How would you fix "His Last Vow"?

[Boton]

 

 

 

 

 

And are you comfortable with that image of the greatest detective genius of all times! That's not Sherlock, that's Indiana Jones in the marketplace scene in The Lost Ark, facing a menacing sword-wielding colossus. Get rid of him and get on with the rest of the adventure, in other words. As the playful villain would have said: "Well, good luck with that!"

 

 

 

Am I comfortable with that?  Yes, I really am.  I'm absolutely fine with it.

 

I do see and agree with what you are saying.  So far, we've had John shoot Jeff Hope and Sherlock shoot CAM.  They can't keep solving problems with violence, even though the internal logic of both scenes feels fine to me.  (I've already said I have more qualms about Jeff Hope, but I think it holds together from a story standpoint.)  I don't want these guys to turn into cowboys on the untamed frontier, because I have other things I can watch if that's what I want.

 

But I don't think that genius precludes recognizing/believing that you need a solution born of physical force.  Genius doesn't trump any other human experience or emotion.  Sherlock can be the smartest thing on the planet (next to Mycroft, of course) and still make mistakes and/or find himself in a situation where there just isn't a beautiful, elegant solution.  I'm fine with that, as long as every season doesn't have one of these circumstances.

 

I think the CAM situation works for me in part because the overarching theme is pressure points -- what will make you break, and how far will you go.  We now know exactly how far Sherlock Holmes will go, and what will push him there.  And he knows too, which I find to be good storytelling.  

[Arcadia]

I know that Cumberbatch really wanted Sherlock to be able to come up with a more elegant solution.  You know what?  Sometimes there isn't one.  And, for me, this is fiction and fantasy.  This is the place that you are allowed to acknowledge the part of yourself that agrees with Mary and thinks that people like CAM should be killed.  This is the place to cheer when your hero dispatches a villain who doesn't even directly kill anyone, but who has gained in money and power in the absence of personal moral limitations to the point where he has to be stopped, legally or extra-legally.  It's even the place to laugh hysterically when your hero drugs his own family to the gills on Christmas, and to cry when you see that blood seeping out of that bullet hole, but to still play the scene over and over again.  It is, for me, extraordinarily beautiful and cathartic.  Maybe that says more about my psychology than anything else, but it pushes the right buttons for me.

 Ah. That would explain a lot ... because I can't find in myself any place that agrees with Mary, or that cheers at that gunshot. It simply ain't in me, folks. Having said that, though, I 100% agree with you ... fiction is a great place to explore ourselves and our relationship with the world, and we're not even required to agree with the writer's p.o.v. to get something out of it. Look how many pages of this forum have been spent discussing HLV; not too shabby for a TV show.

 

Remarkable mind as in "I have no back-up plan, everything has gone horribly wrong, my best friend is being pettily harassed under my own eyes, I am helpless to protect his former assassin of a wife, so I pull a gun out of thin air and shoot him dead"?

I second Arcadia in wanting to strangle the writer of this particular bit of arrant nonsense and agree with Zain that if he had tried, he could have found another way around the particular encounter.

What if Moffat didn't want another solution, though? What if he wrote the story to get the ending he wanted?

 

If this helps: for me at least, the only thing left to do was to try and figure out: why? What's the point? What does it mean? (And there's my weakness: I insist that it have meaning!! :D ) If I dig around in the story for those kinds of answers, there's quite a lot to appreciate.

 

I'm sorry, I'm writing very vaguely and I know it. But I don't want to sound like I'm in the lecture hall! I'm pretty sure I take this show way more seriously than Moftiss intended, but I can't help myself. (It's what I like. :P )

[T.o.b.y]

 I'm pretty sure I take this show way more seriously than Moftiss intended, but I can't help myself. (It's what I like. :P )

 

I am very sure I take the show more seriously than anybody involved in making it ever intended, and that if they knew, they would think I am crazy, and also a sad pathetic loser who needs to get herself a life. But I actually have a life, and I find that taking fiction too seriously helps me immensely with that, so I'll go on doing it. I just don't expect any creator to honor that, or to do his work with people like me in mind. I require a certain depth to enjoy a story, but if given the right material, my mind can create the rest on its own.

 

 

[joanneta1]

Yes, Boton, and that's our main problem, because right at the end of TRB he tells Moriarty :"I am you! Prepared to do anything, prepared to burn, prepared to do what ordinary people won't do. You want me to shake hands with you in hell, I shall not disappoint you" and adds a little later :"I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for one second that I am one of them" !

