Episode 4.1 "The Six Thatchers"

[besleybean]

Hang on now I am lost, who got burned to death?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

One thing I still have trouble wrapping my head around this episode is the fact that it started off with a mystery which involved a kid getting burned to his death. That felt too gorey for me. It felt out of place. It didn't look like the initial mystery of the missing kid was anything other than plot device so I saw no need for Mofatiss to make it so dark.

Hang on now I am lost, who got burned to death?

The kid didn’t burn to death. He was already dead, likely from some sort of seizure; then the car accident happened with the drunk thus causing the now burnt remains of an already dead body at the house of the first broken Thatcher statue.

[besleybean]

Oh Jeez yes, the poor young man.

I have Alzheimer's  I tell you.

[Arcadia]

19 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

So "deeply annoyed" is about as angry as you ever get?  How mellow of you!

Usually, yes. It might be the Prozac.  

I can only remember feeling what I would call rage a few times in my life. But I'm annoyed a lot. So I don't know if I'm mellow, or just not very energetic. 😉 

[bedelia1984]

On 10/20/2018 at 2:16 PM, Arcadia said:

I ran across this quote: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-12-18/amanda-abbington-reveals-details-of-lovely-deleted-sherlock-scene/
 

And it got me to wondering again: early on in TAB, while Sherlock is thinking, John and Mary are shown arguing. Then towards the end, we have John saying he thought he was losing Mary. And in between are a few implications that John is a bit sexist, chucking Mary under the chin and things like that.

Now, all of this is in Sherlock's head: so are we to believe that Sherlock thinks John and Mary argue a lot and are drifting apart, and that John's a bit sexist? (Pot, kettle, black, Sherlock? )

But in T6T, I don't see any "drifting apart", until John's little dalliance with "E" is revealed. (Which Sherlock knew nothing about until the end of the next episode. In fact, I was always under the impression that he had a rather idealized view of John and Mary's relationship.) But based on Amanda's remarks above, I'm thinking now that we were supposed to see it. Or at the very least, Mark had it in mind when he wrote the script.

And it seems an odd choice to me; in an episode that's ultimately about John's devastation at Mary's loss, we're supposed to think he was falling out of love with her in the first place. I have to assume some irony is meant, but somehow it just doesn't hold together. For me.

Maybe it's just another example of the "compression" of ideas I think I detect in S4; that six stories were collapsed into three. 

I also wonder if they are condemning John a bit, for expecting Mary to be a certain, decidedly feminine, way, and getting upset with her for turning out to be something else. Which doesn't seem fair to me, because to me the pertinent point is: Mary lied about who she was. That was a huge breach of John's trust; imo, he had every right to be angry with her, just as he did with Sherlock and his lies.

Or is lying considered to be not that big a deal in some circles? My sis and I had a conversation about that once, and we agreed that there's little that makes us angrier than being lied to. But maybe that's just us?

Hi again, everyone!

I'm tempted to give them some leeway on John and Mary drifting apart... mostly because as you touch on later in your post, the lies Mary told John early on are possibly the sort of lies that over time would eat away at you... coupled with the idea of how John now discovers he's very committed (marriage plus baby) to someone he doesn't really know. For him to panic and contemplate cheating doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

The sort of emotional clunkiness at work here pops up in several places in season four- making Sherlock choose between Mycroft and John is likewise ham-fisted IMO, as is the Molly being blown up thing- it's just all too extreme, and then the emotions conveyed lack the necessary complexity (in part because the series refuses to be pinned down into one telling of any side of the story).

It was the lying thing that drew me in to answering this- because this has just happened to me, i.e. someone told a very big lie to me (actually several) and the consequences of it have been quite negative for myself and a few people I know. I'm finding it really hard to move past it and find a way to be able to co-exist with the person in question again (and unfortunately I sort of have to be around them). And exactly as you say, I can't think of anything that has made me more angry.

I think there's an aspect of this that is about respect. 

On Sherlock, I think Moftiss have a hearty admiration for fibs- just look at their answers in interviews! But there are all different levels of lies too- but a lie so big you don't know who you are marrying, or the danger your wife and child might be in- that's pretty big.

I think Sherlock, by the time we get to TFP, has something quite interesting to say about both lying and the arrogance of thinking you should decide who gets to know what, when (both Mycroft and Sherlock come to mind, they both pay prices for this  sort of arrogance in s4).

