How would you fix "His Last Vow"?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Nothing particularly nice about taking one of the most interesting and well-written original stories and turning it into a train wreck just because you want to get your own back on ACD for what he made you feel as a child! Nothing noble in turning your allegedly favourite character into a killer, for WHATEVER reason, nothing particularly astute in choosing the easy way out, but I am so sitting next to you when it comes to the strangling bit!

Oh my gosh, I don't think Moftiss wanted to get back at ACD!  I think they worship him and just want to write stories to honor their fondness for his creations. And I think they (quite wisely) write the stories they want to see, not the ones they think WE want to see.

 

I suppose they could have just recycled endless variations of ASiP and TGG, like most TV shows do (and quite successfully). I think a lot of us would still like the show just fine if they had done that. But I don't think it would feel quite so special anymore; their willingness to experiment, rather than stick with "what works", is part of the artistry. But of course it means they have to take the risk of alienating their audience. There's no easy answer, there. But as an artist myself, I'm completely sympathetic to their desire to push their creation in directions no one expects. If I don't like the results, that's my problem, not theirs, imo. At least, that's what I keep telling myself, or I really might strangle Moffat! :D (For some reason I have no desire to strangle Gatiss, even though he's more gleeful about messing with our heads than the other one!)

 

 

I agree with the strangling part.  And I think Mark gets more out of it partially because he is an actor not just a producer and writer.  Although Steven has had the occasional look of slightly gleefully sinister.  He's the one more likely to think we (the fans) are off our rockers and give us the shocked look of disbelief.

[sfmpco]

Moffat and Gatiss have said that they consider ALL other works regarding SH to be canon from which they can draw, and in doing so they have created an entirely new canon .  I hope they continue to push their own envelope, pushing Sherlock (the character) into new directions.

 

Perhaps it's because I have never read the original canon that I don't find any issue with the series.  I consider that NOT being a die-hard Sherlockian in this case works in my favor.

[Arcadia]

Yes, because Mr Gatiss actually sits down and plans deductions on a massive scale, he did it in The Great Game, he did it in Hounds, he did the whole Underground thing in TEH, and I am fairly certain that The Bloody Guardsman was his contribution, though without any proof. On the other hand, Mr Moffat has gone on record extensively about thinking that the Milverton case was an elaborate cover-up, as if Sherlock Holmes in ANY version would be so ignorant as to carry a gun during a burglary, and he was appalled at Holmes's treatment of Milverton's maid, of all people. In this case, strangling him is an option!

Well, Sherlock Holmes carries a gun (or borrows John's) in the Moftiss version! :P Frequently. I don't think they mean for that to be ignorance on his part; apparently they just think it's an appropriate part of updating him to the 21st century. Unfortunately, they may be right. Even MacGyver would carry a gun if he were on TV today, I bet. It's that kind of world, now. :(

[sfmpco]

And I might add that there are definitely guns in episode 10, so that's 10/10 episodes that feature guns/firearms.  That doesn't bother me either, but I got to thinking that for Britain to be so anti-personal handguns, there are is a lot of gun activity in the show.  Just saying.  But it's a highly stylized TV show, and you can get away with a lot.  It's not meant to be reality.  Sherlock lives in a world of arch-villains.  

[Arcadia]

Perhaps it's because I have never read the original canon that I don't find any issue with the series.  I consider that NOT being a die-hard Sherlockian in this case works in my favor.

Same here! Any issues I have with the series are a result of what I see on the screen; I have no preconceptions based on someone else's version, and I like it that way! Besides, I would get sooooo confused if I was familiar with more than one version. I'm confused enough just trying to follow what's happening in this one. :p

 

Having said that, I loved both the Rathbone and Brett versions, in their time. But I'm glad I don't have particularly clear memories of them other than enjoying them.

 

I feel bad for the Trekkies who couldn't accept BC as Khan simply because he didn't look like the TV Khan. They missed out on a really enjoyable movie.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, Carol, but if Mary was the innocent victim of whatever, then why did she tell John that she'd go to prison for life if Magnussen disclosed the information he had on her?

 

I'm afraid we'll have to resign ourselves to the idea that Mary has a history of not-quite-so-good deeds. Why she committed those is another question, and one I'd love to have answered.

 

If I'm recalling correctly (it's been a while!) what I was attempting to answer was Arcadia's (?) question about whether an innocent act could be fodder for a blackmailer -- so I wasn't exactly talking about Mary at that point, so I should not have used her name in my example.  Sorry for the confusion!  As for what she actually did, how would I know?  I'm not even confident that Moftiss knows at this point.