So, essentially that little speech by the same writer should have acted as a warning beacon to us all, as to what might happen in his growing empathy and sentiments for others. Anyone in the forum who has done semantics, could they watch all episodes written by this particular person and pick up any threads which have escaped our collective notice?

Still, although we had been forewarned, we were not really prepared to see our favourite  character turn into a killer!

[Arcadia]

As usual, by the time I finish composing my incoherent rambles, Boton, Toby and Carol have stepped in and stated it more clearly than I can! Good job, ladies!

 

Actually, I think TRF was written by Steve Thompson, and HLV I know was Moffat's, but I'm not sure it matters ... I get the impression that all the writers are pretty much in each other's heads by the end of the process.

[T.o.b.y]

I find it remarkable how much fuss is made over Sherlock killing a baddie, in universe as well as among fans. Usually, heroes kill villains all day long, and nobody gives a shit. It's just what heroes do and what villains are for. But Sherlock puts one bullet in one exceptionally vile and evil man and his friend and brother stand by shell-shocked, tragic music plays, and the next thing we know, he's being sent off to certain death in Eastern Europe, and nobody says even so much as "I'll miss you" to him.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love that! That's why Sherlock is my favorite, and not, for example, James Bond. I just think the writers deserve a bit more credit for the comparatively realistic and morally sensitive way they handled the whole thing.

[Zain]

I get the impression that all the writers are pretty much in each other's heads by the end of the process.

 

 

Maybe that's the reason why we see so many things in Sherlock which might actually not be there. Sure, the writers talk to each other, but to me, it seems very likely that their notion of what is happening on-screen and behind-the-scenes is not always the same.

It would be quite British if everything was a hilarious misunderstanding between them. The irony! ...  Though I prefer to think they actually were writing something brilliant the first two seasons. Before the international pressure got too much and forced them into more mainstream lines...

 

 

I find it remarkable how much fuss is made over Sherlock killing a baddie, in universe as well as among fans. Usually, heroes kill villains all day long, and nobody gives a shit. It's just what heroes do and what villains are for. But Sherlock puts one bullet in one exceptionally vile and evil man and his friend and brother stand by shell-shocked, tragic music plays, and the next thing we know, he's being sent off to certain death in Eastern Europe, and nobody says even so much as "I'll miss you" to him.

 

 

Mh. And that is where I have my issues. I absolutely hate the kind of "heroes" which go for the kill. I much prefer it when they show mercy, or if no other solution can be found, are forced to go for the kill, but then struggle under the psychological pressure. It's a personality thing, I suppose. I tend to judge others as harshly as I judge myself - and I could never forgive myself if I were to end another person's life if it could be prevented. Therefore, I cannot come to terms with Magnussen's death. I am able to "see" signs of a guilty conscience in Sherlock's acquiescent manner when it comes to his departure - but I cannot see anything in that regard when it comes to Mary.

I really struggle. For example, when I think of Magnussen, I cannot simply think "villain", because even horrible people do matter to someone. Even if it is only their mother. There is no person who is evil by birth, we all become who we are by interaction. Which does not mean that nobody is to be blamed for their actions, mind you. However, I cannot think in those black/white categories, not even for fiction. I just.. don't function that way. I can separate fiction from reality, but not my system of values and morals. To resort to those hollow words: It's not you, Moftiss, it's me.

 

 HLV is not just an episode that I can overlook like some do with TBB. Actually, the only reason why I am still sticking around is because I am going to wait what people will write about S4 after it aired. I'd rather remember Sherlock fondly with a slightly bad aftertaste than watch s4 and be completely disappointed. You see, I'll be looking forward to your posts

[Arcadia]

I find it remarkable how much fuss is made over Sherlock killing a baddie, in universe as well as among fans. Usually, heroes kill villains all day long, and nobody gives a shit. It's just what heroes do and what villains are for. But Sherlock puts one bullet in one exceptionally vile and evil man and his friend and brother stand by shell-shocked, tragic music plays, and the next thing we know, he's being sent off to certain death in Eastern Europe, and nobody says even so much as "I'll miss you" to him.

Perhaps ... at least in my case ... it's something to do with when I was born. When I was growing up, generations ago :D the (fictional) good guys NEVER killed the bad guys unless it was in a "fair fight" -- in other words, the bad guy was shooting back. And always, the bad guy started it. That's what made him the bad guy; whatever it was he wanted, he thought it was worth taking a life for.

 

Oh, and the good guy never shot to kill if he could find another way. He showed judgement, maturity and restraint. That's what made him the good guy.

