What would you like to see in series 4?

[Zain]

Maybe I am dead wrong, but are you referring to his statement that he always was fascinated with Dicken's Christmas Carol? I think he said that after he wrote the Doctor Who episode relating to that story.

[T.o.b.y]

Since the cast has become so big, they will need more group scenes to give everyone their fair amount of screen time. So why not have a Christmas Party next season. I can totally see Mary Watson hosting something like that, she seems like a pretty sociable person. It could be very funny and very chaotic. Just imagine everybody at the Watsons' house, the baby screaming in the background, Janine trying to trap Sherlock under the mistletoe, Molly looking on trying not to appear jealous, John chuckling in a corner and Sherlock's temper souring further and further until some convenient crime occurs to shake things up.

 

I also want mores smallish cases. And they don't all have to be about murder. There are other kinds of mysteries in the world, too.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I had this thought the other day and am finally remembering to post it.  I'm not sure which series 4 thread has the baby Watson discussion in it, but with the series being every 2 years approximately and the new series (at least with series 3) picking up 2 years later.  It is possible that series 4 could do the same thing (even though we need to answer the Moriarty thing that the special is supposedly doing).  If that is the case, then we won't have a baby Watson, we'll have a toddler Watson.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

I had this thought the other day and am finally remembering to post it.  I'm not sure which series 4 thread has the baby Watson discussion in it, but with the series being every 2 years approximately and the new series (at least with series 3) picking up 2 years later.  It is possible that series 4 could do the same thing (even though we need to answer the Moriarty thing that the special is supposedly doing).  If that is the case, then we won't have a baby Watson, we'll have a toddler Watson.

 

So now, the most important person to Sherlock is John, but the most important people to John seems to be his family. John is the centre of Sherlock's universe.But Sherlock isn't the centre of his.

 

That's why Sherlock tried to get Molly to be his new assistant, because she's the closest thing to John that he has that isn't actually John.

 

Let that sink in.

 

[T.o.b.y]

So now, the most important person to Sherlock is John, but the most important people to John seems to be his family. John is the centre of Sherlock's universe.But Sherlock isn't the centre of his.

 

That's why Sherlock tried to get Molly to be his new assistant, because she's the closest thing to John that he has that isn't actually John.

 

Maybe...

 

If this were a story like any other, then the solution would be simple and predictable. Sherlock and Molly get together, everybody is happy, end of story.

 

I do hope this is not where Sherlock is going, though. So far, it has been far from a story like any other, and certainly neither simple nor predictable, and I'd prefer for it to stay that way. Also, not everything has to be solved and resolved. In real life, relationships don't fall into place that neatly, and while of course fiction needn't be like real life at all, I like it when it reaches a similar level of complexity.

 

I know Sherlock is growing more and more human, but I still cannot picture him settling down with a girlfriend, let alone a family of his own. For me, that wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes any more.

 

I like him as a sort of adopted family member of the Watsons', bound to both of them by his own version of a marriage vow. I'd rather the writers left any kind of traditional romance for Sherlock alone, but if they must play with that, then I'm happy with a lot of "it's complicated" messes between him and the three ladies he's gotten close to so far (Irene, Molly, Janine).

 

Mostly, I just want him and John to be the great team they always were and solve a lot of brilliant cases. Whatever the details of everybody's private lives may be, that's what the series should be about, if you ask me. Sherlock, John, a case, London. And then repeat.

 

It's perfectly natural and okay that his family should be the center of John's universe, isn't it? He can be as happy with Mary and baby as he likes while Sherlock does crazy stuff on his own and potters around Baker St. We only need three episodes every two years. I am sure they can manage that together.

 

Of course there's a bit of a sad feeling somewhere. I think something about Sherlock will always feel sad, although he would scoff at the notion that anybody pities him. But that's just the way he is. Happiness is not his greatest talent.

 

[sfmpco]

Well, if you look at the Comic Con interview with Mark Gatiss that just happened in India,  Mark had a couple of things to say about the above and more.

