How would you fix "His Last Vow"?

[joanneta1]

Then, they would have been untrue to their own basic concept of modernising the character because allegedly, he and John are a comedy double act. If you start mixing in elements of tragedy, then you are breaking your own rules and not following basic concepts of dramatic art. Basically, they can't have their pie and eat it, cliffhangers  good, tragic lone death bad, as Molly would put it.

[Zain]

 

 

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.

 

 

So it's not that you think HLV in itself intelligent either. It is the moral issues and plane debate which you find well-placed. I'd call that thought-provoking. Can you agree with that or did I misunderstand you?

[Arcadia]

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...........

 

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. ....

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....

As so often happens, I find myself agreeing with both of you, which is weird since you are somewhat disagreeing with one another. It's the Perceiver in me coming out again (*takes a stick and beats it back...*)

 

I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but the more I see and think about HLV, the more I think this is a story that is better understood with the heart than the mind. That doesn't mean you have to turn off your mind and ignore it's flaws, but I do increasingly think the logic of the piece is the wrong criteria to judge it by. It's meant to be paradoxical, imo; on one level it plays out as so much nonsense, on another level (the emotional one) it reveals much that is true.

 

For example, to me it's possible for Sherlock to be both of the things Toby and Zain describe at the same time ... he is, by virtue of his intellect, something more than the rest of us; but he is, also, just a man, who makes the mistakes men make. Or to paraphrase Lestrade, he's a great man who still hasn't worked out how (or why) to be a good one. But "goodness" isn't something you define with logic; or at least, not only with logic, is it? It's more something we "feel" our way to, isn't it? Or am I just odd in that regard?

 

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.

Hmm. I agree his reason is somewhat impaired, possibly for a number of different reasons. But I'm not sure he's lying to himself (or us), either. Although it would be very human of him to do so. But his deductions aren't necessarily at odds with the truth ... as the "truth" is something the audience still doesn't know. Facts are not truth (not that we have many facts, either.) This is one place where I simply refrain from drawing conclusions, because I don't have enough information to work with. If you're right, though, if Sherlock is only seeing what he wants to see, then that would be a good place to start him on the next stage of his journey to ... wherever he's going. One thing I do not believe is that Sherlock will remain static at some point; I think - I hope - he'll always be something of an unfinished piece.

 

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.

Well, I would say Sherlock was in control of his fate insofar as he could have chosen to not shoot CAM, or have chosen to go on the run instead of surrending. And as I've said somewhere before, there is something satisfying about him receiving the grace of forgiveness. Still, to a large extent I agree ... Sherlock needs to stand or fall without interference from Mycroft if he is to be his own man. Part of me wonders if that is actually part of the storyline ... Sherlock growing up enough to take responsibility for himself, instead of knowing he'll always be bailed out by big brother. I guess we'll see.

[Arcadia]

Confound it, I wish you people would stop being so interesting! I should soooo be asleep right now....
 

....
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!

Actually, I don't know that, as I am largely unfamiliar with their source material. Also I'm not quite sure what the instincts of the average viewer are, or if there even is any such thing as an "average" viewer. Surely we are all above average! :D At any rate, I think I have to go with Toby on this one, to whit:

...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....

 
And on a related subject:

...
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.

 
 I still don't understand. Who is Moffat taking his revenge on? Sherlock? The audience? ACD? And why?
 
If Mr. Moffat had really wanted to destroy Sherlock's massive intellect, he should have had CAM shoot Sherlock in the head, not the other way 'round! :P Really, I don't think he's trying to destroy, demean or diminish Sherlock's brain or character. I think he's trying to show the audience Sherlock's heart. His attempt may or may not be successful, but I don't think there's any malice in his intent.
 

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. ...

...t 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 agree about the irony. And I have wondered if they will use that to make Sherlock a more remote figure in the future. But the lesson to be learned here, I think, isn't "caring is not an advantage" (and sometimes it really isn't) -- it's that an advantage is not always the most important thing to have. That's Mycroft's weakness, imo; he's virtually sacrificed his humanity in order to maintain the upper hand. But John's provided Sherlock with a different model of adulthood to emulate, one in which the value of caring outweighs it's disadvantages. So on Sherlock goes on his journey. But not without some bumps and boo boos along the way. 
 

So you see this episode as a tragedy?