If you look at Mycroft keeping Eurus a secret- there was a feeling of superiority there, that he could handle information that no-one else could (and then of course he botched it), it's a similar thing with Sherlock in T6T going over Mary's head to solve his case, despite his lack of understanding of Mary's killer. So maybe when someone keeps something from you, part of the reason that's so annoying is that you feel they are placing themselves above you in a hierarchy of who really needs to know the truth, and who can do the best with it? 

[besleybean]

I don't actually see it like that.

In each case, I think those 'trying to do it themselves' are merely trying to protect those they love.

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

Hi again, everyone!

Hi, Bedelia!  Great to hear from you! 

4 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

... there are all different levels of lies too- but a lie so big you don't know who you are marrying, or the danger your wife and child might be in- that's pretty big.

You and Arcadia see Mary's fictions as lies, but I don't, not exactly.  She's like a person in a witness-protection program.  She has a new identity, and in order for it to work, it needs to be airtight.  That means no telling *anybody* anything, ever, about her past life.

If you want to call that a lie, fine.  But it wasn't told out of malice or because she doesn't trust John, it was simply an integral part of the program.  I don't think John ever got that.  Must admit, if I were in his shoes, I might not either!

[besleybean]

They are just highly emotional and stressful situations for all concerned.

[Arcadia]

I think for me, it's more the betrayal of trust … if I trust you, and you abuse that trust by lying, I'm going to feel betrayed … depending on the kind of lie, of course. I personally think obvious fibs don't count, because everyone knows it's a fib … but look how angry some of the fandom is with Moftiss over their fibs! So what's obvious to me isn't to others … obviously.  

And I think what I see in S4 is a John who still loves both Mary and Sherlock deeply, but no longer trusts them fully, because of the way they violated his trust before. With Mary, it's not just that she kept her past from him; it's that she reverted back to it when she felt threatened, and still kept it from him. She shot his best friend and tried to cover it up, for heaven's sake! That's a pretty big abuse of trust, imo.

But I actually agree with everyone else's comments too, I think there's elements of what all of you said in S4, including the arrogance (and ultimately, stupidity) of Mycroft in keeping such a large secret from the rest of his family. But as Bedelia (hi, Bedelia!) pointed out, it's all so extreme … and I would say, so rushed … that we never get to fully appreciate the ideas and emotions being explored.

Except in TLD. For me, that episode works perfectly, I feel like I completely get John's anger, and Sherlock's determination to sacrifice himself, and the rapprochement between them that occurs as a result of what they go through. That all makes perfect sense to me, partly because I have time to process it as the story unfolds. I love that episode.

If I were John, I'm pretty sure I would never be able to fully trust Sherlock again. The wound would be too deep for me. But I like to think John is a stronger person than I am, and is therefore able to find his way back. Mary, though … no way I'd stay married to an assassin, former or otherwise. That violates a lot more than just my trust; I'd be turning her into the police instead. But I'm not John F*****g Watson. But I think I get his ambivalence towards his marriage.

[Boton]

On 10/20/2018 at 9:16 AM, Arcadia said:

 

But in T6T, I don't see any "drifting apart", until John's little dalliance with "E" is revealed. (Which Sherlock knew nothing about until the end of the next episode. In fact, I was always under the impression that he had a rather idealized view of John and Mary's relationship.) But based on Amanda's remarks above, I'm thinking now that we were supposed to see it. Or at the very least, Mark had it in mind when he wrote the script.

And it seems an odd choice to me; in an episode that's ultimately about John's devastation at Mary's loss, we're supposed to think he was falling out of love with her in the first place. I have to assume some irony is meant, but somehow it just doesn't hold together. For me.

...

I also wonder if they are condemning John a bit, for expecting Mary to be a certain, decidedly feminine, way, and getting upset with her for turning out to be something else. Which doesn't seem fair to me, because to me the pertinent point is: Mary lied about who she was. That was a huge breach of John's trust; imo, he had every right to be angry with her, just as he did with Sherlock and his lies.

 

I think the drifting apart is part of the poignancy.  John will never get to know what kind of relationship he could have had with the "real" Mary because she was killed before they could really get to know one another.  I think Moftiss like to have real life on steroids.  No one really knows their spouse when they get married, and it isn't really a lie.  We all discover things we didn't know that color how we see our spouse, and it takes time to adjust to how that alters our fantasies. It's just that most of us haven't married assassins.  

