Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Arcadia]

 

 

Not only that, but recall it is NOT her sexuality or sexual proclivities to which Sherlock is drawn.  Irene NAMES it - "brainy is the new sexy". He is attracted to her MIND (as she is to HIS), not to her being a Domin8trix.

 

Wanna bet?

Hey!! IT IS TRUE!! (Channeling Mrs.Wenceslas)

There are always times when I find brainy men much sexier (eventhough they look like a giant-grouper-hitting-reef-face-first-because of-strong-current) than 'other' man (I don't know how to describe them, before they impress me on something other than physicality they are just a lump of talking shadow :P)

 

Ok.. I'll start now, before anyone catch me at work.

 

Soldier on.

 

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

[Caya]

[Surelock]

 

Euros' philosophy is that there is no good and evil. She says that in her tapes. She says good and evil are just stories people tell themselves to justify their survival tactic. She says she doesn't believe in good and evil because she's too clever. She's portrayed to be one of those characters who's so intelligent that good and evil become meaningless to her. She sees herself as a person and everyone else as ants. I can buy why someone so smart would have a perspective like that. Throughout the first 4 games, Euros tries to prove to Sherlock and the others that her philosophy on there being no good and evil is true. She points out how there's no difference between killing the innocent or guilty. She points out the worthlessness of morality.

 

The ideal way for Sherlock to deal with a character like that is to outsmart her.

 

I mean Euros is right in a way that people use morality to compensate for their lack of intellect. Euros believes she's so smart so that's why she throws morality out of the window. Euros believes that she's just stomping on ants when she's killing people but what if she wasn't as clever as she thought she was? What if other people could work together to outsmart her and show her she wasn't as far above them as they thought she was?

 

That's how I was hoping the episode would end. I thought maybe Sherlock and Mycroft would have to use their brains together to outsmart Euros. This would stop her from believing she was as smart as everyone else. Thus she would develop a sense of good and bad like everyone else because she now realises she has flaws and is human as well.

 

However that doesn't happen. Sherlock just plays Euros' game and beats her with brotherly love.

 

This is why I think Euros being the girl on the aeroplane makes no sense from a characterisation purpose. The girl on the aeroplane clearly believes in good and bad but Euros said multiple times in the episode that she didn't. It's like Euros became a different character in the last half an hour.

 

EDIT: Sorry I misread your post as 'specific questions' instead of 'specific threads'.

It almost came across like a split personality thing, because it wasn't set up in order not to reveal that he girl on the plane is her. But by not revealing anything about that beforehand it became just a break in character to me. I get why it was necessary from a suspense point of view both to the viewer and for the characters to keep playing Euros little game, but part of me would have wished for a different ending too, as I just couldn't connect the two personalities at all. And that's where I really struggled with the story. Because all other logical flaws aside, I loved it, but it just seemed like a bit of an easy way out and didn't feel particularly satisfying.

 

The thing is even if it's a split personality, I would argue that the Adult Euros personality ends up contradicting itself in the final act because it behaves completely differently from before.

 

The biggest problem is that Adult Euros went to great lengths to prove that her philosophy of there being no good and bad was true to Sherlock. That's what her first 4 games are about. She tries to prove that morality is meaningless.

 

However the 5th game doesn't follow the same logic. in the 5th game, Sherlock just has to find Adult Euros and play with her. That's what the whole 5th game is about. The 5th game doesn't do anything to prove that there is no good and bad or that morality is meaningless.

 

Even Adult Euros acts different when she's on the TV in Sherlock's old house. In Sherrinford she kept talking about how there's no difference between killing the innocent or guilty. However in Sherlock's old house, she starts talking about how she was lonely on the TV. How does that make any sense? 

 

If the ultimate goal of these games is to get Sherlock to come and play with her then why was Adult Euros trying to prove that there was no good and bad in the first 4 games? Why was she talking about being lonely in the 5th game? I thought she believed there was no good and bad? What was the purpose of the first 4 games?

 

That's the problem with Adult Euros' personality. It's like she has 2 separate adult personalities: one being the psychopath that wants to prove there's no good and bad and the other being a lonely person that wants a friend.