 

Of course people tried to ask leading questions about S4 (will they ever learn????) and he immediately refused to answer and went to the next question.   Of course the Sherlock/Molly question came about, and he said that if Sherlock and Molly ever settled down and had 3 kids that it would just be the end of trying to continue the series.  ANY settling down thing would sort of kill the show.  Now he also said that Sherlock values his brain more than anything, that the rest of his body is like an appendage.  But to be fair, that was SH in S1.  Not so much by HLV.  And certainly he's learned his body is subject to massive failure just like the rest of mere mortals.  I think at the end of S3 we see a slightly wiser Sherlock.  Being smart doesn't make you wise.

 

I hope in S4 we see some of those sharp, brain-only edges rounded off as more humanness comes through.

 

A deeper relationship with Molly needn't kill the show, but it has to be kept in the background and not be a focus.  The focus always needs to be Sherlock and John on their cases.  

 

Lots of Johnlock shippers in India, but Gatiss quite frankly said that would never happen and that any implication of a relationship between the two was only ever meant as a joke and that although he didn't have an issue with a gay couple in a show, that was not nor never would be SHERLOCK.

[Arcadia]

I assume thisis the interview sfmpco is referring to, haven't actually had time to watch it yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUIBMf5HcrI

[T.o.b.y]

I assume thisis the interview sfmpco is referring to, haven't actually had time to watch it yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUIBMf5HcrI

 

Thank you for that link! I am watching it now, and I must say, Mark Gatiss is perfectly lovely. That is not an easy audience to handle (and some of the questions just make me cringe and stick my fingers in my ears), but he's wonderfully polite and soft spoken and defends himself with gentle dry humor. If this is the stereotype of an Englishman, then we need more of them.

 

In my borderline-insane obsession about this series, I sometimes find myself worrying where the story will go and how the expectations and responses of the audience will effect that, and I find interviews like this terribly reassuring.

 

I love how Gatiss just says that he and Moffat are making their show the way they want to, unencumbered by any kind of social, political or other agenda. That happens to be exactly what I want to see.

 

I also love his remark on fan fiction / fantasies: "The version in your head will always be better than anything we could do".

 

 

I usually hesitate to assume anything about a public person's private thoughts and motivations, but has it never occurred to people that the Sherlock writers may be a bit touchy about this raging assumption that their two leads must end up together as a couple? I mean, one of them is gay and one is not and is married to a woman. They are very good colleagues, obviously, I suppose friends, too. It's not unreasonable to assume that it is important to them to show a close male friendship is entirely possible without any sexual relations, regardless of what the friends' respective preferences may be, isn't it? I mean, I have a close friendship with a woman who is gay, and if I had a dollar for every time we've been thought to be a couple, I'd be rich by now. It doesn't bother me (it kind of flatters me, to tell the truth), but it bothers her. And I see why. It's just rude to assume that a gay person cannot have a platonic friendship with someone of the same gender.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... or that a straight person cannot have a platonic friendship with a person of the opposite gender.

 

[Arcadia]

 

I assume thisis the interview sfmpco is referring to, haven't actually had time to watch it yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUIBMf5HcrI

 

Thank you for that link! I am watching it now, and I must say, Mark Gatiss is perfectly lovely. That is not an easy audience to handle (and some of the questions just make me cringe and stick my fingers in my ears), but he's wonderfully polite and soft spoken and defends himself with gentle dry humor. If this is the stereotype of an Englishman, then we need more of them.

 

In my borderline-insane obsession about this series, I sometimes find myself worrying where the story will go and how the expectations and responses of the audience will effect that, and I find interviews like this terribly reassuring.

 

I love how Gatiss just says that he and Moffat are making their show the way they want to, unencumbered by any kind of social, political or other agenda. That happens to be exactly what I want to see.

 

I also love his remark on fan fiction / fantasies: "The version in your head will always be better than anything we could do".

