Series 4 (and Special) Speculation

[besleybean]

Huh?

Oh, see what you mean...but I didn't actually find S 3 that traumatic.

But this, this is all just...almost too  much.

[Boton]

I'm with Besley.  I didn't find S3 to be traumatic at all; I just thought it was a lot of good character-driven story telling, an interesting "baddie" inspired by canon, and a truly interesting plot line.  Far from being traumatized, S3 is what hooked me into the show; if it had been the level of intensity of S1 and S2, I would be looking forward to the new season, but it wouldn't be "appointment television," as they say.

 

I do feel like the PR for S4 is getting baity and a bit annoying.  Now, part of that is because I have chosen to be part of a fandom, so I am seeing a much larger percentage of the marketing than I would otherwise; as a casual fan, I would probably see one trailer and a couple of facebook posts and that would be it.  But I do feel a little bludgeoned by being told over and over that S4 is dark and emotional.  I've almost gone over to the ACD side, where I want to say, "you may marry him, murder him, or do what you will with him," just give me some good TV.

 

[besleybean]

I have no doubt S 4 will be brilliant TV, I am just hoping not to be too traumatised by it.

[T.o.b.y]

That Sherlockology review really is quite spoiler-free, I'd say. At least it didn't leave me any wiser than before. The only two interesting statements I noticed were "prepare to have your sympathies tested" and that the series was venturing into a new genre. The latter sounds kind of alarming, because in my opinion, the only genre they haven't covered yet is SciFi / Fantasy and if they drag actual ghosts, magic, actual time travel etc into Sherlock, I will be furious. But I don't think so.

 

As for my sympathies: The only (main) characters where it would really surprise me if they did something bad are Molly and Lestrade. Everybody else is morally gray at best and as for Mycroft, well, he's always been a bit of a villain in my eyes and I would actually be thrilled if they gave him a part to play that would justify my latent antagonism towards him. :P And they can't mean Mary, can they? Come on. Half the fandom seems to hate her guts and all the fandom saw her shoot Sherlock straight in the chest. Nobody could claim to have thought she was some kind of angel...

 

The most fun for me is speculating about the cases. I love to read an original Doyle story and try to modernize it plus give it a clever twist that would make the outcome less predictable for people who know the source and I have always hugely admired how much better the Sherlock writers are at it than I could ever be (yeah, small wonder what with them being professionals and all, I know).

 

The Six Napoleons... An apparent madman goes about destroying busts of Napoleon. But only those made by one particular manufacturer after one particular model. It turns out that he was looking for a jewel that had been hidden in one of the copies. I think when they adapted this case for John's blog, they made it so that one of the Thatcher busts bore evidence of a crime and the criminal was just covering his tracks (or trying to). I wonder what route they'll take this time. Didn't the plot summary on Imdb mention a secret from Mary's past? What secret from Mary's past could you hide in a bust of Margaret Thatcher? Another flash drive? Nah. That doesn't sound half clever enough.

 

I remember they already mentioned Ms Thatcher once before on Sherlock - in The Hounds of Baskerville. Maggie was the password for Major Barrymore's computer. Wouldn't it be cool if the new case tied back to Baskerville somehow?

 

And The Dying Detective. Oh boy, I can't wait to see what they did with that. First of all, I love that story, I love Holmes in it, he's hilarious and I always thought they based a lot of Sherlock on that particular characterization of him. But what could be the twist here?

 

One horrible idea passed through my brain the other night that I fervently hope isn't true: What if in this version, Smith succeeded and Sherlock actually did catch the disease, the lie of the episode title being his standard "I am fine" phrase? Also, what if this happened a while ago and it's the "dark secret" Smith mentions in the trailer?

 

The theory gets worse. In the story, the infection is transmitted via a needle directly to the bloodstream. Oh my god no, they wouldn't do "Sherlock has HIV", would they? Please, no, They wouldn't. It would be so fanfic and so tasteless. But not impossible and certainly not inconsistent with what we've seen so far: The first episode ever introduced the "dead man walking" concept. Sherlock is careless with his own life and health and he "must be alone" for some reason. He's clearly into women, yet did not sleep with pretty, sexy Janine when he had the chance and she was perfectly willing, was that because he didn't want to... No. No, no, no, no, no. It can't be.

 

I am sure they came up with something better. (Almost anything would be better). But what? I doubt they're just going to follow the original idea and have Sherlock pretend to John, the villain and everybody that he is dying when he's actually perfectly okay and just luring Smith into a trap. Nobody in the audience would believe him for one second, certainly not those who know how the original story goes.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that nobody who'd read the original story would believe that Sherlock really was sick (so yes, that would make a good twist, though Moftiss would not kill him -- they just wouldn't).

 

But that is a far cry from meaning that *nobody* would believe it. After Reichenbach, I heard there were loads of people convinced that he really was dead (and that what we saw at the graveyard was his ghost). I don't know that anyone on this forum thought that, though, and perhaps none of the die-hard fans.

[Arcadia]

Not really. We hadn't gone through Series 3 before.

Ah. I see your point. So this is not necessarily the norm. For some odd reason that makes me feel better.

 

And The Dying Detective. Oh boy, I can't wait to see what they did with that. First of all, I love that story, I love Holmes in it, he's hilarious and I always thought they based a lot of Sherlock on that particular characterization of him. But what could be the twist here?

I saw a suggestion somewhere that maybe it's not Sherlock who's the lying detective, but Lestrade, which I thought could be a good twist. Then I woke up this morning with this thought ... what if the lying detective is Mary? We don't actually know for sure that she was a CIA assassin or whatever. Maybe she's a Pinkerton detective or something. Probably not, but it would be a twist!

