Series 4 (and Special) Speculation

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm not finding John's hair quite as much of a distraction as I feared, since John is apparently still behaving like John.  But it would certainly be less of a distraction if instead of changing his hair style, he had a new style for his left kneecap (or anything not so darn close to his face).

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

But it would certainly be less of a distraction if instead of changing his hair style, he had a new style for his left kneecap (or anything not so darn close to his face).

:D

For a split second I was cracking my head trying to think what could be relevant to his kneecap. :p

 

I don't know, his hair seems not to match his personality and life style that we know, and certainly not influenced by Mary, and now preparing to have a baby, you are choosing a hair that needs maintenance? Got get him Sherlock, more than his stache.

 

Watched it the second time, and like it slightly better.

Silhouette at the pool, Sherlock beating up someone, good.

Car chase, chopters, explosion, obnoxious 'that guy' laugh, not really.

 

You said you know what he is going to do next.

I don't recognize the voice. Lady Smallworth?

 

And I get tiny bit pissed at her demanding Sherlock to do something because they bring him back. Did he ever ask for it? Hm? He got into exile because he is trying to do something for her. All these people, all they do is demand, demand, demand.

 

And Mycroft? Komodo dragon, monitor lizard? Crocodile, iguana, snake? Turtle?

 

Low expectation is key to happiness.

Low expectation is key to happiness.

 

Keep me informed. :p

 

I am scared. I kind of expecting a broken heart.

[Arcadia]

So... of course I've been wondering about this:

 

...(Moffat) said that the third episode of Sherlock’s upcoming Series Four, which he co-wrote with Mark Gatiss, is “insane wish fulfillment” and they “lost their minds"

 

What could they mean?

 

 

Let's see ... they're boys ... they're reliving their boyhood through this show ... the show's about boys ... hmm ... my guess is what they mean is something like this .....

 

Silhouette at the pool, Sherlock beating up someone, good.

Car chase, chopters, explosion, obnoxious 'that guy' laugh.....

:D

 

You said you know what he is going to do next.

I don't recognize the voice. Lady Smallworth?

Yep. (Smallwood.)

 

Low expectation is key to happiness.

Low expectation is key to happiness.

Amen.

Amen.

 

I am scared. I kind of expecting a broken heart.

Same here. Sherlock killing CAM almost did me in, I don't know how I'm going to survive something "darker." (Seriously, what's darker than murder? Never mind, I really, really do not want an answer to that....)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Same here. Sherlock killing CAM almost did me in, I don't know how I'm going to survive something "darker." (Seriously, what's darker than murder? Never mind, I really, really do not want an answer to that....)

Maybe it's something in the past but affects the present and future.

I braced worse things in other series without qualm but for this one, I feel like a chicken.

 

[shaking]Bring it on Moftiss, just please be careful and don't wreck me beyond repair, which would be stupid since this is supposed to be fiction.[/shaking]

 

 

Is it okay to talk about the con here?

 

Like ignorant person, continue to talk about it before getting any confirmation.. :p

 

Anyway, what I am about to say are not spoiler.

 

This is probably the first time I see Moffat's interview, well actually first time seeing everyone's except BC. Anyway, I kind of like him, he seems like no bull and sugar. From now on I'll remember him as "the only defender of the coat".

 

I missed some of it because of connection problem but some that stuck in my head are:

 

- Moffat thinks Sherlock in SIP is weird, scary and immoral. That surprises me, because other than being insensitive, probably rude (but nothing is off the handle imo), he was actually a very decent guy.

Weird, yes.

Scary, no. He is intriguing and curious. Curiosity probably kills Sherlock Holmes some day but what is life without exploration?

Immoral, definitely not.

 

- Mycroft always loves Sherlock. He only doesn't know how to express it the normal way. Thanks you Gatiss. I never doubt that anyway.

Not everyone is created equally in expressing emotions, and definitely not Holmes brothers.

 

- Darkest, emotional roller coaster for S4. :(

[Arcadia]

Well, I think there's something a bit weird and scary about someone who would risk taking a pill that might be poison just for the thrill of it. And he was pretty scary when he was torturing the cabbie.

 

Immoral? See: torturing cabbie. Using his powers of observation to manipulate people is pretty not nice, haven't quite decided if it's immoral. Ummm ... is taunting your older brother immoral? I hope not, or I'm in big trouble....

