Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Some people are expecting Andrew Scott to be playing Jim's evil twin. 

 

Professor Moriarty did have a brother, Colonel Moriarty, in the Conan Doyle stories.  So who knows?

 

[Sherlock_luvr]

I responded in red since I couldn't figure out the multi-quote thing.

 

 

Long-time lurker, first post.

 

Janine:  Sherlock couldn't possible have become intimate with her without being unfaithful to Irene who would have surely beat the crap out of him.  Maybe if Janine had a pair of handcuffs and a riding crop . . .

 

 

I could imagine the two women in one room staring each other down with Sherlock in the middle not understanding one bit of it...

 

 

 

Mary and the baby:  Mary must die.  That's canon.  The whole idea of the baby, though, is not canon so what happens to her (it's a girl?) is wide open.  Although I agree we cannot have an infant being raised at 221b (where Mrs. Hudson would be the one actually raising her .. "I'm not your babysitter!"), killing her off is not necessary.  Perhaps John's sister, Harry, can raise her with John's feelings toward her somewhat ambivalent.  That would leave possible some really interesting scenes, both humorous and emotional, between her and "the boys" without her existence actually getting in the way of their crime solving.

 

 

I want them both to be gone. I don't care how the writers do it.

 

Moriarity:  He was killed in canon and never came back and the writers have insisted that he is  dead in interviews.  So, I believe that.  However, if I remember right, there was a brother with the same name who showed up to take revenge for Jim's death.  The brother was also named James, one of many inconsistencies in ACD's works.  The writers have attempted to address other inconsistencies, such as John's name and the location of his injuries.  I hope they are using this opportunity to address that inconsistency by using Jim's brother (twin as someone has already suggested) rather than bring another person back from the dead.  That way we can have the same actor back without suffering an unbelievable resurrection.

 

 

I think it's a twin brother. I would really hate for Moriarty to have  'faked' his death. Invalidates the importance and shock value of the episode.

 

 

Having said all that, I must confess that I live in the US and have not seen any of the episodes.  The first one will air Sunday ... two more days.  Being weak-willed, I have thoroughly spoiled myself by reading everything I can find.  I am looking forward to being able to watch the actual episodes!  Thank you for all of your entertaining comments.

 

 

I've already seen them but I watched the live air here in the US as well. A great little special at the end of it.

 

[Philiophobic Genius]

That would be very interesting, however, I do remember reading somewhere that Sherlock had a third brother, I wonder if the makers would do something about this information. Christmas seems so far away, I hope they don't delay the Fourth season.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 Near the end of "His Last Vow" after Sherlock is forced to shoot Magnussen, Mycroft is standing at a window talking to another peer of the realm. He says something about " And you know what happened to the other one."  Perhaps referring to another Holmes sibling.

 

 But don't forget, there were three Moriarty brothers as well. So I am taking Gatiss at his word that Jim "from IT" Moriarty is dead and this is one of his brothers out for revenge.

[aely]

With regards to AA's portrayal of Mary, she didn't know about the turn her character was going to take in the last episode (she was interviewed somewhere) so anything in the first 2 eps that can be interpreted from her performance as relating to Mary-as-assasin is co-incidental. There was a gap between filming 2 and 3 after all.

[Karie]

 

INFORMATION IS POWER

 

BTW - I'm certain this has probably been noted elsewhere by someone, but this is the first opportunity I've had to post a picture of something I noticed when first viewing the episode.  Nothing like a "subtle" theme, eh? 

 

hammering the point.jpg

Subliminal indeed.

 

 

 

Ooh, neat how they created that message by having the top poster start to peel off a bit, revealing one word on an older layer underneath.  I should know this (I mean, how often do we see John with a car?), but what scene is that from?

 

 

When John and Mary drive up to the crack den, and John goes and gets the tire lever out of the trunk. 

[Mr. Holmes]

Bringing in a brother of Moriarty would be fine, but having Andrew Scott return to play his twin would be ridiculous.  I hope Moftiss are smarter than that.  

[T.o.b.y]

Bringing in a brother of Moriarty would be fine, but having Andrew Scott return to play his twin would be ridiculous.  I hope Moftiss are smarter than that.  

 

Me too. I kind of like Moriarty as a voice inside Sherlock's head, though. I think if they want him to be part of the series again, they should just show us more of what goes on inside the Mind Palace. That would allow for all sorts of crazy ideas and impossible reappearances. And I wouldn't mind seeing more of Irene in that context either.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I am sure Gatiss will keep his word that Jim "From IT" Moriarty is happily deceased. He has repeated it often and emphatically enough.  What I want to see is the explanation of why Mummy Holmes has been cast with shades of Professor Moriarty.

[Mr. Holmes]

 

Bringing in a brother of Moriarty would be fine, but having Andrew Scott return to play his twin would be ridiculous.  I hope Moftiss are smarter than that.  