 

I have to disagree. I know that HLV has been lauded by many, but to me, it is a rather weak story. I know that my opinion will be biased to some degree, because I did not like the outcome. However, even if I put Mary's solution aside, I am bothered by its superficiality. It feels like award bait due to its showy nature. I'd rather they went back to their extremely British style of the first season.

 

HLV has some very powerful scenes and some beautiful moments, but it doesn't flow.  I'm still not sure what the chronology is, or how some things tie together -- and I shouldn't HAVE to wonder about that sort of thing; it's the writer's job, not mine.  So in those ways, it's like "Blind Banker."  So even though I've managed to rationalize both shootings fairly well (which again, I should not have HAD to do), I agree with you otherwise.

 

Perhaps it's because I have never read the original canon that I don't find any issue with the series.  I consider that NOT being a die-hard Sherlockian in this case works in my favor.

 

Good idea, though a bit too late in my case.  I hadn't read any canon -- until Moftiss encouraged me to do so with their Series 2 hints.  So again -- it's their fault!  :P

 

Any issues I have with the series are a result of what I see on the screen; I have no preconceptions based on someone else's version, and I like it that way! Besides, I would get sooooo confused if I was familiar with more than one version. I'm confused enough just trying to follow what's happening in this one. :P

Hear, hear! 

 

I feel bad for the Trekkies who couldn't accept BC as Khan simply because he didn't look like the TV Khan. They missed out on a really enjoyable movie.

I can see their point -- seems odd that Cumberbatch's character would even be called Khan -- but it's my understanding that they had originally cast more of a Montalban look-alike, and Cumberbatch was a last-minute replacement. So I do cut them some slack. My quarrels with the movie lie elsewhere.

[Arcadia]

HLV has some very powerful scenes and some beautiful moments, but it doesn't flow.  I'm still not sure what the chronology is, or how some things tie together -- and I shouldn't HAVE to wonder about that sort of thing; it's the writer's job, not mine.

By chronology, do you mean the sequence of events? Or the amount of time passing? Because the sequence, I thought, was clear once I watched it a couple of times. Should I put up a chart? I agree the amount of time that passes is unclear.

 

I have to think about things tying together, I haven't seen it in awhile and in my mind the plot threads pull together pretty well ... I just object to some of the turns they take! But I can't deny there is something missing from HLV; logic, maybe? (Hey, it's all about the feels, man.... )

 

 

I feel bad for the Trekkies who couldn't accept BC as Khan simply because he didn't look like the TV Khan. They missed out on a really enjoyable movie.

I can see their point -- seems odd that Cumberbatch's character would even be called Khan -- but it's my understanding that they had originally cast more of a Montalban look-alike, and Cumberbatch was a last-minute replacement. So I do cut them some slack. My quarrels with the movie lie elsewhere.

 

I don't know, in a movie stuffed to the gills with actors who don't resemble the originals except in the most superficial ways, I can't get too hung up on one of the "guest stars" looking different too. Maybe if it hadn't been an alternate timeline it would have bothered me more?

[Carol the Dabbler]

By chronology, do you mean the sequence of events? Or the amount of time passing? Because the sequence, I thought, was clear once I watched it a couple of times. Should I put up a chart? I agree the amount of time that passes is unclear.

 

I have to think about things tying together, I haven't seen it in awhile and in my mind the plot threads pull together pretty well ... I just object to some of the turns they take! But I can't deny there is something missing from HLV; logic, maybe? (Hey, it's all about the feels, man.... )

Oh, that's OK. I'm not sure a chart would help, even if Moffat himself drew it. I probably overstated my situation -- I can more or less follow the sequence of events, ditto the amount of time -- but I have to consciously think about it, whereas I'd prefer to be able to just watch the story.  I don't think that's an unfair wish -- I'm hardly asking to be spoon-fed.  I just want to feel like I'm there, rather than feeling like I'm watching a television show (and there will be a quiz afterward).

 

[littlefoot]

Hi fellow Sherlockians,

I'm new here and was captivated by the high standard of your discussion and the pervading fairness.A tv show which generates this kind of response can't be all bad.