13 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

You and Arcadia see Mary's fictions as lies, but I don't, not exactly.  She's like a person in a witness-protection program.  She has a new identity, and in order for it to work, it needs to be airtight.  That means no telling *anybody* anything, ever, about her past life.

If you want to call that a lie, fine.  But it wasn't told out of malice or because she doesn't trust John, it was simply an integral part of the program.  I don't think John ever got that.  Must admit, if I were in his shoes, I might not either!

Well put, Carol.  In some ways, Mary is the British assassin version of Don Draper: "This never happened. It will shock you how much it didn't happen. So figure out what you have to say to get out of here, and move forward." (paraphrase; it's been a while)

[Hikari]

19 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

Hi again, everyone!

I'm tempted to give them some leeway on John and Mary drifting apart... mostly because as you touch on later in your post, the lies Mary told John early on are possibly the sort of lies that over time would eat away at you... coupled with the idea of how John now discovers he's very committed (marriage plus baby) to someone he doesn't really know. For him to panic and contemplate cheating doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

The sort of emotional clunkiness at work here pops up in several places in season four- making Sherlock choose between Mycroft and John is likewise ham-fisted IMO, as is the Molly being blown up thing- it's just all too extreme, and then the emotions conveyed lack the necessary complexity (in part because the series refuses to be pinned down into one telling of any side of the story).

It was the lying thing that drew me in to answering this- because this has just happened to me, i.e. someone told a very big lie to me (actually several) and the consequences of it have been quite negative for myself and a few people I know. I'm finding it really hard to move past it and find a way to be able to co-exist with the person in question again (and unfortunately I sort of have to be around them). And exactly as you say, I can't think of anything that has made me more angry.

I think there's an aspect of this that is about respect. 

On Sherlock, I think Moftiss have a hearty admiration for fibs- just look at their answers in interviews! But there are all different levels of lies too- but a lie so big you don't know who you are marrying, or the danger your wife and child might be in- that's pretty big.

I think Sherlock, by the time we get to TFP, has something quite interesting to say about both lying and the arrogance of thinking you should decide who gets to know what, when (both Mycroft and Sherlock come to mind, they both pay prices for this  sort of arrogance in s4).

If you look at Mycroft keeping Eurus a secret- there was a feeling of superiority there, that he could handle information that no-one else could (and then of course he botched it), it's a similar thing with Sherlock in T6T going over Mary's head to solve his case, despite his lack of understanding of Mary's killer. So maybe when someone keeps something from you, part of the reason that's so annoying is that you feel they are placing themselves above you in a hierarchy of who really needs to know the truth, and who can do the best with it? 

The emotional wasteland that is the Watsons' marriage at the top of T6T is painful to witness, especially since it comes right on the heels of (if we skip over TAB) John's touching speech to Mary about her past being her business and her future being his privilege.  When he got to that point, he'd had six months' worth of stewing and recrimination . .they had been miserable together practically since their wedding with this elephant in the room.  That scene by the Christmas fireside was supposed to be about forgiveness, healing, moving on  . . .  Only, we see that none of that stuck, given the state of things between them just a scant time later.

I know that drama thrives on conflict, and without John feuding with someone close to him, be it Sherlock or Mary, there's not enough tension for drama.  A happy Watson with 'happy wife, happy life' is an inert subject for drama--which is the same reason that Conan Doyle killed Mary off--all the better to put his grieving widower back into Sherlock's orbit.  But John was happy with Mary for a few too-brief years.  Our screen couple didn't get a few years in total . . perhaps 2 years soup to nuts--meeting at work, cohabitation, wedding, baby . . bullet--and maybe only one year of that was actually good.  The Watsons we see after the birth of their daughter go beyond just being the exhausted and stressed parents of a newborn.    John cannot abide his wife. . . and this was just a few months after his big 'Forgiveness & Reconciliation' speech.  John is only acting and speaking as his creators force him to act and speak . . but I don't mind saying that I personally felt used by the writers for being asked to believe for one moment that they were actually sincere in giving Watson that speech.  Not for a moment, they weren't---they were setting us up.  Would it have been too much to ask for John to love his wife just a little bit longer before he lost her for good?  I don't think so.  Boton, you hit on it when you said there is an aspect of respect here--or, I'd say rather--disrespect.  As in, disrespect for the audience by the writers, ultimately.  The entire series turned into a series of mind games, and the 'Aha! Gotcha!' of the one-upmanship varieity.  I feel that they did this for kicks and not necessarily in the best service of the story, because they could--because the power to make the characters do and say whatever took the writers' fancy was theirs, no matter how out of character it may have been.  I think the creators did the greatest disservice to John Watson and Martin Freeman by extension, in the whole arc for him in S4.  His rage against the world and especially the two people closest to him may be understandable in part--but in my opinion, the creators took John's rage way too far.  He is barely recognizable as the Watson we know and love--and for far deeper reasons than MF's hair.

