Episode 4.0: The Abominable Bride (alias The Special)

[clavery111]

Hmm... maybe TAB Sherlock is so grumpy because... modern Sherlock is reacting to John being married now?  ie. "why do you need to be alone"<--- modern Sherlock is feeling left out/left behind  now. This could explain why TAB Sherlock had that entire nighttime conversation w/ John.

[Arcadia]

Or maybe modern Sherlock was reacting to being sent on a suicide mission.....

[Van Buren Supernova]

To me, I thought by shooting Magnussen Sherlock has surprised himself of the extend he is willing to go to protect John, and Mary.

 

Then he probably did a lot of thinking, a lot, during his isolation and come at peace with conclusion; that he is capable and simply can't avoid having feelings, care, eventhough it's a disadvantage.

 

As we were shown, he remembers, and he was, also a caring and vulnerable, sensitive person in his past. (His love for Redbeard and the way Mycroft sees him as vulnerable little brother) Than, he probably tries to find an answer himself of what turned him to be a cold, very detached person before he met John. John's questions, are his own questions. And his refusal to answer and willingness to escape, is also the actual him. I think he wants to know, I suppose he knows but he buries it so deep it's uncomfortable and scary to dig it out, even in his mind, especially in his mind.

 

Maybe him having all that thought sequences is his own realization that NOW he can't escape being what he is, he has to dig up that pressure point and face it. Otherwise, it's going to continue being his pressure point and it's not good.

[Arcadia]

On the other hand ... does "I made me" mean that he knows exactly why he is the way he is?
 
I keep going back to one of the first articles I read about this show, how Benedict, in trying to get a handle on the character, asked "why is he this way" and Moffat's answer was "because he's a genius!" Which isn't a very satisfactory answer, in my opinion; being a genius and discarding sentiment don't automatically go hand in hand. And there was also Moffat's remark that Sherlock was happy in himself, he wasn't suffering by being the way he is.
 
That "I made me" statement sounds to me like the same kind of thing ... Sherlock's got a reason for adhering to hard, cold logic in all matters, and to him it's a good one. On the other hand, they've shown several times that Sherlock doesn't exactly turn his analytical skills on himself; he's not what he thinks he is. Or at least, what he pretends to think he is. I'd give a lot to know if that unacknowledged but obviously sentimental side of him is in the script, or if that's all BC's performance. I would think the former, or they'd tell him to cut it out, wouldn't they? Unless they don't recognize it for what it is...... Nah, even the Evil Moftiss must see the emotional vulnerability BC infuses into Sherlock, mustn't they?
 
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if they make any attempt to explore how he came to be such an extreme individual. Or if they'll continue to just let us dangle in the wind... (because that would be so much more fun for them! :d )

[clavery111]

Or maybe modern Sherlock was reacting to being sent on a suicide mission.....

oh, THAT.  ; )

[J.P.]

Maybe Sherlock is extremely fed up with people trying to tell him what he really is and what is good for him. :P

[clavery111]

On the other hand ... does "I made me" mean that he knows exactly why he is the way he is?

 

I keep going back to one of the first articles I read about this show, how Benedict, in trying to get a handle on the character, asked "why is he this way" and Moffat's answer was "because he's a genius!" Which isn't a very satisfactory answer, in my opinion; being a genius and discarding sentiment don't automatically go hand in hand. And there was also Moffat's remark that Sherlock was happy in himself, he wasn't suffering by being the way he is.

 

That "I made me" statement sounds to me like the same kind of thing ... Sherlock's got a reason for adhering to hard, cold logic in all matters, and to him it's a good one. On the other hand, they've shown several times that Sherlock doesn't exactly turn his analytical skills on himself; he's not what he thinks he is. Or at least, what he pretends to think he is. I'd give a lot to know if that unacknowledged but obviously sentimental side of him is in the script, or if that's all BC's performance. I would think the former, or they'd tell him to cut it out, wouldn't they? Unless they don't recognize it for what it is...... Nah, even the Evil Moftiss must see the emotional vulnerability BC infuses into Sherlock, mustn't they?

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if they make any attempt to explore how he came to be such an extreme individual. Or if they'll continue to just let us dangle in the wind... (because that would be so much more fun for them! :D )

 

[clavery111]

To me, I thought by shooting Magnussen Sherlock has surprised himself of the extend he is willing to go to protect John, and Mary.