[BLS_Pro]

I can't keep quiet anymore regarding the criticism about the change in Euros' personality through the show. Well, she's insane, isn't she? I don't imagine an insane person's  personality would be too reliable or predictable, along with everything else about them.

Is she though?  And how exactly.  Just saying the word "insane" doesn't make a person capable of any and all actions. 

 

It's not about predictability.  Its about identification.  (And indeed the little girl WAS predictable - again WHY?)

 

These are the things which need to be explained.  They weren't.  That's bad writing - specifically bad characterization.

 

 

That's what I presumed too; she's nutz, anything she does is in character. But it is a bit of a mystery whether she was pretending to be the little girl, or actually was a split personality, or both. Or neither. Or some combination thereof.

This is the problem with the "insane" dismissal of the characterization requirements in art.  If "anything she does is in character" then there is NO "mystery" about her actions because there is NO logic to her actions.    It is complete caprice.  There is nothing to "figure out" and no REASON to try.  If is ONLY if you believe that there IS some logic to her actions, some consistency to her character - and you have yet to identify those things - that you can claim a "mystery" exists. 

 

No logic - nothing to solve - no mystery.  EVERY thing just "is what it is" - which is the destruction of mystery storytelling entirely.

[Van Buren Supernova]

It's tedious to multiquote because I do this on the phone, so I'll just use by topic instead.

 

@Mycroft on his squirming

I agree on some of your take, saying that he is mostly a person behind the scene who delegates dirty work and never directly involved on those.

 

But, I want to add another thing. To Sherlock and Mycroft, they are wired differently than normal human. That is why they are excellent in their jobs, they differentiate emotions with what are necessary, hard decision, conventry conundrum etc. But in their works, they believe at the end of the day, what they do is for good cause. Killing few to save millions, pulling trigger on *bad* guys, sacrificing some goods to stop catastrophic evils. They are coldblooded in that area, and whether it sounds horrible or not, it is needed. Decisions are hardly clean cut, you don't always feel good for doing the right thing.

 

So here, Mycroft had to witness or become the one to pull the trigger on someone innocent, *not those baddien who threaten national security*, that he had known for a long time, because this man was begging for them to take his life to save his wife, in a very stressful situation fabricated by his own sister, who, her presence and what she has become, is directly linked back to himself.

 

Yes, it's probably a hypocrisy that he said he didn't want to get blood on his hand. But think about how mundane the situation is, and how normally human breaks.

 

To me, this scene tells me about how Mycroft is essentially just a human, albeit extraordinary one. He was frightened, horrified and scared, something we didn't see before. We see Sherlock's reaction and he was genuinely surprised that Mycroft is that and I think beside those horrendous conditions they were in, it was probably a 'nice' surprise, seeing how his always cleverer, better, over the top hostile big brother has fragile and delicate side as well. In a weird way, seeing that from someone actualy make you feel closer. Sherlock and John handled the situation much more calmly, and that also tells Sherlock that their experiences in all those cases, 'war' and leg works are something he has that his brother doesn't have.

 

Thay's how I read the scene.

 

 

@Mycroft ordering Sherlock to shoot John,

I suppose everyone gets it, but if I remember correctly, there was a comment that make me think maybe not?

Mycroft was egging Sherlock to shoot John so that Sherlock would shoot him instead right?

 

Anyway, good old Sherlock.

What would you guys do? I'd probably do the same. Bolting is probably the only way to go than living the rest of your life carrying a guilt of either killing your best friend or your brother.

And there is also a stronger motivation; not to be dictated by another person. You want me to do this.. well, good luck with that!

But most likely, I probably also couldn't pull the trigger on myself and give up, maybe I'd stupidly trying to bulldoze my way out, which ends up killing everyone including the perceived girl on plane. But that, I could say, I tried.

 

 

@staying together

I have the same impression with Boton and Arcadia. Sherlock, 221B, John, outside.

