How would you fix "His Last Vow"?

[T.o.b.y]

Next time, you will hopefully join us again, though, after you've had time to make up your own mind. Or you'll have to develop some of my arrogance: I am always very interested in other people's opinions, but the only one I really believe in is my own. :D

[sfmpco]

Plus we each carry out own head canon.

[Inge l-w]

 

 

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!

Once again, I agree with Zain, HLV is not satisfying on a visceral level, just because things took that fateful turn in Magnussen's office. It is easy to shock your audience, but it is much more difficult to captivate them, and in this instance they went for cheap thrills at the expense of logic, plot development and above all character development. He is fallible, so what, that does not necessarily have to lead to his killing a defenceless man because he cannot be bothered to think of another plan BEFORE confronting such an extremely dangerous adversary.
He boasted that for the encounter with Moriarity there were thirteen backup plans, and Sherlock recognises how dangerous the newspaper magnate is from the moment Lady Smallwood tasks him with the job of retrieving those letters, at which he once again fails, because the newspaper he is reading during the Christmas crackers scene is clearly headlined "Lord Smallwood suicide". He has already discovered that Magnussen's glasses are simple ones, so in his enforced idleness to recover, he could have come up with multiple reasons behind that fact and planned accordingly. Even his plan of drugging everyone to get his hands on Mycroft's laptop is an easy way out.
Mr. Moffat wanted to play out his revenge on his allegedly favourite character, and we are saddled with a totally unconvincing, unsatisfying result. If he wanted to wreak such destruction on his characacter's main trait, Sherlock's massive intellect, then he succeeded at an incredible cost both to the character, and to the viewers.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

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!

Once again, I agree with Zain, HLV is not satisfying on a visceral level, just because things took that fateful turn in Magnussen's office. It is easy to shock your audience, but it is much more difficult to captivate them, and in this instance they went for cheap thrills at the expense of logic, plot development and above all character development. He is fallible, so what, that does not necessarily have to lead to his killing a defenceless man because he cannot be bothered to think of another plan BEFORE confronting such an extremely dangerous adversary.

He boasted that for the encounter with Moriarity there were thirteen backup plans, and Sherlock recognises how dangerous the newspaper magnate is from the moment Lady Smallwood tasks him with the job of retrieving those letters, at which he once again fails, because the newspaper he is reading during the Christmas crackers scene is clearly headlined "Lord Smallwood suicide". He has already discovered that Magnussen's glasses are simple ones, so in his enforced idleness to recover, he could have come up with multiple reasons behind that fact and planned accordingly. Even his plan of drugging everyone to get his hands on Mycroft's laptop is an easy way out.

Mr. Moffat wanted to play out his revenge on his allegedly favourite character, and we are saddled with a totally unconvincing, unsatisfying result. If he wanted to wreak such destruction on his characacter's main trait, Sherlock's massive intellect, then he succeeded at an incredible cost both to the character, and to the viewers.

 

Hey, hey, easy... I believe it's not satisfying for you, and I am sorry about that. I know the feeling when a series you loved takes a turn you cannot agree with and you feel the whole thing has been ruined. That hurts - and it's the reason that, as a rule, I do not watch serials. Sherlock is a big exception, and among other things I was drawn to it because it's more a string of movies, each with its own beginning and end, so that it's entirely possible to stop watching at some point, like one can with films and their sequels (ask me about Matrix 2 and 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean beyond the first one, and you will get an uncomprehending stare). 

 

His Last Vow is deeply satisfying for me both emotionally and intellectually, though. I think it's a brilliant adaptation of "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton", which is not a typical detective story in any sense, and full of melodrama and violence and has hardly any brain-work on Holmes' part at all. For me, this modern version is a lot better.

But even independently of the source, I really, really enjoy this last Sherlock episode. I still prefer the first series to anything they did later, but after all, they've been there, they've done that. It's kind of cool how they are experimenting and bringing something new to the series all the time. They keep the viewers on their toes, and in a world where I find most entertainment to be incredibly predictable, I see that as a huge achievement.

 

So, I guess what I am saying is that satisfaction is a subjective matter, and that just because you didn't like this episode, or the whole third series for that matter, that does not make it bad quality, or mean the creative minds behind it are lacking judgment.