 

Then he probably did a lot of thinking, a lot, during his isolation and come at peace with conclusion; that he is capable and simply can't avoid having feelings, care, eventhough it's a disadvantage.

 

As we were shown, he remembers, and he was, also a caring and vulnerable, sensitive person in his past. (His love for Redbeard and the way Mycroft sees him as vulnerable little brother) Than, he probably tries to find an answer himself of what turned him to be a cold, very detached person before he met John. John's questions, are his own questions. And his refusal to answer and willingness to escape, is also the actual him. I think he wants to know, I suppose he knows but he buries it so deep it's uncomfortable and scary to dig it out, even in his mind, especially in his mind.

 

Maybe him having all that thought sequences is his own realization that NOW he can't escape being what he is, he has to dig up that pressure point and face it. Otherwise, it's going to continue being his pressure point and it's not good.

 

In one of the commentaries Moffat said that shooting Magnussen wouldn't bother Sherlock in the least.  He hated the man and logic told him there was no way out of the situation that he found himself in other than shooting Magnussen so .. bang.  He shot him.  Sherlock didn't loose any sleep over it.  Or words to that effect....

[clavery111]

 

On the other hand ... does "I made me" mean that he knows exactly why he is the way he is?

 

I keep going back to one of the first articles I read about this show, how Benedict, in trying to get a handle on the character, asked "why is he this way" and Moffat's answer was "because he's a genius!" Which isn't a very satisfactory answer, in my opinion; being a genius and discarding sentiment don't automatically go hand in hand. And there was also Moffat's remark that Sherlock was happy in himself, he wasn't suffering by being the way he is.

 

That "I made me" statement sounds to me like the same kind of thing ... Sherlock's got a reason for adhering to hard, cold logic in all matters, and to him it's a good one. On the other hand, they've shown several times that Sherlock doesn't exactly turn his analytical skills on himself; he's not what he thinks he is. Or at least, what he pretends to think he is. I'd give a lot to know if that unacknowledged but obviously sentimental side of him is in the script, or if that's all BC's performance. I would think the former, or they'd tell him to cut it out, wouldn't they? Unless they don't recognize it for what it is...... Nah, even the Evil Moftiss must see the emotional vulnerability BC infuses into Sherlock, mustn't they?

 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if they make any attempt to explore how he came to be such an extreme individual. Or if they'll continue to just let us dangle in the wind... (because that would be so much more fun for them! :D )

 

 

It all comes down to what Mofftiss is up to, doesn't it?  What they meant when they said that they are "modernizing" him.  

 

Genius in one area of life but severely restricted in others/addicted to drugs?  I don't buy it when Moffat said that "Sherlock was happy in himself".  No addict is "happy in themselves" no matter what the addiction is, and no matter how much good in the world he/she does in other areas of life.   The addict is "happy" enough but ... to modern eyes? to all others? to the philosophically and emotionally mature and stable?  Sherlock may be happy but... could be happier, healthier, more productive if NOT an addict for example.

 

[clavery111]

Maybe Sherlock is extremely fed up with people trying to tell him what he really is and what is good for him. :P

 

 

which is typical alienation behavior from addicts

[Arcadia]

Maybe Sherlock is extremely fed up with people trying to tell him what he really is and what is good for him. :P

I'm pretty sure he is, especially in that scene where John yells at him for taking cocaine. But I wouldn't admire John if he just stood by and let Sherlock destroy himself because Sherlock doesn't want to hear what is good for him. I think I understand where you're coming from, and there definitely is a very fine line between intervening and interfering. Though I think John's usually pretty good at distinguishing between when Sherlock is harming himself, and when he's just being a prick. Not so sure about Mycroft.....

 

 

In one of the commentaries Moffat said that shooting Magnussen wouldn't bother Sherlock in the least.  He hated the man and logic told him there was no way out of the situation that he found himself in other than shooting Magnussen so .. bang.  He shot him.  Sherlock didn't lose any sleep over it.  Or words to that effect....