 

The first movie I saw (of course it was a movie, TV always follows later) where the "good guy" murdered someone was "The Untouchables", in the '80's.  It shocked me. His action was understandable, yes; but it still broke my heart that he broke his own code by committing the act. But what bothered me even more, and makes that movie hard for me to watch even now ... the audience was screaming "Kill him! Kill him!" And he did. And they cheered. And to me, mankind doesn't get much uglier than that. It's one very, very short step from an audience screaming "Kill him!" at a mobster in a theater to a mob screaming "Kill him!" at a Muslim man in the street outside.  And it's just another step from there to the Holocaust.

 

Since the '80's I've seen the line between good guys and bad guys increasingly blurred. Is that more realistic? Maybe. Does it encourage our advancement as human beings? In my opinion, no. I think our world's a better place when even our fictional heroes recognize the lines that shouldn't be crossed. So, yeah ... it bothers me. Especially since I recognize that I'm in the minority. Ah, me and Mrs. Hudson, we'd be happier in a more tender world.

[Arcadia]

Mh. And that is where I have my issues. I absolutely hate the kind of "heroes" which go for the kill. I much prefer it when they show mercy, or if no other solution can be found, are forced to go for the kill, but then struggle under the psychological pressure. It's a personality thing, I suppose. I tend to judge others as harshly as I judge myself - and I could never forgive myself if I were to end another person's life if it could be prevented. Therefore, I cannot come to terms with Magnussen's death. I am able to "see" signs of a guilty conscience in Sherlock's acquiescent manner when it comes to his departure - but I cannot see anything in that regard when it comes to Mary.

I really struggle. For example, when I think of Magnussen, I cannot simply think "villain", because even horrible people do matter to someone. Even if it is only their mother. There is no person who is evil by birth, we all become who we are by interaction. Which does not mean that nobody is to be blamed for their actions, mind you. However, I cannot think in those black/white categories, not even for fiction. I just.. don't function that way. I can separate fiction from reality, but not my system of values and morals. To resort to those hollow words: It's not you, Moftiss, it's me.

Yes. Exactly.

 

Maybe it's not my upbringing, maybe it's genetics, or random fate, but I can't just accept that someone "deserves" to die; or that someone else has the authority to take their life. I can intellectually understand the argument, but it goes against my moral grain. And chafes.

 

How would I fix HLV? Right now, what would fix it for me is for Sherlock to acknowledge that he had no right to the authority he assumed when he shot CAM. That's it. To me, at this point, that would be growth. As for Mary ... ah, I don't know. The show's not about her, in her case I think I'm content that she receive the grace of forgiveness.

 

Sorry, getting much too serious and preachy here. Good old HLV, it still pushes my buttons!!! And that, my dears, is what I call good storytelling. But I'm still gonna strangle Moftiss for putting me through this! :D

[T.o.b.y]

 

And always, the bad guy started it. That's what made him the bad guy; whatever it was he wanted, he thought it was worth taking a life for.

 

You don't think Magnussen started it? Okay...

 

 

The first movie I saw (of course it was a movie, TV always follows later) where the "good guy" murdered someone was "The Untouchables", in the '80's.  It shocked me. His action was understandable, yes; but it still broke my heart that he broke his own code by committing the act. But what bothered me even more, and makes that movie hard for me to watch even now ... the audience was screaming "Kill him! Kill him!" And he did. And they cheered. And to me, mankind doesn't get much uglier than that. It's one very, very short step from an audience screaming "Kill him!" at a mobster in a theater to a mob screaming "Kill him!" at a Muslim man in the street outside.  And it's just another step from there to the Holocaust.

Whoa, whoa. Just a minute. Did you just call me a potential Nazi for being glad Sherlock shot Magnussen?

 

Actually, what you say there has been the basis of a big debate in Germany for years, especially considering censorship of violence in the media, and there especially in computer games. There are those who say that if we allow our kids (and adults) to play games where they imperson a character that kills others (and what game, besides my beloved point-and-click andventures, doesn't), then we encourage them to be violent in real life, breed a whole generation of terrorists, rioters and murderers, and effectively eliminate empathy in the human race. Then there are others who claim that there is a big difference between fictional violence and real, and that all we need to do is make sure we can all tell the difference. I don't think this discussion is going to end any time soon and I find it fascinating. All I know is that some of the people I love most in this entire world like to spend their evenings playing shooters or watching Game of Thrones and Zombie horrors and they are the sweetest, gentlest, kindest, most compassionate and inoffensive human beings I know.