 

I agree that nobody who'd read the original story would believe that Sherlock really was sick (so yes, that would make a good twist, though Moftiss would not kill him -- they just wouldn't).

 

But that is a far cry from meaning that *nobody* would believe it. After Reichenbach, I heard there were loads of people convinced that he really was dead (and that what we saw at the graveyard was his ghost). I don't know that anyone on this forum thought that, though, and perhaps none of the die-hard fans.

My sister was one of those. When I told her there was going to be a season three she was amazed, because she thought he'd really died, in spite of him standing right there. (To be fair, I knew there was going to be an S3 before I ever knew there had been an S1 & 2, so maybe I would've drawn the same conclusion if I'd been in her shoes.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

How did she explain his being in the graveyard -- ghost?

[besleybean]

One fan girl I used to chat to on Twitter: she went to the loo and missed seeing Sherlock being shown still alive!

I knew anyway, because of Canon and the fact we knew we were getting an S 3.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Canon, sure, but didn't they wait to announce S3 until a while after S2 had aired?

[besleybean]

I didn't think so.

But I could be wrong, it has been known!

[Arcadia]

How did she explain his being in the graveyard -- ghost?

She didn't. She seem confused when I pointed out that he was right there at the end, so maybe she walked out before it was over? At any rate, I never found out, for some long-forgotten reason.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... didn't they wait to announce S3 until a while after S2 had aired?

I didn't think so.

But I could be wrong, it has been known!

Not this time, though!

 

I emailed Sherlockology, and Jules told me that the BBC commissioned S2 and S3 simultaneously. This may or may not have been public knowledge right away, but as soon as Reichenbach aired, both Moftisses tweeted that there would definitely be another series. Jules thought there might have been an on-air announcement as well.

[besleybean]

(Swaggers terribly!) 

[bedelia1984]

I'm getting this irrational fear from the video clips, (not based on anything tangible) that Mary is a sleeper assassin who is going to kill Molly as payback for Moriarty (and the help she gave Sherlock). This last wait is the worst part.

[besleybean]

NO!     

[Boton]

OK, so speculation based on the "estrangement" in the E2 summary.

 

Mary and the baby die at the end of the first episode as part of a plot Moriarty left behind (or tasked his minions with) to bait Sherlock.  Sherlock feels responsible, and John blames him.  The estrangement occurs, and Sherlock is left to solve whatever mystery with Culverton Smith by himself.  E3 ends with Sherlock heading out to Sussex Downs, feeling like a failure because he can solve the puzzles but not save the lives, and he moves in with Janine.  The whole thing seems to be at an end.

 

But wait!  Holmes always comes back from "The Final Problem," so S5E1 opens up with Sherlock somehow saving John from something, and we get our Three Garidebs moment.

[besleybean]

That sounds fine as long as Janine and he are just friends!

[Boton]

That's fine with me.  Even though I'm a Janlock shipper, I don't want to see it on screen, particularly.  I just want to see him walk  up a hill to a relatively secluded cottage with a row of beehives behind it and have Janine open the door.  Roll credits.

 

(Besides, the original Holmes lived with a "housekeeper."  It is canon to allow the reader to decide for him- or herself exactly how much dusting and cooking that entailed.)

[besleybean]

Housekeeper is fine!

[T.o.b.y]

I do hope they won't remain "estranged" for the entire series right until the end... But I can still see Sherlock at the cottage (sans Janine to please me, but not necessarily because this show isn't about pleasing me, obviously). Other than his death or retirement (however temporary), I don't see how the series could come to a place from where it would be hard to continue immediately.

 

My guess right now is: In episode 1, the baby either gets kidnapped or seriously endangered and / or Mary disappears in some way (not necessarily death, I still find it hard to believe she is going to die). John blames Sherlock (we know from one of those clips that he texted Mary to come to the crime scene and that John didn't like her bringing the baby along). Perhaps John also blames Mary (see: Watson marriage has problems). So when ep2 rolls around, there's a certain "estrangement" and besides, if baby and / or Mary were somehow hurt, John would have his hands full. During ep3 we get a reconciliation plus lots of shocking Holmes family and Sherlock's past background and at the end of it all, Sherlock is too shaken to continue working for a while and John is busy picking up the pieces in his own household. Something like that. Along the way, I think (fear :P) that Sherlock and Molly will come to some kind of romantic climax but will not end up as a couple. 

 

I still wonder whether "Sherrinford" will really turn out to be a third Holmes (half-) sibling. Maybe it's a place (it sounds like a place)? A code word? An alias Sherlock used during his past?

 

And what will "The Final Problem" turn out to be? Didn't Moriarty say in The Reichenbach Fall that the Final Problem was "Staying Alive"? Sounds pretty dramatic.

[Arcadia]

Sherrinford sounds like a place name to me, too. Maybe the location of the cottage?

 

I still think some trick of language is involved in all this. We'll know soon (or ... will we? )

[J.P.]

You mean SherrinForest? Wasn't it another story? :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the original Holmes lived with a "housekeeper." It is canon to allow the reader to decide for him- or herself exactly how much dusting and cooking that entailed.)

He (or Watson) may have referred to her as their housekeeper, but she owned the house (as is made abundantly clear in the first page or so of "The Dying Detective"), so she was also the landlady.

[Arcadia]

I think Boton's referring to after he retired to keep bees, isn't she? Although I don't know if that's canon. But that was the scenario they ran with in the "Mr. Holmes" movie.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, right, "old Martha" (who some people -- apparently including Moftiss -- take to be Mrs. Hudson, though I doubt it). Yes, she's canon. I assume that the housekeeper shown in Mr. Holmes is her successor.