You don't? Egad, girl, what have we all been complaining about, then? :D

[joanneta1]

Dear Arcadia, once again you have summed up brilliantly. It is tragic in the whole John-Mary debacle and partial make-up at Christmas, it is tragic because now there will always be a series where the most famous original in detective fiction actually kills a defenceless man at point-blanc range, it is tragic in all the tone and development, with Janine providing some comic relief, it is tragic because the scriptwriter committed character assassination, with or without malice aforethought, although I tend to think he did it deliberately to shock, and there is no other way around that.

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

So it's not that you think HLV in itself intelligent either. It is the moral issues and plane debate which you find well-placed. I'd call that thought-provoking. Can you agree with that or did I misunderstand you?

 

Well, I do think it's a pretty clever, albeit controversial, adaptation of The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, so yes, I do think it is intelligently written, actually. Granted, it doesn't have a particularly intriguing puzzle in it, but then, neither has the original story. (Read it some day,if you haven't already, I bet you can find it somewhere online or at a library. It's not a typical detective story at all).

 

It's definitely a thought-provoking episode, yes. I like to say that my criteria for good fiction are it has to make me laugh, cry and think. His Last Vow certainly delivers on all counts there.

 

I think I understand what you mean, though. You think it's not intelligent because the plot relies on unexplained and improbable events, like Mary being able to get in and out of the Appledore office with a gun and in full assassin gear, and because the solution to the Magnussen problem is not to outsmart him, but to just shoot him in the head.

 

To the latter, I can only say what I have before, that the whole point of the Milverton / Magnussen figure is that Holmes doesn't win against him, and that shooting him was Sherlock losing. The case just doesn't go well, period. That happens. There are people who are too much for Sherlock Holmes - even for Mycroft Holmes. It would be boring if the Holmes brothers had everything under control 24/7. 

 

As for plot holes, well, I am a bit blind to them, I admit. I'd be a rotten detective. Be lenient with me... my IQ isn't very high, and I am a poor romantic dreamer with no head for analytical thinking or attention to detail.

 

 

[Inge l-w]

Hi, if you also factor in an entirely extraneous character, the eminently forgettable Australian transition from Sean Connery to Roger Moore in the James Bond films, and the fact that he managed to turn On Her Majesty's Service into a minor disaster, you will find that Mr Moffat explains that it is from that film he got the whole flight of the dead concept in Scandal, but as the scriptwriter, he should have remembered how in the pre-title sequence Lazenby comes ashore and murmurs: "This would never have happened to the other one", and set up the whole plot of HLV differently if he really cared about his main character's reputation as much as he claims.

[Boton]

 

 

 

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.... 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.

 

 

 

Love is some scary, scary business.  It's not this unalloyed beauty, this safe haven where nothing bad happen.  Loving someone -- spouse, child, parent, friend -- means that you have intentionally allowed a vulnerability in yourself.  It's a wonderful vulnerability; it's one that feels good and that makes us human.  But it also exposes a place in your soul that someone else could exploit to hurt you in the most extreme way, because the alternative for you is even worse.  When I think about the few people that I truly love and would kill or die for (my husband, my parents, my best friend), I realize that I would be willing to sacrifice my own life, my own comfort, and my own being just because the thought of them being hurt or in pain is a worse thing for me to contemplate than my own destruction.  

 

That's part of why I love HLV, right down to Sherlock pulling the trigger.  We got to see that he knows that kind of love now.  Yes, the episode kind of has the volume turned up on every plot twist and every emotion -- hey, Mary's not just flawed, she's an assassin! -- but I like that.  As I've mentioned before, I think that's the purpose of fiction and the purpose of art -- to let us examine these kinds of feelings and problems in another context and sometime in a way that is larger than life.  But ultimately, now we know that Sherlock F****** Holmes in this incarnation (and probably in ACD, but the arc was a bit longer) is not just a souless machine.  He now has both the triumph and the tragedy of knowing love.  Poor sod, now's he's in the same boat as the rest of us.

[sittything]

 

 Poor sod, now's he's in the same boat as the rest of us.

 

I just wanted to say how much I love this.  lol

 

ETA:  It also reminds me of John at Sherlock's grave saying that he was the "most human... human being that I've ever known." 

[Arcadia]

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.

Oh yes, very horrible. I've actually tried to imagine it ending with the plane flying off, because I thought, too, that would make a more dramatic ending ... but it's just too far over the top, it would be like deliberate torture. So The Moftisses have a little mercy in their makeup; who knew?  

