What would you like to see in series 4?

[Slithytove]

I am in the minority who want Jim back, mainly because he was so magnificently bonkers. I don't want him to be in every episode - in S 1& 2, he was really only a major player in one episode per series and that seemed about right. I want Sherlock to have a flamboyantly evil villain, and I don't think CAM was up to that role. Fundamentally, he was just a nasty blackmailer who played horrid little mind games with his victims. He didn't put all his time and energy into over-the-top schemes to entertain or destroy Sherlock. He just didn't have the same dedication.

 

If Jim isn't the mad, bad enemy in S4, I would settle for it being Mary.

[Pamela]

Yes, thank you, Carol!

[Carol the Dabbler]

... we'll do what we can, but with no sacrifice in quality -- that's the thing. If people have to wait two years, they'll have to wait two years.

 

That's my favorite part!  For a while there, it sounded like the BBC was pressuring them into having Series 4 ready for this Christmas, and I'd hate to see them rush the writing, shoehorn the filming into inadequate availability slots, and then rush to put everything together.

 

Added:  As for Moriarty's return, I'll wait and see what they make of it.  Ditto Janine.  I really like both characters, so that helps!

[T.o.b.y]

I don't think they should make too much of Janine, but she would probably be a useful ally for Sherlock on some cases. She opens a door into a whole other part of society, just like he has a connection to the "underworld" through the homeless network. And she sure is funny.

 

I'd like to see Sherlock a bit more in control again, of his own life and his surroundings. I loved seeing him at a disadvantage a bit in series 3, but ultimately, I do want him to be "the great Mr Holmes".

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I do want him to be "the great Mr Holmes".

 

  And according to Moffat and Gatiss, that has been one of their goals in this whole experiment, from one of the youngest, most untried Sherlocks yet, to more of the more experienced and polished that most people know and are familiar with. So I think we will see that. We started to see that growth in Season 2. Season 3, as Benedict Cumberbatch pointed out was a bit of regression, but we should see more growth again.

[Carol the Dabbler]

And do bear in mind that they're hoping to carry this program on for quite a number of years, so he doesn't need to completely grow up overnight.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I'd like it if John's big words: "the problems of your future are my privilege" were real-life tested a little bit. I'd be curious how privileged he really felt if somebody showed up who knew more about Mary than he has chosen to, for example.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Moftiss have clearly kept that option open.  I can't believe that it won't be explored somehow, sometime.  Probably in some way that we couldn't possibly expect.

 

But I do believe that John will live up to his promise.

[T.o.b.y]

I am sure he will, I just doubt he'll feel so very privileged about it all.

[Caya]

Series 4 plot twist:

 

• Sherlock: Mycroft and I were one step ahead of Moriarty the whole time, and we tricked him into thinking he'd beaten us.
• Jim: Ha! I was actually two steps ahead of you the whole time, and I tricked you into thinking you'd beaten me.
• Carl Powers: You're both amateurs.
• Sherlock: ...
• Jim: ...
• Carl: And I want my shoes back.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

A twist indeed!

[Arcadia]

Hmmm. Mostly I think I would like to see some exploration of the consequences of murdering Magnussen. I hate the concept of "vigilante justice" -- to me it's a cheap and lazy way to resolve a problem. I hope that's not where this story is left. It would certainly lower my opinion of not only Sherlock, but his friends, if they just wave away Magnussen's murder as a "necessary evil." But that seems to be a popular solution in this post-911 world, so I fear.

 

Also, more Lestrade! Woefully underused this time around. :-)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

It would certainly lower my opinion of not only Sherlock, but his friends, if they just wave away Magnussen's murder as a "necessary evil." But that seems to be a popular solution in this post-911 world, so I fear.

 

  It has nothing to do with "popular solution in this post-911 world" and everything to do with who Sherlock Holmes is even in canon. He was not above breaking the law if he thought the situation warranted such. In the "Adventure of the Devil's Foot" he lets a murderer go free. This is hardly the only time that he would do so.

 

  He house broke at least twice. Once in "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client" and again in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" where Sherlock not only burgled a house but destroyed the evidence of Milverton's blackmailing to protect the victims.

 

 This quote comes from the very end of "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client.

 

Sherlock Holmes was threatened with a prosecution for burglary, but when an object is good and a client is sufficiently illustrious, even the rigid British law becomes human and elastic. My friend has not yet stood in the dock.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, definitely more Lestrade!  And more Donovan, too.  And I'd like to see Anderson reinstated with the police.