So what would I fix? Well, I agree with those who feel that HLV feels sometimes incomplete or rushed. That's actually my pervading impression of the whole season 3. It has it's brilliant moments, but it's also filled with the worst kind of fridge logic and story line twists which are not beneficial for the show in the long run. Turning Sherlock into a murderer and Mary into a rogue assassin might change the core of the show IMO - and I personally don't like that twist. I belong to the faction who wants to see a British detective show and not a show about a detective who is a psychopath and a murderer (and everybody around him as well apparently). Of course I don't think Sherlock is meant to be a fully fledged psychopath but you probably get my drift. Also, I want the murders presented in this show to be solved by the intelligence of the detective in residence and not committed by him. It's not the violence per se, it's more the different flavour of the show which doesn't fully agree with me. Some of the specialness seems to have gone. It has become 'noisier', as if the creators tried to up the ante at all costs. There's unfortunately the very real possibility that this trend will continue in season 4. Then they will lose me as a spectator.

That said, I still found plenty to enjoy. I also think, season 3 might really be incomplete because of all those unfinished and not well explained story lines, and we cannot fully evaluate it before we've seen season 4. I recently rewatched season 2 & 3 and spotted some important things in RF (yes there are really significant things left to discover - and that is brilliant). The twist of Jim Moriarty's digital comeback as well as Mary's so far unexplained mysterious past open up the chance to revisit things from the past and tie all seasons together in one big story arc. I think it can be done and it was intended that way. If Mofftiss will go down that road is a completely different story. They might decide not to be bothered and bound by past ideas and clues and whatnot. Since this is an ongoing creation of fiction they are free to take the story in whatever direction they want. Clues? Clues are so 2012! I would think it a pity if plays out that way, but it's Mofftiss' creation, not mine and you can't argue with success.

The way I see it, in retrospect season 3 could go down as brilliant but flawed with incredibly intelligent story telling as well as gaping plot holes - or it could mark a sea change and take the essence of the show into an entirely new direction. Some will like it, others won't. We will have to wait and see.

But whatever they have in store for us in season 4, one big flaw will unfortunately be permanent: They actually might present us an amended and more plausible version of how and why Sherlock faked his death. That would be all well and fine - because, let's be honest - the Big Fat Blue Pillow Lazarus version with some lookalike bodies and good snipers vs. bad snipers thrown in for good measure, is just not worthy of Sherlock Holmes - even Anderson wouldn't have done it that way, lol. But if they really come up with a more plausible solution, I still would criticize them for letting the fans wait 4 or 5 years. That would be an artistically atrocious decision, since the momentum is completely gone by then. Some younger fans will have entered and left high school during that gestation intervall. IF they have a more plausible version in store they should've presented it in season 3. And if Lazarus is really meant to be the way Sherlock did it - well, then they promised us champagne in RF, but delivered luke warm beer in TEH. ;)

[Inge l-w]

 

Yes, because Mr Gatiss actually sits down and plans deductions on a massive scale, he did it in The Great Game, he did it in Hounds, he did the whole Underground thing in TEH, and I am fairly certain that The Bloody Guardsman was his contribution, though without any proof. On the other hand, Mr Moffat has gone on record extensively about thinking that the Milverton case was an elaborate cover-up, as if Sherlock Holmes in ANY version would be so ignorant as to carry a gun during a burglary, and he was appalled at Holmes's treatment of Milverton's maid, of all people. In this case, strangling him is an option!

Well, Sherlock Holmes carries a guwWhen (or borrows John's) in the Moftiss version! :P Frequently. I don't think they mean for that to be ignorance on his part; apparently they just think it's an appropriate part of updating him to the 21st century. Unfortunately, they may be right. Even MacGyver would carry a gun if he were on TV today, I bet. It's that kind of world, now. :(

Hi, Arcadia! In which other episode is he seen carrying a gun except the end of The Great Game? And even in HLV it is in John's coat pocket. When he "goes shopping" for the ring he specifically tells John NOT to bring a knife a gun or a tyre lever, but they will see how the night goes. I meant ignorant of the law, and he might not have a permit, anyway, as he is always in an amateur capacity.

[J.P.]

Hi and welcome to the forum, littlefoot.
 

I also think, season 3 might really be incomplete because of all those unfinished and not well explained story lines, and we cannot fully evaluate it before we've seen season 4. I recently rewatched season 2 & 3 and spotted some important things in RF (yes there are really significant things left to discover - and that is brilliant). The twist of Jim Moriarty's digital comeback as well as Mary's so far unexplained mysterious past open up the chance to revisit things from the past and tie all seasons together in one big story arc.

I hope to read more about "imoportant things" you spotted! I wrote something similar about the roof scene in TRF... somewhere. That I would love to know the details of the fall, because as you wrote it feels unfinished, and so far it is the only riddle that really bothers me. I can live without Mary's past revealed, or don't bother to know how she's got into CAM's office, what her plan was. I don't even want to know all technical details of Lazarus - I just want to know what's beneath the acting S and M are showing as characters. And that - because I want to be able to fully appreciate both actors' skills.