Don't remind me! It took me a long time to forgive Moffat for that one. Actually, I haven't forgiven him, so much as I've gotten rather used to him. A man who will shoot an unarmed man, and feel nothing, is not someone I care to feel adoration for. But adore I must, so ... urk. This is a hard one for me. Mostly I just have to take myself out of the story at that point, it hurts too much otherwise. And this is just a TV show...! I can't imagine what I'd do if someone I adored in real life did something like that. :( Don't ever, ever want to find out.....

 

It all comes down to what Mofftiss is up to, doesn't it?  What they meant when they said that they are "modernizing" him.  

 

Genius in one area of life but severely restricted in others/addicted to drugs?  I don't buy it when Moffat said that "Sherlock was happy in himself".  No addict is "happy in themselves" no matter what the addiction is, and no matter how much good in the world he/she does in other areas of life.   The addict is "happy" enough but ... to modern eyes? to all others? to the philosophically and emotionally mature and stable?  Sherlock may be happy but... could be happier, healthier, more productive if NOT an addict for example.

Well, they said that back early in the history of the show, if I recall correctly ... he was happy the way he was. Then John comes along and maybe he's starting to see how much happier he could be if he let himself. Or maybe not ... I'm not sure Sherlock cares about things like that. He's more interested in slaying dragons. (But why???) 

 

Is he an addict? I don't know, but it's been often remarked around here that he seems to have some self-esteem issues at best, and self-destructive tendencies at worst. I guess that's why he needs a John Watson in his life; to remind him why he needs to be his better self.

[sfmpco]

I find it oddly irritating that you believe Moffat's statements there but not in other places.  I think in general he is never telling it straight up with his characters.  At his heart he is quite a prankster.

[Arcadia]

I find it oddly irritating that you believe Moffat's statements there but not in other places.  I think in general he is never telling it straight up with his characters.  At his heart he is quite a prankster.

 

Oh, I disagree. I think he's perfectly capable of honesty. I believe him when he says Sherlock isn't gay, for example. Or when he says he's not a fan of psychoanalyzing his characters. Is he going to give away plots? I hope not. But that doesn't mean he can't give a straightforward answer. Of course, determining when he's being straightforward is another matter.... :P

[clavery111]

I find it oddly irritating that you believe Moffat's statements there but not in other places.  I think in general he is never telling it straight up with his characters.  At his heart he is quite a prankster.

 

 

I know what you mean.  But, it's not like we're having a conversation w/ him.  THere's room for lack of context, change of minds, misunderstandings, and etc when trying to interpret what he/they state from afar....  like the oracles from Delphi and us mere mortals try find insight/meaning.  I also think they're making the show ambiguous on purpose.  But, maybe there will be firm resolutions by end of S5. Who knows?  We have to stay tuned to see.

[sfmpco]

Oh don't get me wrong.  I believe Moffat more than he's given credit for.  Then again, after all the lies of TAB existing in its own bubble...

[Van Buren Supernova]

Sorry I don't have much time to do neat quoting from phone.

 

Regarding Sherlock hates Magnussen and doesn't lose sleep over that, I believe that also. Afterall, he considers himself Dragonslayer, and East Wind,

that terrifying force that lays waste to all in its path, seeks out the unworthy and plucks them from earth.

But, I do believe he makes the decision to kill Magnussen then and there, the precise moment was when he looks at John and thinks of the only way right then to protects him. I mentioned somewhere I believe Sherlock's motivation is not completely selfless, yes, but big chunck of this is done for John.

If nothing can make Sherlock really sure about his own feeling and willingness to care for someone, his own action certainly does, and he needs to explore it.

 

I guess in real life if I had to jump to someone's defence, make a split second decision to harm another human being for them, it should cast a new light to how I look at myself about why I care for this person that much.

That's what I believe happens with Sherlock too, his humanity and vulnerability in the past that has surfaced again, after years of locking them in the vault. He knows something made him, yes maybe that something is himself choosing to do just that. Yes, I think he knows, he just tries to forget, hides and denies it. Now he needs to dig it up.

 

 

Regarding Moffat,

I don't know his stuff enough or at all to make a good guess, I also don't read the book, but I remember reading somewhere that Moffiss are exploring subtle things in the book and interpret it.

