What would you like to see in series 4?

[Arcadia]

It seems like I always end up using Buffy as an example of how to do it right. Both Buffy and Willow - and Faith (and ... who am I missing?) - went pretty dark, in different ways, but it made sense in story. Is that what you mean by organic?

 

Oh, how could I forget Angel? Altho his transformation to the dark side was the cheesiest one, imo.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right, it has to make sense in the show's universe.  You can't just say, for example, "Oh, I forgot to tell you that John is actually Col. Moriarty."  Well, obviously you can -- but not without the risk of losing credence.  Once in a blue moon, you might get away with spicing things up like that, but it has to be used very sparingly and very judiciously, or you can destroy the entire internal logic of the program.

 

[Arcadia]

And that's where they are sort of hampered by the 3-episode format, perhaps. Easier to believably change a character over the course 20-something episodes than 3, I would say. All the more reason not to pull rabbits out of hats!

 

Okay, enough dissing from me. The only character I can think of that changed that much anyway is Mary (right?) and we never really knew her, so it doesn't bother me. The only thing that really bothers me is the murder of CAM and even that will be all right with me if they handle it sensibly, and not go all Lethal Weapon on us.

 

Did anyone else ever see The Untouchables? (with Kevin Costner and the great, lamentably late Sean Connery.) At the end, Elliot Ness

shoves the bad guy off the building, killing him.

It was shocking at the time. I remember the audience was screaming for him to do it, and applauded when he did, which was even more shocking to me. Now that kind of behavior is routine. Bleh. I'll always think of that as the moment when Hollywood and I began to part ways.

[sfmpco]

Well, let's not forget that Sherlock did toss the CIA guy out of the window several times until the guy sustained pretty severe injuries in ASIB.  No remorse there.   You just don't mess with the people Sherlock holds most dear, and he clearly holds Mary dear which is why he shoots CAM.  But even as early as TBB we saw him exhibit compassion when he comforted Sarah after she was nearly killed.  He touches her very tenderly and gently and speaks comforting words to her.  It's quick, but it's there.  He's not completely a cold fish, not completely a machine.  Just don't mess with him, because you can only push Sherlock so far before he will retaliate with deadly force.  On one side he can be almost childlike and petulant, and on the other end of the spectrum can kill in cold blood.  I don't think there's anything we should put past him in what he can or can't do... because he does see himself as a dragonslayer and in a way thinks himself above the law, even though he is not.  Will be interesting to see how this complex develops.

[T.o.b.y]

he does see himself as a dragonslayer and in a way thinks himself above the law, even though he is not.

 

Speaking of which, maybe this time they'll deal a bit more with the consequences of that than in the case of The Fall, where Sherlock's reputation was restored just like that, and nobody ever seemed to doubt him ever again. I mean, Moriarty or no Moriarty, Sherlock still did kill Magnussen and they were going to send him on a deadly mission for that, so what happens when Moriarty (or whoever put out that gif) has been dealt with and England doesn't desperately need him any more (at least not at the moment)?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... Moriarty or no Moriarty, Sherlock still did kill Magnussen and they were going to send him on a deadly mission for that, so what happens when Moriarty (or whoever put out that gif) has been dealt with and England doesn't desperately need him any more (at least not at the moment)?

 

They (Mycroft, Lady Smallwood, et al.) have presumably swept what really happened far enough under the rug that there will be no need to explain Sherlock's continued presence to the public.  As for how they justify it to themselves -- well, they never really wanted to send him off anyhow, they just sort of had to, you know -- so once the Moriarty crisis is over, I doubt that anyone will even bring up the matter again.  (And that's in-universe.  Moftiss seem to have an even shorter attention span.)

 

The only thing that really bothers me is the murder of CAM and even that will be all right with me if they handle it sensibly, and not go all Lethal Weapon on us.

 

Did anyone else ever see The Untouchables? (with Kevin Costner and the great, lamentably late Sean Connery.) At the end, Elliot Ness

shoves the bad guy off the building, killing him.

It was shocking at the time. I remember the audience was screaming for him to do it, and applauded when he did, which was even more shocking to me. Now that kind of behavior is routine. Bleh. I'll always think of that as the moment when Hollywood and I began to part ways.

There was a somewhat similar scene a few years earlier in a Magnum PI episode, "Did You See the Sun Rise?"  But it was meant to be shocking (rather than merely exciting).  It was treated as an extreme response to an extreme situation, and there was never anything remotely similar in the series again.  So, as you say, they did not "go all Lethal Weapon on us" -- and I hope Moftiss will likewise have the sense to treat CAM's death as an isolated incident.

[Arcadia]

You get it! -- thanks. And I thought HLV was "meant" to be shocking too, so I accept it as such. I've read a couple times where people cheered when it happened, though. I don't know why I let that bother me so much....

