sherlock's on his own again, and while people care (Molly looking at him, etc.) nobody reaches out to stop him from leaving. It makes for an interesting "stop" before the season's finale. Even Mycroft, who is often used as a sort of voice by Gatiss to lead through the seasons, comments upon that. There's a storm coming, to misquote Sherlock Holmes. And I am actually looking forward to it. I haven't had a second look at the episode yet but I will.

You're a bit aggressive, aren't you, RedCap? The episode must have truly hit you hard. Would you truly say that there would have been more suspense if they hadn't revealed at the end of series two that Sherlock survived? I think that rather unlikely, especially with the commission of a third season. It would have been quite boring to air a series named "Sherlock" which was about how Scotland Yard and John solve crimes with the guy the series is named after six feet under. There never was any doubt that Sherlock survived the fall. Not to me, at least. It's a stupid way to kill of a character - any writer who wants to sink the "message in" makes sure that there's no doubt at all. Otherwise the audience/reader will not accept the death and the effect you want to achieve doesn't take hold. In a way, every TV show has got a foregone conclusion. Unless it is the very last episode of the very last season, there is a high chance the protagonist will survive whatever's thrown at him... The episode focuses on reintroducing Sherlock; the bomb incident is used as a way to "lock in" both main characters (for catharsis) while the Guy Fawkes Incident allows for a "faster" pacing. This is standard, it is by no means bad writing. The content might not agree with everybody, but I wouldn't dare call this bad writing. These are well-known mechanisms of writing, and Aristotle would "agree" with you - resolving a conflict in less than 24 hours makes for amazing drama in basic drama theory. It might not be good in real life, but as long as you draw out the right scenes and make room for introspection, you can resolve major issues in writing (screen writing included) even in less time. Utterly depends on discourse. Or you can do so in four days. Think of "on the run" movies - they often are resolved in 24 hours, too. The suspense makes for density which results in fast pacing. There you need to slow down by putting in dialogues. The Empty Hearse functions the other way around; it needs action to allow for a faster pacing. ... God, sorry for throwing so much "philosophy of writing" at you. Didn't mean to. I just had this itch in my fingers because you mentioned "bad writing" three times. I can't argue with you on "bad charaterization" because that's subjective. However, "bad writing" is more than harsh.

Honestly, I think everybody needs to create their own head canon - and while I agree with some of your points, I search for explanations, and try to reason everything. I don't consider neither the reunion plot nor the fall plot as unsatisfactory. I've already accomodated most of the facts or leads we've been given in The Empty Hearse. Sherlock didn't know he could stop the bomb. I truly think he was worried and shaken; tense, to say the least. He wanted John out of there. When he switched the bomb off, that tension resulted in giddiness. It's basic human emotion due to the release of adrenaline and the time needed to "come down." Besides, Sherlock always overdid it. To me, his reaction is entirely in character. I expected that (while my inner fan screamed 'let it be true, just for the sake of the fics'). I agree, hoever. The Anderson scene with the "Fall solution" was used to alleviate the accumulated tension. This scene doesn't work unless there's a cut. Seriously, I don't think John has such a hard time forgiving Sherlock for this. He already suspected it, and then he panicked, and in the end, this "joke" only proves that he still has got the same man in front of him that once tricked him in Baskerville. I actually think this scene is reassuring for John. He still has a grasp of who stands in front of him, he still "knows" Sherlock. John is angry as hell, and nobody would blame him for it. But in the end, this is whom he missed. It's catharsis. My head canon. Maybe that gives you a possibilty to come to terms with The Empty Hearse. But I suppose everybody has to find their own answers.

Just reviewed the particular scene; and thanks for pointing that out. Seems to me like John's sniper was threatened by one of Mycroft's agents; I suppose his loyality to Moriarty lost against the prospect of living to see the next day. He was held at gunpoint himself. Or in Sherlock's words, "he was invited to reconsider". That actually renders my previous point rather moot; the sniper would shoot anyway... more than likely because he saw Sherlock faking it.

My main problem with Sherlock's version is the following: In "The Reichenbach Fall", John's sniper packs away his weapon after Sherlock jumped. He still aims at John who is watching how the body is taken away. If I were to go with Sherlock's theory, Mycroft didn't strike the deal until Sherlock jumped. Why was there any need for a deal after the jump? Before, yes. After? Maybe the sniper observed something that proved the fake death. Wouldn't he have shot then? As soon as he saw it? There was no obstacle in his way. A bit paradox, imo. That's why I buy everything but the sniper solution. I think they planned to fake Sherlock's death but not in quite the dramatic way they had to. Moriarty forced their hand to a certain degree. I hope there will be some more discussion of that in the following episodes, as well as an answer to the "why."

I still don't truly buy the story Sherlock told Anderson. Some facts, at least. Like the fact that they anticipated the snipers. But for the sake of it, let's assume it's all true. I suppose Sherlock had to die so that everybody was safe, either way. Let's not forget that a lot of people believed him to know the mysterious "code" that Moriarty invented. Even if the media was to set things straight, there would be some who would try their luck. It's a possible threat, and I think it could have been a motivator to fake his death anyway. Another option would be that they couldn't be sure that Moriarty had no safeguards. Some people who would take over, who would upon Moriarty's death and Sherlock's survival receive orders to take the original snipers' places. In any case, there was merit in dismantling Moriarty's network. For both, Mycroft and Sherlock, even if their motivations were different.