 

If it won't be picked up in the S4 I'd love to read it somewhere else. Maybe I will write to Mofftiss one day.

[Inge l-w]

Welcome littlefoot! I am a newcomer as well, so we will have lots of fun reasoning, extrapolating, discussing theory and having fun together!

[joanneta1]

 

Perhaps it's because I have never read the original canon that I don't find any issue with the series.  I consider that NOT being a die-hard Sherlockian in this case works in my favor.

Same here! Any issues I have with the series are a result of what I see on the screen; I have no preconceptions based on someone else's version, and I like it that way! Besides, I would get sooooo confused if I was familiar with more than one version. I'm confused enough just trying to follow what's happening in this one. :P

 

Having said that, I loved both the Rathbone and Brett versions, in their time. But I'm glad I don't have particularly clear memories of them other than enjoying them.

 

I feel bad for the Trekkies who couldn't accept BC as Khan simply because he didn't look like the TV Khan. They missed out on a really enjoyable movie.

 

Hi, littlefoot, welcome to Alice's world of speculation, fun and endless discussion!

I don't know about other Trekkies, as opposed to Trekkers, (the whole thing was amicably sorted out a long time ago, with Trekkers being the fans of Star Trek The Next Generation)  but as a dyed-in-the -wool Trekkie, I absolutely loved him as Khan, and that is way before I discovered him as the modernised Sherlock. His poise, his underlying menace, his absolute control over voice and acting were absolutely brilliant! Obviously, as they can't get the original Kirk and we are saddled with Chris Pine, which is absolutely fine, so they couldn't get a Ricardo Montalban lookalike. In fact, if reptilian works for Andrew Scott as Moriarty, controlled immobile menace works for BC! And that is the disturbing part about this brilliant actor, he takes a part and makes it his own, whatever the scriptwriters throw at him, without any ******* Method acting involved. He is just brilliant, so the only thing one can wish him is Spock's valediction "Live long and prosper"!

[littlefoot]

Thank you for the welcome, fellow Sherlockians! I hope I will quickly get over the 10-post hump and I can respond quickly to you guys.

J.P.

Yes I will write about what I spotted, because it's genuinely in the material of RF and not just deduced by me. It's simply there and has to be explained, one way or another. And it only makes sense after one has seen HLV. That's why I am hopeful, that Mofftiss WILL revisit earlier events. And we might see season 3 in a different light after season 4 aired. But I'm not holding my breath. Mofftiss might simply change their minds, and they are at liberty to do so. But J.P., I agree with you, it's not just the technical details of Lazarus, which feel immensely flawed, there's lots in the rooftop conversation between Jim and Sherlock, which doesn't really make sense without further explanation, IMO. They might've been deliberately vague and mysterious, though, in order to have the freedom to go wherever they want in the following season. I won't use this thread for inflicting clues and theories on you as a newcomer. There might be a better thread for this and you have a high quality discussion going on here about depiction of violence and morally iffy deads in art versus acceptance in real life. As to HLV I'm one the fence. I felt physically repulsed by CAM, and I'm not sorry at all, that he is gone. And part of me cheered, when Sherlock took him out. But as someone who deplores the death penalty wherever it still exists in real life, I can't accept the shooting of a human being without a self defense situation - however repulsive and flawed he may be - as a morally ok solution. Now,the writers painted Sherlock into a corner, but I really hope this remains a one-off thing and Sherlock doesn't continue on a vigilante path. That would be unacceptable for me. It's not that I generally object to depiction violence in fiction, even if I would condemn it in real life, But so far Sherlock hasn't been a show where the main hero amasses bodies, and I do hope it stays that way. Because killing someone is never an elegant solution, and 'Sherlock' has been, at least for me, about the elegance and cleverness of the title character.

Joanetta1,

I'm an ardent fan of the original 'Wrath of Khan' and I still think Ricardo Montalban delivered the performance of his life. That voice! But if anyone could match him it was Benedict Cumberbatch. I have no issues at all with that casting. But while I enjoyed the new movie, I have other issues with it. But I enjoyed the Cumberbatch version of Khan immensely, even if I still prefer the old movie. If I recall the discussions correctly, it was a question of race - Khan being of oriental or Indian origin. But Khan was genetically engineered, so I'm not too hung up on that, especially since Khan morphed into a blonde (kinda Rod Steward style) in the original version.