[T.o.b.y]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think for me, it's more the betrayal of trust … if I trust you, and you abuse that trust by lying, I'm going to feel betrayed … depending on the kind of lie, of course. I personally think obvious fibs don't count, because everyone knows it's a fib … but look how angry some of the fandom is with Moftiss over their fibs! So what's obvious to me isn't to others … obviously.  

And I think what I see in S4 is a John who still loves both Mary and Sherlock deeply, but no longer trusts them fully, because of the way they violated his trust before. With Mary, it's not just that she kept her past from him; it's that she reverted back to it when she felt threatened, and still kept it from him. She shot his best friend and tried to cover it up, for heaven's sake! That's a pretty big abuse of trust, imo.

But I actually agree with everyone else's comments too, I think there's elements of what all of you said in S4, including the arrogance (and ultimately, stupidity) of Mycroft in keeping such a large secret from the rest of his family. But as Bedelia (hi, Bedelia!) pointed out, it's all so extreme … and I would say, so rushed … that we never get to fully appreciate the ideas and emotions being explored.

Except in TLD. For me, that episode works perfectly, I feel like I completely get John's anger, and Sherlock's determination to sacrifice himself, and the rapprochement between them that occurs as a result of what they go through. That all makes perfect sense to me, partly because I have time to process it as the story unfolds. I love that episode.

If I were John, I'm pretty sure I would never be able to fully trust Sherlock again. The wound would be too deep for me. But I like to think John is a stronger person than I am, and is therefore able to find his way back. Mary, though … no way I'd stay married to an assassin, former or otherwise. That violates a lot more than just my trust; I'd be turning her into the police instead. But I'm not John F*****g Watson. But I think I get his ambivalence towards his marriage.

John never fully trusted Sherlock. He always knew that he was, well... Sherlock. And Sherlock himself warned John multiple times not to see him as a hero but a "high-functioning sociopath". And he never promised to be anything else. 

Mary on the other hand was supposed to be different. John let her get way closer to him than Sherlock ever did; he married her. We didn't see their wedding ceremony but it's implied that they exchanged vows. Personally, I think Mary should have given John at least a very general idea of the truth before that took place. 

I have come to really appreciate John and Mary's relationship because it's so wonderfully messy and ultimately tragic and you can interpret so much into it. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

6 hours ago, Arcadia said:

She shot his best friend and tried to cover it up, for heaven's sake! That's a pretty big abuse of trust, imo.

Oh, I don't blame Mary for that -- I blame Moftiss! 

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

The entire series turned into a series of mind games, and the 'Aha! Gotcha!' of the one-upmanship varieity.  I feel that they did this for kicks and not necessarily in the best service of the story, because they could....

Starting with HLV at the latest.  No, wait a minute -- it started with two little pre-pubescent fanboys who couldn't believe Watson was telling the truth about a mere woman shooting Milverton.  Yeah, I suppose that scene was a bit bizarre -- but no more so than many of Doyle's stories.  I can't help wondering whether they would have snickered in disbelief if Watson said an unknown *man* came in and shot the scoundrel?

[T.o.b.y]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Oh, I don't blame Mary for that -- I blame Moftiss! 

Starting with HLV at the latest.  No, wait a minute -- it started with two little pre-pubescent fanboys who couldn't believe Watson was telling the truth about a mere woman shooting Milverton.  Yeah, I suppose that scene was a bit bizarre -- but no more so than many of Doyle's stories.  I can't help wondering whether they would have snickered in disbelief if Watson said an unknown *man* came in and shot the scoundrel?

I don't know if they would but clearly they don't think women shooting people is preposterous - look at what they did with Mary. Or who killed her. 

