Sherlock (the BBC character)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Good god! At first glance

I thought it's topless Sherlock making out with a cat!

 

(I know I know upon closer inspection it's dying/sleeping/sleepy/bored/bored/bored cat (presumably Catlock on a hand) :p

[Pseudonym]

I thought it's topless Sherlock making out with a cat!

 

 

 

Ha! I can see it! I saw the cat first but yup, can definitely see it the way you did too :D

[J.P.]

Guys, you are seeing things...

 

The hiatus... the hiatus...

[Pseudonym]

It's true. I'm afraid this is where we are all headed, and when season 4 is finally released we'll be too far gone to enjoy it. 

 

[Arcadia]

Good god! At first glance

I thought it's topless Sherlock making out with a cat!

 

Oh geez. Now I can't see it any other way!

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

It's true. I'm afraid this is where we are all headed, and when season 4 is finally released we'll be too far gone to enjoy it.

 

Awwwwww... he is just too caring about John. :p

 

Guys, you are seeing things...

 

The hiatus... the hiatus...

 

 

Good god! At first glance

I thought it's topless Sherlock making out with a cat!

 

Oh geez. Now I can't see it any other way!

(Channeling Mrs. Wenceslas)

But it's TRUE!

[LadyCumberBunny]

Question...what about sherlocks clothes? For something that just covers "transport", he sure does like to look tidy and well put together. Always suits. Or trousers and button up shirts. He never just wears jeans. (Except in the unaired pilot)

[Arcadia]

He's vain about his transport? :d

[Pseudonym]

I think it's partly armour, makes him look more aloof and unapproachable. 

[Boton]

I think it's partly armour, makes him look more aloof and unapproachable. 

 

Totally agree.  He knows the effect that dressing well has on people; it makes them respect you and listen to you, and those are the first steps toward, um, "encouraging" people to do what you want them to do.

[Pseudonym]

It's a little intimidating too, to be faced with someone in a sharp suit, who's obviously intelligent and well spoken with an RP accent. Even if he were the nicest, friendliest bloke in the world I think I'd be intimidated. 

 

I'm not prone to inferiority complexes, but I think I would definitely feel that with him. 

[Arcadia]

Abso-friggin-lutely! :d

[Pseudonym]

Here's a question, one we've probably already discussed multiple times, but since we're stuck going around in circles I'll ask it again anyway. 

 

When Sherlock was dead do you think he killed anyone? In fics he's always shown as shooting his way around the world, and I think I had absorbed that as being true so when he killed Magnussen it didn't seem that big a deal to me and I was stumped why it was meant to be... but then it was never said or even implied he did kill anyone in his time away was it? We're just shown him getting people arrested. Going by how horrified we're meant to be at him shooting Magnussen it seems we're supposed to know it was his first time killing anyone.

The thing is, if part of this whole mission was to protect the people he cared about, if some of those thugs he was chasing would still have killed John had they realised Sherlock was alive, would he really risk just getting them arrested? He'd have to make sure they never saw his face, never realised he was involved, ensure they didn't bribe their way free. Going by the way he was waving the gun about at the pool, and pointing it at Moriarty/the bomb, I don't see that he would be that bothered about killing people if he felt it necessary, and he certainly wasn't bothered by John shooting the cabbie. Since that is in the first episode, and there are never any consequences I don't know why Sherlock will face consequences in season 4 for killing Magnussen. Admittedly there were witnesses, and so punishment, but I was under the impression some of the consequences would be psychological. Is it because John was a soldier we're supposed to shrug off him essentially murdering someone but not shrug it off with Sherlock? 

 

[LadyCumberBunny]

I've thought about that too. I've always just assumed that he had to kill people in the two years he was away, and was confused as to why I was supposed to be shocked. The only solution I could think of was that no one actually saw Sherlock kill anybody when he was abroad, and in HLV, there were more than enough witnesses.

[Arcadia]

Oh goody, I love this kind of question!

Well, this is only my take on it, of course. But I have always believed that what they showed us in "Many Happy Returns" is a fairly accurate depiction of what Sherlock was actually doing After the Fall. I'm not into the James Bond-y version of Sherlock at all; I want to see him use his mind, not a gun, to defeat his foes. So I'm happy with the "getting them arrested" scenario.

Also, someone asked that very question of Mark Gatiss (I believe it might have been at the Mumbai con???) and he said he believed CAM was the first person Sherlock had killed. So there's that, too. On the other hand, Mr. Moffat has frequently implied Sherlock was happily chopping heads off when he saved Irene, and wasn't "bothered" by having shot CAM, so I guess it just depends on which one you want to believe.......

I never was under the impression that Sherlock was chasing thugs that would have killed John, either. I guess I've always assumed they were guns for hire, with no more interest in the case once they saw Sherlock jump. If he turned up later, well, what's it to them? Jim's not around to hire them again. But you make a good point there, Pseud; I don't really have an answer to that except that again, I just can't picture Sherlock going around blowing people away. (That's Mary's job! )

And finally, I think the difference between John and Sherlock is in the circumstances. John shot the cabbie because he thought his new friend was in imminent danger of losing his life. Sherlock shot CAM knowing full well that the danger was not imminent, only implied. Also the wildness in his face when he pulled the trigger, and the way the script emphasized how he despised CAM, makes me believe Sherlock was acting from hatred, not cold reason. Which I find very shocking and sad, that he would sacrifice himself for an act of revenge.