[Carol the Dabbler]

I can't swear that I didn't cheer, actually, but at first I thought Sherlock had just punched Magnussen -- so I can't say what my gut reaction would have been if I'd immediately realized what was supposed to have happened.

 

I won't criticize anyone who did cheer, though, because I don't know what aspect they were cheering.  I'm glad that Magnussen is (apparently) out of the picture.  I can understand why Sherlock felt that he had no choice but to take extreme measures in that particular situation.  But I don't want him to turn into a vigilante.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Neither do I.....far to mundane and as has been stated by others....dull and very boring. We have all those superhero's going vigilante, that's more then enough. Holmes killed only one person in canon.....it was a one time thing.....since in the series this one person killed himself...then it's like Magnussen was a stand in....at least.....we can only hope so.

 

 He may have stood in the way of the law at times....but I can't see that he was ever a vigilante at any point.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Holmes killed only one person in canon.....it was a one time thing.....since in the series this one person killed himself...then it's like Magnussen was a stand in....at least.....we can only hope so.

If you mean Moriarty, it isn't all that clear to me that Holmes literally killed him. As I recall, Moriarty came at Holmes, and Holmes defended himself with some baritsu moves. So assuming Holmes was telling the literal truth (and who knows?), then he didn't intentionally kill Moriarty.  He was simply so busy defending himself that he had no time to worry that Moriarty might end up in the waterfall.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Like in our version of "TRF'.....Moriarty in "The Final Problem" as determined that Holmes never leave Switzerland alive....of course, Holmes makes it very clear to Watson that if he, Holmes, is able to rid the world of Moriarty's evil at the cost of his own life, he would be content that his was a life well spent.

 

  But no, we don't know what really happened...but Moriarty never comes back....Holmes did.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... we don't know what really happened...but Moriarty never comes back....Holmes did.

 

And I hope it turns out that way in Sherlock as well!

[Janie]

Well, I was one of those people who cheered when Sherlock killed Magnussen. I hated when he started flicking John's face so much that all I could think of was "Come on Sherlock, just kill him!". But I definitely wouldn't want Sherlock to become a killing machine. I really hope it was just an exception and we will see more of his deductions now

[Arcadia]

So I'll ask again; was the death of CAM a cold-blooded act of reason, or a hot-blooded act of hatred?

I chose the latter, mostly because I thought the consequences of Sherlock succumbing to emotions was the whole point of S3. Carol chose both; Sherlock reasoned himself into a murderous frame of mind in order to solve the problem. Anyone else? And because it's the thread we're in, extrapolate results into S4 if you wish! (I'm trying to stay on topic, I really am! )

 

My wish: S4 will demonstrate the value of mercy over revenge. Just to balance the scale. Although I suppose one could argue that's already been done, with the Mary storyline.

[T.o.b.y]

So I'll ask again; was the death of CAM a cold-blooded act of reason, or a hot-blooded act of hatred?

 

Hmmmmm! Difficult question. I'd prefer cold-blooded, because that would make Sherlock less of a loser in that situation and also a bit more "not good". And while it's terribly important to me that, deep down inside, he does have the "great heart", I do so love the high-functioning sociopath.

 

Of course it's made very clear that Sherlock hated Magnussen, but I don't think that would have been enough to make him kill him. And I don't think the killing was an act of revenge, either. I think it was the only solution to the problem he presented that Sherlock could come up with at the time and under the circumstances.

 

The way I interpret what happens at Appledore is more or less this: Sherlock's original plan is just what Magnussen says it is. Mycroft was probably in on that, maybe Mycroft and Sherlock planned it together. Mycroft, however, did not know about Mary and Sherlock's more personal involvement in the whole story, or else he would not have agreed.

So Sherlock went to Magnussen's place with two objectives: Find and destroy the vaults (or get them confiscated by Mycroft's people) and make sure all information about the woman known as Mary Watson is irretrievably lost (preferably before Mycroft gets his hands on it). Oh, and get Magnussen arrested, of course.

But then it turns out that there are no actual vaults. They only exist in Magnussen's brain. So the only way to destroy them is to destroy that brain. Meaning Sherlock has to kill him. Sherlock probably considered shooting him as a plan, say, C, D, or E when he was going over the possible outcomes of his visit in his head (he always does that, right?), because he asked John to bring the gun. Now, if Sherlock had shot Magnussen right away when he found out that the vaults didn't exist, John would have gotten in big trouble as an accomplice at the very least. Also, Magnussen's security staff would have come swarming in and may have killed either or both of them in turn. So Sherlock has to wait until his own backup (Mycroft and MI-whatever) show up, who will also serve as witnesses that John had nothing to do with the murder. And Magnussen can spend his last minutes alive doing whatever he wants, because Sherlock already knows he'll kill him anyway, and if Magnussen demonstrates once more what an utterly repulsive scoundrel he is, that only makes things easier for Sherlock.