 

... I can only say what I have before, that the whole point of the Milverton / Magnussen figure is that Holmes doesn't win against him, and that shooting him was Sherlock losing. The case just doesn't go well, period. That happens. There are people who are too much for Sherlock Holmes - even for Mycroft Holmes. It would be boring if the Holmes brothers had everything under control 24/7.

Yes. This.

 

As for plot holes, well, I am a bit blind to them, I admit. I'd be a rotten detective. Be lenient with me... my IQ isn't very high, and I am a poor romantic dreamer with no head for analytical thinking or attention to detail.

 Oh right. Next you'll be telling us you sell igloos to Eskimos. :P

 

Love is some scary, scary business.  It's not this unalloyed beauty, this safe haven where nothing bad happen.  Loving someone -- spouse, child, parent, friend -- means that you have intentionally allowed a vulnerability in yourself.  It's a wonderful vulnerability; it's one that feels good and that makes us human.  But it also exposes a place in your soul that someone else could exploit to hurt you in the most extreme way, because the alternative for you is even worse.  When I think about the few people that I truly love and would kill or die for (my husband, my parents, my best friend), I realize that I would be willing to sacrifice my own life, my own comfort, and my own being just because the thought of them being hurt or in pain is a worse thing for me to contemplate than my own destruction.  

 

That's part of why I love HLV, right down to Sherlock pulling the trigger.  We got to see that he knows that kind of love now.  Yes, the episode kind of has the volume turned up on every plot twist and every emotion -- hey, Mary's not just flawed, she's an assassin! -- but I like that.  As I've mentioned before, I think that's the purpose of fiction and the purpose of art -- to let us examine these kinds of feelings and problems in another context and sometime in a way that is larger than life.  But ultimately, now we know that Sherlock F****** Holmes in this incarnation (and probably in ACD, but the arc was a bit longer) is not just a souless machine.  He now has both the triumph and the tragedy of knowing love.  Poor sod, now's he's in the same boat as the rest of us.

Lovely.

 

I still hate that Sherlock is the one who pulls the trigger, though. There's other ways to make the point you describe. But it's definitely a point worth making, and if I set my personal dislike of that particular plot moment aside, I think it's a beautiful story, I really love it. I love that it makes me feel such strong emotions -- very little "entertainment" does. I love that we're still batting it back and forth months later. I love that the overall story is still moving forward after three "seasons", that Sherlock, in spite of growing up, is still unpredictable. I love that I have no clue what's coming next!

 

I don't think HLV will ever be my very favoritest episode, but for now at least, it's pretty darn high on the list. (Season 3 is my favorite season, though!!!! And for a Perceiver, that's a pretty definitive statement! :D )

[T.o.b.y]

 

I still hate that Sherlock is the one who pulls the trigger, though.

 

You know what? I like it that he's the one to do it. Compare that to the original, where the solution to the problem is still that Milverton has to be killed, only oh-so-conveniently, a disgruntled anonymous victim marches in and does the deed while Holmes "only" prevents Watson from interfering and later refuses point blank to have anything to do with the investigation. I feel by now that this version is more honest - morally speaking. You want someone dead? Fine, do it yourself! And live with the consequences!

 

In so many stories, the happy end relies on the villain biting the dust. In the "good" stories, the noble hero is always conveniently innocent of the deed, and in the "dark" ones, the protagonist kills him off brutally and gets a medal for it plus an audience going "coooool".

 

Of course, ideally, you'd write a story that can do without villains or killing, but if you must include these elements (for example because you are doing an adaptation of a work where those are very elementary features), then I think His Last Vow does a pretty darn good job of it.

 

 

[Boton]

 

 

I still hate that Sherlock is the one who pulls the trigger, though.

 

You know what? I like it that he's the one to do it. Compare that to the original, where the solution to the problem is still that Milverton has to be killed, only oh-so-conveniently, a disgruntled anonymous victim marches in and does the deed while Holmes "only" prevents Watson from interfering and later refuses point blank to have anything to do with the investigation. I feel by now that this version is more honest - morally speaking. You want someone dead? Fine, do it yourself! And live with the consequences!

 

 

 

I agree.  I understand the impulse behind wanting to keep Sherlock's hands clean, so to speak.  But I agree that this is more intellectually and morally honest.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

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

 

... until the last twist of the screenplay.