I actually like the "Holmes did it himself and Watson lied to protect him" theory. It's a better story than "Holmes hid behind a curtain and watched. He fully approved of the murder but didn't want to get his own hands dirty". 

I love that here, initially Sherlock saves Magnussen from the assassin and then later realizes there really is no other solution. And then takes responsibility for the action. It makes him at once a darker and a more heroic figure. 

[besleybean]

I know I stand alone in thinking the execution of CAM was totally unacceptable.

[Arcadia]

7 hours ago, Boton said:

I think the drifting apart is part of the poignancy.  John will never get to know what kind of relationship he could have had with the "real" Mary because she was killed before they could really get to know one another.  I think Moftiss like to have real life on steroids.  No one really knows their spouse when they get married, and it isn't really a lie.  We all discover things we didn't know that color how we see our spouse, and it takes time to adjust to how that alters our fantasies. 

All true, which is why I still feel they killed Mary off too soon … it's harder for me to grieve for John's loss, because he didn't really know her. Maybe that's not a flaw in the story, but I think it does rob the story of some of its … well, poignancy.

5 hours ago, Hikari said:

The emotional wasteland that is the Watsons' marriage at the top of T6T is painful to witness … But John was happy with Mary for a few too-brief years.  Our screen couple didn't get a few years in total . . .

I have to say I didn't see this emotional wasteland myself. John and Mary weren't all over each other, like we might expect newlyweds to be, but I didn't perceive a lack of caring between them. But I agree that Mary was killed off too soon.

3 hours ago, T.o.b.y said:

John never fully trusted Sherlock. He always knew that he was, well... Sherlock. And Sherlock himself warned John multiple times not to see him as a hero but a "high-functioning sociopath". And he never promised to be anything else. 

True, but John saw him as a hero anyway, don't you think? And he was aware of Sherlock's flaws, but I think he also believed Sherlock always did things for (ultimately) the right reasons. So maybe "trust" isn't quite the right word, but I do think S1-S2 John "believed in Sherlock Holmes." And even in S3, he was quite willing to walk into Magnussen's lair without knowing the plan. 

1 hour ago, besleybean said:

I know I stand alone in thinking the execution of CAM was totally unacceptable.

No, you don't! I've gotten accustomed to it, but it still leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. But I've ranted enough on that subject.

[bedelia1984]

23 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Hi, Bedelia!  Great to hear from you! 

You and Arcadia see Mary's fictions as lies, but I don't, not exactly.  She's like a person in a witness-protection program.  She has a new identity, and in order for it to work, it needs to be airtight.  That means no telling *anybody* anything, ever, about her past life.

If you want to call that a lie, fine.  But it wasn't told out of malice or because she doesn't trust John, it was simply an integral part of the program.  I don't think John ever got that.  Must admit, if I were in his shoes, I might not either!

I like the witness protection analogy.

The thing is, I do see what Mary kept from John as dishonest- but arguably she was more right to keep her secret- because people finding out really did do more harm than good, and the 'civilians' involved seemed ill equipped to meddle in her workd.

The thing about Mary's identity too, is that it reminds me a bit of Sherlock dressing up as the priest in Scandal- a self portrait through a disguise. In many ways perhaps her new identity was more the real 'her' than her former life. We don't really know enough about her to tell. Still, whilst her reasons for deception may have been sound I'm not sure John would ever emotionally interpret it way, or that most people in a close relationship would.

11 hours ago, Arcadia said:

....

But I actually agree with everyone else's comments too, I think there's elements of what all of you said in S4, including the arrogance (and ultimately, stupidity) of Mycroft in keeping such a large secret from the rest of his family. But as Bedelia (hi, Bedelia!) pointed out, it's all so extreme … and I would say, so rushed … that we never get to fully appreciate the ideas and emotions being explored.

Except in TLD. For me, that episode works perfectly, I feel like I completely get John's anger, and Sherlock's determination to sacrifice himself, and the rapprochement between them that occurs as a result of what they go through. That all makes perfect sense to me, partly because I have time to process it as the story unfolds. I love that episode.

If I were John, I'm pretty sure I would never be able to fully trust Sherlock again. The wound would be too deep for me. But I like to think John is a stronger person than I am, and is therefore able to find his way back. Mary, though … no way I'd stay married to an assassin, former or otherwise. That violates a lot more than just my trust; I'd be turning her into the police instead. But I'm not John F*****g Watson. But I think I get his ambivalence towards his marriage.