 

 

Since the '80's I've seen the line between good guys and bad guys increasingly blurred. Is that more realistic? Maybe. Does it encourage our advancement as human beings? In my opinion, no. I think our world's a better place when even our fictional heroes recognize the lines that shouldn't be crossed. So, yeah ... it bothers me. Especially since I recognize that I'm in the minority. Ah, me and Mrs. Hudson, we'd be happier in a more tender world.

 

You know, I actually disapprove of bad guys, period. The only real flaw Sherlock has in my opinion is that it features fully-fledged villains, the kind that is just evil, like Magnussen and Moriarty. There are no villains in real life, if you ask me. They are like monsters, fictional constructs designed for just one purpose: To give the hero something to fight. That is their only purpose. And faced with a villain, a hero can do nothing else but fight, and yes, eventually kill.

 

I don't so much wish they'd get rid of the violence as get rid of the villains. If Sherlock had more opponents who were real people (like Irene), then he'd have a whole other range of options to deal with them than just shoot them in the head (or have John shoot them, or wait until they shoot themselves). 

 

I'll say this again, even though I've said it far too often already, but this is important for me: In real life, I do not think killling anyobdy is right. Ever. I also don't believe there are villains in real life, any more than there are heroes.

 

In fiction, I prefer stories where all characters are complex and flawed to a degree, and where there is no clear good and bad. I like all my fictional people to be people, and not just types. But if a story (regrettably) features a real monster, then I know it when I see it, and I realize the only option now will be to fight and kill it. And I am always really, really relieved when the monster is dead.

 

I cheer every time when Sherlock ends Magnussen, but actually, I wish he'd never been written in the first place, not like that.

 

Anyway. I love how His Last Vow handles the situation. How it's this big disaster and fiasco and John and Mycroft are in shock. Compare that to a super hero throwing a dozen nameless guards around and probably breaking their backs and skulls in the process without anybody so much as asking whether that would have been strictly necessary.

 

 

Wow, long post. Sorry about that. Let me just add that I really respect all of you who draw the line even at fictional violence and murder. I guess I'm just not that good a person. You make me feel like Sherlock looking at Mrs Hudson: what a tender world that would be...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zain]

 

It's one very, very short step from an audience screaming "Kill him!" at a mobster in a theater to a mob screaming "Kill him!" at a Muslim man in the street outside.  And it's just another step from there to the Holocaust.

 

Whoa, whoa. Just a minute. Did you just call me a potential Nazi for being glad Sherlock shot Magnussen?

 

 

 

I do not think that is what Arcadia meant to say. It's a sore topic for "us", therefore we perceive any mention of the Holocaust as... let's call it accusing. But - I hope you do not find me impertinent to believe I grasp what you meant to express, Arcadia - Arcadia was trying to show how concessions/exceptions can lead to a rule, to something becoming widely accepted. She was referring to the development in the film industry that the level of violence, committed by villains and heroes alike, has risen, and become common enough that it is nowadays hard to shock audiences. Due to this, violence tends to spiral.

 

You may have even heard that the number of violent attacks is actually not increasing, however, the severity of the injuries is. Blows to the head are now more common than two to three decades ago, and crime psychologists have linked this to the media coverage. Ugly crimes receive more attention, more coverage, and therefore the idea of punching someone to the head is not seen as severe an attack as a few years ago

 

And yes, it's debatable if fictional violence can lead to an increase in "real" violence. I know that social psychology has proven that a correlation is to be found, but that it is certainly not the singular cause of violent behavior. Fictional violence increases a person's aggressive potential, though (that can be measured, actually. Very interesting if you look for spikes in the hormone levels). At least that was I heard about two years ago. May be obsolete knowledge by now, who knows.

 

 

I do not think one's opinion on where to draw a line for fictional violence says anything about being good or bad. I did not intend to make you feel bad, and I doubt Arcadia had this in mind either. And neither do I believe that it deserves more respect than your stance. Any opinion voiced without the intention to harm others is equally of value. Here's a smiley for you to cheer up  ;)

[Arcadia]

 

And always, the bad guy started it. That's what made him the bad guy; whatever it was he wanted, he thought it was worth taking a life for.

 

You don't think Magnussen started it? Okay...

 

The shooting? No, he didn't even have a gun.

 

I know what you mean, I just ... don't think the circumstances warrant the solution.