I'm still trying to decide whether you're referring to the plane turning around, or Moriarty showing up on television. Frankly, I suspect that Sherlock was happier about the latter than the former: "Oh goody, my playmate is back!"

 

So you see this episode as a tragedy?

You don't? Egad, girl, what have we all been complaining about, then? :D

Never said I didn't, just asked how J.P. saw it.  :P

 

Maybe I should have put a capital "T" on that.  There are obviously tragic elements in this episode, but I don't think it's a classic tragedy.  Those don't have (sort of) happy endings -- as joanneta said:

 

... allegedly, he and John are a comedy double act. If you start mixing in elements of tragedy, then you are breaking your own rules and not following basic concepts of dramatic art. Basically, they can't have their pie and eat it, cliffhangers  good, tragic lone death bad, as Molly would put it.

 

As for plot holes, well, I am a bit blind to them, I admit. I'd be a rotten detective. Be lenient with me... my IQ isn't very high, and I am a poor romantic dreamer with no head for analytical thinking or attention to detail.

... which presumably explains how you are able to see connections and construct overall interpretations that the rest of us have all missed.  Like Arcadia, I am unconvinced!

[sittything]

As for plot holes, well, I am a bit blind to them, I admit. I'd be a rotten detective. Be lenient with me... my IQ isn't very high, and I am a poor romantic dreamer with no head for analytical thinking or attention to detail.

[joanneta1]

Morally honest, fiddle-dee-dee, as my favourite heroine of all time would have said. It is a peculiarly thorny story in itself, but any writer, scriptwriter, what- have-you, should uphold some moral values in their main character, or if they do not feel up to the task, let someone else come up with a better story arc. There are two victims in HLV, Magnussen and Sherlock's character, his reputation as a reasoner, his unbeatable logic, his mental acuity. I called it character assassination, and this is exactly what happened. As Magnussen himself observed, how can he ever go back to Baker Str. and continue solving crimes with Mr and Mrs Psychopath? As a show-stopper, it certainly worked. He has gone down to the depths so much that the three series could easily be compared to Star Wars Episodes 1,2,3, where Anakin is forced by circumstances to turn into Darth Vader.

p.s.  no, dear Arcadia, they do not have  mercy on their minds, it's filthy lucre. Without Sherlock there would be no more franchise, no merchandise, no special boxed sets, no authorised figurines, no BBC books and so on and so forth.

[T.o.b.y]

I was certainly surprised when I found they had Sherlock kill Magnussen, and why. It had never occurred to me to read the original story that way. My expectation was that it would play out like the book, only the lady victim walking in with the gun would be Mary. Maybe that was considered too predictable by the script writers.

 

Anyway, it's a very powerful scene, whether one likes it or not... And certainly not something one would have expected to ever see after watching the first episode. I mean, I can totally picture the Sherlock who stepped on the dying Cabbie's shoulder to make him talk shoot someone, but that he would do it in such a manner, so... ferociously, dramatically, heroically - never saw that coming.

 

Always the unexpected with Sherlock. I wonder what he has up his sleeve for the next season...

[sittything]

Morally honest, fiddle-dee-dee, as my favourite heroine of all time would have said. It is a peculiarly thorny story in itself, but any writer, scriptwriter, what- have-you, should uphold some moral values in their main character, or if they do not feel up to the task, let someone else come up with a better story arc. There are two victims in HLV, Magnussen and Sherlock's character, his reputation as a reasoner, his unbeatable logic, his mental acuity. Someone actually called it character assassination, and this is exactly what happened. As Magnussen himself observed, how can he ever go back to Baker Str. and continue solving crimes with Mr and Mrs Psychopath? As a show-stopper, it certainly worked. He has gone down to the depths so much that the three series could easily be compared to Star Wars Episodes 1,2,3, where Anakin is forced by circumstances to turn into Darth Vader.

 

But why must a writer uphold the moral value of their main character?  It's their character, or their adaptation of a character, to do with as they please.  Literature, film, and theater are riddled with morally dubious main characters.   I don't think it's that Moffat and Gatiss weren't up to the task of upholding Sherlock's character, they just chose to just take him in a different direction.  Now certainly I didn't come into this Sherlock with any preconceived notions of him other than he's really, really smart and really good at solving crimes, so for me there's no dissonance between this version of Sherlock and how I had always imagined him to be.  This Sherlock is the only Sherlock I've ever known.  Though, I can definitely understand how it could be disconcerting for someone who's read or seen other Sherlock things, particularly ACD.   I hate it when I feel like writers run amok with a character I love.