 

So yes, I think it was premeditated, cold-blooded murder. At least that is what Sherlock thinks. Of course, he is really good at rationalizing his impulses. If he wants to take drugs, it's for a case. If he wants to fool around with Janine -  for a case. And if he feels the urge to "rid the world of a poisonous thing" (to quote the original killer of Milverton), his big brain will surely find a good reason to do so as well.

 

So cold-blooded murder prompted and facilitated by hot-blooded hatred, I guess. Does that make any kind of sense at all?

[Pamela]

 

So I'll ask again; was the death of CAM a cold-blooded act of reason, or a hot-blooded act of hatred?

 

 

 

So cold-blooded murder prompted and facilitated by hot-blooded hatred, I guess. Does that make any kind of sense at all?

 

Perfect!

[Carol the Dabbler]

So cold-blooded murder prompted and facilitated by hot-blooded hatred, I guess. Does that make any kind of sense at all?

 

Thanks, T.o.b.y -- you've laid it all out in beautiful detail, step by logical step to basically the same conclusion that I had just sort of jumped to.  I'm glad to see that it actually makes sense!  Added:  ... at least to me!

[Arcadia]

Nope, not to me! Srsly, I follow your reasoning, I just don't agree. Sorry. I think he was angry, high, humiliated and disgusted, and not in the least bit rational. But very human, alas. But you did an excellent job presenting your case. Sparkling form!

[Zain]

Well, do you think Sherlock is back on drugs, again, then?

 

Some things certainly are speaking for that setback. He took drugs in the beginning of HLV, then the morphine and follow-up meds (which do not seem to be enough for non-addicts for the first few days after they get "downgraded" to them, so how would a "former" addict cope with that feeling...). His actions do not seem to be rationally motivated, either, following the hospital stay.

 

On the other hand, it is likely that Mycroft would have picked up on it, if Sherlock had started a new habit (or revisited an old one). Instead, he takes him seriously at Christmas, or at least, as seriously as he takes Sherlock all the time when they converse. It's not the overbearing, looking-down-on-him manner he showed when Sherlock was on drugs in the beginning of HLV.

I am inclined to think that Sherlock is not back on drugs, based on Mycroft's attitude towards Sherlock. But I think they could play with that. Mary's shot certainly added more fuel to the situation. First, he took some drugs out of stupidity, and then her actions had him become dependent on morphine. If he were to struggle again with an addiction, she would be to blame, too. I wonder if she will feel ashamed of her actions then. I doubt it....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

High on adrenaline, maybe....he was pretty adamant that he knew he couldn't afford a drug addiction....though being a recovering one and then having to be hooked up to morphine for who knows how long.....yeah....it might be a struggle.

[by the sea]

Sorry ... I don't get the "high" thing.  Sherlock seemed perfectly in control of himself when he left his parents' place and headed off for his confrontation with CAM.  I'm thinking he had his plan worked out and had to fall back on his last resort when the basic assumption ... that CAM had to maintain paper documents in order to have such vast quantities of information to spread around ... proved to be false.  So, I guess I'm voting for hot-blooded as he found he couldn't solve the CAM problem any other way and still protect his friends and family.  He reacted emotionally. 

 

Debbie

[Arcadia]

Well, do you think Sherlock is back on drugs, again, then?

Sorry, all, I misspoke, as I was thinking back to the time when he made his "bargain" with CAM -- he was still on morphine then. But I shouldn't have inferred that he was "high" at Appledore; there's no evidence for it.

 

My mother having just gone through surgery, I can say that morphine can indeed impair your reason even if you don't otherwise appear to be "high." And it takes longer than you might think to get the poison out of your system, in my mom's case about 3 weeks.

 

I do wonder if struggles with addiction might play into future episodes, it seems kind of odd to introduce the idea (and the character of the "druggist", Billy) without going somewhere with it. On the other hand, it's a bit, ahem, "Elementary." I kind of feel they'd want to do something more original.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, Holmes's drug use is canon as well -- which is why virtually all adaptations include some sort of reference to it.

 

You make a very good point, Arcadia, about it taking a while to detox entirely.  It took my mother a whole week to know who I was after a mere "mild sedative."   Sherlock is far younger than Mom, of course, but traces would presumably linger in his system, nevertheless.

 

[Arcadia]

Well, the nicotine addiction was supposed to have stood in for the "canon" drug addiction, so far. But that won't mean anything, imo, if they think they've got a good story that involves cocaine or whatever.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Moftiss have been creating a drug-use background for Sherlock from the very beginning (the "drugs bust" in "Study in Pink"), when John defiantly told Lestrade to go ahead and search the flat and Sherlock warned him to shut up.  So they've had that particular ace up their sleeve all along, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't play it again sooner or later.  But hopefully they'll restrain themselves somewhat.