 

That said, you should listen to me rant about what they did with "Mad Men", and you'll realize how hypocritical and preachy the above paragraphs are - if that wasn't evident already. :P

[joanneta1]

Dear Toby, thanks for your long explanatory answer. I do not mean to rile you, or make you go on a rant, but if someone says they love a fictional character, that they live and breathe the character, who is, by the way a character you grew up with, whose Raffles reincarnation you found more to your liking BECAUSE he is a villain, which you discovered by reading the original character's creator's letter to Raffles's  creator "You must never make your hero into a villain"! and then discover that  that somebody, out of deviltry, mischievousness, rancour or spiteful petty-mindedness has gone and done just that, then you can suspect all kinds of ulterior motives, from pure sensation-seeking to deeply buried sentiments of resentment, but above all, you feel deceived as a viewer and a Holmes enthusiast yourself. What he has created with SoT, the whole baby thing, and in HLV, Holmes a killer, he must now unravel satisfactorily on both an artistic and a logical level, or he is going to lose any momentum he has built up for so long, (the whole concept was talked about in 2008 from their e-mails in Chronicles), the merchandise and the fandom. I would be just as comfortable as a member of the Sherlock Holmes Society, if I could, as here. It's a matter of perception, of values and ideals. HLV pushes a lot of wrong buttons in me, despite the absolutely fantastic scene of dénouement when Sherlock returns to his flat with John and Mary with  that lovely haunting music. As someone else said above, he is Sherlock f******Holmes, so he does not kill and he uses his brain first, foremost and always!

Oh, and by the way, I am a firm fan of what this particular scriptwriter calls "museum pieces" and relics, namely the Granada series, I am a comparative latecomer to this one, and like John says in Scandal, it is something "I could heartlessly abandon". Also, it is my belief that the whole period piece will be mostly written by Mark Gatiss, who truly loves the character, and it is a play for time, before the vengeful part of Mr. Moffat gets the upper hand in S4 again and possibly ruins the whole concept.

[T.o.b.y]

Dear Toby, thanks for your long explanatory answer. I do not mean to rile you, or make you go on a rant

 

Oh, but I love to rant! And I get the frustration that ensues when a beloved character is taken in a direction you don't agree with, I really do. Ask me about Disney and fairy tales, or, even worse, Disney and Winnie the Pooh. I could still strangle the person who sold them the rights to my childhood, so to speak. But that doesn't mean their animated films are bad. There's a reason they were so successful, and for other people, that is their childhood.

 

I really (think I) understand where the problem lies with His Last Vow. I wasn't too pleased with it at first either. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's quite fair to call it bad. It's not sloppily written or acted or directed. I think it deserved the award it got.

 

I think my "advantage" as a Sherlock fan is, that while I love the original stories and grew up with a huge teenage crush on Mr Holmes, I never thought particularly highly of them on a literary level, and I must admit I never respected Doyle much as a writer. Then, I also never saw any other film versions, I've never watched the Jeremy Brett series (though I have a feeling I should before the Sherlock special airs, just to get the jokes and the references). So I'm less likely to be disappointed, I guess.

 

Anyway, don't feel bad about making me spew a whole page of words, or about provoking a reaction from me. It's what I like! :lol: And if I get on your nerves, just tell me to shut up. I'm not exactly easily offended...

[joanneta1]

Dear Toby, that was quick!

If you want literature, you will not find it in the adventures, ACD was essentially writing potboiler, penny-farthing stories, that's why he disliked having to write them so much that he killed him in The Final Problem, not that Brigadier Gerard or The White Company are literally masterpieces, either. He was a dabbler in writing, a true example of his age, a doctor who indulged in a pastime that brought some money on the side. He could have taken up watercolours equally well, if there had not been Dr Bell to suggest deductive reasoning as an incentive to writing. But, once created, Sherlock Holmes, like all major characters, took on a life of his own, so we come back to the essential flaw of this series, not just HLV: they have already used up the best bits, we know that the particular scriptwriter has no qualms about ruining his main character's reputation for astuteness by turning him into a common or garden variety vigilante, so I am braced to expect the worst, rather than the best. Someone asked about BC's lack of a smile on the filming news thread. Perhaps he had been given the script for Episode 1 of Series 4?