 

As for Sherlock killing Magnussen, I'm afraid Fox is right, you'll have to blame canon for that, more or less.  In the original story ("Charles Augustus Milverton"), Holmes and Watson have broken into Milverton's office to steal whatever he has on their client, but then they hear someone coming so they hide.  Milverton comes in, and later a woman.  She is one of his blackmail victims (whose husband, like Lord Smallwood, has died of shame), and she shoots him.  Watson is about to spring out, but Holmes stops him, and they later agree that justice was better served that way.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I keep wondering how one could do anything halfway clever with The Speckled Band. I don't think it would work to actually have a snake as a murder weapon. And the title has already been used in the form of a pun. So what's left of the story? A man tries to murder his stepdaughters by poisoning them in a very original manner. And a band of gypsies is wrongfully suspected. Hm. Not much to go on...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I keep wondering how one could do anything halfway clever with The Speckled Band. I don't think it would work to actually have a snake as a murder weapon. And the title has already been used in the form of a pun. So what's left of the story? A man tries to murder his stepdaughters by poisoning them in a very original manner. And a band of gypsies is wrongfully suspected. Hm. Not much to go on...

 

There's an adaptation on John's blog (the aforementioned "Speckled Blonde").  It contains most of the original story's elements, and I recall thinking it wasn't half bad, but I don't recall the details.  Don't suppose they could use its plot now, anyhow, since it's on the blog.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh drat. I really had my hopes up. Well, thanks for disillusioning me... Have they ever done anything with "The Red Headed League" yet? That would be almost as tough.

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, here's "The Speckled Blonde."  Love this part:
 

Sherlock was convinced that Julia had been murdered in some way. He didn’t believe that a snake could get into someone’s bedroom, kill them in their sleep and then leave without being spotted by anyone else.

 
*snicker*

 

 

 

Added:  But near as I recall, they haven't done anything yet with gullible redheads.  Maybe they'll tackle that challenge in the upcoming series.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Thanks Carol!

 

Hmmm, thinking about The Sign of Three has made me long for another unusual wedding. How about Irene's? She gets married in the original and if she does make another appearance, then why not? It's the only part of her story they haven't done anything with yet. I bet Irene Adler as a bride would be at least as "interesting" as Sherlock the best man...

[Arcadia]

 

 

It would certainly lower my opinion of not only Sherlock, but his friends, if they just wave away Magnussen's murder as a "necessary evil." But that seems to be a popular solution in this post-911 world, so I fear.

 

  It has nothing to do with "popular solution in this post-911 world" and everything to do with who Sherlock Holmes is even in canon. He was not above breaking the law if he thought the situation warranted such. In the "Adventure of the Devil's Foot" he lets a murderer go free. This is hardly the only time that he would do so.

 

  He house broke at least twice. Once in "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client" and again in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" where Sherlock not only burgled a house but destroyed the evidence of Milverton's blackmailing to protect the victims.

But none of those are the same as shooting an unarmed man in the face, surely. And I don't think "canon" is why the ending was written the way it was, anyway. This Sherlock is in the modern age, I think they are reflecting comtemporary attitudes back to us, not Victorian ones. Or I hope so, anyway. At any rate, I enjoy this show the most when it makes me uncomfortable. No, sorry, that's not true. I enjoy it most when it makes me laugh! I admire it most when it makes me uncomfortable.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I think they are reflecting comtemporary attitudes back to us, not Victorian ones. Or I hope so, anyway. At any rate, I enjoy this show the most when it makes me uncomfortable

 

    Both Moffat and Gatiss have said that after the Unaired Pilot was rejected, and BBC asked for a 90 minute format, they made a conscience decision to "Victorianize"  their version of Sherlock. His more formal way of dressing is canon, as is his rather old world form of speech pattern.

 

  Oddly enough, I just found this quote from Sherlock Holmes in the canon story of "The Three Gables" and I quote: "I am not the law, but I represent justice as far as my feeble powers go."  End Quote.

 

  So it does seem as if Sherlock Holmes was more then just an ordinary subject to the Crown. As he said in "TSiB" : "I'm not the Commonwealth".

 

   There is more to Sherlock then meets the eye.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I believe that here in the US, at least nowadays, any licensed detective (private or otherwise) is considered a representative of the law, just as any attorney is an officer of the court -- meaning that they have to watch their step, or their license can be revoked.  It's only now that private detectives are being (or about to be) licensed in the UK, however, so don't know whether Holmes's behavior had to meet any special expectations or not.

 

Holmes saw himself as on the side of justice (though not necessarily the law), and I believe that our Sherlock has similar feelings.

 

[Arcadia]

Yes, it is worthwhile noting the distinction between "justice" and "law."

[Slithytove]

As UK law stands at the moment, I don't think "consulting detective" has any legal status. Also, we have extremely strict gun laws and unarmed police (though we also have officers who are trained in the use of firearms and will respond to situations where armed police are required). Anyone, including a private detective, would have an uphill job to convince anyone that the shooting was legal.

 

It seems that Mycroft is the Fairy Godmother in this type of situation, due to his undefined role in the government. Sherlock says his brother is "the British Government", and he does seem to have a very wide remit. Most of the time he seems to be part of the diplomatic service, but then he is conveniently part of M16. I wonder what his job title miight be?

[Arcadia]

OMG this made me laff. Fairy Godmother is so apt I don't know why he would need any other title.