[Arcadia]

Hi fellow Sherlockians,

I'm new here and was captivated by the high standard of your discussion and the pervading fairness.A tv show which generates this kind of response can't be all bad.

So what would I fix? Well, I agree with those who feel that HLV feels sometimes incomplete or rushed. That's actually my pervading impression of the whole season 3. It has it's brilliant moments, but it's also filled with the worst kind of fridge logic and story line twists which are not beneficial for the show in the long run. Turning Sherlock into a murderer and Mary into a rogue assassin might change the core of the show IMO - and I personally don't like that twist. I belong to the faction who wants to see a British detective show and not a show about a detective who is a psychopath and a murderer (and everybody around him as well apparently). Of course I don't think Sherlock is meant to be a fully fledged psychopath but you probably get my drift. Also, I want the murders presented in this show to be solved by the intelligence of the detective in residence and not committed by him. It's not the violence per se, it's more the different flavour of the show which doesn't fully agree with me. Some of the specialness seems to have gone. It has become 'noisier', as if the creators tried to up the ante at all costs. There's unfortunately the very real possibility that this trend will continue in season 4. Then they will lose me as a spectator.

That said, I still found plenty to enjoy. I also think, season 3 might really be incomplete because of all those unfinished and not well explained story lines, and we cannot fully evaluate it before we've seen season 4. I recently rewatched season 2 & 3 and spotted some important things in RF (yes there are really significant things left to discover - and that is brilliant). The twist of Jim Moriarty's digital comeback as well as Mary's so far unexplained mysterious past open up the chance to revisit things from the past and tie all seasons together in one big story arc. I think it can be done and it was intended that way. If Mofftiss will go down that road is a completely different story. They might decide not to be bothered and bound by past ideas and clues and whatnot. Since this is an ongoing creation of fiction they are free to take the story in whatever direction they want. Clues? Clues are so 2012! I would think it a pity if plays out that way, but it's Mofftiss' creation, not mine and you can't argue with success.

The way I see it, in retrospect season 3 could go down as brilliant but flawed with incredibly intelligent story telling as well as gaping plot holes - or it could mark a sea change and take the essence of the show into an entirely new direction. Some will like it, others won't. We will have to wait and see.

But whatever they have in store for us in season 4, one big flaw will unfortunately be permanent: They actually might present us an amended and more plausible version of how and why Sherlock faked his death. That would be all well and fine - because, let's be honest - the Big Fat Blue Pillow Lazarus version with some lookalike bodies and good snipers vs. bad snipers thrown in for good measure, is just not worthy of Sherlock Holmes - even Anderson wouldn't have done it that way, lol. But if they really come up with a more plausible solution, I still would criticize them for letting the fans wait 4 or 5 years. That would be an artistically atrocious decision, since the momentum is completely gone by then. Some younger fans will have entered and left high school during that gestation intervall. IF they have a more plausible version in store they should've presented it in season 3. And if Lazarus is really meant to be the way Sherlock did it - well, then they promised us champagne in RF, but delivered luke warm beer in TEH. ;)

Well said! I think you'll fit in fine around here. Welcome to the forum!

 

 

 

Yes, because Mr Gatiss actually sits down and plans deductions on a massive scale, he did it in The Great Game, he did it in Hounds, he did the whole Underground thing in TEH, and I am fairly certain that The Bloody Guardsman was his contribution, though without any proof. On the other hand, Mr Moffat has gone on record extensively about thinking that the Milverton case was an elaborate cover-up, as if Sherlock Holmes in ANY version would be so ignorant as to carry a gun during a burglary, and he was appalled at Holmes's treatment of Milverton's maid, of all people. In this case, strangling him is an option!

Well, Sherlock Holmes carries a gun (or borrows John's) in the Moftiss version! :P Frequently. I don't think they mean for that to be ignorance on his part; apparently they just think it's an appropriate part of updating him to the 21st century. Unfortunately, they may be right. Even MacGyver would carry a gun if he were on TV today, I bet. It's that kind of world, now. :(

 

Hi, Arcadia! In which other episode is he seen carrying a gun except the end of The Great Game? And even in HLV it is in John's coat pocket. When he "goes shopping" for the ring he specifically tells John NOT to bring a knife a gun or a tyre lever, but they will see how the night goes. I meant ignorant of the law, and he might not have a permit, anyway, as he is always in an amateur capacity.

 

Ah, I see, I think I missed your point before. You meant he wouldn't carry a gun during a burglary because if he got caught, if would be a more severe crime?