One of it was a story when John was being shot, in the leg or somewhere, not life threatening, but Sherlock went ballistic and threatened to kill the enemy or seriously harmed them if John was killed. He was also frantically checked on John, and, being told from John's perspective, he was very touch by Sherlock's attention that apparently, beneath all his coldness and detachment, he was actually care. It was worth it. The wound was worth it., something along that line that imho, tells so much more about Sherlock's character and I believe that is rarity in other stories.

 

So whether my view is reliable or not, I can't even remember my source but very sure about the content, while many readers bash them for not being Canon, I think they are being canon in their own way, they are just way more observant.

[J.P.]

Oh don't get me wrong.  I believe Moffat more than he's given credit for.  Then again, after all the lies of TAB existing in its own bubble...

 

But it is a bubble - Sherlock's head! :D

[clavery111]

On the other hand ... does "I made me" mean that he knows exactly why he is the way he is?

 

I keep going back to one of the first articles I read about this show, how Benedict, in trying to get a handle on the character, asked "why is he this way" and Moffat's answer was "because he's a genius!" Which isn't a very satisfactory answer, in my opinion; being a genius and discarding sentiment don't automatically go hand in hand. And there was also Moffat's remark that Sherlock was happy in himself, he wasn't suffering by being the way he is.

 

 

 

If you come across this interview/article again, please post it here or send it to me.  I'd like to read it.  Muchos gracias!

 

In the TAB DVD interviews, BC says that at first he thought Mofftiss was "barking mad" for wanting to do the Victorian setting but then he says something like.... "but when they told me what is going to happen next, after TAB, then I was all in favor "  Interesting and enticing!  

[Arcadia]

Oh dear, I was afraid someone would ask me that. I was consuming stories about the making of Sherlock like they were manna from heaven back then; it didn't occur to me until much later that it might be nice to find them again. But I'll see what I can do....

[Carol the Dabbler]

If it's any consolation, I recall something like that too -- a video, I think.  Cumberbatch was wanting Sherlock's backstory so he'd know how to play him, but the Moftisses were wanting to play it much closer to their collective vest and said "Nothing doing" (and presumably gave him a non-answer of the sort you mentioned).  Maybe it was on one of the DVDs?

[Arcadia]

Yes, I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. The season one "making of" videos, perhaps? Or even the commentary?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe.  But I have a feeling that it was an actual video (rather than a voice-over).  Then again, I could have dreamed the whole thing.

 

[Lalarun]

I haven't found a video (but think I have seen him mention it in one too, but don't remember where), but here's an interview with BC with this quote:

The first conversation I ever had with Steven Moffat about Sherlock was asking: “How did this happen?” His response was: “What do you mean, he’s just brilliant.”

article link: http://www.bigissue.com/features/interviews/3405/benedict-cumberbatch-interview-i-went-to-public-school-but-im-not-a-public

Maybe he said the same in another interview (video)?

[clavery111]

Thanks Lalarun!

 

It seemed to me that BC was saying that he himself convinced Mofftiss to write/delve into the background of Sherlock.  Surely, that can't be true?  Did it strike anyone else that way?  Maybe just bad reporting...  Maybe the "climax" that Moffat has been talking about in regards to S4 has to do with "what made Sherlock, Sherlock"?

[Arcadia]

Yes, thanks Lala! That's not the exact article I remember, but it's virtually the same statement ... altho I don't remember this bit: " It would have been lazy for us to just say: “Oh, that is what he is.” So that is examined a lot more in this series." It was?
 

It seemed to me that BC was saying that he himself convinced Mofftiss to write/delve into the background of Sherlock.  Surely, that can't be true?  Did it strike anyone else that way?  Maybe just bad reporting...  Maybe the "climax" that Moffat has been talking about in regards to S4 has to do with "what made Sherlock, Sherlock"?

I agree that's what it sounds like, but I doubt that's precisely what he meant. On the other hand, Moffat has said they have to keep the actors interested to keep them coming back ... and when your very popular lead says he'd like to see more exploration of character, I'm pretty sure the writers attempt to deliver. Moffat's also said whatever is coming up has been in the works for awhile. So depending on how much you believe any of them.... :D

 

I've often wondered exactly how collaborative the whole thing is ... if Martin says "I think John should do x,y and z, does John then get to do x, y and z? Or is it more of just interpreting whatever is in the scripts?  A little of both, maybe?