Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[koliko987]

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?

 

[Ally.C]

 

 

You missed my point.

 

Sherlock doesn't 'hate' Sally like he hates Magnussen, who has a very damaging followthrough.

 

 

Ah, sorry about that. I wasn't realizing you impled connection to the hate he has for CAM and his childhood.

 

If you had asked me three weeks ago about vast childhood trauma to Sherlock I would have blamed his parents and being raised in an offstandish home, but that's clearly not true now. I think there might be something in his past, but who knows at this point. Haha.

[Caya]

Hello koliko987 and welcome to the forum!

 

Well, if it's any consolation, I personally think that no one ever dies/gets killed in comics is just as dumb. If there are no consequences, there's no tension for me. If someone (hero or villain) tries, there must be the possibility of failure.

[Ally.C]

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?

 

*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.

[T.o.b.y]

Why would bringing back Moriarty be such a bad thing?

...

 

So can you explain again why it would be such a bad move to have Moriarty return?

 

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.

[mynameisSherlockHolmes22]

How Moriarty did it?

 

Most of you have probably already come up with lots of wonderful theories for how Moriarty survived, after he shot himself. My theory in particular is that he had a blood spout and then the gun he shot himself with was either not loaded or was some sort of cap gun.

 

A pretty basic theory i guess, some of you probably have similar theories anyway, but it is still a mystery as to how he did it! Hope you're all looking forward to series 4 as much as I am!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[koliko987]

 

Why would bringing back Moriarty be such a bad thing?

...

 

So can you explain again why it would be such a bad move to have Moriarty return?

 

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?

 

 

.

[koliko987]

 

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?

 

*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.

[leanne_maybe]

/>/>

 

 

You are free to interpret Sherlock's intentions as you wish - maybe it was to confirm a (thought but unspoken) deduction, maybe he wanted access to material evidence against Mary prior to the arrival of the police to arrest CAM (this is the motive to which CAM refers), or maybe other people have other interpretations. However, what you think a character's motivation might be is nothing more than your personal opinion unless it is stated in the script, which it is not.

Funny that I've pointed to the facts in the script four times now and yet you keep blithely declaring they do not exist. Sherlock's explicitly stated motivation in the script is to see the vault. So, contrary to your claim, it is far more than merely "personal opinion". Nor is it, contrary to your claim, just "personal opinion" that Sherlock recognizes in the cafe that CAM has Appledore in his mind - ie that CAM himself is the "portable Appledore". That explicit revelation is the entire point of that scripted scene. And, contrary to your claim, it is not "personal opinion" but fact that the script reveals Sherlock has the entire plan put together right after discovering the vault is mental rather than digital - right down to the day it will occur - months later on Christmas - and down to the explicit motivation for it: Sherlock's "deal with the devil" is, contrary to your claim, explicitly stated right in the script, to be the betrayal of his brother - not for Mary's files - but to see the vault.

 

Everything I've stated about Sherlock's motivation has, contrary to your claims, been in the script. In fact, the script virtually beats the viewer over the head with it - especially with Sherlock's discovery that Appledore is in CAM's mind. I'm not sure why you keep trying to claim all of this doesn't exist in the script, but if it is more "fun" for you that these scripted facts not exist, then far be it for me to stand in the way of your "enjoyment". If you truly don't want to talk about them further, then I won't discuss them with you any longer either. Seems fair enough.

 

 

Please *quote* lines/stage directions - *not* 'he looked like this which meant he was thinking this'. If you can't do that, we're going to have to agree to differ and accept that none of us know except the writers - and if you are one of the writers undercover, i'm sorry but you didn't do a good enough job of conveying what you wanted to get across!

[T.o.b.y]

 

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.

 

Oh thank you. My opinion exactly. Why couldn't I say it like that? Oh right. Because I'm an idiot. Like practically everyone.

 

[cumberholmes]

 

thank you so much. I'm happy now 

 

 

You're welcome... although I am not quite sure for what. What made you happy?

 

what you said about Janine 

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

thank you so much. I'm happy now 

 

 

You're welcome... although I am not quite sure for what. What made you happy?

 

what you said about Janine 

 

 

Oh! Janine! Well, if there is one thing I think the "Sherlock" team is really superb at, it is adaptation. All those clever twists and nods and winks to the original. It is so much fun to watch. Like listening to people having a really intelligent and funny discussion of what they have read. The whole "Holmes gets engaged just to break into a building" part was admirably done. And what they did with the drug theme was also brilliant.