 

I have to admit, I don't think our current Sherlock thinks that way. He just assumes he won't get caught! He seems to be pretty loose about the law; he's more interested in solving the crimes and, possibly, visiting justice on the perpetrators. In the real world I suspect he'd be seeing a lot more of the inside of a jail cell than he does in the show. :o

 

I don't know about other Trekkies, as opposed to Trekkers, (the whole thing was amicably sorted out a long time ago, with Trekkers being the fans of Star Trek The Next Generation)  but as a dyed-in-the -wool Trekkie, I absolutely loved him as Khan, and that is way before I discovered him as the modernised Sherlock. His poise, his underlying menace, his absolute control over voice and acting were absolutely brilliant! Obviously, as they can't get the original Kirk and we are saddled with Chris Pine, which is absolutely fine, so they couldn't get a Ricardo Montalban lookalike. In fact, if reptilian works for Andrew Scott as Moriarty, controlled immobile menace works for BC! And that is the disturbing part about this brilliant actor, he takes a part and makes it his own, whatever the scriptwriters throw at him, without any ******* Method acting involved. He is just brilliant, so the only thing one can wish him is Spock's valediction "Live long and prosper"!

Again ... well said! I think I actually prefer Chris Pine as Kirk. Well, that's not quite fair; the whole thing is just different, that's all. Like Jeremy Brett and BC are different Sherlocks. I feel no need to choose one over the other when I can have both!

 

Now I'm trying to think if there's any character I couldn't bear to see played by a different actor .... Rhett Butler, maybe? :P

[Arcadia]

Oh, that's OK. I'm not sure a chart would help, even if Moffat himself drew it. I probably overstated my situation -- I can more or less follow the sequence of events, ditto the amount of time -- but I have to consciously think about it, whereas I'd prefer to be able to just watch the story.  I don't think that's an unfair wish -- I'm hardly asking to be spoon-fed.  I just want to feel like I'm there, rather than feeling like I'm watching a television show (and there will be a quiz afterward).

I consider that a fair assessment, although I think it bothers me less than it does you. But that's my biggest problem with the ending of HLV, actually ... in order to process it, I have to watch from outside the show, not from the inside. It's very annoying. I wonder what Moftiss would say to that? ("That's your problem," probably. :P )

[littlefoot]

Arcadia, thanks for the welcome. Yes, from what I sampled here, you have a really good forum going here. After 10 posts I can be more flexible in answering. But I approve of monitoring. A good atmosphere can be totally destroyed by a bully and can drive people away. And this should be fun above all else.

[joanneta1]

Arcadia, thanks for the welcome. Yes, from what I sampled here, you have a really good forum going here. After 10 posts I can be more flexible in answering. But I approve of monitoring. A good atmosphere can be totally destroyed by a bully and can drive people away. And this should be fun above all else.

 

Hi, Littlefoot! Speculation is more than half of the fun, long posts show your love of the show, you should see what Toby, Boton, Arcadia, Zain and I can get up to when we are trying to argue points. Please, don't feel inhibited in giving your explanations, because our  patient moderators are absolutely on top of their task at every moment, so there is nothing to hold you back except the usual netiquette constraints. Share your thoughts as and when you see fit, especially since The Fall left me with many questions, as well.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

It's not the violence per se, it's more the different flavour of the show which doesn't fully agree with me. Some of the specialness seems to have gone. It has become 'noisier', as if the creators tried to up the ante at all costs. There's unfortunately the very real possibility that this trend will continue in season 4.

Hi, littlefoot -- welcome to Sherlock Forum! And last I heard, it's now only six posts till you're no longer monitored, so you're just about there already.

 

I fully agree about the tonal change in Series 3. The show not only seems to be joining the current "bigger, faster, louder" trend (which has caused me to stop watching most television and movies), it feels disjointed, as though Moftiss was intentionally confusing us. I sure hope they were doing that sort of thing only because they felt it was appropriate for this particular series. I do think the "James Bond" tone worked perfectly for the depiction of Anderson's crackpot theory. But in general, I would prefer the more "you are there" sort of feel that the first two series had.

 

IF they have a more plausible version in store they should've presented it in season 3. And if Lazarus is really meant to be the way Sherlock did it - well, then they promised us champagne in RF, but delivered luke warm beer in TEH. ;)

I'm pretty sure they've had their say on that issue. Like you and Anderson, I was "a bit disappointed" -- but I'll get over it! For one thing, they intentionally made it unclear whether Sherlock told Anderson the absolute truth or not -- so we're still free to improve the explanation ourselves.