 

Me too. I kind of like Moriarty as a voice inside Sherlock's head, though. I think if they want him to be part of the series again, they should just show us more of what goes on inside the Mind Palace. That would allow for all sorts of crazy ideas and impossible reappearances. And I wouldn't mind seeing more of Irene in that context either.

 

 

Definitely.  I loved how Andrew Scott was used in this Series.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

Bringing in a brother of Moriarty would be fine, but having Andrew Scott return to play his twin would be ridiculous.  I hope Moftiss are smarter than that.

 

We can hope, but I wouldn't put much money on it.

 

Scott was enormously popular in the role, and not just with the fans, he won a BAFTA for it -- so it's obvious why they would want to bring him back in some form.  Maybe they can trick him up to look believably like a non-identical brother.  Or maybe the GIF we saw was merely an old recording put up by someone in Moriarty's network who somehow escaped Sherlock's notice.  Hopefully they will at least be creative, rather than pulling another rabbit out of the fake-death hat.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I just hoping Mummy doesn't turn out to be a "Mommy Dearest".

[Carol the Dabbler]

What I want to see is the explanation of why Mummy Holmes has been cast with shades of Professor Moriarty.

 

Definitely!  (I'm sure we will see that.)  And I'm wondering whether Mycroft's comment ...

 

I am not given to outbursts of brotherly compassion. You know what happened to the other one.

 

... might have anything to do with the Moriarty family.  (Thanks to Ariane DeVere for the exact quote.)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm really hoping they expand on those little tidbits. Can't wait for Season Four already!

[humble biostatistician]

In series 3, Moffat has stepped further and further from Conan Doyle's stories, Sherlock Holmes and his interactions with Watson felt like Sherlock Holmes was turning into Dr. Who. (When Mycroft showed up at the beginning of the empty hearse to rescue Holmes I almost expected to him to say "hello sweetie" ala River song). As others have mentioned, the series seems be moving away from well plotted stories that make sense (and don't rely on explanations like its a timely - whimey thing or that "I am the memory drive"). I fear that 221b Baker Street has become a static TARDIS where the it's smaller on the inside.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

While I agree, whole heartedly that your opinions are valid and important, I have to disagree that Moffat and Gatiss is straying to far afield from canon. Though, of course, they are going to have to take liberties, this is not Victorian London of the mid-1890's.

 

 Yes, we do see John meeting his Mary Morstan not before the "Great Hiatus" but during and not marrying until after Sherlock's return. But all in all, that's acceptable. In canon, Mary and John was married for some three or more years before their separation by either death or by divorce. Scholars disagree on this point so I won't belabor the point., so we get a glimpse of what it might have looked like if Sherlock Holmes had been around for this particular event. In the original, Sherlock Holmes does go for "the needle" on hearing that Dr, Watson has become engaged at the end of "The Sign of Four."

 

 And Moffat and Gatiss iterated at the end of "The Empty Hearse" that they do nothing unless they consult the works of the "great man" meaning Sir Arthur's canon. Even in this new season it's great fun to pick out the canonical references, comparing with the modern interpretation to the original works.

[T.o.b.y]

Even in this new season it's great fun to pick out the canonical references, comparing with the modern interpretation to the original works.

 

I agree with you there, Fox. I think that as a very clever modern "transformation" of the Doyle stories, "Sherlock" is actually getting better and better. His Last Vow, for example, I felt was very close to the spirit of "Charles Augustus Milverton" (and if I want true to the letter, I have a Complete Sherlock Holmes lying around the house...)

 

A lot of the original cases are not terribly clever, in my humble opinion. "Charles Augustus Milverton" didn't even have any real detective work in it at all and so did a lot of the younger stories. Doyle wrote the Holmes stories over a very long period of time, more than ten years. They are very different and there is, I think, a shift in tone and focus after Holmes' return from the dead, just like we noticed here with series 3.

 

[Yoshi]

 I fear that 221b Baker Street has become a static TARDIS where the it's smaller on the inside.

I totally agree!

 

About Moriarty - I hate how they are not even trying to blur the fact they ran out of ideas. "what is going to be popular? oh, right. ok, lets do that." what's next? kidnap Sherlock and Mycroft parents, to squeeze our tears and raise the views some more? lets make it into a forum game, speculate stupid plot twists.

[Carol the Dabbler]

In series 3, Moffat has stepped further and further from Conan Doyle's stories, Sherlock Holmes and his interactions with Watson felt like Sherlock Holmes was turning into Dr. Who. (When Mycroft showed up at the beginning of the empty hearse to rescue Holmes I almost expected to him to say "hello sweetie" ala River song). As others have mentioned, the series seems be moving away from well plotted stories that make sense (and don't rely on explanations like its a timely - whimey thing or that "I am the memory drive"). I fear that 221b Baker Street has become a static TARDIS where the it's smaller on the inside.

