Molly Hooper

[J.P.]

That they never intended something as good as it came out. That it should be just a fun story by two big fanboys about how Sherlock Holmes would fit into 21. century. Everything else… just happened.

 

That the show is not a DaVinci drawing but Jackson Pollock's spilled paint.

[T.o.b.y]

That they never intended something as good as it came out. That it should be just a fun story by two big fanboys about how Sherlock Holmes would fit into 21. century. Everything else… just happened.

 

That the show is not a DaVinci drawing but Jackson Pollock's spilled paint.

So? Why does that bother you? If anything, it makes it a bit more marvelous for me.

 

But I don't like Pollock's art. Can't we compare it to something accidental that's actually pleasing? Like... I dunno, a pattern made by the wind in the dunes?

 

I mean, I don't find natural phenomena any less stunning just because I don't believe in intelligent design.

 

In a way, this brings Sherlock closer to the original stories. I bet Doyle didn't half understand what he had created either, or care, for that matter.

[J.P.]

I think it's marvellous, but in a different way. I fear it makes me love Mofftiss a bit less.
I noticed that I'm not interested in fan theories any more, because there were wether plans nor sophisticated structures in the story - and I love patterns and master plans and evil plots behind the surface. What I thought was super clever was… not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Arcadia]

I really resent the implication that unless you’re in the creative industry that you can’t possibly know how criticism feels.

 

??? - Who said that?

 

Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison).

 

So I think it's more likely that the coffin angle was a first-draft-ish idea that they never had time to develop into something better, and were going to shoot anyway, for lack of time to do better. I actually get that feel from a few things- that they didn't have enough time to let the ideas breathe, to sit with what they were doing and make sure it felt right for the show. I know that sounds a bit airy fairy, but it's just how I perceive the episode. It's not as well considered as other ones, to me- though I concede some aspects, such as Sherlock's relationship with Mycroft, were considered very deeply.

I don't know if it feels rushed to me ...  but I agree there's something undercooked about it. They were complaining about the budget, I wonder if that's a factor? They wrote a bigger episode than they could pay for, maybe? But then you'd think they'd have scaled it back a bit ...

 

To be honest, it's always been my impression ... based on zero facts, just speculation :P that they had another season planned, then something happened, and they collapsed their overall arc into S4. Actually, it's not just speculation ... they said they had an outline, at the very least, for 2 more seasons. I read it in at least two different articles; I don't think the authors of the articles made it up. So something changed between the time they first started thinking about S4 (which, according to them, was during the writing of S3) and the filming of S4. I have my theories about what that something was, but they're even more baseless than this one. :D 

 

About artists behaving like grown-ups- I do think there is a part of any good artist that never does fully grow up- and that's often part of what makes them good- how else can anyone make believe for a living?

Oooh, I like that. I'm going to keep that for the next time I collapse in a whining heap because I have to do the #$%^& grocery shopping. "I have to whine about it, it's part of my job!" :D

 

 

That they never intended something as good as it came out. That it should be just a fun story by two big fanboys about how Sherlock Holmes would fit into 21. century. Everything else… just happened.

 

That the show is not a DaVinci drawing but Jackson Pollock's spilled paint.

So? Why does that bother you? If anything, it makes it a bit more marvelous for me.

 

But I don't like Pollock's art. Can't we compare it to something accidental that's actually pleasing? Like... I dunno, a pattern made by the wind in the dunes?

 

I mean, I don't find natural phenomena any less stunning just because I don't believe in intelligent design.

 

In a way, this brings Sherlock closer to the original stories. I bet Doyle didn't half understand what he had created either, or care, for that matter.

 

Well, I do like Pollock, and I find that a rather apt description ... it's amazing how he turned the art world on its ear simply by spilling paint. You'd think it would just make mud, but somehow it turns out to be something that grips the imagination. And it wasn't really random; he knew the principles of design and used them as part of his process. But a lot of people know that; only a few, like Pollock, make lightning happen when they apply them. And I'm willing to bet most artists are just as surprised as the Moftisses when the lightning happens. (Although Pollock may have had a big enough ego to expect all the acclaim ... :smile:)

 

I get completely why many people don't appreciate Pollock's paintings, by the way ... they're pretty self-centered. They're about him, the artist, and that's about it. They keep you out, unlike, say, Monet, who invites you in. But I like looking at them anyway, because I like to figure out the process used to achieve them. I'm very geeky that way. :smile: Wouldn't hang one on my wall, though.

