A Third Sibling?

[sittything]

 

thanks for the explanation: I didn't know that. 

 

I don't know how I feel about a third sibling entering the story. I don't feel it's necessary, nor it interests me in any way, but of course if moffat & gatiss create a REALLY intriguing character, then I may change my mind..

 

But they already have a really intriguing character: Sherlock! Who needs more than that? I certainly don't. And I am wary of anything that might distract from his brilliance. There have been enough other geniuses on the show. I want just Sherlock being Sherlock - and unique.

 

 

 

Joking aside, I'm not sure how I feel about a 3rd brother.  I think if done well, it could be interesting to add another Holmes to the mix, even temporarily.  I don't know that I want to see a new character long-term.  But I'm a bit biased about this because honestly my two favorite characters on this show are probably Sherlock and Mycroft, and I love, love, love their messed up interactions with one another.  The potential promise of a 3rd brother to add even more dysfunction just sounds like bliss... as long as it doesn't get mucked up.  I'm trying to trust that they wouldn't muck it up if they went this direction.  So far they've made pretty solid choices, especially with casting.

 

[Arcadia]

Yeah, I think they've had a really good balance so far with time spent on each character ... except for Lestrade, more Lestrade! Maybe the time spent introducing CAM could have been reduced to make room for more believable explanations in the rest of HLV, but that's about the only thing that comes to mind. Oh, and poor Soo-Lin. Let's take some of her interminable minutes away and give them to Lestrade, shall we?

[sittything]

This is off topic, but did anyone else feel that HLV was rushed?  I feel like they introduced CAM and then killed him off before I really got to know him.  It made him less interesting as a character.  I feel like it was a lot to try and introduce and resolve in just 1.5 hrs.   Moriarty got far more time, and was far more interesting to me.  But I'm not sure if that's a function of character development, or if Moriarty/Andrew Scott is just more interesting?

[T.o.b.y]

This is off topic, but did anyone else feel that HLV was rushed?  I feel like they introduced CAM and then killed him off before I really got to know him.  It made him less interesting as a character.  I feel like it was a lot to try and introduce and resolve in just 1.5 hrs.   Moriarty got far more time, and was far more interesting to me.  But I'm not sure if that's a function of character development, or if Moriarty/Andrew Scott is just more interesting?

 

Well, Moriarty was around for two whole seasons, and Magnussen only for 1 episode. So no wonder.

 

For me, the Magnussen thing was okay, because I practically already knew him from the story "Charles Augustus Milverton", so I didn't need a whole lot of exposition; all I wanted to know was what they had done with his character, and then I went okay, fine, now lets kill him, okay?

 

But nevertheless, His Last Vow did feel rushed to me, too. As did The Empty Hearse.

 

[Arcadia]

This is off topic, but did anyone else feel that HLV was rushed?  I feel like they introduced CAM and then killed him off before I really got to know him.  It made him less interesting as a character.  I feel like it was a lot to try and introduce and resolve in just 1.5 hrs.   Moriarty got far more time, and was far more interesting to me.  But I'm not sure if that's a function of character development, or if Moriarty/Andrew Scott is just more interesting?

Oh my yes!! Thank you! I felt exactly the same about CAM, I think that's one reason I objected so much to "killing him was the only possible solution" -- I just never felt he was that big of a bad. Icky, yes, but he just never seemed that threatening to me, and I'm pretty sure it's because I didn't get any emotional connection to the damage he did. I just had to take Sherlock's word for it that he ruined lives (and I did, but still ... I didn't feel it. Y'know? I mean, one politician we never met gets arrested (or something), a lord we never met kills himself, and Mary's story is so scrambled, it's impossible to know if she was worth saving.) CAM claims he can control countries, but where's the evidence? Moriarty scared the heck out of me, but CAM ....  He was creepy, but so is the spider in my bedroom; that doesn't make him dangerous.

 

Ah ... ahem. *breathes* Okay, calm now.

 

To answer your question, yep, I think several of us have concluded that the episode was just too short to resolve all the issues it brought up. Good thing there's another season! (Let's hope they use it to answer a few questions!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

 

... His Last Vow did feel rushed to me, too. As did The Empty Hearse.

 

I agree, those episodes felt rushed to me, like they kept thinking of even more neat tidbits and just couldn't bear to leave anything out, so they compromised by skimping on the plot.

 

[Arcadia]

I really can't think of anything they could have left out though, can you? Except the mind palace, it didn't advance the plot ... but that was the set piece, they couldn't leave that out!

