Moffat's "we've missed it" statement...

[Pseudonym]

I know it existed, my point is was it actually called astrophysics. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, he is married to someone who appears to be an expert hacker.

 

True, but I'm virtually certain they are not in it together. (If they were, their last conversation in HLV would make no sense.) If they're both involved, neither one of them is aware of it.

[clavery111]

"blindingly obvious"  ... what is it???? ACK!?

 

#1.  Sherlock is a murderer.  How is he going to get off?  

#2.  What did Mycroft do to "the other one"?

#3.  Mary is ex-CIA who has lots of enemies

#4.  Moriarity is back? or his evil twin at least.....

[Inge l-w]

@Pseudonym: by the time of the original Professor Moriarty, it was called astrophysics, thereby validating his magnum opus.

Haven't we discussed the whole hacking idea in Mary's thread and in all the major HLW threads, beginning with how we would like to 'fix' it?

[Carol the Dabbler]

According to the Merriam-Webster website, the term "astrophysics" was first used in 1890.

[Arcadia]

Rather than trying to think what I might have missed, I decided to think about things I have not missed, but feel are unresolved, and see if those lead anywhere. Hop in if you like, I haven't had much time to think about this so I guarantee it's not complete....
 
The obvious ones:

Redbeard, Mary's past, Sherlock's drug use, Moriarty's return, the Other One ....
 
Maybe not as obvious?
From ASiP: JEFF: "You’re not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There’s others out there just like you, except you’re just a man ... and they’re so much more than that. SHERLOCK: What d’you mean, more than a man? An organisation? What? JEFF: There’s a name no-one says, an’ I’m not gonna say it either."
I still think he was in part referring to Moriarty, but then why does Jeff say "they" are "so much more"? Sounds like a group of vengeful women we've seen somewhere...

 

The source of the tension between Sherlock and Mycroft.

 

Sebastian Moran. It's always seemed to me like they just threw away that character, does he have more of a role to play? What was his motive for trying to blow up Parliament.

 

The death threats against Sherlock,  mentioned in TSo3.

 

John. I still haven't decided if we're supposed to think he still has some repressed anger against Sherlock after the fall, or not. Or how much he does/doesn't know about why Sherlock did it, or if it matters. But mostly I just feel we learned less about John in S3 than we did before; he's more remote. Deliberate, or not?

 

All I have time for right now. Any of it mean anything to anybody?

[sfmpco]

I am hoping we get a little more insight into what happened between the time he shot CAM until he got onto  the plane.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sebastian Moran. It's always seemed to me like they just threw away that character, does he have more of a role to play? What was his motive for trying to blow up Parliament.

 

It's not clear to me that Lord Moran was supposed to be Sebastian -- more likely just a brief nod to canon, I think. So I strongly suspect we'll be hearing the name Moran again, possibly his lordship, possibly not.

 

I still take Moftiss's "you missed it" claims with a huge grain of salt. They said the same thing after Series 2, and I don't believe they ever told us what they'd been talking about that time. So I suspect they're just yanking our chain again.

[Inge l-w]

Since he is obviously a life peer, his first name was not mentioned, intentionally or not. So anybody's guess is as good as everyone else's.

As for yanking the fandom's chain, I shall refrain from commenting about the lying Mr Moffat: he himself explained the concept at SDCC!

[Pseudonym]

I wish they had brought in Sebastian Moran, I think he had potential to be pretty badass, and I like the idea in fics that whilst Moriarty was a mirror of Sherlock, Moran is a mirror of John. I know it's possible they'll still bring him in (was he responsible for the video?), but I think the Moriarty story is a bit too over to be suddenly bringing it back to that extent. I know he is still in it, but it seems to me that other than the video this season isn't going to be talking about Moriarty all that much since Toby Jones is the new big bad. 

[Arcadia]

 

Sebastian Moran. It's always seemed to me like they just threw away that character, does he have more of a role to play? What was his motive for trying to blow up Parliament.

It's not clear to me that Lord Moran was supposed to be Sebastian -- more likely just a brief nod to canon, I think. So I strongly suspect we'll be hearing the name Moran again, possibly his lordship, possibly not.

 

I still take Moftiss's "you missed it" claims with a huge grain of salt. They said the same thing after Series 2, and I don't believe they ever told us what they'd been talking about that time. So I suspect they're just yanking our chain again.

 

And why has nobody asked that question at one of the cons ... "What is the clue we missed in S2?" Drives me nuts....

 

I wish they had brought in Sebastian Moran, I think he had potential to be pretty badass, and I like the idea in fics that whilst Moriarty was a mirror of Sherlock, Moran is a mirror of John. I know it's possible they'll still bring him in (was he responsible for the video?), but I think the Moriarty story is a bit too over to be suddenly bringing it back to that extent. I know he is still in it, but it seems to me that other than the video this season isn't going to be talking about Moriarty all that much since Toby Jones is the new big bad.

Or is that just what they tell us to throw us off the scent? :P

 

I do think in this most recent statement, Mark was in a way twitting the fans with his " 'blindingly' obvious" remark. Overall I get the impression they're getting a bit annoyed with some of the more elaborate fan theories; fans are making them out to be more clever than they actually are, then complain when they get the answers they get. (E.g., look at how many people believe they're still withholding the "real" explanation for the Fall.)