 

Ideally, would it be nice if Sherlock hadn't killed CAM?  Sure.  Was what Sherlock did right?  No.  But Moffat and Gatiss made it very difficult, at least for me, to feel much sympathy for CAM.  Like really unbelievably hard.  lol.  Probably to make what they were going to have Sherlock do a little more palatable to the audience.

[T.o.b.y]

I really doubt they put half as much thought into the decision to let Sherlock be the one who kills Magnussen as we do. I bet they just went cool - lets do this. This is a story by boys about boys. An adventure story full of murder, madness and mayhem - and guns, lots of guns, and giggling at crime scenes, and being best pals ever (who are definitely, certainly, never ever the slightest bit gay - gross). And then along come a bunch of sensitive woman and discuss it to pieces. :lol:

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that! I love overthinking stuff. Lets do it some more! Lots more! Only not today, 'cause I have to get up and go to work in five hours, and I've heard this sleep thing is actually kind of important.

[Zain]

 

Well, I do think it's a pretty clever, albeit controversial, adaptation of The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, so yes, I do think it is intelligently written, actually.

 

[...]

 

I think I understand what you mean, though. You think it's not intelligent because the plot relies on unexplained and improbable events, like Mary being able to get in and out of the Appledore office with a gun and in full assassin gear, and because the solution to the Magnussen problem is not to outsmart him, but to just shoot him in the head.

 

To the latter, I can only say what I have before, that the whole point of the Milverton / Magnussen figure is that Holmes doesn't win against him, and that shooting him was Sherlock losing. The case just doesn't go well, period. That happens. There are people who are too much for Sherlock Holmes - even for Mycroft Holmes. It would be boring if the Holmes brothers had everything under control 24/7. 

 

 

 

The deus ex machina 'turns' are partly why I think HLV is not living up to the quality of the previous episodes. But I also have noticed in S3 that Sherlock's deductions rely more on circumstantial evidence than on the carefully constructed 'induction path' which they showed us in the past. 

 

I'll try to put this chronologically, and to be precise about the eyesores of HLV:

• Sherlock's drug use when he did not know about Magnussen's interest in him (yet). Also, he kept a low profile, which is a contradiction in itself
• If Lord Smallwood was innocent, and Lady Smallwood complained that nobody was willing to stand up to him (unless she said it in self-irony): Why did they not challenge Magnussen on open ground instead of risking making it worse? Imagine what Magnussen can do with the knowledge about the letters. And now imagine what he could do with an article about how Lord Smallwood was willing to hide the incident at all costs.
• How did Sherlock know that Janine was working for Magnussen?
• How did Mary and Janine's friendship fit into this mess?
• How come the emergency service did not provide the police with the information that there were two different callers? (two different phones!)
• How come Mary is even able to visit Sherlock in hospital? Since he was shot and Magnussen hinted at a third party who might intend to kill a potential witness: The standard protocol would be to have someone guarding his room, and nobody would be allowed to visit him except close family members (Mycroft, his parents) until he is ready for questioning.
• If Sherlock climbed out of that window - care to explain how that works as Lestrade and John head upstairs? It is by no means a room on ground level. Yet his wounds do not open from this exertion.
• How did Mary get a thumbdrive, and if she's one of the 'good guys', why did she not use it to prove her innocence?
• How come the bodyguards do not find John's weapon?

 

And those are just the obvious issues which have mostly been discussed in the HLV thread. It's alright if not everything adds up in a satisfying way. However, HLV is riddled with those 'let's turn a blind eye to it' questions. I do not even need to dissect the episode to find obvious continuance errors. That's why I insist that HLV is NOT intelligent. Emotionally challenging, yes. And daring, alright. But intelligent in itself? Not really. Even the noisy, gun-heavy mood and flashy twists do not hide the holes. And I feel insulted that they believe a few gunshots would smoothe it over.

Actually, all the depth that you mention has been added by the fan dialogue. It's not really in the episode. The characters do not lead the moral debate... I agree, though, that this forum has seen a highly productive discussion of HLV. I'd call that intelligent. Not the episode, though...

 

But that's my humble opinion. It it unlikely we'll find common ground. I just wished to express what I am missing from HLV, because we were talking about different meanings of the word 'intelligent'.