 

 

The first movie I saw (of course it was a movie, TV always follows later) where the "good guy" murdered someone was "The Untouchables", in the '80's.  It shocked me. His action was understandable, yes; but it still broke my heart that he broke his own code by committing the act. But what bothered me even more, and makes that movie hard for me to watch even now ... the audience was screaming "Kill him! Kill him!" And he did. And they cheered. And to me, mankind doesn't get much uglier than that. It's one very, very short step from an audience screaming "Kill him!" at a mobster in a theater to a mob screaming "Kill him!" at a Muslim man in the street outside.  And it's just another step from there to the Holocaust.

Whoa, whoa. Just a minute. Did you just call me a potential Nazi for being glad Sherlock shot Magnussen?

 

No!!! Nonononononooooo. I may have been calling my jingoist neighbors Nazis because they think all Muslims are the antichrist, though.

 

Actually, what you say there has been the basis of a big debate in Germany for years, especially considering censorship of violence in the media, and there especially in computer games. There are those who say that if we allow our kids (and adults) to play games where they imperson a character that kills others (and what game, besides my beloved point-and-click andventures, doesn't), then we encourage them to be violent in real life, breed a whole generation of terrorists, rioters and murderers, and effectively eliminate empathy in the human race. Then there are others who claim that there is a big difference between fictional violence and real, and that all we need to do is make sure we can all tell the difference. I don't think this discussion is going to end any time soon and I find it fascinating. All I know is that some of the people I love most in this entire world like to spend their evenings playing shooters or watching Game of Thrones and Zombie horrors and they are the sweetest, gentlest, kindest, most compassionate and inoffensive human beings I know.

We've had the same debate here in the States. Guess which side I'm on? :D Guess which side won?

 

Wow, long post. Sorry about that. Let me just add that I really respect all of you who draw the line even at fictional violence and murder. I guess I'm just not that good a person. You make me feel like Sherlock looking at Mrs Hudson: what a tender world that would be...

Urk. That's why I always end up wishing I'd just kept quiet. I don't want people to think that I think I'm morally superior. Believe me, I know my own faults and hypocrisies. I'm really not trying to disparage other people's viewpoints, I'm just trying to clarify my own. As usual I get too emotionally invested, and out spew the pompous declarations. You'd think I'd learn.

[Arcadia]

 

 

It's one very, very short step from an audience screaming "Kill him!" at a mobster in a theater to a mob screaming "Kill him!" at a Muslim man in the street outside.  And it's just another step from there to the Holocaust.

 

Whoa, whoa. Just a minute. Did you just call me a potential Nazi for being glad Sherlock shot Magnussen?

 

 

 

I do not think that is what Arcadia meant to say. It's a sore topic for "us", therefore we perceive any mention of the Holocaust as... let's call it accusing. But - I hope you do not find me impertinent to believe I grasp what you meant to express, Arcadia - Arcadia was trying to show how concessions/exceptions can lead to a rule, to something becoming widely accepted. She was referring to the development in the film industry that the level of violence, committed by villains and heroes alike, has risen, and become common enough that it is nowadays hard to shock audiences. Due to this, violence tends to spiral.

 

And yes, it's debatable if fictional violence can lead to an increase in "real" violence. I know that social psychology has proven that a correlation is to be found, but that it is certainly not the singular cause of violent behavior. Fictional violence increases a person's aggressive potential, though (that can be measured, actually. Very interesting if you look for spikes in the hormone levels). At least that was I heard about two years ago. May be obsolete knowledge by now, who knows.

 

I do not think one's opinion on where to draw a line for fictional violence says anything about being good or bad. I did not intend to make you feel bad, and I doubt Arcadia had this in mind either. And neither do I believe that it deserves more respect than your stance. Any opinion voiced without the intention to harm others is equally of value. Here's a smiley for you to cheer up  ;)

 

Thank you, Zain. For some reason I seem unable to explain myself as well as others explain me. *sigh*

 

The Holocaust was in the news the last few days, I assume that's why that example popped into my head. I wasn't considering my audience; my bad. I'm sorry about that. But yes, that's what I meant; the more behaviours we find acceptable in our entertainment, the more they seem to become acceptable in actual life. Sometimes that's even a good thing. And sometimes it seems to me the most negative behaviours are being sent up as the most desireable ones. That's probably just me being negative, though.

 

You know what's weird? If they had stuck to the outline of the original Milverton story, and Mary had shot CAM, and Sherlock had covered it up .... I think I would have found that acceptable. And that doesn't make sense to me -- helping to coverup a murder? -- but I think that's how I would have felt. Lord knows where that puts me on the "goodness" scale.