Hi! 👋

The more I think of it, Season 4 is truly the season of lies and the lying liars that tell them. And Sherlock's lie in TLD is again a self portrait, plus it works, and it drives the narrative forward, whilst revealing uncomfortable things about his character and his relationship with John. I also love that episode

In a weird way, I wonder does Sherlock get any pass  on lying at all just for being Sherlock? For any other friend, I totally agree, the trust would be gone. But are the inner rules of their friendship a little bit more skewed? Does John see Sherlock as somewhat extraordinary, and this let him away with things based on these heightened stakes? I always thought Sherlock drugging him in THOTB crossed a line, too, but this was quickly forgotten. And then, was Sherlock the starter liar (fake death) so that by the time he got to the biggest liar, Mary (assassin), John was like the frog in slowly boiling water?

 

8 hours ago, Hikari said:

... .but I don't mind saying that I personally felt used by the writers for being asked to believe for one moment that they were actually sincere in giving Watson that speech.  Not for a moment, they weren't---they were setting us up.  Would it have been too much to ask for John to love his wife just a little bit longer before he lost her for good?  I don't think so.  Boton, you hit on it when you said there is an aspect of respect here--or, I'd say rather--disrespect.  As in, disrespect for the audience by the writers, ultimately.  The entire series turned into a series of mind games, and the 'Aha! Gotcha!' of the one-upmanship varieity.  I feel that they did this for kicks and not necessarily in the best service of the story, because they could--because the power to make the characters do and say whatever took the writers' fancy was theirs, no matter how out of character it may have been.  I think the creators did the greatest disservice to John Watson and Martin Freeman by extension, in the whole arc for him in S4.  His rage against the world and especially the two people closest to him may be understandable in part--but in my opinion, the creators took John's rage way too far.  He is barely recognizable as the Watson we know and love--and for far deeper reasons than MF's hair.

I'm not a fan of where they took John, either. I can't help but feel it was a quick route to create some drama and emotions from the often superficially handled Mary story.

Also, maybe it's just me, but forget about John falling out of love with Mary, I got the impression that the writers had fallen out of love with John for all of season four. He became so functional- telling Sherlock to give love a try (hello cliche best friend in a movie role, though the scene is beautifully played), being the 'other man' Sherlock has to pick between with Mycroft, having an affair because it would make Mary's death sadder and more 'meaningful'.

I don't have a problem with the basic concept of a man making grand speeches and in reality failing to measure up- that's all probably quite realistic. However, In the early seasons I felt like we got closer to who John was and his vulnerability, whereas I wasn't as satisfied by what we learn about him in season 4. MF's acting is as good as ever, but perhaps his material is not what it once was. There is a brief but terrific moment of bromance in TLD, but in TFP despite all the overt talk of how important John is to Sherlock I don't know that I feel it coming from the screen so much, they do too much telling instead of showing.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree, Bedelia, John has been iffy at best lately, starting with HLV.  He had a few good moments even in TFP, such as his explanation to Mycroft at the beginning ("That might have been me") and "Soldiers!"  But in general he hasn't been given much to do, certainly nothing up to MF's capabilities.

[besleybean]

Good grief!

Don't we see things differently?

TLD is all about John...

Martin is maginificent during TFP.

I think Mark and Steven just spoil us and then just get taken for granted....

Look at some of the other crap shows, people.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, besleybean said:

Look at some of the other crap shows, people.

We're supposed to lay off criticizing Sherlock on the grounds that it's not crap?  When have we ever layed off of anything? 

 

[besleybean]

I know and of course valid discussion is always appropriate.

I just sometimes feel some of the strong opinions are for me personally a bit much for a fan site!

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, besleybean said:

I know and of course valid discussion is always appropriate.

I just sometimes feel some of the strong opinions are for me personally a bit much for a fan site!

I know that some people (probably most of us at times) can come on kinda strong, but as long as we're respectful of each other (and hopefully of other people as well), I see no great harm in it.  However, I know that I've come about *that close* to quitting the forum a couple of times, due to strongly-expressed opinions that I disagreed with but didn't care to say so online for fear of being steamrollered.  Even so, this forum is all in all pretty tame compared to some fan sites.

Whenever you have issues with a specific post, Bev, please use its report button to tell the staff why.

[besleybean]

Oh heck I have never had any issue which would see me even getting close to a report button...mind you, I wouldn't let somebody get me that way!