[sittything]

I really doubt they put half as much thought into the decision to let Sherlock be the one who kills Magnussen as we do. I bet they just went cool - lets do this. This is a story by boys about boys. An adventure story full of murder, madness and mayhem - and guns, lots of guns, and giggling at crime scenes, and being best pals ever (who are definitely, certainly, never ever the slightest bit gay - gross). And then along come a bunch of sensitive woman and discuss it to pieces. :lol:

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that! I love overthinking stuff. Lets do it some more! Lots more! Only not today, 'cause I have to get up and go to work in five hours, and I've heard this sleep thing is actually kind of important.

 

"That's your weakness. You always want everything to be clever."

 

[Arcadia]

 

I still hate that Sherlock is the one who pulls the trigger, though.

You know what? I like it that he's the one to do it. Compare that to the original, where the solution to the problem is still that Milverton has to be killed, only oh-so-conveniently, a disgruntled anonymous victim marches in and does the deed while Holmes "only" prevents Watson from interfering and later refuses point blank to have anything to do with the investigation. I feel by now that this version is more honest - morally speaking. You want someone dead? Fine, do it yourself! And live with the consequences!

 

I agree. I understand the impulse behind wanting to keep Sherlock's hands clean, so to speak. But I agree that this is more intellectually and morally honest.

"Morally honest", huh? Nice try, ladies! I think I'll try that if I ever get hauled into court: "But your honor, I knew it was wrong and I did it anyway. Isn't that more morally honest?"

 

You had me when you were talking about CAM's -- er, manner of death -- as a matter of sacrifice and loving and losing, but I'm afraid I have to draw the line at making a virtue out of it! :D Look, I really do understand what you mean. I haven't read the original, but I'm sure I would find it just as contrived as you say it is. I'm also pretty sure I would find it just as contrived as I think HLV is! Seriously, the contortions Moffat had to go through to put Sherlock in that position to begin with.... But you know what? It's fine. All fiction is a contrivance, I don't generally have a problem with that. And I still love HLV for what I personally get out of it, even if I disagree with the premise. I think it's a beautiful show to watch and a powerful experience. I certainly wouldn't want to do without it. It's just that "morally honest" struck me as a particularly convoluted bit of reasoning (this show seems to inspire that!) and I had to have a bit of a laugh at your expense. Ignore all of that, it's just the, er, shock talking. Look, I've got a blanket.

 

 

.... There are two victims in HLV, Magnussen and Sherlock's character, his reputation as a reasoner, his unbeatable logic, his mental acuity. I called it character assassination ....

I totally agree, Sherlock's reasoning, logic and acuity are called into question here. But could that be the point? Those things are not all there is to him; they are not what will make him a "good man." Strip those away, and we get to see what else he's made of. We're free to like or dislike what we learn, but I have to balk at the term character assasination, as if his intellect is the only thing about him that's of any worth. How about character revelation, instead? It's more neutral, at least.

 

p.s. no, dear Arcadia, they do not have mercy on their minds, it's filthy lucre. Without Sherlock there would be no more franchise, no merchandise, no special boxed sets, no authorised figurines, no BBC books and so on and so forth.

Wow. You do know this is a "fan" forum, right? We tend to like stuff like that! :D Which reminds me, I've got a little extra filthy lucre at the moment, maybe this would be a good time to order the Sherlock Chronicles....

[Arcadia]

The deus ex machina 'turns' are partly why I think HLV is not living up to the quality of the previous episodes. But I also have noticed in S3 that Sherlock's deductions rely more on circumstantial evidence than on the carefully constructed 'induction path' which they showed us in the past. 

 

I'll try to put this chronologically, and to be precise about the eyesores of HLV:

.......

And those are just the obvious issues which have mostly been discussed in the HLV thread. It's alright if not everything adds up in a satisfying way. However, HLV is riddled with those 'let's turn a blind eye to it' questions. I do not even need to dissect the episode to find obvious continuance errors. That's why I insist that HLV is NOT intelligent. Emotionally challenging, yes. And daring, alright. But intelligent in itself? Not really. Even the noisy, gun-heavy mood and flashy twists do not hide the holes. And I feel insulted that they believe a few gunshots would smoothe it over.

Actually, all the depth that you mention has been added by the fan dialogue. It's not really in the episode. The characters do not lead the moral debate... I agree, though, that this forum has seen a highly productive discussion of HLV. I'd call that intelligent. Not the episode, though...