[sfmpco]

I guess I just don't feel HLV needs any fixing.  It is so brilliant and complex.  I truly adore it.

 

This being said, I haven't watched any Sherlock for a few weeks.  I have been a very bad, bad girl.

[HeroinOrHeroine]

This has been an interesting read! It never really occurred to me to want to change anything in HLV, and as I read through the previous posts, I came to the same conclusion - I'm fine with it the way it was written. Mary seems morally ambiguous to me, and I'm fine with that. I still like her character.

 

Sherlock killing Magnussen didn't seem that out of character to me. He laughed with John immediately after realizing John killed Jeff Hope. He goaded Moriarty into killing himself. Sherlock prioritizes solving crimes over saving lives.

 

That's not to say I relish in Magnussen's death - I swear I'm not a Nazi! I just don't really care because he's a fictional character with no redeeming qualities that make me want to see more of him I. Future episodes.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I guess I just don't feel HLV needs any fixing.  It is so brilliant and complex.  I truly adore it.

 

This being said, I haven't watched any Sherlock for a few weeks.  I have been a very bad, bad girl.

 

I second all of that including the watching.  The weekend before Christmas was the last time I watched an episode all the way through and that was a marathon of all the episodes including UAP and MHR.

[sfmpco]

I did watch the Pilot a few weeks ago.  Need to watch some of the extra features on the DVDs.  

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Same here.  It's about time for a commentary watching, Unlocking Sherlock/Sherlock Unlocked, and gag reel.

[sfmpco]

Then again, I've been working so hard on my BC film collection that I have a few in there I need to see...

[Inge l-w]

What a fascinating discussion! To answer Carol's original query, I would fix this particular episode by changing everything from the moment they enter Magnussen's office. No Mary as assasin, no Sherlock lying at death's door, no final confrontation that would necessitate turning the hero into a murderer! The possibilities were there, starting with Lady Smallwood asking for his help to retrieve some letters. It could have gone down an entirely different path, but they opted for sensationalism and pointless violence, because killing Magnussen does by no means make her safe from the past they chose to give her. And for me, it is quite a lame explanation to say that John is addicted to adrenaline rushes, and that is why he chose Sherlock as his best friend and a former CIA operative with a licence to kill as his wife. They couldn't or wouldn't create a more elegant episode, not just a more elegant solution to the whole blackmail arc. Now, they have to patch things up in a major way, because Sherlock needs a Royal pardon as a British subject, not just a perfunctory "come home, all is forgiven" from Mycroft.

[sfmpco]

I think we all are assuming that he'll have a royal pardon.

[joanneta1]

Oh, sfmpco, don't use "assume", HE  uses it , and  I am always reminded of Silence of the Lambs, I think I have expressed my feelings on that somewhere. What is weird and wonderful in this particular thread is that you can hardly turn your back for one moment without someone commenting away. I do so agree with Zain, Arcadia and up to a point Carol and inge. They take ages to work on their scripts, they should deliver stellar quality material. Moffatt seems to me to have grabbed the chance of revenging himself on the original stories he disagreed with by inflicting such consequences on his eponymous hero. But because the show has become such a huge thing, he can literally get away with murder. When you have time, go through all the extra material as well as the episodes with commentary; it is certainly worthwhile.

As for the other thing, I am always at your disposal. Messenger had a problem, sorry!  

[Shadow Dweller]

Creepy but I wish they did not cut this one :lol:

[joanneta1]

Well, dear Shadow dweller, when I said that I would have liked to have had this kept in as part of Magnussen's overall scheme of ownership, the discussion got a tad too heated, so I didn't insist, it's still a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion! I am in the process of watching the "cobwebbed" Sussex Vampire" and lo and behold, one of Jeremy Brett's very first observations is "We seem to have been switched on to a Grimms'  fairy tale".

I think that they consider anything is up for grabs, but there are limits, as John  says at the end of SoT.

[Shadow Dweller]

Well, dear Shadow dweller, when I said that I would have liked to have had this kept in as part of Magnussen's overall scheme of ownership, the discussion got a tad too heated, so I didn't insist, it's still a free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion! I am in the process of watching the "cobwebbed" Sussex Vampire" and lo and behold, one of Jeremy Brett's very first observations is "We seem to have been switched on to a Grimms' fairy tale".

I think that they consider anything is up for grabs, but there are limits, as Sherlock himself says at the end of SoT.

*mischievous* Darn... that one is a perfect mood-setter (for me) :D