[J.P.]

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.

It is how I see this too. If there were no next series it would still feel completed to me. I suppose the impression is even stronger if you watch all the series back to back during one weekend.

 

ause 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.

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage. Yes, his care for John has brought him back to life, but on the other hand he would never get into the whole mess if he was listening to his brother.

[T.o.b.y]

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage.

 

Yes! Exactly! Isn't that... unusual? Aren't we usually told by every single bit of mainstream fiction on the planet that love is so great and powerful and redeeming and so on and so forth? I am a great believer in love, but I like how this series explores how it makes you vulnerable, and how emotions do cloud your judgment. They aren't saying those things are bad - not at all, those characters lacking love and feelings are pretty pathetic (see Magnussen, and, for that matter, Mycroft). But the story explores how being an actual, living, breathing, feeling, loving human being is a dangerous business. You can either be cold and isolated and safe, or caring and involved and exposed.

 

I love that.

 

 

[sittything]

 

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage.

 

Yes! Exactly! Isn't that... unusual? Aren't we usually told by every single bit of mainstream fiction on the planet that love is so great and powerful and redeeming and so on and so forth? I am a great believer in love, but I like how this series explores how it makes you vulnerable, and how emotions do cloud your judgment. They aren't saying those things are bad - not at all, those characters lacking love and feelings are pretty pathetic (see Magnussen, and, for that matter, Mycroft). But the story explores how being an actual, living, breathing, feeling, loving human being is a dangerous business. You can either be cold and isolated and safe, or caring and involved and exposed.

 

I love that.

 

 

 

 

 

Awwww... Mycroft isn't pathetic, nor is he entirely devoid of feelings and love.  

[Zain]

 

 

 

I love that.

 

 

 

I thought I'd quote something nice for once. We tend to 'like' posts, but usually it's the parts we disagree on that we comment on. Believe it or not (I've turned from a sceptic into a firm opponent of HLV, so this is probably unbelievable): I agree. I love it too when writers make intratextual references to prior statements or events. As you said, HLV comes full circle as it confirms that 'caring is not an advantage'. However, that is not something that is unique to HLV. The entire show has got a strong element of quoting itself, and at times: Misquoting. In a way, the writers deconstruct their own work by giving new meaning to once defined 'statements'. I can appreciate how HLV carries this element as well.

 

You've said that you like the episode intellectually, too. May I ask you to elaborate? I believe I - and others who find fault with HLV -have spent many paragraphs explaining why we find the episode too noisy, too 'brawny', too less focused on intellect. I find myself at a loss right now. Usually, I prefer to take in the "opposing" arguments to phrase my own opinion in an according form. If we neglect the moral issues, the plane debate, and the murder controversy: What is it that strikes you as intellectually pleasing about HLV?

[sittything]

That's interesting about HLV showing that caring is not an advantage.  Admittedly, this is not an episode that I really love and so I haven't watched it often, but I can't say I ever took away from it that caring is not an advantage.  To have that be one of the takeaways is to undo all of Sherlock's progress, and now I'm wondering if that is the case if we won't see a very regressed Sherlock in series 4.  I may have to rewatch HLV tonight.

[J.P.]

 

Aren't we usually told by every single bit of mainstream fiction on the planet that love is so great and powerful and redeeming and so on and so forth? I am a great believer in love, but I like how this series explores how it makes you vulnerable, and how emotions do cloud your judgment.

 

Amen to that. I'm so quick to see it, because it is my POV in real life.

 

There is another movie that continuously comes to my mind: Luc Besson's Leon. There is a scene in the EE when Mathilda says she fell in love with him. He takes it quite calm, but as soon as he is out of the room he nearly breaks down. What happens next? He gets wounded during his next job (because he wasn't 100% focused at what he does). And at the end he pays with his life.

 

Probably the bigger question here is: is it worth it?

[J.P.]

