Season 4 - what will happen...?!

[Detective]

We are all waiting for season 4.

 

What do you think could really happen in the next season??

 

What are your expectations?

Tell us what u think!

 

I just hope that it will be amazing!

And i hope that steven moffat will make a good job, like he had done it before (not only in sherlock, in doctor who too).

 

[sittything]

Moffat's expectations:  tragedy, devastation

 

 

My unrealistic expectation:  Hiddleston as Sherrinford Holmes

 

Realistically?  I wouldn't be shocked if Mary died.  I'm taking their word at face value (bad idea?) and think Moriarty is still very, very dead, and that someone is using his image (to bring Sherlock back?).   I thought maybe we would see Moriarty's brother, but then something I read recently (on here maybe?) made me think maybe not.

 

 

 

 

[Schlauer Fuchs]

I expect Mary to die towards the end of S4 and have John move back into Baker Street.

 

Apart from that I have no expectations, only hopes and (brilliant ) ideas -> call me if you need some, Moftiss!

[Arcadia]

Welcome to the forum, Detektive!

I have decided to have NO expectations, as it will only lead to disappointment -- either because they didn't do what I expected, or because they DID do what I expected!!!! Because I'm fickle that way.....

That doesn't mean I don't have theories! I'm still clinging to the theory that Lady Smallwood is behind the Moriarty gif, as a means of rescuing Sherlock from his fate. But I don't expect that to be the answer.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

I expect there to be DEATH and DESTRUCTION, just like in the other seasons.

 

Also, I'm waiting for my Moriarty's-the-Other-One theory to be proven/disproved. When I'm un-lazy enough I might smooth it out more, make it more watertight, but eeeeh. 

[Convict13]

I think Molly's character might actually be Moriarty?

[T.o.b.y]

I don't expect anything, except that there will be a series 4 and it will have Sherlock in it. Apart from that, it doesn't seem safe to predict anything, other than with series 3, where I had a pretty good idea of what was coming next (and I am proud to say that I was not completely wrong).

 

Because it is so much fun to speculate and theorize, though, I will just make a few predictions for the heck of it, and then when series 4 airs, you can dig this out and taunt me with them.

 

1.) I think Mary will ultimately not die. They will play with our expectation that she will, based on what we know to be "canon" (and some fans' wishes...), but either her (supposed) demise will be part of the next end-series cliff-hanger, or we will find out during series 4 that she is not really dead. Or they postpone the whole subject until series 5. Either way, I predict that Mary will survive series 4.

 

2.) There will be a plot, or at the very least a subplot, based on "The Valley of Fear", because it is the only one of the four original novels they have not tackled yet (apart from the use of the book code and the fake death using a body double with a bashed in face). Also because they are all set up for it with Mary as John Douglas / Birdie Edwards / McMurdo and Moriarty as a menacing force in the background.

 

3.) Miss Watson will be kidnapped. I cannot imagine these Watsons having a child and that staying out of trouble for four entire episodes.

 

4.) John will not come back to Baker St. Not in series 4, if ever. This because I do not think Mary will die.

 

5.) There will be a new villain.

 

6.) We will not find out for quite some time whether Moriarty is alive or no. He'll appear indirectly via video messages and the like, as a sort of ghost figure, and it will all be very spooky.

 

7.) Molly will have a bigger story arch than she's ever had before, and they will "uncover" something "unexpected" about her that they only just made up, then try to fit it in with what we've hereto seen of her to make it look less like cheating. (This is a prediction I sincerely hope does not come true, but she's the last nice woman left whom they have not made a bad-ass yet).

 

 

I bet I can come up with more crazy predictions - just give me time and a few sleepless nights.

[Arcadia]

I think Molly's character might actually be Moriarty?

Wahhh....? No, noooo!!!

[Arcadia]

I endorse all of T.o.b.y's predictions, as I'm too rushed to come up with any of my own at the moment. I'm supposed to be getting ready for work and yet here I am.....

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Well according to Moftiss (possibly just Gatiss) the question of Moriarty is supposed to be answered in the special so we'll see if that is just a ruse or if he's keeps that as truth.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think Molly's character might actually be Moriarty?

 

No.  Just no.  This has been suggested before, but it hasn't improved with age.

 

And yes, I am the person who said they would never make Mary into a baddie, because that wouldn't be simply non-canon, it'd be anti-canon.  (Though it's yet to be settled whether she's actually a baddie, or just in a very awkward position.)

 

I don't expect anything, except that there will be a series 4 and it will have Sherlock in it...

... and John. Repeat after me, "Sherlock and John."