Having the baby there would be silly. Sherlock is a good man, but I can't imagine he could stand having baby around, knocking all his stuffs, he has to stop his experiments, his fridge would be baby-proofed so they wouldn't find the baby munching on thumbs on playing peekaboo with human head. NAH. Too much inconvenience. :p

[Surelock]

I have to share this really funny post from reddit user _Oisin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sherlock/comments/5ocen8/spoilers_mycrofts_house_of_haunted_horrors/

 

 

So John get's shot with a tranquilliser gun that looks and sounds like a real gun. Then Sherlock finds him or he wakes up and calls Sherlock to say "you've got an evil sister who shot me in the face".

So then John say's Mycroft definitely knows something but he won't tell us anything unless he's scared.

So Sherlock says

"I know we break into his house and rig all his doors with little engines so I can open and close them with a button also rig his locks in a similar way so we can lock him in.

We'll spook him out by splicing old family footage into a movie he likes but considering I didn't know I had a sister until like 5 minutes ago I guess I'll call my parents and see if they have any footage of a sister they never mentioned to me. Shit if that doesn't work I'll just fake some footage by filming a bunch of kids in a park.

So after I've painstakingly f***ed with his movie he'll run around the house. I'll need a small man from my homeless network to dress up as a girl and run around the house, also I'll hire a voice actor to record some lines pretending to be my sister and have them played through the intercom that I also set up I guess? Maybe Mycroft has an intercom system.

Once I've lured him upstairs with my little homeless guy pretending to be a little girl I'll have all his paintings bleed out of their eyes I'll do this by attaching blood bags to the paintings, poking holes in the paintings so that blood can flow through them then setting up some kind of remote control so I can time it perfectly.

Then I get another homeless guy, dress him up as a clown and give him a sword. I predict at this point Mycroft will have picked up his sword gun thing so I'll empty out the bullets and hope he doesn't just stab the guy with his sword, even if he does nobody cares about homeless evil clowns.

Then he will run away and cue my dramatic entrance declaring I've deduced I have a sister which you've already told me and hopefully Mycroft let's something slip in his terror.

Finally we'll leave one window open so you can say something cool about the wind. Sound good John?"

John says

"That's an excellent plan we should start right away considering it takes a lot of construction and planning to pull off. I sure hope Mycroft is a super oblivious person who doesn't notice us f***ing with everything in his house. I'm also glad the most important person in the British government doesn't have any kind of security. If anything goes wrong we can just yell 'it's just a prank brah'. Sherlock your genius never ceases to amaze me".

I honestly thought this was a dream sequence. I think they wanted a cool scene more than a scene that made any sense.

 

[Alex the Dabbler]

Part of my dismay with watching this episode was based on the title, "The Final Problem", which raised my expectations.  I wouldn't have been nearly as disappointed had it been titled something like "House of Horrors". :lol2:

[BLS_Pro]

The biggest problem is that Adult Euros went to great lengths to prove that her philosophy of there being no good and bad was true to Sherlock. That's what her first 4 games are about. She tries to prove that morality is meaningless.

I don't see her trying to "prove" anything to him.  She's studying him and his friends - trying to isolate the difference between her and them.  She's trying to determine WHY she can't "land" (and what would be the purpose in landing?)

 

Further, is is a "Morality Maze".  But her purpose is to explore how emotion impacts morality.

 

 

 

However the 5th game doesn't follow the same logic. in the 5th game, Sherlock just has to find Adult Euros and play with her. That's what the whole 5th game is about. The 5th game doesn't do anything to prove that there is no good and bad or that morality is meaningless.

Because that wasn't the point of any of the mazes.

 

But you are correct that there is a disconnect between the games.  The fifth game is the final problem - and was planned as such from the beginning.  So why ANY of the other mazes?  How are they connected.  WHY did the different personalities, who seem to have different focus and potentially conflicting goals, end up cooperating to get to the end game?

 

There's no dispute between us about these points.  The only thing I've said is this problem is a result of the writers not explaining her character as they needed to explain it. 

 

Put simply, character contradiction is not change nor an arc. 

 

 

 

Even Adult Euros acts different when she's on the TV in Sherlock's old house. In Sherrinford she kept talking about how there's no difference between killing the innocent or guilty. However in Sherlock's old house, she starts talking about how she was lonely on the TV. How does that make any sense?

 

That's a shift in her focus, not a contradiction.  WHY did she shift her focus?  Again, bad writing doesn't tell us. 