 

But there's an underlying ... what? Charm? Naivete? Something, that makes you want to give Sherlock a pass. Maybe it's just because his sheer brilliance is so exhilarating? Or maybe it's just BC's natural sweetness.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, I think there's something a bit weird and scary about someone who would risk taking a pill that might be poison just for the thrill of it.

 

Weird and scary, yeah, but not necessarily just for the thrill.  He's an intellectual, after all, and he was testing a hypothesis. 

I realize that the Moftisses made up that scene (it was not in Conan Doyle's Study in Scarlet), but I do have the impression that the original Holmes often put himself in harm's way for the sake of a case.  I don't recall ever hearing him accused of being a thrill seeker.  Hrrrumphh!

[Carol the Dabbler]

In fact, it just occurred to me that, rather than being adrenaline junkies, both "our" Sherlock and Conan Doyle's Holmes are more likely to be endorphin junkies -- because endorphins are the body's analog to opiates, which they both also use when they don't have an interesting case.  If they were truly adrenaline junkies, they'd be likely to use cocaine instead.

 

[T.o.b.y]

But... Holmes did take cocaine. Even intravenously.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, right.  Well, there goes that bit of evidence!  Didn't he mostly use opiates, though?  I somehow have that impression, but certainly can't quote anything to support it -- other than Watson's demand in TAB that Holmes tell him which drug he'd just used.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, right.  Well, there goes that bit of evidence!  Didn't he mostly use opiates, though?  I somehow have that impression, but certainly can't quote anything to support it -- other than Watson's demand in TAB that Holmes tell him which drug he'd just used.

 

Quite the contrary, he mostly used cocaine. Morphine was only mentioned once, in the famous "cocaine or morphine?" line by Dr Watson. The "7% solution" is 7% cocaine (which was legal and socially accepted back then, btw).

 

So. Actually, I came back on here fairly late in the evening over here in ol' Europe because I suddenly thought of a crazy theory while under the shower:

 

Redbeard. Isn't it weird how much fuss has been made about Redbeard? Of course, in real life, a little kid can be traumatized by the death of a beloved pet, but this is a very, very rare thing in fiction. Also, why would Magnussen care about a dog that was put down when Sherlock was little?

 

I bet there's more to that story. Remember Henry Knight? His father was killed by a human being, but all he remembered was a "hound". He was "just a little boy", he "couldn't cope." And his interpretation of the little he still knew was further shaped and manipulated by the killer, who "explained it all very carefully."

 

Now, what if little Sherlock was actually a witness to or had knowledge of a violent death  and / or a horrible crime, perhaps involving a family member, perhaps "the other one". Maybe Redbeard really existed, maybe he really was an Irish Setter who had to be put down, but perhaps this had to do with the incident or happened roughly at the same time, and so this is all that he remembers: Redbeard was put down, I was sad, love sucks, feelings are bad. Maybe Mycroft "very carefully explained" away anything else that might have happened, with good intentions, or bad intentions, or both.

 

If this were true, it could also explain Sherlock's unusual fit of empathy when dealing with Henry. It was touching, but always seemed a little out of character for me at that time.

 

It would be awesome foreshadowing. I love foreshadowing. Which is probably why I come up with crazy ideas like this when I should actually be asleep. *Sigh*... I should probably write a fanfic before S4 comes out and I am proven wrong. But I don't do those on purpose. Only if my brain forces me to. :P

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I should probably write a fanfic before S4 comes out and I am proven wrong. But I don't do those on purpose. Only if my brain forces me to. :P

 

You should definitely write that fanfic.  (And why do you think anyone writes fanfics?)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Quite the contrary, he mostly used cocaine. Morphine was only mentioned once, in the famous "cocaine or morphine?" line by Dr Watson. The "7% solution" is 7% cocaine (which was legal and socially accepted back then, btw).

 

Well, at least Sherlock's comment to Mrs. Hudson makes more sense to me now.  I thought he was comparing her offer of tea (an "upper") to a dose of morphine (a "downer").

 

I still question whether Sherlock is an adrenaline junkie as such, though.  If he were, he'd presumably be into fast cars and roller coasters (rather than Land Rovers and motorbikes).  And he'd presumably be downing endless cups of strong coffee.

[Arcadia]

This is probably the first time I see Moffat's interview, well actually first time seeing everyone's except BC. Anyway, I kind of like him, he seems like no bull and sugar. From now on I'll remember him as "the only defender of the coat".