 

 

I usually hesitate to assume anything about a public person's private thoughts and motivations, but has it never occurred to people that the Sherlock writers may be a bit touchy about this raging assumption that their two leads must end up together as a couple? I mean, one of them is gay and one is not and is married to a woman. They are very good colleagues, obviously, I suppose friends, too. It's not unreasonable to assume that it is important to them to show a close male friendship is entirely possible without any sexual relations, regardless of what the friends' respective preferences may be, isn't it? I mean, I have a close friendship with a woman who is gay, and if I had a dollar for every time we've been thought to be a couple, I'd be rich by now. It doesn't bother me (it kind of flatters me, to tell the truth), but it bothers her. And I see why. It's just rude to assume that a gay person cannot have a platonic friendship with someone of the same gender.

 

I finally had time to watch it, and I agree, Gatiss was just ... well, you've already used the best word, he was lovely. He was a lot more patient with the audience than I would have been. In fact, I had all the same thoughts you mentioned, I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this! :D

[stick]

What about an episode set in another country, I was thinking something like Hong Kong or New York, what with Sherlock being famous people from around the world might be interested in his talents to solve a mystery that no one else can

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello, stick -- welcome to Sherlock Forum! 

 

They've kinda played with foreign cases before -- Sherlock was briefly in Belarus in one episode, and Serbia in another -- but yeah, it would be interesting to see a major chunk of an episode set elsewhere.  Near as I recall, though, we rarely see Conan Doyle's Holmes anywhere outside London (though we do hear about several of his cases abroad).  So maybe that's why "our" Sherlock is also a bit of a homebody.

 

[sfmpco]

Well, I think also that John might be a bit out of his element in another country when on a case because he won't have learned the language like Sherlock, so he'd be a bit in the dark.  I realize that most countries do teach English and that people can at least speak some rudimentary English, but Sherlock can learn a language quickly.  Also, John is now a family man with a wife and a medical practice, and he can't just go gallivanting around the world on cases.  Sherlock, on the other hand, is completely unattached and can be gone for as long as a case needs.

[joanneta1]

Forgive me for asking a silly question, but - does Andrew Scott always talk like that? Not the Irish accent - I know he is Irish - but that strange, soft little voice? Or was that just part of his characterisation of Moriarty?

 

I saw him in Legacy but he was a Russian in that, so it was hard to tell, and also performing a very brief excerpt from Angels in America. I just wondered whether Moriarty's voice is his normal way of speaking or whether he had adopted it for the role.

It is my impression that is his natural speech delivery. He spoke in similar accents when playin Captain Jones in Garrow's Law, Season 2 Episode 2, another neat tour de force for BBC one.

[Caya]

Well, I think also that John might be a bit out of his element in another country when on a case because he won't have learned the language like Sherlock, so he'd be a bit in the dark. 

 

John served in Afghanistan, though, so he should be quite accustomed to a longer stay in a foreign country.

 

[sfmpco]

It's not the length of stay in a foreign country.  After all, in Afghanistan he was surrounded by British troops.  But throw him into Kiev working with Sherlock, for example,  and John is just out of his element.

[T.o.b.y]

It just occurred to me, that in the special, if it's partly a Victorian setting, then we will hear Sherlock speak the kind of lines the original Mr Holmes has. Oh my god. I think I need to practice my fainting skills.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, good point -- the game may very well be afoot!  :D

[T.o.b.y]

Do you think we'll hear him say "my dear Watson"? :lol:

[joanneta1]

It would be the logical thing to do. With the clothes goes the attitude, unless it's a spoof, like a charade, and if it was written by Mark Gatiss rather than the other scriptwriter, then he may have indulged in so many insider jokes that viewers will be separated into those who have read ACD , and can pick them up immediately, and those who simply liked the young actor with the lovely baritone voice  and (sigh) curly mop. Do you think it likely it may be off-putting for all those young Russian and Chinese fans of the show?

