How would you fix "His Last Vow"?

[Tunguska]

I don't think it was incredibly out of character - this is a man who stepped on a dying man's shoulder to get information, a man who tried hard to convince himself he did not care people were being strapped to bombs just to watch him dance, who threw a guy out of a window several times for hitting an old lady, and a man who possibly killed loads of bad guys when unravelling Moriarty's network.

 

At the same time, I think Sherlock is incredibly loving and loyal to a very select group of people and I find it completely believable that he would kill to protect them.

[Arcadia]

Arcadia dear, it's not arrogance, it's supreme self-confidence when it comes to his mental acuity ......

When you're that "self-confident" it's hard to tell the difference! :D Tell you what, I'll compromise and call it over-confidence. :lol:

 

Seriously, I was referring to his confidence that Mary wouldn't shoot him. Little bit smug of him. She sure showed him the error of his ways, didn't she? :(

[Zain]

I think what Sherlock is chiefly guilty of here is an excess of confidence. He thought he could control the situation, but he couldn't. That doesn't make it his fault, but he didn't improve the situation by pushing Mary to surrender to him, imo. A less arrogant man might have heeded Mary's words, and backed off.

 

To be honest, I would hope that any other man would not just back off and watch how someone who is defenceless is killed. I do not want to judge Sherlock's motive, but in my eyes, it was the right thing to do. Risky, and certainly daring, but who wouldn't try to talk someone out of shooting another person? The problem is that Mary wasn't a first-time offender, who might be unsure of what they are doing, and can be talked out of it, therefore all words fell on deaf ears.

[Arcadia]

 

I think what Sherlock is chiefly guilty of here is an excess of confidence. He thought he could control the situation, but he couldn't. That doesn't make it his fault, but he didn't improve the situation by pushing Mary to surrender to him, imo. A less arrogant man might have heeded Mary's words, and backed off.

 

To be honest, I would hope that any other man would not just back off and watch how someone who is defenceless is killed. I do not want to judge Sherlock's motive, but in my eyes, it was the right thing to do. Risky, and certainly daring, but who wouldn't try to talk someone out of shooting another person? The problem is that Mary wasn't a first-time offender, who might be unsure of what they are doing, and can be talked out of it, therefore all words fell on deaf ears.

 

Oh, I agree. I was more specifically thinking of Mary telling him to not take another step, and he did anyway. A less "confidant" person might have stayed put and kept talking, since she seemed willing to let him do that, at least.

 

I used to work in a public facility. Unfortunately, it was deemed necessary to have police officers come out and do seminars for the staff on how to respond in potentially dangerous situations. Among other things: if someone's holding a gun on you, you do what s/he tells you to do and it will increase your likelihood of survival. (This was many years ago, I don't know if that's still statistically true. The types of villains have changed since then....)

 

Not that anyone on TV ever takes that advice!

[T.o.b.y]

I don't think it was incredibly out of character - this is a man who stepped on a dying man's shoulder to get information, a man who tried hard to convince himself he did not care people were being strapped to bombs just to watch him dance, who threw a guy out of a window several times for hitting an old lady, and a man who possibly killed loads of bad guys when unravelling Moriarty's network.

 

At the same time, I think Sherlock is incredibly loving and loyal to a very select group of people and I find it completely believable that he would kill to protect them.

 

Yes, I think the same, basically. Nicely put.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think what Sherlock is chiefly guilty of here is an excess of confidence. He thought he could control the situation, but he couldn't. That doesn't make it his fault, but he didn't improve the situation by pushing Mary to surrender to him, imo. A less arrogant man might have heeded Mary's words, and backed off. But if anyone's at fault, I would say it's Mary, for committing acts that put her in the position to be blackmailed; and CAM, for blackmailing her.

 

I agree with your first part, not so sure about the second.  We still don't even know what Mary did in the past, let alone why. Saying that she's to blame for CAM's blackmail might seem unfair if it turns out she was, for example, killing to protect innocent lives.  And CAM was slime, so no argument there -- I seriously doubt that he was blackmailing only the morally-corrupt.

 

I don't think it was incredibly out of character - this is a man who stepped on a dying man's shoulder to get information, a man who tried hard to convince himself he did not care people were being strapped to bombs just to watch him dance, who threw a guy out of a window several times for hitting an old lady, and a man who possibly killed loads of bad guys when unravelling Moriarty's network.

 

At the same time, I think Sherlock is incredibly loving and loyal to a very select group of people and I find it completely believable that he would kill to protect them.

 

Yes, I think he's pretty pragmatic in some ways -- he does what's needed to achieve his ends.  While I believe that his ends are angelic, his means sometimes are not.  (Same may apply to Mary, by the way -- or may not.)

 

The problem is that Mary wasn't a first-time offender, who might be unsure of what they are doing, and can be talked out of it, therefore all words fell on deaf ears.

Mary isn't an amateur, I agree, she's a pro. The term "offender" may or may not apply. Well, yes, it presumably applies in the technical sense. But I would need to know what she actually did and also why, before I would feel qualified to judge her actions.

 

[Arcadia]

 

.....But if anyone's at fault, I would say it's Mary, for committing acts that put her in the position to be blackmailed; and CAM, for blackmailing her.

 

I agree with your first part, not so sure about the second.  We still don't even know what Mary did in the past, let alone why. Saying that she's to blame for CAM's blackmail might seem unfair if it turns out she was, for example, killing to protect innocent lives.  And CAM was slime, so no argument there -- I seriously doubt that he was blackmailing only the morally-corrupt.

 

Well, that's a good point. Although I have a hard time imagining what could be a "good" or "innocent" act and be something worthy of blackmail at the same time. And something that John would hate her for (although she might be misjudging John, there.) Ummmmm ... drawing a blank, actually.

[T.o.b.y]

We still don't even know what Mary did in the past, let alone why. Saying that she's to blame for CAM's blackmail might seem unfair if it turns out she was, for example, killing to protect innocent lives.  And CAM was slime, so no argument there -- I seriously doubt that he was blackmailing only the morally-corrupt.

 

He wasn't. And the "pressure points" he had on people were by no means all sins. He used people's love for their children, spouses and friends as well.

 

That said, it does seem a bit unlikely though that Mary's past deeds were entirely laudable, because why would she then think John might stop loving her if he found out? She's no angel for sure... But no devil, either, I don't think. She's fascinating, actually. I can't wait to learn more about her story.

 

 

[Zain]

And unless wet jobs refers to her having been a lifeguard, I do not see much room for a different interpretation of the term...

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I have a hard time imagining what could be a "good" or "innocent" act and be something worthy of blackmail at the same time.

Aha, a challenge! Well, not much of one, actually. Maybe CAM was threatening to divulge some family secret (e.g., one of Mary's nieces was sexually molested as a child) unless she played his game. There are a lot of cases where the victim of a criminal act does not want to be publicly identified, and could therefore be subject to blackmail.

 

And unless wet jobs refers to her having been a lifeguard, I do not see much room for a different interpretation of the term...

Lifeguard -- why didn't I think of that?!  Seriously, though, I take CAM's statements as worthy of consideration in a very general "where there's smoke, there's fire" sort of way -- but not as proof of anything specific.  So far, all we know for sure is that she shot Sherlock when he threatened to take her gun from her.

 

[Arcadia]

 

... I have a hard time imagining what could be a "good" or "innocent" act and be something worthy of blackmail at the same time.

Aha, a challenge! Well, not much of one, actually. Maybe CAM was threatening to divulge some family secret (e.g., one of Mary's nieces was sexually molested as a child) unless she played his game. There are a lot of cases where the victim of a criminal act does not want to be publicly identified, and could therefore be subject to blackmail.

 

Well, we know what CAM said ... he would reveal her to her enemies. So all I can figure is that while she was a lifeguard in Moscow she bravely rescued a CIA agent from drowning and the KGB has been out to get her ever since. And John would hate her if he knew because the same CIA guy attacked Mrs. Hudson. Yeah, that must be it!

[T.o.b.y]

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

 

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

[Arcadia]

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

Because she was not, in fact, a certified lifeguard and therefore broke the rules when she rescued the CIA guy? Maybe it's not the KGB that's after her, it's my local park & recreation authority ......

 

True story: my nephew was a lifeguard one summer. Some idiot was horsing around, did something stupid (I forget what), started to drown, and my nephew had to save him. Swam out to him, pulled him out of the water, gave him CPR, the works. Saved his life.

 

The guy's family then proceeded to sue my nephew because he didn't stop the guy from doing the stupid thing in the first place. Good thing they weren't Mafia.

[Zain]

I now wish I had some talent when it comes to art. I'd love to see Arcadia's story as a cartoon.

We should start a new hype.

Just imagine Moftiss' faces when they get to see the sudden influx of lifeguard!Mary tags. That would be worth it.

[sfmpco]

I keep saying I wouldn't fix HLV, and I do mean that.  I think there are things in every episode that could have been handled differently, but I'm not going to quibble too much about fictional characters and their stories.  Moffat and Gatiss and both superb writers and have handled the care of this "baby" of theirs very carefully.  Someone pop some popcorn and lets put in an episode!

[Zain]

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

[joanneta1]

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

 

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

 

Absolutely agree with you on that one. He says "all those wet jobs for the CIA... she has gone freelance now...", and when he explains leverage to Dr. Watson while flicking his face he says "I know who Mary killed, I know the names and telephone numbers of the people she hurt..."

NOT a lifeguard under any circumstances, Mrs. Smith, more likely!

 

[sfmpco]

Mmmmm.... I LIKE the unanswered questions!  Makes my little Sherlockian fandom brain explode with ideas!

[Caya]

I now wish I had some talent when it comes to art. I'd love to see Arcadia's story as a cartoon.

We should start a new hype.

Just imagine Moftiss' faces when they get to see the sudden influx of lifeguard!Mary tags. That would be worth it.

Sic Bendy on it! She's amazing.

[Arcadia]

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

On some level I think I agree ... maybe not a weak story, exactly, but a very incomplete one. I like ambiguity to some extent, I just think there's too much of it in HLV.

 

On the other hand, I think it packs the most powerful emotional punch of any show in the series; even more than TRF, because in TRF I had a sense that Sherlock had at least some control over the situation. Everything gets away from him in HLV, and it all becomes a horrific train wreck. And to make it worse, at least some of that is his own fault.

 

I don't necessarily want all the feels that HLV generates; but I can't deny that it brings them out of me. And that's pretty unusual for a TV show, at least for me. For that alone, my hat's off to Mr. Moffat. Right after I strangle him.

[Inge l-w]

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

[sfmpco]

If someone wants ACD canon, this isn't the show for them.  This only has winks and nods to canon, and quite frankly, I LOVE it.  

[Inge l-w]

I wasn't talking about the show in its entirety sfmpco, I was talking about HLV, you really should get the special edition and listen very carefully to what Mr Moffat says in the commentary to HLV and in the extra features.

[Arcadia]

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

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

 

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

[Inge l-w]

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