 

1.) I think Mary will ultimately not die. They will play with our expectation that she will, based on what we know to be "canon" (and some fans' wishes...), but either her (supposed) demise will be part of the next end-series cliff-hanger, or we will find out during series 4 that she is not really dead. Or they postpone the whole subject until series 5. Either way, I predict that Mary will survive series 4.

Yes, I've been thinking the same thing.

 

Of course, now that we're expecting her to survive....

 

7.) Molly will have a bigger story arch than she's ever had before, and they will "uncover" something "unexpected" about her that they only just made up, then try to fit it in with what we've hereto seen of her to make it look less like cheating. (This is a prediction I sincerely hope does not come true, but she's the last nice woman left whom they have not made a bad-ass yet).

See my reply to Convict 13. 

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

And yes, I am the person who said they would never make Mary into a baddie, because that wouldn't be simply non-canon, it'd be anti-canon.  (Though it's yet to be settled whether she's actually a baddie, or just in a very awkward position.)

 

I say she's not meant to be a baddie. We do get mixed messages about her, but I think we're ultimately meant to sympathize and count her as one of the "good guys". This seems to work really well for some members of the audience, for others not at all.

 

This was definitely one of the things I never expected, them making Mary ambiguous in that way. I'd have thought they would go to great lengths to practically force us all to love her, but nope. It's like saying, okay, you want her as the villain? Fine, if that's the story you prefer, we'll give you the chance to see things your way, even though we don't agree.

 

I find it fascinating how much room for interpretation Sherlock has. I definitely expect that not to change.

 

 

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

And I think that's my favourite part about Sherlock. It's probably the reason why I get obsessed with tiny things like Five Nights at Freddy's -- how there're enough loose ends or bits of things open to interpretation. I love it!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I find it fascinating how much room for interpretation Sherlock has. I definitely expect that not to change.

The question is -- do they leave things open to individual interpretation on purpose (I believe that's their claim regarding The Fall), or do they simply forget to tie up a lot of loose ends?  The other question is -- does it matter?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I'd say so far it does not seem to matter, but it could down the road if they don't do things right.

[Ruthyone]

I think if it makes sense and has the 'wow' factor, then bending the rules a bit doesn't matter but don't change the story too much.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I find it fascinating how much room for interpretation Sherlock has. I definitely expect that not to change.

The question is -- do they leave things open to individual interpretation on purpose (I believe that's their claim regarding The Fall), or do they simply forget to tie up a lot of loose ends?  The other question is -- does it matter?

 

Well, yes, it does matter, to me, at least. Failure to think a plot through and tie up loose ends is simply lazy writing and makes for a very unsatisfactory viewing / reading / listening experience. Deliberately writing a character or an event as ambiguous can cause some confusion (and sometimes frustration, too, sure), but it's also a very useful tool to keep the audience on their toes, encourage them to actually think and discuss and also sometimes the compromise needed to keep a large fan base with pretty conflicting interpretations happy and interested.

 

For me, it is crucial that the author him- or herself has one version in his / her mind that represents the "truth" in his / her fictional universe. And from what I have read in interviews, commentary transcripts etc (and yes, the fact that I have bothered with things like that proves I am helplessly obsessed and should probably go see a therapist or chase criminals around London or something like that), the Sherlock team do have their opinion on what the correct solution to The Fall is, whether Sherlock really took drugs in His Last Vow, whether his tears on the rooftop in The Reichenbach Fall were real, whether Mary is evil - just to name a few examples.

 

[Boton]

 

 

 

 

 

For me, it is crucial that the author him- or herself has one version in his / her mind that represents the "truth" in his / her fictional universe. And from what I have read in interviews, commentary transcripts etc (and yes, the fact that I have bothered with things like that proves I am helplessly obsessed and should probably go see a therapist or chase criminals around London or something like that), the Sherlock team do have their opinion on what the correct solution to The Fall is, whether Sherlock really took drugs in His Last Vow, whether his tears on the rooftop in The Reichenbach Fall were real, whether Mary is evil - just to name a few examples.

 

 

 

I totally agree that the author should have a "canon" version in his or her head that fits everything that is written/shown.  The writer should know infinitely more than the viewer and at least somewhat more than the actor, although depending on the writer-actor relationship, the actor may be privy to the "truth."

 

I don't think, however, that everything the writer knows needs to be shown.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how Sherlock survived the Fall, as long as he was on the rooftop at one point, appeared to fall at one point, and was not dead at the end of things.  The writers should have an idea that is plausible, but they don't have to show it.  For one thing, it would slow the show down considerably and make it less enjoyable.

 

It's kind of the Hemingway principle of writing -- the author knows what happens and then tries to strip away as much as possible and still communicate the story.  Of course, I think Hemingway sometimes stripped away too much (I enjoyed reading the cut passages from A Farewell to Arms), but then again, he's the one with the Nobel in Literature, not me.