 

Hello, humble biostatistician -- welcome to Sherlock Forum! 

 

I agree that in this third series, several of the explanations fall short of credibility -- but that is really nothing new (I assume you've seen "The Blind Banker").  And frankly, some of Conan Doyle's explanations don't hold together all that well, either.

 

To me, the major difference is the look and feel -- it seems to me that the scenes are shorter and the music is more noticeable, among other things.  I still haven't rated these three episodes, for the simple reason that I don't feel I've fully grasped them yet.  However, after watching each episode several times, I'm becoming more comfortable with the new style.

 

I'd be interested to hear some of your specific reactions to this series.  Maybe that'll help me get a handle on my own opinions.

[Slithytove]

In my opinion, the major shift in series 3 is the change from John's POV to Sherlock's. In 1 & 2, we saw Sherlock as a superhero/social outsider/genius/machine, through the eyes of John the doctor/veteran/friend/all-round decent bloke. In 3, we have Sherlock trying to navigate his way through a maze of emotions such as loneliness, love, loyalty, rejection and forgiveness. I think this is why some people have accused these episodes of being fluffy or attempting to " humanise" Sherlock. But he always was human - we just didn't see him through his own eyes.

 

Of course, the shift from John to Sherlock means that John becomes the more mysterious one. Whereas he seemed a fairly open book in 1& 2, now we have less understanding of his behaviour and we do not know the reasons for some very important decisions which he makes. Either this is a major plot hole - which I have ranted about at length - or the writers have something up their sleeves for series 4. I wouldn't rule it out.

 

I think that this shift to Sherlock's perspective has been unpopular with those who don't want to know "what goes on inside that funny old head" ( as Mrs Hudson aptly put it), except to know how he solves crimes. This is perfectly understandable - some viewers will be watching because they are primarily interested in puzzle- solving rather than character development. I fall into the opposite group - I am intrigued by the shifting relationships, the way the characters change and interact, with good dose of detecting thrown in as well. I'm happy with the writers' comment that Sherlock "is a show about a detective, not a detective show.". However, I can see why the current direction isn't popular with everyone.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I agree, but I do love this new perspective. Watson hinted about "Holmes's great heart" in canon but as you noted above, we seldom, if ever got to see Holmes' side of the story. I think that any one who is interested not in just reading the canon, but try to delve deeply into the annotated works is going to be more then happy and eager to board this roller coaster and are prepared to enjoy the ride.

[T.o.b.y]

In my opinion, the major shift in series 3 is the change from John's POV to Sherlock's.

 

Yes, I think that's pretty much it. It took me a while to get used to, but because I, like you, am most interested in Sherlock the person, I have come to appreciate the change very much. He is, by now, one of the most complex, most believable fictional people I have ever come across - and that in spite of his total impossibility in "real life". This is what I love fiction for, that it has the power to take what can not be and make it happen anyway.

 

[Zain]

Totally agree with that.

The shift in POV is intriguing and brings Sherlock even closer to the audience. It was a bit strange at first, and I suppose that contributed to the way people reacted to TEH, but I really like the new direction. I hope they'll keep that (though I want them to give a plausible reason for some of John's decisions.. they can change POV for that all they like).

[Carol the Dabbler]

Now that y'all mention it, I think you're right, the new episodes have shifted more to Sherlock's PoV.

 

This is of course an interesting departure from canon, which is presented almost exclusively from Watson's PoV.  I'm wondering why they started the show more from John's angle, and have come up with two possible reasons:

 

1.  It was canon and therefore what people expected, perhaps including Moftiss.

 

2.  It would have been difficult to present the early stories from Sherlock's PoV because A] he was such an inaccessible person, and perhaps more importantly B] it would have spoiled some surprises.  But now that Sherlock is becoming more "human," it's a convenient way to explore his character in more depth.

 

With #2 in mind, I would expect to see a return to John's PoV in any future episodes that are more traditionally casework-oriented.

 

[omegaxx]

New to the forum here, but excited to dive into the discussion.

 

I feel very much betrayed by this season. Yes, I appreciate the shift in point of view, and I absolutely adore the human Sherlock, whose humanization the prior two seasons portrayed beautifully. However... what keeps Sherlock Holmes Sherlock Holmes if he loses his mental prowess that keeps us so fascinated (there wasn't a single good deduction in the whole season)?

 

I wouldn't even mind that as much if John's character was preserved. Alas-- The real John would never let his wife get away with shooting an innocent person in the chest, much less his best friend, without at least attempting to find out why. The real John would never just let Sherlock sacrifice his own life (essentially) for his wife's. Seriously, if they had even just changed the ending slightly, having John wrestle Sherlock for the trigger when the latter pulled out the gun to point at Magnussen, that would have been so much more like the badass Dr. Watson that we know from "A Study in Pink".