 

[cumberholmes]

I'm agree with you t.o.b.y, but I still hate her, she's so cheap and vulgar. Yep the drug theme was brilliant and hilarious. Since the beginning of the season I've noticed a distracted Sherlock, don't you?

[T.o.b.y]

 Since the beginning of the season I've noticed a distracted Sherlock, don't you?

 

What do you mean by that? Unfocused? Unsure of himself? Somewhat unstable? That would all make sense. When he came back, he was certainly "out of it" and had trouble adjusting to the changes in his little world plus getting over all he had been through. Then at the wedding, he was out of his depths, except for the brief moment when he got to solve a murder. And then came Magnussen and the shock about Mary. Poor Sherlock. It doesn't look like there will be any kind of peace for him soon, but then, he wouldn't want that, would he. He needs strife and peril.

 

[Karie]

To bring up something I don't think has been discussed yet...

 

Did anyone else notice John channeling Sherlock in that first scene with Isaac's mom? He didn't think to let her in the door until Mary told him, he couldn't be arsed to remember who, exactly, Isaac was (he thought it was her husband), he cut right to the point of "no, WHERE is he, what's the address?" when she was trying to explain the situation. I thought this was very interesting that John, when Sherlock is not around and he's been missing that lifestyle, becomes more like Sherlock himself. 

 

I think they were obviously trying to display that "domestic" life is no longer suiting him. I wonder if we will see more of this again soon? Especially with Moriarty back in the picture (or someone pretending to be him, possibly), John may not be content to sit home changing diapers and sterilizing bottles while Sherlock is out running around London playing cat and mouse. 

 

It was also interesting to me that he was having dreams of Afghanistan again. I guess they could have just not mentioned it, but I got the feeling that he hadn't thought of that in a while. Maybe the casual lifestyle is making him long subconsciously for the war. 

[T.o.b.y]

To bring up something I don't think has been discussed yet...

 

Did anyone else notice John channeling Sherlock in that first scene with Isaac's mom?

 

Oh yes, I sure noticed that and it made me smile.

 

I think you got the bit about "domestic life" entirely right. He just can't adjust to that. But tadaa, it just turned out his wife isn't so domestic and commonplace after all, so I guess that problem is taken care of, with or without Sherlock chasing after Moriarty again.

[Karie]

Yeah, but is it? Mary made a choice to get away from that lifestyle for whatever reason, and only got pulled back into it because CAM was blackmailing her. She went on that adventure with Sherlock in TEH, but only because John was in danger and she went with Sherlock to save him. I don't think (or at least, we've been given no indication) that she has gone with them on any other outings since Sherlock has been back. And with a baby on the way, is she going to be running off with them for crime fighting? 

 

This is all kind of a moot point I'm making, since I don't expect her to survive season 4 (though I am wrong on quite a few occasions). But I just wonder if we will see any other scenes depicting John running off and not being satisfied with a "normal" life. I think it's the action and adventure he needs... sitting at home with a wife who just happens to be a former assassin might not be enough. 

 

(I realize we did have Mary going with John to the crack house, but that seemed more about making sure he stayed out of trouble, and she didn't leave the car. I don't see her sitting outside crime scenes with a baby seat in the back.) 

[Carol the Dabbler]

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????

Nice parallel there, could be what happened. But I tend to doubt it, since it's not easy to fake a bullet wound to the head. 

 

My theory ... is that he had a blood spout and then the gun he shot himself with was either not loaded or was some sort of cap gun.

 

The fake blood is plausible. The fake gunshot I'm not so sure about. Assuming that  the noise we heard was real, then the gun was indeed loaded. I don't believe that a cap would be loud enough, and a blank bullet can cause serious injury -- shooting yourself in the mouth with one would be sheer stupidity, because the impact of the just wadding at such close range into such soft tissue would be likely to kill you.

 

The whole "Holmes gets engaged just to break into a building" part was admirably done. And what they did with the drug theme was also brilliant.

 

Moftiss borrow only from the best! Both of those subplots were fairly direct from the Conan Doyle stories ("Charles Augustus Milverton" and "Man with a Twisted Lip" respectively).

 

Did anyone else notice John channeling Sherlock in that first scene with Isaac's mom? He didn't think to let her in the door until Mary told him, he couldn't be arsed to remember who, exactly, Isaac was (he thought it was her husband), he cut right to the point of "no, WHERE is he, what's the address?" when she was trying to explain the situation. I thought this was very interesting that John, when Sherlock is not around and he's been missing that lifestyle, becomes more like Sherlock himself.