 

I missed some of it because of connection problem but some that stuck in my head are:

 

- Moffat thinks Sherlock in SIP is weird, scary and immoral. That surprises me, because other than being insensitive, probably rude (but nothing is off the handle imo), he was actually a very decent guy.

Weird, yes.

Scary, no. He is intriguing and curious. Curiosity probably kills Sherlock Holmes some day but what is life without exploration?

Immoral, definitely not.

 

For what it's worth, once I had a chance to really listen to that interview, I realized that Moffat said "amoral", not "immoral." And I think there's some truth in that.

 

 

Quite the contrary, he mostly used cocaine. Morphine was only mentioned once, in the famous "cocaine or morphine?" line by Dr Watson. The "7% solution" is 7% cocaine (which was legal and socially accepted back then, btw).

 

Well, at least Sherlock's comment to Mrs. Hudson makes more sense to me now.  I thought he was comparing her offer of tea (an "upper") to a dose of morphine (a "downer").

 

What comment are you referring to, here? I'm drawing a blank.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Quite the contrary, he mostly used cocaine. Morphine was only mentioned once, in the famous "cocaine or morphine?" line by Dr Watson. The "7% solution" is 7% cocaine (which was legal and socially accepted back then, btw).

 

Well, at least Sherlock's comment to Mrs. Hudson makes more sense to me now.  I thought he was comparing her offer of tea (an "upper") to a dose of morphine (a "downer").

What comment are you referring to, here? I'm drawing a blank.

I was talking about this little scene at the beginning of "Hounds":

 

MRS HUDSON: How about a nice cuppa, and perhaps you could put away your harpoon.

SHERLOCK: I need something stronger than tea. Seven per cent stronger.

It bothers me, nevertheless, because it strikes me as a blatant reference to a scene from Conan Doyle and/or a novel & movie by Nicholas Meyer.  That is to say, it sounds like a reference, rather than sounding like a casual comment.  The Moftisses are usually better at making their tidbits blend in.  (Must say I love Mrs. Hudson's line, though!)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Well, I think there's something a bit weird and scary about someone who would risk taking a pill that might be poison just for the thrill of it. And he was pretty scary when he was torturing the cabbie.Immoral? See: torturing cabbie. Using his powers of observation to manipulate people is pretty not nice, haven't quite decided if it's immoral.

Eta: immoral removed. My bad. :p

 

Maybe I won't put torturing the cabby as scary, although I really get why you said so. Yes, it sounds and actually scary, but Sherlock is in another spectrum, which begs the necessity of him to be viewed differently, imho.

 

What I mean, I hope I could express it correctly, Sherlock definitely is not a person of empathy, he is calculating machine who thinks with his brain before feels it with his heart. This man, dying soon, he has few seconds to get useful information that could prevent future murder and he has to get it fast and use a foolproof method that inflicts pain that even dying man choose to give up on it.

 

I bet we can't do that, but he could, and he thinks he should. Scary? Just little bit, or maybe not because of who he is.

We deal with normal annoying people and probably stationary, simple gadgets or normal stuffs everyday. Sherlock deals with crooks, criminals and martyrs everyday, with guns, swords and poison pills, doing what he did is necessary and something that he no longer hesitates to do. So if I look from that point of view, it's no scary, because I think there is no cruelty there, just a necessity that he learns to be detached from because of what he does. It goes in sync with TGG, he has to detached himself to get to more important results, others can grieve for the victims, but not him, because he is the one who is needed to stop the murderer.

 

Now, what if little Sherlock was actually a witness to or had knowledge of a violent death and / or a horrible crime, perhaps involving a family member, perhaps "the other one". Maybe Redbeard really existed, maybe he really was an Irish Setter who had to be put down, but perhaps this had to do with the incident or happened roughly at the same time, and so this is all that he remembers: Redbeard was put down, I was sad, love sucks, feelings are bad. Maybe Mycroft "very carefully explained" away anything else that might have happened, with good intentions, or bad intentions, or both.

Interesting theory. I much rather see that instead of what I have in mind.

 

I suspect Redbeard the way it is, about his dog being put down. But there are darkness around it. Maybe someone on the family harmed the dog, someone he trusted and someone he loved, maybe not someone that had been already introduced.

Or even darker, in return Sherlock actually harmed that family member, he gets traumatized and lost that part of memory, and no one else know about it, except Mycroft.

Either one pushed him into drugs.