I was really happy when Benedict said he thought killing CAM was a failure on Sherlock's part (that's not exactly how he worded it, but that's how I took it.) Because I agree; the moment Sherlock pulled that trigger, he forfeited the game. He and CAM were engaged in a battle of wits, and the only way Sherlock could win was to cheat; that is, to use the gun, not logic and deduction. But again, that's just how I see it; I get the impression I'm rather in the minority on that point.

[LadyCumberBunny]

I like you're take on this topic Arcadia, I woul love to think that Sherlock used his intellect instead of a gun when dismantling Moriarty's network. It's just the first thing I thought of when I heard "dismantling" was destroying . Cutting the strings of the proverbial web and making sure they could not be reconnected.

 

I also very much like your take on the circumstances bit. I agree that Sherlock "cheated" when it came to CAM.

[Pseudonym]

I was really happy when Benedict said he thought killing CAM was a failure on Sherlock's part (that's not exactly how he worded it, but that's how I took it.) Because I agree; the moment Sherlock pulled that trigger, he forfeited the game. He and CAM were engaged in a battle of wits, and the only way Sherlock could win was to cheat; that is, to use the gun, not logic and deduction. But again, that's just how I see it; I get the impression I'm rather in the minority on that point.

 

 

Yup I remember that interview. I'm a bit torn on my opinion, because I can see it was a failure because he was unable to beat CAM in the battle of wits (or gave up), and had to resort to violence. But at the same time, if two people enter an altercation, even a war of wits, and only one person is left standing can they really be considered the loser? I would have liked to have seen Sherlock suddenly pull out an ace, like he did with Irene Adler. The fact he didn't makes me think there must be an underlying plot reason for why he had to shoot CAM. 

[Arcadia]

I like you're take on this topic Arcadia, I woul love to think that Sherlock used his intellect instead of a gun when dismantling Moriarty's network. It's just the first thing I thought of when I heard "dismantling" was destroying . Cutting the strings of the proverbial web and making sure they could not be reconnected.

 

I also very much like your take on the circumstances bit. I agree that Sherlock "cheated" when it came to CAM.

Thanks! I see what you mean about "dismantling", but I think I took it to mean something more like "taking apart." (To be honest, my mental image that goes with "dismantling" is a kid taking apart a Tinkertoy contraption, which just about fits how I view Sherlock's relationship to crime solving ... it's a puzzle! It's fun! :D )

 

 

I was really happy when Benedict said he thought killing CAM was a failure on Sherlock's part (that's not exactly how he worded it, but that's how I took it.) Because I agree; the moment Sherlock pulled that trigger, he forfeited the game. He and CAM were engaged in a battle of wits, and the only way Sherlock could win was to cheat; that is, to use the gun, not logic and deduction. But again, that's just how I see it; I get the impression I'm rather in the minority on that point.

 

Yup I remember that interview. I'm a bit torn on my opinion, because I can see it was a failure because he was unable to beat CAM in the battle of wits (or gave up), and had to resort to violence. But at the same time, if two people enter an altercation, even a war of wits, and only one person is left standing can they really be considered the loser?

 

I can't pretend to know exactly how Ben meant that, but to me it means a couple of things .... Sherlock lost because he lost his most prized possession ... his cold, emotionless rationality ... in that moment. And he lost because he descended to the level ... below the level, in this case ... of his evil opponent. (Of course, that latter pov presumes you think shooting an unarmed man in the face is lower than blackmail.... )

 

Notice that here I'm talking about the personal cost to Sherlock, which is a different thing than the outcome of the case. In that sense, he won because Mary is safe from CAM. And if you have a taste for revenge, then he revenged (avenged?) all of CAM's victims. I'm just more interested in what's happening inside the man than in the outcome of his case in this instance, I guess.

 

I have a confession ... I didn't find CAM to be a particularly interesting or scary villain. He was loathsome, but otherwise too one-dimensional to be interesting to me. I didn't think he was worth what Sherlock went through to destroy him. Maybe if I'd found him a worthier foe, I wouldn't have minded the manner of his demise so much? I don't know, just a thought.

 

I would have liked to have seen Sherlock suddenly pull out an ace, like he did with Irene Adler. The fact he didn't makes me think there must be an underlying plot reason for why he had to shoot CAM.

I hadn't thought of it in exactly that way, but yeah -- there ought to be reason, beyond Moftiss just thinking that's how it "really happened" in the books. I go back and forth on this .... sometimes I think the show will go on as if CAM never happened, and sometimes I think it's a pivotal moment in Sherlock's progression towards being (or not being) Lestrade's "good man."