That's interesting about HLV showing that caring is not an advantage.  Admittedly, this is not an episode that I really love and so I haven't watched it often, but I can't say I ever took away from it that caring is not an advantage.  To have that be one of the takeaways is to undo all of Sherlock's progress, and now I'm wondering if that is the case if we won't see a very regressed Sherlock in series 4.  I may have to rewatch HLV tonight.

 

Not necessarily. While TSoT was about pain of loss (the world moved on so did his friends), HLV is about decision which way to go. S decided to care anyway and to pay for it. From that point the story can develop in any direction.

 

To me the scene with Moriarty chained in the padded cell might be the most important key for what happens next. "you always feel the pain, but you don't have to FEAR it". Even now it gives me goosbumps.

[sittything]

 

That's interesting about HLV showing that caring is not an advantage.  Admittedly, this is not an episode that I really love and so I haven't watched it often, but I can't say I ever took away from it that caring is not an advantage.  To have that be one of the takeaways is to undo all of Sherlock's progress, and now I'm wondering if that is the case if we won't see a very regressed Sherlock in series 4.  I may have to rewatch HLV tonight.

 

Not necessarily. While TSoT was about pain of loss (the world moved on so did his friends), HLV is about decision which way to go. S decided to care anyway and to pay for it. From that point the story can develop in any direction.

 

To me the scene with Moriarty chained in the padded cell might be the most important key for what happens next. "you always feel the pain, but you don't have to FEAR it". Even now it gives me goosbumps.

 

 

That is a freaking phenomenal quote.  Love it.

 

I think I've always felt the way you put it, that Sherlock is choosing people, choosing to care, and taking the bad with the good that comes along with that.  But people commenting that HLV was about caring not being an advantage makes me worry he might regress some, shy away from it because of the repercussions he had in HLV.  Hopefully not, I hope you're correct.

[T.o.b.y]

Amen to that. I'm so quick to see it, because it is my POV in real life.

 

There is another movie that continuously comes to my mind: Luc Besson's Leon. There is a scene in the EE when Mathilda says she falled in love with him. He takes it quite calm, but as soon as he is out of the room he nearly breaks down. What happens next? He gets wounded during his next job (because he wasn't 100% focused at what he does). And at the end he pays with his life.

 

Probably the bigger question here is: is it worth it?

 

YES! It is! It totally is! I have often wished I could shut my emotions down and not care about anything or anybody. How much easier my life would be, how much calmer. But I came to the conclusion that it would no longer deserve to be called a life.

 

Here, this song says it better than I can, I think:

 

 

(Any excuse will do for me to listen to this... :lol: )

 

[joanneta1]

 

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage.

 

Yes! Exactly! Isn't that... unusual? Aren't we usually told by every single bit of mainstream fiction on the planet that love is so great and powerful and redeeming and so on and so forth? I am a great believer in love, but I like how this series explores how it makes you vulnerable, and how emotions do cloud your judgment. They aren't saying those things are bad - not at all, those characters lacking love and feelings are pretty pathetic (see Magnussen, and, for that matter, Mycroft). But the story explores how being an actual, living, breathing, feeling, loving human being is a dangerous business. You can either be cold and isolated and safe, or caring and involved and exposed.

 

I love that.

 

 

 

 

Dear Toby and JP,

         Caring is NOT an advantage! I hope you lead happy, successful family and career lives, but if I could turn into Mycroft (not his mind, his detachment), I would not hesitate for the blink of an eye. Caring, and caring too much sometimes,  has brought me nothing but misery, heartbreak and a sense of failure, because in caring for others I completely forgot to care for myself, my ambitions, my life.

As for not listening to Mycroft, I think I have made my views clear in a previous comment, so I am not going to repeat myself and bore you. And he, himself should have heeded his own conclusion in Scandal: "Sentiment is found on the losing side"!

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

What is it that strikes you as intellectually pleasing about HLV?

 

The controversy. Look, this episode aired a year ago, and here we're still discussing it more than any other. It raises big questions - like is it ever okay to take a life, and if so when, and can you love a murderer, and if so, should you be allowed to / allow yourself to, and what can you forgive in a relationship, and should you do that, and what about fiction, do the rules for real life have to apply there?

 

If that's not intellectually stimulating, then I don't know. I find it more interesting certainly than different types of tobacco ash - sorry, Sherlock.