On the other hand, maybe John is naturally like that, but simply doesn't look it in comparison to Sherlock. I suspect that John has a lot of Sherlock's traits, which is one reason he's able to understand his friend's quirks (and also one big reason why he's often so annoyed by them). It's just that Sherlock can exhibit those traits in such an extreme way that John pales by comparison.

[Slithytove]

/>

Maybe this year? He has a BAFTA for The Best British Actor of the Year 2013

And I trust he will win again in 2014, or I will be deeply disappointed. Sherlock is also nominated for Best Detective series in the National TV Awards. I voted for it, of course, but you do have to scroll through a lot of very tedious categories to get to the right section.

 

I did hope he might get an Oscar nomination for his brilliant performance in "The Fifth Estate" but it did badly at the box office, so I suppose that won't happen.

[Slithytove]

/>

"See my previous reply."

 

Saw it. Refuted it.

Bless you, I am really not taking this any further. I said I am not arguing with you and I meant it

[Undead Medic]

"See my previous reply."

 

Saw it. Refuted it.

 

Moderator Warning:   Can we just agree to disagree and move on please? This is becoming rather too vitriolic.

[Slithytove]

/>

 

 

I'm happy to have friendly disagreements!

 

...he doesn't seem to have consummated his "relationship" with Janine, even though she was up for it. Maybe it was because he was being a gentleman, as he knew the relationship would not last beyond its usefulness to him, but it is hardly gentlemanly to pretend to propose to someone, so noble motives seem unlikely. (From Janine's point of view, it would surely have hurt less if he had slept with her and dumped her than if he proposed to her and dumped her.). You would think that, if he was really trying to convince her that his interest was genuine, he would have been intimate with her. (Though she did get to have a bath with him. Lucky girl.)

 

It is true that his lack of interest might be due to fear and/or indifference regarding sex. He does appear to have a low sex drive (unless he has a secret life, which he manages to hide from John who is gobsmacked at the thought of Sherlock with a girlfriend.). However, I think he is remarkably relaxed about suggestion of homosexuality ( unlike John, who is horrified)...

Noble motives seem very unlikely. The thing about Janine is, in the original, the girl was a housemaid. And Watson was not so much shocked at Holmes being (apparently) engaged as at his being engaged to a woman of such low social standing (of course he was even more shocked when he found out his friend was heartlessly taking advantage of the girl and lying to her).

 

Class distinctions not being such an issue anymore today, they had to come up with another way in which Janine seems hugely inappropriate as a mate for Sherlock. I think they did that very well. She's so charmingly vulgar and cheap. Really, really "not in his league". Not classy like Irene or educated and "refined" like Molly, no, a voluptuous, slang-talking, sleazy, "tabloid whore". I really resented her in The Sign of Three, but I have to admit, in His Last Vow, when she came out of his bedroom partly undressed, stomped about the flat and referred to Mycroft as "Mike", I began to really take to her. She is hilarious! And I am so glad she made the best of Sherlock's behavior.

 

So the reason I think he didn't sleep with her is simply that he did not find her attractive. You don't have to be gay for that. I suspect she thought he was gay, though, because of course that explanation would be a lot more flattering to her than the real one...

Sorry I have to reply to everyone individually but I do not understand Multiquote (and struggle a bit with single quotes, to be honest.). I am a rather old lady and computers are not really my thing.

 

It did occur to me that he perhaps just didn't fancy her. However, I think his heart belongs to John. Not that I am saying that his body would necessarily follow where his heart leads. In my opinion, he doesn't really want a physical relationship with anyone, female or male - probably not even with John. That is not part of his biological make-up. I do think, however, that he has very strong feelings for John, feelings which go beyond the bounds of friendship. John is always first in his thoughts - when Moriarty threatens his friends, when he returns to London, when he miraculously fights his way back from death on the operating table..... His first thought, his motivation, is always John. Maybe it is just friendship but it looks very much like a man in love.

 

I did like the way that he and Janine cheerfully forgave each other, for Sherlock's deceit and Janine's being a "tabloid whore."

[Karie]

 

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????

Nice parallel there, could be what happened. But I tend to doubt it, since it's not easy to fake a bullet wound to the head. 

 

My theory ... is that he had a blood spout and then the gun he shot himself with was either not loaded or was some sort of cap gun.

 

The fake blood is plausible. The fake gunshot I'm not so sure about. Assuming that  the noise we heard was real, then the gun was indeed loaded. I don't believe that a cap would be loud enough, and a blank bullet can cause serious injury -- shooting yourself in the mouth with one would be sheer stupidity, because the impact of the just wadding at such close range into such soft tissue would be likely to kill you.