[Arcadia]

The question is -- do they leave things open to individual interpretation on purpose (I believe that's their claim regarding The Fall), or do they simply forget to tie up a lot of loose ends?  The other question is -- does it matter?

Once again I have to go with T.o.b.y on this one --- the author's intent really does matter to me. A lot. I prefer fiction to real life stories, but only when there's a certain logic at its core. If events are just random, all that does is remind me that it's not real ... and when I'm immmersed in a story, I will enjoy it much, much more if I'm not continually jolted back to reality by being reminded that "it's only a story."

 

I really don't get the feeling that they're forgetting about the loose ends so much as they are deliberately leaving them there for their own nefarious reasons. One of the things I liked about the HLV commentary was that they acknowledged that there were a lot of loose ends .... I found that reassuring. It doesn't mean they'll ever resolve those ends, but it does indicate to me that they have a structure in mind, even if they choose not to reveal it to the audience. It's frustrating on one level, but I can live with it as long as I believe there's a method to the madness.

 

They do walk a pretty fine line sometimes, though. While I'm content with a certain amount of ambiguity, I do think eventually it can end up feeling like they are jerking the audience around solely for the sake of jerking them around. Which, as many writers before them have found out, the audience eventually tires of, and leaves. (I'm looking at you, "Lost!") Although it sounds a bit paradoxical, some concrete answers are necessary from time to time simply to maintain the fiction. That's why I was reassured by the afore-mentioned commentary; it indicates, to me at least, that they are aware of that. (But it also indicates they are relying quite a bit on the patience of the fans; perhaps not their wisest move.)

[sittything]

Don't we know for sure, though, that Sherlock took drugs in HLV?  Molly, I thought, clearly indicated that he did.  I know she didn't explicitly state "He's high as a kite!" but replied to John's question if he was clean with "Clean?" in a "Hah, you're kidding me with that question." sort of way and then went on to tell him off and slap the snot out of him.  Plus, Sherlock told Mycroft to not appal him when he's high.  

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

But maybe he's high in another sense -- high, as in excited from taking such a big risk. You know, sort of like how kids try to get as close as they can to doing something bad without actually doing it.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

From what I gather, Sherlock had drugs in his system. He may not have been the typical stoned out high like the drunk Sherlock in TSOT, but his mind was at least slightly altered. He may have been coming down from the effects of the drugs.

[Arcadia]

Don't we know for sure, though, that Sherlock took drugs in HLV?  Molly, I thought, clearly indicated that he did.  I know she didn't explicitly state "He's high as a kite!" but replied to John's question if he was clean with "Clean?" in a "Hah, you're kidding me with that question." sort of way and then went on to tell him off and slap the snot out of him.  Plus, Sherlock told Mycroft to not appal him when he's high.

I feel like I've missed something. Did someone theorize that he wasn't on drugs? I find it hard to interpret that sequence in any other way. The bigger question for me is whether he was still under the influence of drugs when he went to confront Magnussen. I've always been inclined to think so; he just seemed off in that episode. Not as sharp as usual.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Don't we know for sure, though, that Sherlock took drugs in HLV? Molly, I thought, clearly indicated that he did. I know she didn't explicitly state "He's high as a kite!" but replied to John's question if he was clean with "Clean?" in a "Hah, you're kidding me with that question." sort of way and then went on to tell him off and slap the snot out of him. Plus, Sherlock told Mycroft to not appal him when he's high.

I feel like I've missed something. Did someone theorize that he wasn't on drugs? I find it hard to interpret that sequence in any other way. The bigger question for me is whether he was still under the influence of drugs when he went to confront Magnussen. I've always been inclined to think so; he just seemed off in that episode. Not as sharp as usual.

Maybe Sherlock was still getting off the morphine from the gun shot wound. Effects of drugs can stay in the system for quite awhile after the last dose.

[T.o.b.y]

Don't we know for sure, though, that Sherlock took drugs in HLV?  Molly, I thought, clearly indicated that he did.  I know she didn't explicitly state "He's high as a kite!" but replied to John's question if he was clean with "Clean?" in a "Hah, you're kidding me with that question." sort of way and then went on to tell him off and slap the snot out of him.  Plus, Sherlock told Mycroft to not appal him when he's high.  

 

This is my understanding as well, yes. But note that there is no proof in the scenes or the dialogue we are shown that he actually took anything. I think they said something to the effect in the commentary, too, that they themselves thought Sherlock really was using (but in control), but deliberately left it a bit vague so that the audience would be left wondering "is he or isn't he".