[T.o.b.y]

I don't know, and I am sorry to say, I don't care, either. I for one am determined to have a blast with it. You have to F*** something up pretty badly for me not to have a good time in Victorian London.

 

I really hope they let Sherlock say "my dear Watson" at least once, in a really, really deep voice. I want to see what happens on some fan sites the next day (or perhaps not, really).

 

:lol:

[sittything]

It would be the logical thing to do. With the clothes goes the attitude, unless it's a spoof, like a charade, and if it was written by Mark Gatiss rather than the other scriptwriter, then he may have indulged in so many insider jokes that viewers will be separated into those who have read ACD , and can pick them up immediately, and those who simply liked the young actor with the lovely baritone voice  and (sigh) curly mop. Do you think it likely it may be off-putting for all those young Russian and Chinese fans of the show?

 

Not sure if serious???  Seems like an ungenerous characterization to divide fans into those who have read ACD vs. everyone else who is just watching to fawn over BC.  

[T.o.b.y]

While I can really picture Sherlock talking Doyle language, I cannot imagine "our" John saying Watson's lines at all. There is just too much of a difference between “You know that it is my greatest joy and privilege to help you” and "Yeah, I'll text you if I'm available".

 

I am really curious what John's Victorian counterpart will be like.

[Boton]

I don't know, and I am sorry to say, I don't care, either. I for one am determined to have a blast with it. You have to F*** something up pretty badly for me not to have a good time in Victorian London.

 

I really hope they let Sherlock say "my dear Watson" at least once, in a really, really deep voice. I want to see what happens on some fan sites the next day (or perhaps not, really).

 

:lol:

 

It would fit rather nicely with what we know of Moffat and Gatiss Christmas specials from Dr. Who.  Not that I think this will be a particularly Whovian special; no time travel or anything like that.  But the pair are good at writing scripts that spend a substantial amount of time in Victorian London, and it would allow the show a bit of latitude to make the Christmas special a little more of a "fan service" episode before plunging back into the over-arching arcs of the show.

 

If this is true, then I think it will be Moftiss' traditional writing in "layers."  There will be some lovely barritone "my dear Watsons" (that certain ones in the fandom immediately misinterpret the next day and call a proposal of love....) and at least one "the game is afoot!"  Then, there might be a couple of ACD canon references that go by in dialogue as an allusion but which don't materially alter the plot if you haven't read Conan Doyle.  And all in all, like all such Moftiss Victorian things, it will feel lush and expansive and wonderous.  For two people who are such sadists to their own characters, they do have a way of making you long for London fog that's really the smog from the factory chimneys and an era before anesthesia, vaccinations, and life expectancies beyond 40.

 

But if they bring back the Baker Street Irregulars, I'm going to have their hides.  Every time those little street urchins show up in ACD canon, I wind up singing the soundtrack to Oliver for two days.....

[joanneta1]

"If this is true, then I think it will be Moftiss' traditional writing in "layers."  There will be some lovely barritone "my dear Watsons" (that certain ones in the fandom immediately misinterpret the next day and call a proposal of love....) and at least one "the game is afoot!"  Then, there might be a couple of ACD canon references that go by in dialogue as an allusion but which don't materially alter the plot if you haven't read Conan Doyle.  And all in all, like all such Moftiss Victorian things, it will feel lush and expansive and wonderous.  For two people who are such sadists to their own characters, they do have a way of making you long for London fog that's really the smog from the factory chimneys and an era before anesthesia, vaccinations, and life expectancies beyond 40.

 

But if they bring back the Baker Street Irregulars, I'm going to have their hides.  Every time those little street urchins show up in ACD canon, I wind up singing the soundtrack to Oliver for two days..."
"

 

Absolutely, you hit the nail on the head, which is why some of us have such trouble accepting that because Mr. Moffat likes to maltreat his main characters, there will now be a version of Sherlock Holmes in this universe, which uses violence instead of his mind. You object to the urchins, and there have been no signs of those in twitter, but there will always be a beaten iconic character who kills a defenceless man because it is the easy way out!