 

At any rate, I get your point, JP, but I also think Toby's onto something ... the magic happened. How or why or whether it was planned isn't as important, to me at least, as the fact that it did. Besides, if you could explain it, everyone would do it......

[Arcadia]

I think it's marvellous, but in a different way. I fear it makes me love Mofftiss a bit less.

I noticed that I'm not interested in fan theories any more, because there were wether plans nor sophisticated structures in the story - and I love patterns and master plans and evil plots behind the surface. What I thought was super clever was… not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Whoops, you slipped in there while I was writing my other post. 

 

If I understand correctly, you were hoping for an overarching vision that would bring it all together at the end? Yeah, I get that; I like that myself, and I would have appreciated if they'd gone in that direction. It would be fun to think that the statue of the dog in 221B, for example, had some actual meaning, instead of just being a random prop. But I became pretty skeptical of that early on, so I don't feel quite the let down that I suspect you do. But I entirely get why you feel that way. We got pranked (and I mostly blame Arwel... :p)

 

I'm trying to think if there's any show that's successfully pulled that off? Of the one's I've seen, Babylon 5 may have come the closest ... ??? "Lost" started in that direction but completely blew it, imo. Buffy did a good job, but the arcs were contained within one season, not spread out over several. Ummm ... I admit I haven't really watched that many serialized shows all the way through ... so I'm drawing a blank. But I'm curious to know if anyone's really pulled it off.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

...

I don't know if it feels rushed to me ...  but I agree there's something undercooked about it. They were complaining about the budget, I wonder if that's a factor? They wrote a bigger episode than they could pay for, maybe? But then you'd think they'd have scaled it back a bit ...

 

To be honest, it's always been my impression ... based on zero facts, just speculation :P that they had another season planned, then something happened, and they collapsed their overall arc into S4. Actually, it's not just speculation ... they said they had an outline, at the very least, for 2 more seasons. I read it in at least two different articles; I don't think the authors of the articles made it up. So something changed between the time they first started thinking about S4 (which, according to them, was during the writing of S3) and the filming of S4. I have my theories about what that something was, but they're even more baseless than this one. :D

 

The budget might be at least part of it, I couldn't help but feel the set of the prison was quite workmanlike and it was used so often. I suppose in my head I was picturing they had limited time, built this one set and then tried to make as much of the episode from it as they possibly could.

 

They certainly did mention an abandoned outline for another season- to me, again, this is about time too- the writers didn't have the time, the actors were becoming so successful and their availability so elusive...  I can't imagine when they envisioned filming a fifth season, and to examine the up and down quality of the fourth, it makes me wonder whether they had time to properly finish it before filming, let alone make any real inroads in a further three scripts.

 

I imagine them beginning to see Sherlock as something so hard to put together the players for, that it wasn't going to happen, and perhaps not prioritising the final scripts, and then all of a suddenly the stars have a few months availability and they take the bones of two season outlines and have just enough material to put together three episodes. In an ideal world, they would have had a season around Mary's death, and a season around Eurus, and room for quieter more traditional episodes in between.

 

Well, I do like Pollock, and I find that a rather apt description ... it's amazing how he turned the art world on its ear simply by spilling paint. You'd think it would just make mud, but somehow it turns out to be something that grips the imagination. And it wasn't really random; he knew the principles of design and used them as part of his process. But a lot of people know that; only a few, like Pollock, make lightning happen when they apply them. And I'm willing to bet most artists are just as surprised as the Moftisses when the lightning happens. (Although Pollock may have had a big enough ego to expect all the acclaim ...  :smile:)

 

I get completely why many people don't appreciate Pollock's paintings, by the way ... they're pretty self-centered. They're about him, the artist, and that's about it. They keep you out, unlike, say, Monet, who invites you in. But I like looking at them anyway, because I like to figure out the process used to achieve them. I'm very geeky that way.  :smile: Wouldn't hang one on my wall, though.

 

At any rate, I get your point, JP, but I also think Toby's onto something ... the magic happened. How or why or whether it was planned isn't as important, to me at least, as the fact that it did. Besides, if you could explain it, everyone would do it......