[sittything]

 

 

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage.

 

Yes! Exactly! Isn't that... unusual? Aren't we usually told by every single bit of mainstream fiction on the planet that love is so great and powerful and redeeming and so on and so forth? I am a great believer in love, but I like how this series explores how it makes you vulnerable, and how emotions do cloud your judgment. They aren't saying those things are bad - not at all, those characters lacking love and feelings are pretty pathetic (see Magnussen, and, for that matter, Mycroft). But the story explores how being an actual, living, breathing, feeling, loving human being is a dangerous business. You can either be cold and isolated and safe, or caring and involved and exposed.

 

I love that.

 

 

 

 

Dear Toby and JP,

         Caring is NOT an advantage! I hope you lead happy, successful family and career lives, but if I could turn into Mycroft (not his mind, his detachment), I would not hesitate for the blink of an eye. Caring, and caring too much sometimes,  has brought me nothing but misery, heartbreak and a sense of failure, because in caring for others I completely forgot to care for myself, my ambitions, my life.

As for not listening to Mycroft, I think I have made my views clear in a previous comment, so I am not going to repeat myself and bore you.

 

 

 

Although, I would argue that Mycroft does in fact care; even he is not immune.

 

 “I worry about him. Constantly.“  (I think he really does in fact)

 

"Also your loss would break my heart."  (There was no pretense here)

 

"Do not fire on Sherlock Holmes! Do not fire!  Oh, Sherlock. What have you done?"   (My heart breaks every time I see this scene.  The initial panic in Mycroft's face, then the anguished look that follows once he's sure they're not about to gun Sherlock down)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joanneta1]

Nobody who is human can be totally immune, sittything, but Mycroft at least has the advantage of knowing why he cares about his pesky younger brother. If he listened to Mycroft more, of course, we would not have such moments of comedy or pathos in the series. He would not have tried to surprise John at the restaurant, he would not have continued his investigation concerning Irene Adler, where he was specifically warned that it was no longer his concern, and he would not have got involved in the whole Mary-John marriage that brought him to HLV and disaster.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

That sounds like me -- trying to deal with watching "Last Vow"!

 

If I see all seasons as one completed story, I also see a bitter irony to this end. Because Sherlock started to care. And it turned to be not an advantage. Yes, his care for John has brought him back to life, but on the other hand he would never get into the whole mess if he was listening to his brother.

So you see this episode as a tragedy? (With a "happy ending" that actually changes very little?) 

 

While TSoT was about pain of loss (the world moved on so did his friends), HLV is about decision which way to go. S decided to care anyway and to pay for it. From that point the story can develop in any direction.

That has some definite good news / bad news possibilities, doesn't it? 

[sfmpco]

I think there's good news and bad news... but the good news may not be "good" by some standards and the bad may be very, very bad...

[J.P.]

Have to ad: both TEH and TSoT are dealing with pain of loss, Sherlock realizes that his friends can carry on without him.

 

 

 

So you see this episode as a tragedy? (With a "happy ending" that actually changes very little?) 

 

Tragedy? Ermmm... yes. The deus ex machina ending should be kept out of the equation (unless it was SH's trick to bring him back, of course), because S's decisions were made without that option. So how it actually ends? Loss, heartbreak, death. 

 

It all might be worth it for Sherlock, but still - it's not a happy end.

 

... until the last twist of the screenplay.

[T.o.b.y]

It would have been horrible if they hadn't shown the plane coming back, wouldn't it? Though a minority fraction of my brain thinks it's a shame they spoiled a perfectly lovely tragedy. I mean, what you think is the ending before you know it isn't is incredible. But it's way too sad for Sherlock.

 

In all, there isn't much I'd change about His Last Vow if I could. I am still not happy with how John and Mary made up, but oh well, what can you expect in that area from a script written entirely by men. It's not a huge big deal for me, though. The series is called Sherlock, not John and Mary. And Sherlock-wise, I seem to be among the few who is completely happy with his journey.

[J.P.]

Can it be Mofftiss got some serious death threats after the cliffhanger in S1. 

They obviously didn't dare to repeat it in S2 - which also would have been a tragedy without the final hint.