 

 

 

That's the problem with Adult Euros' personality. It's like she has 2 separate adult personalities: one being the psychopath that wants to prove there's no good and bad and the other being a lonely person that wants a friend.

Being a ruthless dictator who tortures everyone - and being lonely person who wants a friend - are not mutually exclusive -personalities-.  A brutal murderer can want to be loved.  He doesn't have to have a multiple personality disorder to be both a murderer AND lonely.

 

[BLS_Pro]

Part of my dismay with watching this episode was based on the title, "The Final Problem", which raised my expectations.  I wouldn't have been nearly as disappointed had it been titled something like "House of Horrors". :lol2:

Yes.  From beginning to end, this had the feeling of horror movies (and used MANY MANY of their tropes).  It didn't feel like a mystery - certainly not a Sherlock mystery.

[BLS_Pro]

 

I have to share this really funny post from reddit user _Oisin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sherlock/comments/5ocen8/spoilers_mycrofts_house_of_haunted_horrors/

 

 

So John get's shot with a tranquilliser gun that looks and sounds like a real gun. Then Sherlock finds him or he wakes up and calls Sherlock to say "you've got an evil sister who shot me in the face".

So then John say's Mycroft definitely knows something but he won't tell us anything unless he's scared.

So Sherlock says

"I know we break into his house and rig all his doors with little engines so I can open and close them with a button also rig his locks in a similar way so we can lock him in.

We'll spook him out by splicing old family footage into a movie he likes but considering I didn't know I had a sister until like 5 minutes ago I guess I'll call my parents and see if they have any footage of a sister they never mentioned to me. Shit if that doesn't work I'll just fake some footage by filming a bunch of kids in a park.

So after I've painstakingly f***ed with his movie he'll run around the house. I'll need a small man from my homeless network to dress up as a girl and run around the house, also I'll hire a voice actor to record some lines pretending to be my sister and have them played through the intercom that I also set up I guess? Maybe Mycroft has an intercom system.

Once I've lured him upstairs with my little homeless guy pretending to be a little girl I'll have all his paintings bleed out of their eyes I'll do this by attaching blood bags to the paintings, poking holes in the paintings so that blood can flow through them then setting up some kind of remote control so I can time it perfectly.

Then I get another homeless guy, dress him up as a clown and give him a sword. I predict at this point Mycroft will have picked up his sword gun thing so I'll empty out the bullets and hope he doesn't just stab the guy with his sword, even if he does nobody cares about homeless evil clowns.

Then he will run away and cue my dramatic entrance declaring I've deduced I have a sister which you've already told me and hopefully Mycroft let's something slip in his terror.

Finally we'll leave one window open so you can say something cool about the wind. Sound good John?"

John says

"That's an excellent plan we should start right away considering it takes a lot of construction and planning to pull off. I sure hope Mycroft is a super oblivious person who doesn't notice us f***ing with everything in his house. I'm also glad the most important person in the British government doesn't have any kind of security. If anything goes wrong we can just yell 'it's just a prank brah'. Sherlock your genius never ceases to amaze me".

I honestly thought this was a dream sequence. I think they wanted a cool scene more than a scene that made any sense.

 

Yup.  Like I said, they needed to trash everything up to Sherlock arriving at the old homestead.  It is almost universally bad writing.  This is just ONE aspect of it.

 

Thanks for posting it. 

[BLS_Pro]

 

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

Stop conflating 'liking someone because they are attractive (among other things)' with 'liking someone because they are a domin8trix'.  BIG difference between the two.

 

OR- wait!  Do all the people you find attractive happen to be domin8trix?  Is that what's happening here?  Is that why you are associating the two as the same?  :D

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

I don't think this was about morality. That was just an excuse that Mycroft used. I think the actual reason had to do with Mycroft's sentiment.

 

I think Mycroft was unable to kill that director guy because he knew him and once had a very good relationship with him. I mean Mycroft trusted him with Euros, the greatest secret of his life. Even when Mycroft is lambasting the director in his office he says stuff like 'I put my full confidence in you'. Mycroft was initially even unwilling to believe Euros had escaped Sherrinford probably because he trusted the director that much.