 

If this were true, it could also explain Sherlock's unusual fit of empathy when dealing with Henry. It was touching, but always seemed a little out of character for me at that time.

Eh.. I thought he was very un-empathetic to Henry, he even thanked him for brilliant case and said something "skip it to the night when your father was brutally murdered", something along that line.

The only person I think he was very sympathetic with was Soo Lin.

 

I still question whether Sherlock is an adrenaline junkie as such, though. If he were, he'd presumably be into fast cars and roller coasters (rather than Land Rovers and motorbikes). And he'd presumably be downing endless cups of strong coffee.

I don't think adrenaline junkie is associated into fast cars or roller coaster but not motorbikes. It's hard to define I think. He needs stimulation, maybe not necessary categorized into fast furious activity? I bet a difficult puzzle could work him out and sustain him for a while.

But this is interesting, haven't got chance to look more into it.

[Amber§]

 

Same here. Sherlock killing CAM almost did me in, I don't know how I'm going to survive something "darker." (Seriously, what's darker than murder? Never mind, I really, really do not want an answer to that....)

 

 

How about treason? I really don't bear treason. I mean, I'd rather be killed than be betrayed. When Mary shot to Sherlock I started to hate her.

[J.P.]

What about madness?

[Arcadia]

Mmm, treason's not worse to me, at least you're still alive.

 

Madness would be worse than death if you knew you were mad, I think. But do mad people know they're mad?

 

At any rate, madness isn't something you inflict on someone else, like murder or treason.

 

And I'm afraid my mind ran to much darker areas than either of those, which I choose not to give the light of day to, 'cuz it's super icky.

[Arcadia]

 

Well, I think there's something a bit weird and scary about someone who would risk taking a pill that might be poison just for the thrill of it. And he was pretty scary when he was torturing the cabbie.Immoral? See: torturing cabbie. Using his powers of observation to manipulate people is pretty not nice, haven't quite decided if it's immoral.

Maybe I won't put torturing the cabby as scary, although I really get why you said so. Yes, it sounds and actually scary, but Sherlock is in another spectrum, which begs the necessity of him to be viewed differently, imho.

 

What I mean, I hope I could express it correctly, Sherlock definitely is not a person of empathy, he is calculating machine who thinks with his brain before feels it with his heart. This man, dying soon, he has few seconds to get useful information that could prevent future murder and he has to get it fast and use a foolproof method that inflicts pain that even dying man choose to give up on it.

 

The thing is, though, I don't believe Sherlock was thinking about preventing future murder at that moment, I think he just wanted to declare victory over the cabbie and didn't care how he got there. That's what makes him scary, that he doesn't seem to know where the lines are that you shouldn't cross. Or doesn't care.

 

At least, I've always thought that's how Moffat meant for us to interpret that scene; he and Ben keep saying how Sherlock is a "dangerous man". Because that's important/admirable to boys, for some reason; being dangerous. I confess those "dangerous" moments always seem a bit out of character to me, because I don't normally associate people who live in their minds as much as Sherlock seems to, with the more "action man" type of people. But I suppose that's 1) a bias on my part and 2) one of the things that makes Sherlock unique ... he's both! (But it's the intellectual part I admire more. Maybe because I'm not a boy? :D )

 

Having said that, I'm looking forward to the scene where he's in hand to hand combat in Season 4, because he just looks so cool in that moment in the trailer. Aha!!!! Is that what boys like? Looking cool??  :P

[Van Buren Supernova]

Maybe, isn't boys in animal kingdom are all show-offs? :p From dancing to singing and fighting to have colorful feather to attract potential mates. XD But I don't think Sherlock likes to show off in that area (TBB, SIB) But he never shies from showing off about his intellectual capabilities.

 

Attraction to skill and capability... What is that term...? I remember learning that there are different types of attractions and one of it it's attraction to someone's capability and skill.

But since I didn't learn it in English I can't find the term anymore as trying to google it always ends in different area.

 

Yah I want him to beat up bad guy's asses.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Some people are attracted to intellect. I know that is 1 area that attracts my attention.

[Arcadia]

Is the word we are looking for "sapiosexual?" (Attracted to intelligence.)

[J.P.]

Actually I think we should collect all the clues in one place... all the clues from Arwel he posted in the last months, the setlock pics and look how they now look in the context of the trailer. Maybe they say more now?

[Arcadia]

Aren't they all together already in the spoilers thread?

[sittything]

This is me about all of the filming spoilers and trailer: