Zain

You see it as a premediated murder then? I do not think it was meant as such. To me, it seems more like a convenient interlude to forego claims like "The gun appeared out of nowhere" or the "Oh, what a coincidence, you brought that item with you" theme. I remember a rather bad case in a series I once watched when the female companion remembered from one screen up to another that she had brought a portrait from the cellar. She suddenly pulled it from behind her back and showed it to the other characters...

They really need to make a story which is partly about him, imo. I'd love the special to be a flashback. Wouldn't it be amazing if we got to see how Sherlock succeeded in getting Lestrade to listen to him?

Yes, that's something that has always been a bit peculiar to me. When you consider Moffat's glee in having Sherlock react like that, you get the complete opposite with Cumberbatch's interpretation. To him, Sherlock's reaction means Sherlock lost. I feel more at ease with that reading.

I didn't have a concrete example in mind. But for the sake of explaining my train of thought: Mary had the thumbdrive. There is information on her misdeeds on it, and probably links to her clients. Magnussen told us that she worked for the CIA before going freelance. Sherlock states in ASiP that Mycroft occasionally works for CIA, too. Most likely not as an agent, but as a consultant of some sorts. Mary could have bought her freedom to move within the UK by keeping the CIA in a stalemate. While it might not be enough information to buy herself protection from the retribution from her freelance crimes, it may be enough to blackmail Mycroft into not revealing her identity or having her persecuted. Just an example. I do not have a fixed idea in mind. There are some elements that make different theories plausible. I hope that clears it up. That idea has been proposed before, and quite early on, I believe. I still consider it a viable option to explain some of the inconsistencies in HLV. For example, maybe Mycroft did not make a move, because he wanted to track her associates (knowing that Moriarty's network wasn't done for). It also makes for much better drama, because John would have been at the other end of her gun as well. When it comes to Moriarty and Irene, he has always been more sensitive. Funny, I think we do not yet know Mycroft's highest priority. But I am looking forward to Moftiss' attempt to pit his priorities against each other and making him choose. To me, it seems that s3 is building up to this, at least when one considers how they depicted Mycroft this season in comparison to the two before. But I've expressed that belief before. And concerning the other one: Mycroft's words are very omnious, indeed. But at the same time, there's a lack of details. We do not even know what happened. For all we know Mycroft threw his other sibling to the wolves. Or they were working on a mission and he wasn't willing to sacrifice other men to extract that sibling from a dangerous situation. Or that sibling committed a crime and Mycroft didn't use his position to get him off the charges. For all we know Jim could be the third sibling, and he was simply referring to Jim's insanity and death... That's what I mean. They are certainly building up to some sort of "small character revelation" about Mycroft. Be it in his favour or against his favour. But I consider it too early to judge him. Personally, I'd rather have him as the devoted brother, because if he doesn't care about Sherlock that much, I have trouble placing him in this universe. Unless he's strongly invested in Sherlock's well-being and continues to be so, he becomes rather superfluous. What's the point to Mycroft then? Unless they want to present him as an antagonist. Which would make me doubt the story's coherence.

If he did, and if that's their explanation, I'll be majorly disappointed. Mycroft is the one character from which I EXPECT to NOT care what Sherlock wants, but only about what Sherlock profits from. And that's Mary's removal. Though I expected John to care about Sherlock's health, but I was wrong there, too. And I seriously doubt Mycroft has got any compassion for Mary. Whether she was frightened or selfish. Or both. If he knew and didn't hunt her down after she shot Sherlock, he better has got a good reason. Like expecting her to kill Sherlock because she blackmailed him. Which I do not expect... but the entire thing irks me. Pardon me? I am sorry, you somehow lost me there. But English is not my native language. It sounds like you have got a specific theory for s4. Could you elaborate?

But if he knows about Mary, then why would he not "remove" her once he established that she posed a danger to Sherlock? That is what's bothering me. I am not comfortable with this situation at all. Nothing seems to add up in a way that says "yes, it looks plausible." For instance: Assuming that Mycroft is unaware of Mary's past (And I think you made a good point, BlackButterfly. Mycroft is not concerned with morals or other people's fates. Just his brother's.): It means he did not keep much of an eye on John. However, he knew that Sherlock would return to John, and we know that he had enough information on John to warrant a file. He can't have overlooked Mary just because he wasn't particularly interested in John. Indeed, he was. Or at least moderately interested. He knew about her existence, and he knew John was a possible danger to Sherlock, why would he then not check any contacts of his for possible threats to Sherlock? That seems very stupid to me. If somebody wanted to get close to Sherlock, then that person would go through John. And, to be fair, John is not particularly wary of women. If I wanted to plant a spy, I'd try to "get" him a "friendly" girlfriend, too... If I was Mycroft, I'd be very suspicious of Mary from the beginning. It doesn't make sense for him not to know about Mary. Assuming that Mycroft is aware of Mary's past: Why would he allow her to remain close to Sherlock? There are unspecified dangerous people after her. It cannot have been in his interest to lure those to his brother. The only plausible reason I see is that he wants something from Mary. Information on her former clients (possibly of Eastern origin, when one considers the Cyrillic files and Mycroft's interest in Poland)? Thus he allowed her to become confident, to establish her position next to Sherlock. However, I cannot believe he'd continue to use Sherlock in such a way after Sherlock was shot and almost killed. I simply cannot. And if he did not make the connection between Mary (assuming he knew about her) and the shooting (followed by Sherlock steadily refusing to name the culprit, though he was shot from up front), then I despair... And there's no apparent logic in Mycroft's behaviour that explains how he could know about Mary and yet allow her to endanger his brother. Either he made one mistake after another when it comes to security checks (in his position!?), or he is simply uncaring. And I refuse to believe either of those two solutions. There must be a third. Something we all overlooked...

If Mycroft had planted Mary there, I'd be surprised and majorly disappointed by him. To me, he's this older brother that cares very deeply, but that meddles and belittles his brother too often to endear himself to Sherlock. But if he was alright with Mary shooting Sherlock.... that's sick. Anyway, I do not believe it's likely Mary was planted by him. If she was working for him, there'd be no reason to assume she'd get into legal trouble if Magnussen revealed her past. The government would be rather keen to get her out of trouble and not into the public spotlight where she could reveal information about the dirty work she was hired to do. Essentially, the government would have more to lose than Mary if she had been working for the government. I am actually more comfortable with Mycroft completely overlooking Mary than with him involved in that mess.

And don't forget the non-existing glass from which he drank

Interesting take on SiB. So far, I thought (arguing from a text-oriented approach) that Mycroft meant that he drove Sherlock into her path, because it was him who first ordered Sherlock to get into contact with Irene. Otherwise Sherlock would have been blissfully ignorant of her existence (well, from his perspective, he wasn't aware of the fact that she was working with Moriarty until Irene told him about their alliance). From that perspective, Mycroft's insistence that Sherlock leave Magnussen be would not be a mirrored incident. However, your logic is sound, I think it's a fine interpretation. Thanks for sharing it I think theories like these enrich the entire experience. The next time I'll re-watch SIB or HLV, I'll be contemplating that theory.

Damn, I missed it... I am SO looking forward to this, especially because I wonder how they tackled the theory behind the Turing bomb. But I suppose I'll have to wait until it hits the cinemas here...

That'd would have been hilariously funny. Just imagine how Magnussen lies on the ground - without glasses, they broke - and splutters, because he didn't see that coming. Then there's John whose entire world has been upturned: Sherlock just resorted to violence like a school boy on the playground who has been outwitted in a verbal fight with another child. Then Sherlock who is all puffed up and sulking, while simultaneously being all too pleased with himself. And Mycroft just slaps his hand against the face: "Sherlock, what have you done... That is going to upset mommy. Again." Just imagining the aftermath... I think that could have been brilliant. I definitely would have enjoyed the comedy that has got to result out of that development. No matter which direction they would have taken afterwards.

Would you then, if you argue that Sherlock gave Magnussen to Mycroft as a Christmas present, also argue that Sherlock knows Mycroft is not truly in league with Magnussen? Sure, Magnussen stated before that Mycroft wasn't terribly pleased with him, but apart from that, the episode seems to put emphasis on how Mycroft does not really mind Magnussen. Personally, I do think Mycroft and Sherlock were working together to some degree, but there's no evidence, thus I am neglecting that theory. If you do not think Mycroft entrusted Sherlock with the knowledge that he would like Magnussen to be removed while they were having a discussion off-screen, do you think he kills Magnussen out of spite and he is handing Mycroft that present, which he knows is not what Mycroft truly wants? That seems to me even darker a reading than the fact that he considered a life expendable like this.

Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I consider the solution of HLV rather mainstream. If I want to watch a series where it's about action and solving problems with guns, then I'd go for one of those acronym detective investigation series. They are mostly interchangeable... I fell in love with Sherlock, because it was different from all those. I quite like riddles and complications, and I am not opposed to drama at all. But just like with the doctor genre a few years back, investigation series are sort of in a stalemate. It seems that the only way people can make the new ones interesting to the audience is to make them even bloodier, even more violent instead of making a brilliant script. But that's just my impression. I probably should add that this is in no way meant to look down on import movies and series. We basically import everything, because our own programmes are not good, unless it's documentary, news or political discussions. Ed: Sorry, somehow the system threw out the content of the quote between posting and publishing. I cannot restore it, thus I decided the content was more important than the citing Something that would not be acceptable in academic environment lol Yes, there was a lot of fanservice, wasn't there? I actually liked the references in TEH, especially because it was directed at the "longterm" fans, the ones that gather in forums like us. Maybe it was a bit much overall, but I can't get my heart into complaining about it. And, oh my, Sherlollypops? I know the term Sherlolly, but I have never heard that expression. Gosh, that sounds horrible You made my day, I can't stop grinning, because I can't stop imagining someone introducing themselves as a Sherlollypop to Cumberbatch. Concerning the in-fandom fights... well, they are rather benign in nature, compared to other fandoms. At least, I haven't encountered severe bashing in a lot of places yet. Yes, I loved that unique approach. Sure, season 1 had its flaws, just like any other series. And it was rather small-budgeted. But there was something very refreshing about it. You could feel how the writers spread their wings and dared to write something different.

Oh, believe me, it happens Especially when it's about a topic you love. I quite like your reading. I really do.

But if Mycroft truly was behind that GIF, we'd have to seriously consider what this implies. It's quite a selfless action from his position, and potentially self-damaging. So far, he might have gone out of his way to get Sherlock out of trouble, but it never meant for him to lean out of the window. An action of this magnitude almost seems like a huge character development. Too huge for my taste. I'd rather speculate about how much he cares for Sherlock than to be told straight to my face that he values Sherlock more than his own career. On the other hand, it severely implies that his ability of making decisions is limited, otherwise he would not have had to use such methods to circumvent the decision makers. Mycroft's only role so far has been to be the omnipotent tool, the last resort. While I consider it much more realistic to see him as one of the upper links in the chain, I cannot think of a reason why they would voluntarily limit his power as the dubiously cooperative deus ex machina character. Unless it will become important to a case. It certainly is possible he's behind it. But I am less interested in who's behind the GIF, and more interested in their motivation. it's either foe, ally, or third-party. The motivation seems to me to be potentially more obscure. But that's me, I need some more logic in season 4, 3 was a bit sparse on this, a bit too mainstream for my taste. Though I suppose my taste is somewhat strange I once spent three months watching live streams of a board game, and one game roughly takes 60-70 minutes (about 200 moves), and I thought that was rather exciting, because I loved guessing the next moves...

Mh, I doubt Sherlock would worry about that. It's not like he himself was bothered by it. Nor did he seem to care what others made of this. But I suppose that's a question the Sherlock/Molly fanbase will use as a stepping stone for the upcoming works. I don't quite see why it's anyone's but Sherlock's business, but alas, I am not much of a shipper anyway. Can't quite see the appeal of this fanfiction writer-baiting scene. But I wonder if she'll be more suspicious of him in the next season, after all, he tested positive for drugs. And, for example, did Lestrade find out about Sherlock's trip to the drug den? That might lead to complications, even if he had a more or (definitely) less good reason for shooting up.

It should serve the purpose of not having to invent ways to kill off a baby. I do not want it in the show, and I do not want it to die. I'd be alright with it if Mary decided to bugger off with the baby before the birth, too. Well, I sincerely fear they wrote a baby into it to make it more realistic for John to take Mary back. That way, the people who are not okay with that can at least see a reason for him to do so. "For the sake of the kid(s)" and all that rot. Which is a bit problematic in my opinion, too. If a parent is harmful to the child, it's better to raise the child on their own. But that's very subjective. I am actually not amazed with John's parental skills. For all he knows, she could have murdered children in the past. Smothered them in their sleep. Shot them down while they were playing on the street. I should stop now. I am getting angry about this again... I just dislike it when writers consider you incapable of rational thought and believe whole-heartedly that you will buy the stories they tell you. I literally can't get past the "She saved me" line without pausing the video to compose myself... And I understand your argument, Arcadia, that it could very well be an attempt at impressionist writing. But... heck, that's what you do with minor cases, not the season finale... The entire thing frustrates me.