 

But that's my humble opinion. It it unlikely we'll find common ground. I just wished to express what I am missing from HLV, because we were talking about different meanings of the word 'intelligent'.

I find this all pretty interesting.

 

I have to admit ... I'm pretty sure if we put as much time in dissecting the other episodes as we have this one, we would find plenty of plot weaknesses. That's sort of the hazard of cinematic story-telling, I'm afraid; they have very little time, compared to, say, a novel ... and they must use far fewer words than even many short stories. Pick a movie, any movie; I'll bet someone will have found a plot hole. Actually, I suspect that applies to most stories, in any medium. It's just that most stories don't get picked over as much as this one. And yeah, okay, HLV's (seeming?) inconsistencies are pretty easy to find. :D

 

It never occurred to me to think of this as an "intelligent" episode. That seems somehow irrelevant amidst all the sturm and drang. Emotionally intelligent, perhaps? (Although I'm afraid Sherlock might consider that an oxymoron. :P ) I generally do think "brainy is sexy" (nothing new about that, by the way!), I'm just not sure that lack of braininess is inherently a flaw. I'll have to think on that.

 

Of the points you made, I think a few of them are actually explained in the show; and a few of them have, imo, no bearing on the outcome. And a few of them are real head scratchers that make you wonder how they ever thought they'd get away with them. To which I will give the same answer Moftiss more or less gave in the commentary -- they decided those points got in the way of the story they DID want to tell. I'm inclined to agree they made some questionable choices, but I'm not convinced it was due to blindness, menace or stupidity, as others have suggested. They were just after something other than what some of us wanted to see, alas. It won't be the first time that's happened with a TV show. I'm afraid all that's left for us to do is try to find a way to adapt, or move on to something else. I just hope most people will give the former a shot before resorting to the latter.

 

Sorry, maybe none of this helps ... sometimes when you don't like something, you. just. don't. like it. (That's pretty much how I am about Meryl Streep! )

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

Well, I do think it's a pretty clever, albeit controversial, adaptation of The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton, so yes, I do think it is intelligently written, actually.

 

[...]

 

I think I understand what you mean, though. You think it's not intelligent because the plot relies on unexplained and improbable events, like Mary being able to get in and out of the Appledore office with a gun and in full assassin gear, and because the solution to the Magnussen problem is not to outsmart him, but to just shoot him in the head.

 

To the latter, I can only say what I have before, that the whole point of the Milverton / Magnussen figure is that Holmes doesn't win against him, and that shooting him was Sherlock losing. The case just doesn't go well, period. That happens. There are people who are too much for Sherlock Holmes - even for Mycroft Holmes. It would be boring if the Holmes brothers had everything under control 24/7. 

 

 

 

The deus ex machina 'turns' are partly why I think HLV is not living up to the quality of the previous episodes. But I also have noticed in S3 that Sherlock's deductions rely more on circumstantial evidence than on the carefully constructed 'induction path' which they showed us in the past. 

 

I'll try to put this chronologically, and to be precise about the eyesores of HLV:

• Sherlock's drug use when he did not know about Magnussen's interest in him (yet). Also, he kept a low profile, which is a contradiction in itself
• If Lord Smallwood was innocent, and Lady Smallwood complained that nobody was willing to stand up to him (unless she said it in self-irony): Why did they not challenge Magnussen on open ground instead of risking making it worse? Imagine what Magnussen can do with the knowledge about the letters. And now imagine what he could do with an article about how Lord Smallwood was willing to hide the incident at all costs.
• How did Sherlock know that Janine was working for Magnussen?
• How did Mary and Janine's friendship fit into this mess?
• How come the emergency service did not provide the police with the information that there were two different callers? (two different phones!)
• How come Mary is even able to visit Sherlock in hospital? Since he was shot and Magnussen hinted at a third party who might intend to kill a potential witness: The standard protocol would be to have someone guarding his room, and nobody would be allowed to visit him except close family members (Mycroft, his parents) until he is ready for questioning.
• If Sherlock climbed out of that window - care to explain how that works as Lestrade and John head upstairs? It is by no means a room on ground level. Yet his wounds do not open from this exertion.
• How did Mary get a thumbdrive, and if she's one of the 'good guys', why did she not use it to prove her innocence?
• How come the bodyguards do not find John's weapon?