Actually, that part bothered me, too. And made me, against my will, interested in Mary. It also made me review all scenes that include her. There's something going on there beneath the surface. That's why I think Magnussen's interested in Sherlock. Which makes the entire incident rather suspicious. Again; why contact Mary? The first message does not tell her to show her phone to Sherlock. There's no mention of him. She could easily have dismissed the message. Magnussen must have made sure that she understood the code. Or that she knew to show it to Sherlock. Mary doesn't have a very active role, and yet she appears to be heavily involved in the Guy Fawkes Incident which overall doesn't make sense without theorizing a lot while knowing next to nothing. It begins with John's abduction - why in front of Baker Street? This is far from practical, especially in daylight, besides: an abduction in the open. If John was followed, there must have been at least one alley, one place that would invite less witnesses (which could interfere!). No. Baker Street is symbolic. Not practical. Which makes this even more mysterious. How would Magnussen know that John was to visit Baker Street on that day? I doubt the bonfire was chosen on a whim. It requires at least some preparation - you have to smuggle the body in there. The bonfire is rather far from the place of abduction, Baker Street. 20 minutes by car, according to Sherlock. No. Magnussen must have thought of it before the actual abduction. The question is: How would he know that there was a high chance John would visit Baker Street before the actual Bonfire, and on that exact day? I don't doubt they would have taken John elsewhere if he hadn't gone to Baker Street. But it probably was rather convenient for Magnussen that he did. Symbolism and all that. That's why I think Mary is a key player. And there's more to her than what we got in "The Empty Hearse". She has got a secret. And she's a liar. Yep, so that's a lot deduced from nothing Looking forward to other ideas.

To me, it looked more like Anderson suffered a breakdown. We know that his obsession with Sherlock's death has been severe enough to cost him highly. Those theories and that group of his must have become an integral part of his life. Sherlock's resurrection more than likely causes a big gap in his daily activities. Anderson must reorientate himself. And Sherlock playing mindgames with him probably didn't help. I feel somewhat bad for Anderson, but on the other side, Sherlock was downright considerate. Anderson was rather vulnerable; he set all his odds on Sherlock. Sherlock could have truly hurt him with nothing but a well-placed insult. Definitely some things I liked, and some I didn't. The Holmes brothers interaction was brilliant. Loved every second of it. The fan service especially caught my eye - "I believe in Sherlock Holmes" by Anderson, then the different theories that were more or less spread all over the internet, Mrs Hudson's question, the scene where Sherlock was captured and tortured, the appearance of "Mommy Holmes". Yep, definitely liked those. Reminded me of the last year, all that waiting, reading about theories, and all those fanworks...

That'd be great, wouldn't it? Loved that scene when Sherlock virtually slammed the door in Anderson's face. It was just hilariously rude, and just... Sherlock. And thx, Carol.

I actually didn't know about theimprobableone before stumbling across this thread. But interesting. I don't think it's something that will make it into the series, but maybe it's part of the "background". His (gender more or less confirmed by John's use of pronouns) posts are rather offensive towards John, yet he seems Sherlock-phile and almost playful when "talking" to Sherlock ( Sherlock: It wasn*t real. theimprobableone: ah but what is real). His attitude towards John indicates a jealous streak. I rule out Mycroft by default - even to disguise his identity, he'd never give up on capitalization. The thought of it... boggles my mind. Frankland, dead. Moriarty, well, even before the posts after his death appeared, he never showed this particular kind of jealousy towards John. It's more like he ignored him by default, John was "beneath" him. theimprobableone, though, feels the need to reprimand John (e.g. "you shouldn't talk to sherlock holmes like that. he is a thousand times the man you will ever be"). Sherlock ignored theimprobableone. John, however, shows general confusion. He is not familiar with the guy, not until Sherlock brings him onto a case. If theimprobableone is supposed to represent a character from the original books, he must be familiar with Sherlock, and he can't be one of Watson's associates. The friendly, almost admiring attitude suggests former client or friend. I haven't read all stories, but there's just one person that fits that description, and who might actually feel jealous of John. Victor Trevor. Personally, I think theimprobableone is not supposed to be someone specific. Ella's interest in him and the sudden doubt of Sherlock's "integrity" indicate that he's just a troll and not somebody from Sherlock's past. If it were Trevor, why would he doubt his old friend? If one wanted to truly put Trevor into that role, it's possible to argue that his admission that he doesn't know what to believe is meant to be understood in a different way. It could be a reference to the reason why Sherlock jumped. As stated, I see it as a possibility, but with a very slim chance. Just some guy is more likely. Other characters from the original books fit in even less than Trevor. At least the characters I know. Haven't read all short stories, I have to admit. Long post... well, thoughts just seem to run wild these days. The wait is taking its toll

Sounded more like he wouldn't keep quiet and complained about the official police statement that Sherlock was the "bad guy". If he stood up for a more thorough investigation, he probably became an eyesore for his superiors. Lestrade's passive approach (keeping a low profile) and the fact that he still seems to be working for the police suggests that all of them were allowed to stay, more than likely not in their original position, however. Anderson must have done something differently, then, for it to result in a notice. So, I suggest he voiced his doubts. Probably repeatedly enough to be considered instable or a danger to the police image. I'd love for him to hug Sherlock. Tha'd be hilarious.