I'd rather there were no baby. That'd be a brilliant twist, and I at least could respect Mary for pulling that one on John... That's even more daring than marrying him.

Well, unless "they faked their deaths at each other", you'll have at least one corpse But I do not know if he wasn't removed from his grave... I still do not believe in Jim Moriarty's return. Moriarty's, yes, that seems possible. Jim? I don't know.

.... God, I should not contemplate "how to shoot someone without anybody noticing before you escape" quite as much as I did lately... By the way, copyright by me, just in case

Well, she had him on his knees, presumably to have more control of the situation. Takes more time to get up, and it secures the person. Less freedom of movement, makes it easier to shoot them (less chance of the person reeling backwards or sidewards to avoid the first bullet, which would make it "messier." I think that's why it is often chosen as the "execution position" but I may be wrong), and too, it enables her to ensure he sticks to the ground. If he were to defend himself from her, it would take him precious seconds to get into a position from which he could use his strength to act in his favor. She'd get him before he had a chance to truly put up a resistance. Then there's the phone next to him, probably because she had him put it down before having him kneel down. It's possible he lost it while struggling, but I am more inclined to see him forced to put it down. It's far enough for him not to be able to reach it without severely bending over. If Sherlock had not intervened, Mary would have kept her focus on him, and any such movement is in the category of movements which cost Magnussen the "precious seconds" from his position that a surprise attack would usually buy him. On the other hand, she didn't allow Magnussen to put it down somewhere close to the furniture, in case he would use it to his advantage. That's why the phone is still in the middle of the room. Far enough from possible weapons or objects Magnussen could use to protect himself, but not close enough for him to reach it without moving quite noticeably.. I do not think the writers thought of a particular reason why Mary brought Magnussen to that room (or why he led her there). It just makes it easier for Sherlock to encounter Mary on his own. But if I had to pick a plausible reason (and yes, I am not very concerned with finding a reason which makes Mary look innocent) then there's the fact that it is farther away from other possible inhabitants. Even a silenced gun makes a lot of noise. If she intended to kill Magnussen, then it would be detrimental to her plan if somebody called the police because they heard a gun shot. Or if somebody rushed to the apartment. We do know that John doesn't rush to Sherlock's side because he heard a noise. The gun shot apparently couldn't be heard in the floor beneath the room. That way, the distance was also great enough to prevent other people from hearing a possible gun shot.

I suppose we can all agree that the in-story causality behind the events is on shaky grounds. Unless they decide to get back to it in the fourth season, it will remain so. I do not think we will ever reach an agreement on this topic, especially because it involves moral, psychological, and juridical issues and perspectives, all of which vary from person to person, from ethnicity to ethnicity, from country to country. I suppose one good thing came out of this for me (apart from being part of a lively debate): I now have got a much better grasp of the English judical system after I read up on it to find out the "context" in which all those actions would have to be put.

To protect herself. As you said, John would never have been tried for murder/attempted murder due to a lack of evidence and the fact that the witness reports are in his favour. Even the breaking and entering case is rather shaky at best, because Janine let them in. However, John would have been severely under scrutiny. They would have had to examine closely if he wasn't related to Magnussen's death (which could have been retribution for Sherlock's death). The attention on John would have been quite problematic for Mary. The police may be slow, but they are not incapable of collecting data and profiling him, which includes a standard background check of his wife as well. If she had killed both, she would have put herself into a lot of danger. If she had gone only for Magnussen... that's suicide. Then Sherlock, and John by default, would have definitely been under even more scrutiny. At least, that's my take on it. Alas, a lot of people will disagree.

Worse in what way? Inefficient, ineffective, corrupt? Wonder how it compares with how Americans feel about the CIA and the FBI. Now I'm curious too! Well, that is basically what I'd like to know I just heard more people making scathing remarks about MI6 than MI5, and, if I am not mistaken, it is more often criticized in the media than MI5, too. English media, that is. Of course, I didn't do a study on it Just from my general expression, I've encountered more criticism on MI6 than on MI5 when I read English newspapers and blogs and so forth. But maybe it's more to do with the fact that few people like their country's foreign politics and what "one's" secret service(s) do out there....

I once heard that MI6 has got a worse reputation than MI5. Is that true? And if yes, is there a reason behind that or just... mistrust?