 

Still makes me wonder what he was referring to though ... unless we're to think there are no clues at all, he just made that up to tease us some more. Hey, maybe that's it ... the twist is that there IS no mystery! :D

[Pseudonym]

What did he say?

[Arcadia]

Aha! I'm finally getting better at this, I actually found Clavery's original post: http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/3343-spoilers-series-4-setlock/?p=105276
 
To paraphrase, he says fans are missing some "blindingly obvious" clues while busily finding clues that aren't actually there. Something to that effect. Carol suggested he was just yanking our chains by saying that we've missed the obvious, hence my response just above ... maybe there are NO clues at all, he's just saying there are. To yank our chains. :D

 

In either case, if true ... well played, Mr. Gatiss!

[Pseudonym]

Ah right yea, I remember that, I though he'd said something new recently I'd missed 

 

Maybe they're trying to give us something new to discuss so we don't all go mad in the hiatus... too late. 

[Boton]

Mostly, I think Moftiss are pulling our chains.  They very wisely realize that the way to extend the entertainment value of a show that only has 10 episodes spanning 900 minutes (15 hours) is to get people to watch them over and over and over looking for layer after layer and building suspense.  I don't fault them for that; I do that very thing, watching each episode first for entertainment, then for plot points, then for music and dialog, then for sets and costuming, and finally back to entertainment (and to figure out if there was an apple on the coffee table because I want to refer to it in a fan fic and heaven forbid I make it a banana because that's all we will talk about in the comments!).  

 

As far as any literal meaning to "what we've missed," I still think that TAB was the executive summary of the preceding nine episodes.  I haven't done it; I keep threatening to do it; but I probaby never will get around to it: making a complete list of everything that happens in TAB that we already knew.  I think those are the clues to what is going to go on in S4.

 

For example, one of the first things that happens is that Sherlock chides John for not recognizing Mary by her perfume when she is playing the "client" dressed in full mourning garb.  But we already knew that there was an issue with recognizing Mary by her perfume; Sherlock walked into CAM's flat expecting Lady Smallwood because of the scent of Clare de la Lune, which was arguably the proximate cause of the whole shooting-CAM debacle. If Sherlock had walked into that room expecting Mary, he might not have ad libbed quite so much with the "No, you wont. Mrs. Watson." thing and had a better plan for getting on Mary's team, which might have meant that the pair of them could capture CAM and neutralize him in some way that didn't involve his death.  

 

But why chide John in the mind palace rather than himself? And is there a layer there that indicates that not only is Sherlock worried that he has failed to "identify" Mary (in several ways), but that John is not being the husband that Sherlock thinks he should be? And why is that even an issue?

 

So, that still doesn't tell me a darn thing about the trajectory of S4.  Now, I can come up with theories all day: my favorite one right now is the idea that Mary is "the other one" and that Sherlock is so protective over John and Mary's marriage because it is his best friend and his half-sister, and he is working through some sort of issues about not quickly identifying his own half-sister and not doing a good job protecting her.  But that doesn't indicate anything real, and we don't know if the "obvious" clues are going anywhere specific until the season airs.

[Pseudonym]

I wonder if Sherlock knew there was something off about Mary but stopped himself looking too closely because he didn't want to upset John, whom he was already on shaky ground with, or whether he was genuinely surprised. As you allude to, why didn't Sherlock recognise the perfume as being Mary's as well as Lady Smallwood's? They spent enough time together during the wedding planning etc, and he mentioned he'd done a study on recognising perfumes, so it seems a bit of an oversight on his behalf unless he was not consciously making an effort not to 'look' at her (other than the quick initial deduction).

[Arcadia]

As far as any literal meaning to "what we've missed," I still think that TAB was the executive summary of the preceding nine episodes.  I haven't done it; I keep threatening to do it; but I probaby never will get around to it: making a complete list of everything that happens in TAB that we already knew.  I think those are the clues to what is going to go on in S4.

I'd like to see that, actually. Although I suppose I could do it myself. So much easier for me if you do it, though! :D

 

For example, one of the first things that happens is that Sherlock chides John for not recognizing Mary by her perfume when she is playing the "client" dressed in full mourning garb.  But we already knew that there was an issue with recognizing Mary by her perfume; Sherlock walked into CAM's flat expecting Lady Smallwood because of the scent of Clare de la Lune, which was arguably the proximate cause of the whole shooting-CAM debacle. If Sherlock had walked into that room expecting Mary, he might not have ad libbed quite so much with the "No, you wont. Mrs. Watson." thing and had a better plan for getting on Mary's team, which might have meant that the pair of them could capture CAM and neutralize him in some way that didn't involve his death.

I confess I think the perfume thing is probably one of the things we are "reading too much into." But even if not, it makes sense to me that Sherlock would leap to concluding it was Lady Smallwood behind that door; he knew she was being blackmailed. He didn't have any idea Mary was too, so there was no reason to suspect her presence.