 

The whole "Holmes gets engaged just to break into a building" part was admirably done. And what they did with the drug theme was also brilliant.

 

Moftiss borrow only from the best! Both of those subplots were fairly direct from the Conan Doyle stories ("Charles Augustus Milverton" and "Man with a Twisted Lip" respectively).

 

Did anyone else notice John channeling Sherlock in that first scene with Isaac's mom? He didn't think to let her in the door until Mary told him, he couldn't be arsed to remember who, exactly, Isaac was (he thought it was her husband), he cut right to the point of "no, WHERE is he, what's the address?" when she was trying to explain the situation. I thought this was very interesting that John, when Sherlock is not around and he's been missing that lifestyle, becomes more like Sherlock himself.

On the other hand, maybe John is naturally like that, but simply doesn't look it in comparison to Sherlock. I suspect that John has a lot of Sherlock's traits, which is one reason he's able to understand his friend's quirks (and also one big reason why he's often so annoyed by them). It's just that Sherlock can exhibit those traits in such an extreme way that John pales by comparison.

 

 

That's an excellent point, and I think you might be on to something! It makes me want to go back and watch all previous episodes and pay close attention to John's reactions to situations. 

[Karie]

 

Sorry I have to reply to everyone individually but I do not understand Multiquote (and struggle a bit with single quotes, to be honest.). I am a rather old lady and computers are not really my thing.

 

 

 

There might be an easier way to do it, but I tend to be a little slow with these things myself, and I've taken to just cutting everything but the part I want to reply to first, and then after replying to that, hitting the quote box and pasting the rest, and again cutting all but what I want to reply to, and so on until I've replied to each point individually. 

 

 

 

It did occur to me that he perhaps just didn't fancy her. However, I think his heart belongs to John. Not that I am saying that his body would necessarily follow where his heart leads. In my opinion, he doesn't really want a physical relationship with anyone, female or male - probably not even with John. That is not part of his biological make-up. I do think, however, that he has very strong feelings for John, feelings which go beyond the bounds of friendship. John is always first in his thoughts - when Moriarty threatens his friends, when he returns to London, when he miraculously fights his way back from death on the operating table..... His first thought, his motivation, is always John. Maybe it is just friendship but it looks very much like a man in love.

 

 

 

I tend to agree on this. I don't know if there will ever be a sexual/romantic relationship there on the show (or even an explicit statement that one is desired by either one of them), but I do think the connection between them goes beyond friendship. But, I also think it goes beyond sex or romance. I think they are soulmates. And I think that true soulmates don't have to be in a romantic or sexual relationship, I think it's just about finding the other half of yourself... the person who completes you and makes you better in every way. And I think they definitely do that for each other. 

 

Re: Janine... I think you're right in that he didn't fancy her. I think for Sherlock, in order for him to involve himself enough with someone to bother with a sexual relationship, he would have to have more than just a physical attraction to them. Janine is funny, smart, and interesting, and while I think he appreciated and understood her on a certain level, I don't think he found her "special" enough to get that involved with her. But I do think that they could have been friends, and I think, when she points that out to him at the end, he realizes that and feels a sort of loss at having thrown away that opportunity. 

 

 

 

I did like the way that he and Janine cheerfully forgave each other, for Sherlock's deceit and Janine's being a "tabloid whore."

 

I think they both sort of understood each other. She understood that he was a good guy who could be kind of an ass sometimes, and she respected that he didn't hide that. (At least, as I saw it.) I think he also understood that she was the kind of girl who didn't put on airs, was impulsive and a little wild, and didn't mind going after what she wanted without worrying what anyone else thought. And I think that's something that Sherlock can admire and respect. 

 

It really is too bad that we will probably never see her again. I think she could have made an interesting secondary character and it would have been a nice opportunity to give Sherlock a female friend who could match him snark for snark, and without her being too smitten with him and allowing him to walk all over her.  Lost opportunity.  

[dancingsiberians]

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 . . .

 

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.

 

An appealing scenario:  There was an episode of CSI years ago where they found a pregnant teenager minutes after she committed suicide by hanging.  She was dead but the baby was at term and still moving.  They performed a cesarian to save the baby  in what was a really emotional and touching scene.  So, after Mary gets shot by the next villain,  Sherlock can save John's baby while John is freaking out in the background.  Yea, I like that.

 

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.

 

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.