 

I don't know about other Trekkies, as opposed to Trekkers, (the whole thing was amicably sorted out a long time ago, with Trekkers being the fans of Star Trek The Next Generation)  but as a dyed-in-the -wool Trekkie, I absolutely loved him as Khan....

Dear me, did I miss something? It's always been my impression that a "Trekker" was a serious fan of Star Trek (any or all incarnations), whereas a "Trekkie" was umm, well, one of those silly, noisy, obnoxious fans that the rest of us wish would just go away (or at least shut up). That was the original distinction, anyhow, predating TNG by a good many years. Things may have changed when I wasn't paying attention.

 

There might be a better thread for this....

Feel free to start one -- not just for that particular discussion, but any time that you think of something you'd like to see addressed here.

 

Now,the writers painted Sherlock into a corner, but I really hope this remains a one-off thing and Sherlock doesn't continue on a vigilante path

My overall impression, from the commentaries and interviews, is that yes, they intentionally painted him into a corner, because they wanted to show him basically losing one case. I would be VERY surprised (and disappointed) if they dipped into that well again.

 

I think I actually prefer Chris Pine as Kirk. Well, that's not quite fair; the whole thing is just different, that's all. Like Jeremy Brett and BC are different Sherlocks. I feel no need to choose one over the other when I can have both!

I'm all in favor of variety myself -- but I definitely prefer Chris Pine as Kirk!  I don't know whether it's the writing, the acting, or the directing -- probably a blend of the three -- but I love the way the character has been reinvented.

[joanneta1]

Oh, Carol, sweet Carol, he is just young, he can and will mature into the real Kirk if the franchise continues, and the definitions come from the Captains' Logbooks, they are not my invention, all of them. But can he top Kirk's performance in The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home (everyone remember where we parked), The Undiscovered Country and Generations?

But Khan, I loved Commander John Harrison the moment he appeared on screen, when my more knowledgeable friend whispered to me that the actor is playing in a modernised version of Sherlock, and I actually shushed him in order not to miss any of that splendid, exotic being's actions or words. As I said somewhere else, one can only wish him to "Live long and prosper"!

Going off on a tangent, they have painted everyone into a corner: Sherlock as losing all perspective and killing a defenceless man, John as a troubled expectant father and mistrustful husband, Mary as this impossible latter-date Mrs Smith, housewife-assassin. Of course, everyone knows what their main problem is: they have already used up the best material available anywhere, so their pickings must come from less impressive material. Serve them right in not trusting to the instincts of the average viewer!

[Arcadia]

I fully agree about the tonal change in Series 3. The show ,,,,   feels disjointed, as though Moftiss was intentionally confusing us.

I cannot imagine whatever gave you that idea.... :P

 

Now,the writers painted Sherlock into a corner, but I really hope this remains a one-off thing and Sherlock doesn't continue on a vigilante path

My overall impression, from the commentaries and interviews, is that yes, they intentionally painted him into a corner, because they wanted to show him basically losing one case. I would be VERY surprised (and disappointed) if they dipped into that well again.

 

From your mouths to Moftiss' ears.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, Carol, sweet Carol, he is just young, he can and will mature into the real Kirk if the franchise continues, and the definitions come from the Captains' Logbooks, they are not my invention, all of them. But can he top Kirk's performance in The Wrath of Khan, The Voyage Home (everyone remember where we parked), The Undiscovered Country and Generations?

Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone. While I've always viewed Kirk with a certain amount of ex-officio admiration (mostly due to Spock's respect for him), I had never actually liked the character. Chris Pine's Kirk is different -- but since you have apparently always liked Shatner's portrayal just fine, Pine may not be quite your cup of tea. Guess we'll just need to agree to disagree on this matter. 

[T.o.b.y]

I suppose they could have just recycled endless variations of ASiP and TGG, like most TV shows do (and quite successfully). I think a lot of us would still like the show just fine if they had done that. But I don't think it would feel quite so special anymore; their willingness to experiment, rather than stick with "what works", is part of the artistry. But of course it means they have to take the risk of alienating their audience. There's no easy answer, there. But as an artist myself, I'm completely sympathetic to their desire to push their creation in directions no one expects. If I don't like the results, that's my problem, not theirs, imo.

 

Right. I cling to the belief that if they just go and do what they really want, irregardless of any market research or fannish wishes, then we'll get a really good product, even if it takes us some time to come to terms with our disappointed expectations.