 

Pollock's paintings aren't my favourites- but I agree it is a very apt analogy, and I like the freedom of the paintings and their sense of balance- who knows, if I had a wall big enough, maybe I would hang one  :P

 

I think what is great about his stuff is the way he can relax control- and I admire that- sometimes in my own painting, I am too controlled, and it takes away from the vitality of the piece. It's something I've been trying to balance recently, to have some areas where I can be more loose and free, and let that contrast with the areas of control, the way you can use that to shift focus and create atmosphere.

 

But in terms of Pollock knowing when and where he can let the drips fall- that whole physicality, the almost choreographed nature of how he physically painted, the rhythm- to me that's like in Sherlock- they get all these incredible actors together, they have writing talent, and then, they finally have the time, and there is some push and pull and the thing happens- in neither case really by accident, but because good instincts are allowed to prevail, and they let the different strengths in the ensemble have their moments.

 

So often on TV you see things where you cringe and think 'who let this happen?' in a bad way, whereas some of the best things about Sherlock were allowed to happen in a good way, instead.

[Arcadia]

The other thing that gets me ... imo, they got TLD exactly right. It looks rich, the villain is in keeping with the style of the rest of the series, it's funny as heck, the deductions are visually arresting (that window sequence - wow!). I realize they can't hit the ball out of the park every time, but they took such a stylistic departure with both TFP and T6T ... they can't help but suffer by comparison. It's weird.

 

 

[bedelia1984]

For me TLD is the direction I wanted the show to go in- like itself, but even more so, funnier, smarter, more twists, more surprises, beautiful John/Sherlock moments, it had almost everything. It is sort of disconcerting to have it sandwiched between such differing episodes, almost like an old car struggling to start, jerking forwards and then backwards.

[gerry]

 

 

 

I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit.

Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute?

Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison).

That’s an interesting theory but then how do you account for the fact that T6T and TLD seemed pretty organized relative to TFP? Wouldn’t TFP been filmed at the same time as T6T/TLD?

 

About artists behaving like grown-ups- I do think there is a part of any good artist that never does fully grow up- and that's often part of what makes them good- how else can anyone make believe for a living?

Makes sense to a certain extent but not all of us have that luxury in our line of work!

[gerry]

I think it's marvellous, but in a different way. I fear it makes me love Mofftiss a bit less.

I noticed that I'm not interested in fan theories any more, because there were wether plans nor sophisticated structures in the story - and I love patterns and master plans and evil plots behind the surface. What I thought was super clever was… not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I know what you mean. I don’t get the impression that Moffat or Gatiss had a 5 year vision or story in mind when they started the show. It seems more slapped together or if they had one, they didn’t stick to it.

 

I feel like Breaking Bad did and the series finale seemed to reflect that. Really, really well written show. Ironically it got better in later seasons because one season built on the last.

[J.P.]

I hope that GoT ending will be worth those two years of waiting.
Writing for series season by season is a tricky thing - you never know how many time you have, it's balancing between giving your best ideas too soon and end with nothing at the finish line, or sparing the best ideas for later and risking they might not be used. Actually it's a stupid way to work on stories.

 

Anyway, my own conspiracy theory is that Arwel's set was constantly - although subliminally - giving the writers ideas. I mean, it looks like at least Mark was on set quite often. :D

[Arcadia]

I hope that GoT ending will be worth those two years of waiting.

Writing for series season by season is a tricky thing - you never know how many time you have, it's balancing between giving your best ideas too soon and end with nothing at the finish line, or sparing the best ideas for later and risking they might not be used. Actually it's a stupid way to work on stories.

 

Or having an unfinished story, which to me is the most frustrating thing of all. There's been a few series I've watched that had promising story lines, but were cancelled after one season and left incomplete. Arrghhhh!

 

I do think a continuity editor would have helped. Star Trek had one ... "you can't make Kirk say he likes carrots, because we've already established he hates carrots" ... that kind of thing was more likely to be caught, because they had someone whose job was to catch it. Maybe all shows do. Maybe Sherlock does. If so, fire him/her and get someone else ... :D

 

I really think, though, that Moftiss just didn't care that much about continuity, and their excuse is because their muse, Doyle, didn't. And in a way, that's fair. (And in another way, that's maddening.... :angry: )

[J.P.]

It's much time, not many. :blush:

[Arcadia]

Ha, I didn't even notice.... :d

[J.P.]

My bad influence is showing.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit.

Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute?

Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison).

That’s an interesting theory but then how do you account for the fact that T6T and TLD seemed pretty organized relative to TFP? Wouldn’t TFP been filmed at the same time as T6T/TLD?