 

Hmmm, when I come home today, I'll have to remember to take that to the "Holes in the Plot" thread. I think I have answers to some of those - to others, not so much.

 

 

"Morally honest", huh? Nice try, ladies! I think I'll try that if I ever get hauled into court: "But your honor, I knew it was wrong and I did it anyway. Isn't that more morally honest?"

You had me when you were talking about CAM's -- er, manner of death -- as a matter of sacrifice and loving and losing, but I'm afraid I have to draw the line at making a virtue out of it! :D

 

I don't think it's a virtue at all. I just think this way, it's more honest storytelling.

 

*Sigh*... how to make myself more clear on this within the ten minutes I have left until I need to leave the house and do some work in the real world?

 

Okay, the story, the original story, relies on Milverton having to die. No dead Milverton - no solved problem, no happy ending. A lot of stories are that way. If there's a villain, he has to go (all right, if you want to make a lot of sequels, and the villain was popular, he just vanishes and it is revealed later that he wasn't really dead). Holmes was trapped in Milverton's room, and he could only destroy the contents of the safe because an anonymous woman conveniently marched in and shot Milverton in the face (then ground her heel in it for good measure). How convenient, you know - the great detective saves the day and never had to get his hands dirty. A bit too convenient, for my taste. And if he really thought murder was bad, and killing Milverton not justified, he'd have stepped in, which he didn't, he actually prevented his friend from doing anything (not that Watson needed much convincing...). We never know what happened to the poor woman, but I guess the logic is her life was ruined anyway, so what does it matter.

 

This Sherlock could have just let who he thought was Lady Smallwood kill Magnussen and sneak away, glad that the shark had been taken care of by someone else. But he didn't. This version steps in to prevent the desperate lady from taking a step he thinks she will regret (how was he supposed to know it was Mary and one more victim really didn't matter that much in her case). That's a pretty good deed, for which he paid dearly. Then, since the story still requires that Magnussen has to die, in the end Sherlock sees himself forced to do it himself, and while I don't think he has any real regrets about it, he does acknowledge that there must be consequences, and he faces those without hesitation. I call that better storytelling than the original, and more honest. Because if the author decides the villain must die, he might at least have the guts to kill him outright, instead of inventing an improbable freak occurrence to finish him off while nobody has to soil their precious reputation.

 

Again: I would prefer an episode without a villain, and without killing. But if you have to have that, then in my opinion, do it like His Last Vow.

 

If I remember correctly, Arcadia, you are a Lord of the Rings fan. What would you think of Aragorn if he got crowned king but hadn't slain a single orc himself, because killing is bad, you know?

[joanneta1]

Moral honesty, dragon-slaying, orc killing, anything else left in all your attempts to defend the indefensible?

As writers, it is their responsibility to preserve their characters' integrity, a thing at which they fail dismally in HLV, John is suddenly an adrenaline junkie, Mary is a trained secret service assassin, why not call her 008, while they are about it, and Sherlock is outmatched for once, so like a child playing a game, he throws over the board because he is losing, by killing someone at point blanc range.

Zain's plot holes are pretty comprehensive, although there are indications about Mary befriending Janine to get close to Magnussen and then making her her maid of honour, thus bringing her into contact with Sherlock.

My main problem is that I want that particular episode erased, deleted, removed, expunged from the Holmes universe. The rest is just speculation, rationalisation and strong or feeble excuses for an action that should never have been filmed.

It's their story, they can turn him into Count Dracula or Dr Lecter, or even Freddie Kruger if they like, but they should not pretend to LIKE Sherlock Holmes then, because it would be hypocritical as well as demeaning.

[sfmpco]

Oh no that episode is absolutely brilliant DESPITE whatever plot holes you think there are.  Also remember that lots of extra stuff gets written and filmed but doesn't make it into the final cut (for example CAM's visit to Sherlock in hospital).  They are on a time schedule.  Trust me, if it goes over 90 minutes, all the actors are on a different pay schedule PLUS a different residual schedule.

 

What they need to do is release a director's cut of that episode, and we should be encouraging them to do so on ALL the episodes, because I don't think the pay schedule varies for the actors with the video release even if it's longer.  They just get a residual cut of the sales.

 

So what I am saying is that I don't think Moffat and Gatiss are such terrible writers that they would leave such gaping holes or plot line issues.  No, they are both brilliant writers contrained by a 90-minute show.