 

I do see Sherlock as art, in a way. At least it's pretty darn artistic for a TV crime show.

 

 

HLV has some very powerful scenes and some beautiful moments, but it doesn't flow.  I'm still not sure what the chronology is, or how some things tie together -- and I shouldn't HAVE to wonder about that sort of thing; it's the writer's job, not mine.

By chronology, do you mean the sequence of events? Or the amount of time passing? Because the sequence, I thought, was clear once I watched it a couple of times. Should I put up a chart? I agree the amount of time that passes is unclear.

 

I have to think about things tying together, I haven't seen it in awhile and in my mind the plot threads pull together pretty well ... I just object to some of the turns they take! But I can't deny there is something missing from HLV; logic, maybe? (Hey, it's all about the feels, man.... )

 

Funny, His Last Vow does not feel particularly incoherent or incomplete to me. As far as storytelling goes, I think it's one of the better episodes.

I think His Last Vow has a lot in common with A Scandal in Belgravia, actually. And it does not feel more illogical to me than any other Sherlock story, original or new. You can't think about any of them too hard, really, without going hey - wait a moment, that doesn't make sense. The Holmes stories were never realistic, and always more about adventure than anything else. As John says, Sherlock really isn't a puzzle solver so much as a drama queen... That part doesn't bother me.

 

Initially, I had two problems with His Last Vow. The first was what they did with Mary. A CIA trained assassin - that just seemed so... oh gosh, I need a word - so... Cheesy? Improbable? Cheap-action-comedy-style? Well, I've gotten used to it now. And I certainly like her better with a dark side and a dark past than if she really was the Miss Super Perfect we were supposed to be led to believe.

The other problem was that I thought the episode was too loud, somehow. Too extreme, too bombastic. But on re-watching, that impression fades. It's actually a pretty quiet 90 minutes, what with everybody talking in nearly a whisper and all that melancholy music.

 

I'm almost afraid to admit this, but by now, His Last Vow has become one of my favorite episodes. And other than The Reichenbach Fall, it is finished. Of course they can pull the rug out from under our feet next series and reveal that everything was different from what it seemed, but for the time being, the last episode feels like a complete, satisfying story to me, with a lovely, bitter-sweet ending that goes from sad to hopeful at the very, very last minute.

 

The show could end with series 3. The villains are dead, Mary and John are back together, Sherlock is coming back home once more, there's an intriguing new puzzle waiting for him in the form of the Moriarty broadcast, and England will always need him.

 

There's something about His Last Vow that I find very reassuring. I think it's the underlying message that Sherlock Holmes is immortal. He cannot die as long as he is needed, and he will always be needed. He vowed to always be there, and he will. Somehow. Isn't that great? That's something only fictional people can do and I love them for it.

[Zain]

 

 

 

There's something about His Last Vow that I find very reassuring. I think it's the underlying message that Sherlock Holmes is immortal. He cannot die as long as he is needed, and he will always be needed. He vowed to always be there, and he will. Somehow. Isn't that great? That's something only fictional people can do and I love them for it.

 

 

Funny, because I feel like I've watched a completely different episode

Sherlock is proven to be very much mortal, and more: He is proven to be very much human. He clings to any thread dangling in his mind, because admitting to himself that Mary could have killed him is too painful. She cannot have accepted the risk of his death, therefore ...

That's what I see behind his deductions. They are incongruous with what's happening, because he is no longer seeing things clearly. Instead of wanting to find the truth, he is constructing a truth with which he can live.

 

Then there's his loss of control. Unless they make dramatical changes, Sherlock had no influence on his fate. Be his motives selfish or to protect his brother, in the end, it is Mycroft who calls him back. In TRF, Sherlock at least plotted with Mycroft, he took charge of his future. However, Sherlock is completely in the hands of others on the plane. It is not that he cannot die as long as he is needed, he is, to a degree, not ALLOWED to die as long as he is needed. Even if Mycroft acts in Sherlock's interest, there is an element of deprivation of the right of decision. That isn't news, though Sherlock in the past had enough control over his life to voice his discontent.

Just to make clear: I am not criticizing Mycroft's decision. I just tried to show why I did not get any reassuring feelings from HLV. All of the above is subjective. It's the "feeling" I got. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I am thinking once again that I should have let this episode settle -- i.e., should have become familiar with it and developed my own interpretation and opinion -- before reading what people were saying on the forum.  There was a huge barrage of conflicting views that I simply was not ready to deal with.  So my discomfort may not be so much with the episode itself, as with trying to process all that conflicting input.

 

Next time ....