No, this place is Heaven compared to some of my other hang outs...

I just get used to being the holder of the most unpopular views...but at least I know somebody somewhere in the world agrees with me!

I do sometimes find it odd what people will bring to a FAN site(and for me, the clue is in the name!).

As I have said in my other place...if you ain't enjoying it anymore, just stop watching!

Some of us still love it.

I have occasionally taken myself away from a site, for a short period...but would never tell anyone, wouldn't give them the satisfaction!

[Carol the Dabbler]

32 minutes ago, besleybean said:

As I have said in my other place...if you ain't enjoying it anymore, just stop watching!

Some of us still love it.

Can't disagree with you there.  Though please bear in mind that just because we're bitching doesn't mean we don't still love the show -- but it could be even better if they'd just listen to us! 

 

[Arcadia]

21 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

The thing about Mary's identity too, is that it reminds me a bit of Sherlock dressing up as the priest in Scandal- a self portrait through a disguise. In many ways perhaps her new identity was more the real 'her' than her former life. We don't really know enough about her to tell. Still, whilst her reasons for deception may have been sound I'm not sure John would ever emotionally interpret it way, or that most people in a close relationship would.

Well, I think that's one of the reasons I have problems with her "lying" … because I can't believe the warm, twinkly, cat-loving Mary we were first introduced to is a self-portrait of someone who kills other people for money. 

I admit, I've mostly gotten around the Mary issue by assuming that when Moftiss uses the word "assassin," it's just for dramatic effect and what they really mean is that she's a heroine for hire. After all, the only thing they show us from her past life is a rescue mission … a far cry from assassination, imo!

21 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

In a weird way, I wonder does Sherlock get any pass  on lying at all just for being Sherlock? For any other friend, I totally agree, the trust would be gone. But are the inner rules of their friendship a little bit more skewed? Does John see Sherlock as somewhat extraordinary, and this let him away with things based on these heightened stakes?

I think so. I think John really does romanticize Sherlock, at least up until S4, and tells himself everything Sherlock does is for the best, no matter how awful it seems at the time.

And then Sherlock goes and basically proves that theory in TLD … he's entirely self-sacrificial, there. Well … he still enjoys showing off how smart he is, doesn't he? But it's all in a good cause. So maybe, in those circumstances, he'd win me back too. I don't know.

21 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

And then, was Sherlock the starter liar (fake death) so that by the time he got to the biggest liar, Mary (assassin), John was like the frog in slowly boiling water?

Is that the same as boiling a lobster? I'm not familiar with that analogy, but I assume it means someone being lulled into complacency until it's too late to save themselves?

I don't know … I sort of think John "forgave" Mary in HLV because he thinks that's what a good man is supposed to do (egged on by no less than his hero Sherlock. ) Not that I think he wasn't sincere; I'm pretty sure he was. But  after TLD, I just have to wonder if he talked himself into it because that's the kind of man he thought he wanted to be (forgiving), and not because that's the kind of man he actually is? Which is A-Okay by me, actually, because I like the man he seems to want to be. I think it speaks well of the "real" him that he wants to be that way. Assuming there is actually a difference between the two, which I sort of doubt.

21 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

Also, maybe it's just me, but forget about John falling out of love with Mary, I got the impression that the writers had fallen out of love with John for all of season four. He became so functional- telling Sherlock to give love a try (hello cliche best friend in a movie role, though the scene is beautifully played), being the 'other man' Sherlock has to pick between with Mycroft, having an affair because it would make Mary's death sadder and more 'meaningful'.

I don't have a problem with the basic concept of a man making grand speeches and in reality failing to measure up- that's all probably quite realistic. However, In the early seasons I felt like we got closer to who John was and his vulnerability, whereas I wasn't as satisfied by what we learn about him in season 4. MF's acting is as good as ever, but perhaps his material is not what it once was. There is a brief but terrific moment of bromance in TLD, but in TFP despite all the overt talk of how important John is to Sherlock I don't know that I feel it coming from the screen so much, they do too much telling instead of showing

I get this vibe a lot too … that the John we see in S4 is far more guarded and less -- patient? caring? -- than the one we're used to. But I find I don't really mind that much, I still think he's basically a decent guy who's probably too hard on himself for not being perfect.

ETA … and I too feel like he's not been given enough to do, I hope that will change.