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

The mind palace scene was okay, but the main problem is that it only did one thing -- it showed a closer look at the inner workings of Sherlock's mind, but that's all. In filmmaking, all scenes must count. No excess. The best scenes are the ones that do a bunch of things at once. Let's take the pool scene in TGG for example.

 

Things the pool scene accomplished:

• Reveals a lot about Moriarty (he's good at disguises, he thinks murder is a game, very flirtatious and playful, etc.)
• Builds on John and Sherlock's relationship (John lays down his life for Sherlock, Sherlock plays Moriarty's game so he can get the bombs off of John)
• Reveals how far Sherlock can take it ("What if I were to shoot you right now?")
• Shows how much of an arse both Moffat and Gatiss can be (that mega cliffhanger)

[Arcadia]

 

Shows how much of an arse both Moffat and Gatiss can be (that mega cliffhanger)

[T.o.b.y]

I was just thinking - what if "the other one" was the Sherlock lookalike whom Moriarty hired to kidnap the kids and then killed? I think that's my second favorite theory after "Mycroft is the other one (and he's dead)".

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

Then that means either Sherlock and the other one are identical twins or just look a lot like each other! 

[Saramarie25]

I think before they even think about introducing a third sibling I would like Their Royal Malevolences (Moftiss) to explore Sherlock and Mycrofts relationship a little bit more.

[avoca]

I was just thinking - what if "the other one" was the Sherlock lookalike whom Moriarty hired to kidnap the kids and then killed? I think that's my second favorite theory after "Mycroft is the other one (and he's dead)".

 

 

Then that means either Sherlock and the other one are identical twins or just look a lot like each other! 

ehm.. perhaps it'd be a little "too much" for me.. 

 

I think I'd prefer the infamous 3rd sibling to enter the story a more ordinary way, if he/she just HAS to be inserted in the plot

[SherlockedCAMPer]

But why would the 3rd sibling, if introduced, be out in ordinary. That is not much of the Moftiss way. They are type, from what I've seen, to do something like have the 3rd sibling be the Sherlock lookalike.

[avoca]

yes, I know.. just, sometimes when the plot gets to be too "soap opera-ish" it can become ridiculous.. 

[BlackButterfly]

@The breakdown of what we know about the other one..

When Sherlock and Mycroft talk about the foolish idea of meeting other children...Mycroft says "We both thought you were stupid Sherlock."

Looking back now we know about the other one...is this perhaps a reference to them..and that they were as clever as Mycroft also?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmm -- good question.  Did "both" mean Mycroft and Sherlock -- or Mycroft and the other one?

 

[BlackButterfly]

Mycroft@the other one thought Sherlock was stupid.

Thus Sherlock knows about the other one , the other one is/was as clever as Mycroft...?

Right as Mycroft says that Sherlock pulls his...resentful? face.

Amusing thought that maybe they both 'looked down' on Sherlock as stupid....explaining the resentful?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I looked up the exact quote in Ariana DeVere's transcript:

 

SHERLOCK: I used to think I was an idiot.
MYCROFT: Both of us thought you were an idiot, Sherlock.  We had nothing else to go on 'til we met other children.

 

... and judging by that, I'm pretty sure that Mycroft's "both of us" refers to himself and Sherlock, especially since he stressed "both."  If he'd meant himself and "the other one," he would presumably have stressed "us" instead -- and presumably Mark Gatiss knows the truth, so I take his delivery as evidence.

 

I'm intrigued by your interpretation, however, and do consider it a possibility.

 

[Arcadia]

@The breakdown of what we know about the other one..

When Sherlock and Mycroft talk about the foolish idea of meeting other children...Mycroft says "We both thought you were stupid Sherlock."

Looking back now we know about the other one...is this perhaps a reference to them..and that they were as clever as Mycroft also?

Oooh, that's clever, I like that!

 

I think Sherlock would be resentful either way, though. Mycroft just brings that out in people.

[BlackButterfly]

TY Carol for exact quote...

Grammatically I do think when saying...Both of us..to Sherlock , Mycroft implies himself and another/the other one.

[sittything]

That makes me really sad that anyone should find Sherlock stupid.  I get it's all relative and what not, but still.

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Ooh, that is an interesting theory.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

Perhaps the Other One respected Sherlock whereas Mycroft belittled Sherlock all the time.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

That is also an interesting idea Bendy.