 

Maybe that's it ... not a plot point, precisely, but a step in the evolution of Sherlock's character? Dunno. Guess we'll find out in a few months. Or not. Ak!

[Boton]

 

I was really happy when Benedict said he thought killing CAM was a failure on Sherlock's part (that's not exactly how he worded it, but that's how I took it.) Because I agree; the moment Sherlock pulled that trigger, he forfeited the game. He and CAM were engaged in a battle of wits, and the only way Sherlock could win was to cheat; that is, to use the gun, not logic and deduction. But again, that's just how I see it; I get the impression I'm rather in the minority on that point.

 

 

Yup I remember that interview. I'm a bit torn on my opinion, because I can see it was a failure because he was unable to beat CAM in the battle of wits (or gave up), and had to resort to violence. But at the same time, if two people enter an altercation, even a war of wits, and only one person is left standing can they really be considered the loser? I would have liked to have seen Sherlock suddenly pull out an ace, like he did with Irene Adler. The fact he didn't makes me think there must be an underlying plot reason for why he had to shoot CAM. 

 

 

I'm not sure what I can really add to this discussion, but I'll throw my two cents in just for drill.

 

Shooting CAM didn't really bother me.  I agreed with Mary's reasoning that people like CAM should be killed.  I don't mean that as cold-blooded as it sounds.  I think no society can ever achieve a perfect congruence between legality/lawfulness and justice.  In CAM's case, he was operating well within the law, but he still needed to be eliminated because he was harming (and, by implication, being an accessory to the killing) of other people.  He needed to be brought to justice, and the legal system could not do that.  The original Milverton was like that, and CAM was an amped-up version.  So, I don't particularly view CAM's death as a defeat.

 

On a personal level for Sherlock?  I think it was a defeat purely because he made mistakes along the way that kept removing opportunities to solve this intellectually.  From the moment he broke into CAM's office/flat, he was making tactical and emotional errors, perhaps the worst of which was trying to trade his brother's secrets to CAM in a deal he undertook while (legally) high on morphine.  Individually, maybe none of his errors was that bad, but taken together, he pretty much worked himself into a corner in which he had to kill CAM to clear out the vaults. So, in a strategic way (for me), Sherlock lost because he didn't maintain the upper hand of having multiple options until he selected the one he wanted.  (And, I think there are some logical reasons the modern story had to go that way, but this post is already getting long enough.)

 

Did Sherlock ever kill anyone before CAM?  I have absolutely no support for this position, but my head canon is that he has participated in the creation of situations in which people died, but he has never looked a victim in the eye and pulled the trigger before this.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

My thoughts on Sherlock and his taking down: with Irene's rescue, serious injuries with possible deaths during the sword for fight; with Moriarty's network, more hand-to-hand when a fight was needed potentially leading to death from injuries Sherlock inflicted otherwise dead at the hands of others because of what Sherlock revealed. The most calculated revenge-filled death was CAM's. Any other death he may have caused I think was more incidental than intentional.

[Inge l-w]

The basic, underlying premise of the whole thing is how far is the comic duo of writers intending to go in reinventing an iconic character who ALWAYS used his mind as a weapon, sometimes his fists, his sword-cane and his single-stick skills in getting out of tight corners.

They are creating their head canon, which may turn him into a Bond clone, since Mr Moffat is especially fond of that character.

[Boton]

The basic, underlying premise of the whole thing is how far is the comic duo of writers intending to go in reinventing an iconic character who ALWAYS used his mind as a weapon, sometimes his fists, his sword-cane and his single-stick skills in getting out of tight corners.

They are creating their head canon, which may turn him into a Bond clone, since Mr Moffat is especially fond of that character.

 

I like your point.  

 

I do think, as you and I have (maybe?) discussed before on here, that every generation or era gets the Holmes they need. I'm just not sure that modern audiences would connect as readily with a Holmes that solved everything with his mind and his hand-to-hand skills exclusively.  I think maybe modern audiences most readily identify with a Holmes that will use more deadly force if needed.  I'm not sure that I think we are quite all the way to Bond territory yet, though.

[Arcadia]

I protest .... I'm a modern audience and I don't identify with that at all!!!! :D

One of my favorite heroes was the pointedly non-gun-wielding MacGyver. I liked that Star Trek made a point of setting phasers to stun, not to kill. I admire Frodo for refusing to take up arms against his fellow hobbits. I am utterly bored by shoot-em-up, trash talking police/war dramas. I share Daniel Craig's opinion of Bond. Etc etc. Yes, Hollywood, we do exist!

[J.P.]

I remember liking The Beauty and The Beast (Hamilton/Perlman) for being probably the show with a clear attitude against violence. I remember Vincent using force once. But it was long ago.

[Pseudonym]

The thing is he would look ridiculous twirling about a stick whilst his opponent has a gun. It's the whole bringing a knife to a gunfight thing. I don't think I could take it seriously if he attacked Moriarty at the pool with a stick, even if you take the snipers out of the equation. 

I don't think he's turning into James Bond just because he's comfortable handling a gun (a bit too comfortable the way he flips them about and uses them to scratch his head).