 

But why chide John in the mind palace rather than himself? And is there a layer there that indicates that not only is Sherlock worried that he has failed to "identify" Mary (in several ways), but that John is not being the husband that Sherlock thinks he should be? And why is that even an issue?

I agree that John's behavior is often puzzling and rather inconsistent in TAB. But I have no idea what, if anything, that could mean.   It's like that scene where Sherlock thinks John is still living at 221B ... on the one hand, it's a joke about Sherlock talking to John even when he's not there; on the other hand, it feeds right into TJLC, which they claim doesn't exist. 'Tis perplexing.

 

I wonder if Sherlock knew there was something off about Mary but stopped himself looking too closely because he didn't want to upset John, whom he was already on shaky ground with, or whether he was genuinely surprised. As you allude to, why didn't Sherlock recognise the perfume as being Mary's as well as Lady Smallwood's? They spent enough time together during the wedding planning etc, and he mentioned he'd done a study on recognising perfumes, so it seems a bit of an oversight on his behalf unless he was not consciously making an effort not to 'look' at her (other than the quick initial deduction).

See my second remark. But also I think Mary charmed him by being on his side, and then he genuinely grew to like her, etc. etc. She just never gave him a reason to look any more closely at her, imo. And he may have made assumptions about what she was like based on the fact that John, who is "ordinary", liked her. So I think he was genuinely surprised.

 

ETA: Oh yeah, and he made that remark in TAB, in the abominable women's hideout, about not realizing how clever Mary was until just then, or something like that. Which just tells me again that Sherlock has a tendency to underestimate what women are capable of.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... he made that remark in TAB, in the abominable women's hideout, about not realizing how clever Mary was until just then, or something like that. Which just tells me again that Sherlock has a tendency to underestimate what women are capable of.

Which is straight out of canon, really -- or at least his overall low opinion of women is canon. Holmes seems to view any competent, brave, and/or intelligent woman he meets as an aberration.

 

But as to whether that amounts to him underestimating women, that depends on one's own view of women, doesn't it? ;)

[Boton]

 

As far as any literal meaning to "what we've missed," I still think that TAB was the executive summary of the preceding nine episodes.  I haven't done it; I keep threatening to do it; but I probaby never will get around to it: making a complete list of everything that happens in TAB that we already knew.  I think those are the clues to what is going to go on in S4.

I'd like to see that, actually. Although I suppose I could do it myself. So much easier for me if you do it, though! :D

 

 

 

I should have done it a couple of weeks ago when my hubby worked 48 straight hours and I was bored senseless.  Not that he would even raise an eyebrow at me taking notes from a TV show; I used to take extensive notes about Star Trek: VOY and ENT, because they would form the basis of a week-long discussion on the episode I would have with my Trekkie dad.  ;)

 

So, that is to say, it is always possible. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I used to take extensive notes about Star Trek: VOY and ENT, because they would form the basis of a week-long discussion on the episode I would have with my Trekkie dad. ;)

 

You meant, perhaps, to say Trekker?

[Boton]

 

I used to take extensive notes about Star Trek: VOY and ENT, because they would form the basis of a week-long discussion on the episode I would have with my Trekkie dad. ;)

You meant, perhaps, to say Trekker?

 

 

Some days, it's Trekker, some days, we embrace the Trekkie.  :-)

 

ETA:  (Just in case this is actually going to become a hiatus time-killing debate.) Dad and I have alternately used "Trekker" and "Trekkie," depending on how we felt at the time.  I'm kind of agnostic on the terminology; we're the ones that know it's just a show but are there on premiere day for every movie wearing our LLAP tshirts.  Sometimes we get nerdier than that, but not too often.

[Inge l-w]

OK, dear Carol, round # ( I have lost count by now!): As far as the avid fans are concerned, you are a Trekkie starting with the original series and dyed in the wool. You are a Trekker if you look down on the original as too obsolete, start with ST:TNG and attend conventions, speeches and wear funny costumes. We have discussed the point elsewhere, I don't remember the thread, sorry. I consider myself a Trekkie, definitely not a Trekker, since I never watched STV.

And they cannot very well make Mary Morstan into a Holmes whatever! The only thing they might be able to shoehorn in is to remove the middle letters and make her Moran.

[Carol the Dabbler]

As far as the avid fans are concerned, you are a Trekkie starting with the original series and dyed in the wool. You are a Trekker if you look down on the original as too obsolete, start with ST:TNG and attend conventions, speeches and wear funny costumes.

 

I take it you mean that's the current distinction, and I must assume you're correct.

 

Back in the late 60's, though, things were different. Star Trek itself was brand new, and there was a certain amount of disrespect toward its fans from generic science-fiction fans. They called us trekkies; we called ourselves trekkers.

 

We did occasionally use the latter term, but only in reference to the sort of person who was giving Star Trek fans a bad name at the time. To quote from a trekfan newsletter of that era: "...[my friends] keep my spirits up, and beat me down when I start acting like a bubble-headed trekkie (rather than a sober, dignified -- albeit enthusiastic -- trekker)."

[Arcadia]

Y'know, I half expected you to bust me when I used the "Trekkie" term earlier. Two demerits for you, Dabbler! :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hey, I can't be wide awake all the time! :P