 

 

I actually disliked T6T more than TFP, and personally thought it had major issues with how it dealt with Mary's death, with pacing, and with a lot of fairly meaningless action sequences- for me, it also seemed rushed- and as is mentioned above, the style of it just felt wrong.

 

TLD was almost overworked in comparison to the other two- but it was a good kind of overworked- to me. But... I'm guessing there was a way to stretch some of the good they had in TLD over the whole of the season, if there has been a bit more attention? Or was it there intention to have such differing tone and pace in their episodes? TLD had breakneck speed, and humour, whereas TFP was ominous and forboding, and then T6T had this odd, sometimes slow-paced, sometimes action-movie feel to it.

 

But even the fact the episodes were that uneven, to me says something went awry in terms of production, they didn't have the time to give each one individual attention, to look at how the season was coming out as a whole and see that parts of T6T and TFP were coming out a little flat, etc...

 

I don't know the order the episodes were shot in, and it seems like conflicting direction styles must have played a part too, but overall, I thought the whole season seemed rushed. They might have gotten away with it in TLD because it was so tightly written and plotted, but the overall quality of the season was so up and down to me. 

[Arcadia]

If I'm remembeingr correctly, I'm pretty sure they filmed the episodes in sequence this time. Of course, that doesn't tell us anything about the post-production schedule.
 
Based on what I know about film-making (which is not extensive) ... my instinct is still to mostly credit the directors with the differences. Nick Hurran (TLD) also did HLV, and he worked very much in the style established by Paul McGuigan. And as far as I'm concerned, McGuigan's is the signature style of this show, and they depart from it at their peril. To me, T6T is what Sherlock would have been like if they had stuck with the vision they had when they filmed the pilot. TLD is the "real" Sherlock. And TFP wanders somewhere off into the outer limits.
 
It would be interesting to know what I would think of S4 if McGuigan had never had any influence on this show. Who knows, I might think T6T and TFP were brilliant. But I know I would think TLD is brillianter. ;)

[gerry]

I actually disliked T6T more than TFP, and personally thought it had major issues with how it dealt with Mary's death, with pacing, and with a lot of fairly meaningless action sequences- for me, it also seemed rushed- and as is mentioned above, the style of it just felt wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t like T6T either but I think the writing did what it intended to do which was try to make you care about Mary becuase they were about to kill her off. A lot of TV shows do that actually, spend an episode focused on the character they’re killing off. The entire episode was intended to build to her death so that you were affected emotionally and to set her up as the patron saint of Baker’s Street. It didn’t work for me because Moffat ruined her by making her an assassin for hire in HLV but I believe the writing did reflect the intent or at least there was nothing left unfinished or unresolved. To me, it was also not rushed, it was in fact the opposite because it spent painstakingly too long on Mary. It was a truly Mary dominated, rather than Sherlock, dominated episode. I think that’s really the difference between the 3 episodes, because TFP and T6T were so focused on characters not Sherlock or John, they felt out of place with the rest of the show. TLD was entirely focused on Sherlock’s/John’s relationship so it felt more old school. If TFP/T6T were more Sherlock focused, you may not have noticed/minded the pace or stylistic differences as much. Either way, I think the writers did what they wanted to do but that doesn’t mean the viewers wanted it.

 

My thought was always that they wrote season 4 episodes before finding out that the actors or whoever made it clear they weren’t going to do season 5 for a long time, if at all, so their solution was rather than rewrite anything just tack on a happy montage at the end so that it could double for a series finale if they didn’t make any more episodes. Which is why the montage was so out place with the rest of the episode.

[Boton]

 

My thought was always that they wrote season 4 episodes before finding out that the actors or whoever made it clear they weren’t going to do season 5 for a long time, if at all, so their solution was rather than rewrite anything just tack on a happy montage at the end so that it could double for a series finale if they didn’t make any more episodes. Which is why the montage was so out place with the rest of the episode.

 

 

I agree with this. Especially (bringing us a bit back to the thread topic) how they handled Molly. I've said I don't much like or feel affected by the ILY scene, but I also don't know how in the world they expect us to make a logical leap between Molly crying brokenheartedly on the phone and her bouncing into 221B like everything is fine.  

 

What were we supposed to assume happened?

 

Scene: Interior, Molly's flat

 

MOLLY: You complete arse. How dare you toy with my feelings like this. 

 

SHERLOCK:  Well, what I couldn't tell you at the time is that I just found out I have a psychopathic sister whose memory I repressed after she killed my childhood best friend, and we were all trapped on an island with her being put through a number of her sick psychological experiments, one of which involved an empty coffin and trying to get me to contemplate your death and make you say "I love you."

 

MOLLY:  Oh, well that makes total sense then.  I shouldn't have doubted you.  So, wanna hang out with the gang at yours later?

 

SHERLOCK: Sure, why don't you pop over Thursday after work? John will be there to pick up Rosie, and I've been dying for a chance to catch up on all the chit-chat.

[gerry]

LOL! I do wonder what the original ending would have been if there was no montage. Like would Sherlock have really visited eurus or would that and Molly’s story resolution been left for series 5?

 

And no I don’t think Sherlock saying eurus made me do it resolves that Molly loves Sherlock in a way he likely doesn’t reciprocate and that he made her admit it verbally in front of several people. You’d think that circumstance would have a longer affect than “oh well, let’s be friends forever!”. But that’s just me.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, if I were in Molly's shoes, I would have forgiven Sherlock as soon as I learned why he made that phone call. So I neither need a scene explicitly showing that nor do I find it weird that she's happy during the final montage.

 

Of course nothing has changed between them (unless you really want to believe it has in which case, feel free), she still loves him in a different way than he loves her and that's just what it is and they're friends. But that wasn't what upset her. She thought he was being needlessly cruel and toying with her feelings. As soon as she found out there was a good reason for the phone call (which must have struck her as awfully weird once she had time to think about it), I don't think she continued to be miserable or angry about it. I also don't think she went out and shagged somebody else but if that's Mr Moffat's headcanon, fine with me. It's not in the show so I don't have to take it seriously.

[gerry]

I completely disagree that the only reason she was upset was because she thought he was toying with her. She thought that at first but when Sherlock insisted she say it, she said I can’t because it’s true. Even though everyone and their mother likely knows it’s true she didn’t want to verbalize it. Which makes sense because saying ILY is a big deal under normal circumstances let alone when you know the person doesn’t reciprocate.

 

Either way, I’ve said it before, it’s not about forgiveness to me. It’s about the nature of the relationship. Everyone here seems to think Sherlock just broods love all over the place under the surface. I rarely see it like you all do and I certainly don’t see it when it comes to Molly. That is a wholly one sided friendship. He rarely treats her with respect, let alone that he cares about her. You’d think that ILY call would make it crystal clear to her just how little he cares about her relative to her feelings and make her question if it’s worth it.

 

At the very least, you’d think there’d be a change to the dynamic. How realistic is it for someone to remain friends with someone in perpetuity if they can’t get over their feelings? Even the one serious relationship we saw her in was just used a joke to show that she’s still hung up on Sherlock.

 

She’s quite stuck as a character so I was hoping that ILY scene would spur movement but I should know better with these writers!

[Arcadia]

I hid your duplicate post for you, Gerry.

 

I honestly felt like the montage was (at least partly) Moftiss' way of saying to the fans, "go ahead and ship anything you want, we've left it all open ended for you!" Which is nice in its way, but does not a very satisfactory ending make. 

 

I still like the montage, though. It's nice to see John smiling again.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, I like the ending just fine. At first I thought I would have liked it better if it wasn't narrated and certainly not by Mary, but that's really no big deal. I don't hate Mary. And she does have a nice voice.

 

Gerry, I feel like nothing I could say concerning the nature of Molly and Sherlock's relationship would change your mind and so I won't try. What I see on screen resonates with me and my real life experiences in a certain way and so I feel as if I "get" it and I like it. But you most likely come to the show from a different place and you see different things and that's okay, of course. Many, many things on Sherlock are ambiguous, especially relationships. There's something for everyone I think, which means something for everyone to disapprove of too, of course.

 

I intend to stick with the interpretation that makes me the most happy because, for all its flaws, I still really love this show and it's brought an immense amount of joy into my life.

 

I don't care what the people who made it really thought or intended (sorry, Moftiss and lovely actors and everybody), when I watch Sherlock, it's like, yes! Finally something on television that represents me and understands me! There isn't much of that about. So it's very special to me.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, thanks for reminding me of that, Toby. I feel the same way ... for whatever reason, this show resonates deeply with me in a way that few things do. I miss it, I really do.