 

This director may have once been the closest person Mycroft ever had to a friend. Now it's true that the director betrayed him but Mycroft only knew about that for a few hours at most. For most of his life, the director was someone that Mycroft trusted completely.

 

I would argue that Mycroft had an emotional attachment to the director but he just didn't want to admit it. Mycroft is like that. I mean we all know he loves Sherlock but he won't admit it. Mycroft always tries to hide his loving nature. In this episode, Mycroft also tried to tempt Sherlock into shooting him so he could save Sherlock from the agony of shooting John. 

 

Basically I think Mycroft is capable of being a cold hearted person who's willing to kill people for the greater good. However this is only if he doesn't have an emotional attachment to the person in question. Mycroft didn't have an attachment to the girl in the plane so he was okay with her dying. However he had an emotional attachment to the director so he couldn't bring himself to kill him. 

 

I think Mycroft vomiting at the sight of his former close colleague dying does a good job of showing his humanity. It shows that Mycroft has trouble watching people who he's close to lose their life. That help explains why he's so protective of Sherlock, John and other people he cares about.

Hey I must be busy typing with my banana finger when you post that. Basically, I said the same thing in mine and agree with your analysis.

 

 

Hey, jump in here, at the present rate VBS is going to catch up before we know it. Gotta keep her off balance. :P

Gahhhhhh... mayday..!!

 

 

 

 

 

Hey!! IT IS TRUE!! (Channeling Mrs.Wenceslas)

There are always times when I find brainy men much sexier (eventhough they look like a giant-grouper-hitting-reef-face-first-because of-strong-current) than 'other' man (I don't know how to describe them, before they impress me on something other than physicality they are just a lump of talking shadow :P)

 

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

And if you see my post *deeply* :p, I said they have to attract me with their brain first, after that, they start to take shape from talking lumpy shadow into a face and if they look like Khan... hooba hooba!!

 

 

@Euros personality

I see a lot of posts saying that she is totally different with girl on the plane and that doesn't make sense, something along the line.

 

While I agree that something could be developed more, I however don't see the necessity in this episode. They could do a special, or anything to bridge the little girl, crying one at the end and psychopath in the middle, but again, to me, what they show in this episode is enough.

 

Of course the girl in the plane is different. At that time she was just taken away from her family and totally alone among unfamiliar faces. She didn't have any remorse to kill Redbeard and burn down the family house but she always has one desire, to be loved by his brother. There are quite a lot of examples in real life about psychopaths loving their family and has no qualm killing others outside his circle. Just read one not long ago but the name escapes me right now. And I think that's what she is. She was already what she was and grows more into the heartless psychopath we saw in the games, but the little girl who wants affection is still, always there.

I take that in TLD, the scene where Sherlock and her having chips together was the best thing she remembers and always wants, and "Nicer" means hell lot more.

 

From the games she plays with Sherlock, I think there are more to them than just games. She gives Sherlock difficult decisions, put him through dillemas, emotional realization that Sherlock loathes, wanting him to be clever during stressful situation, wanting him to see how 'difficult' it is to decide on the sides he takes. I think, all those games, are probably her way to make Sherlock goes through what she probably went through. It's hard to understand, of course, it would take couple of season to get how this complicated mind works and thinks, that's why the bits they give in the episode are enough, because it's not about her, we could draw analysis and conclusion ourselves from those. What is important is how it impacts Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

 

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

Stop conflating 'liking someone because they are attractive (among other things)' with 'liking someone because they are a domin8trix'.  BIG difference between the two.

 

You: "Not only that, but recall it is NOT her sexuality or sexual proclivities to which Sherlock is drawn."

Me: "Wanna bet?"

[Surelock]

 

The biggest problem is that Adult Euros went to great lengths to prove that her philosophy of there being no good and bad was true to Sherlock. That's what her first 4 games are about. She tries to prove that morality is meaningless.

I don't see her trying to "prove" anything to him.  She's studying him and his friends - trying to isolate the difference between her and them.  She's trying to determine WHY she can't "land" (and what would be the purpose in landing?)

 

Further, is is a "Morality Maze".  But her purpose is to explore how emotion impacts morality.

 

 

 

However the 5th game doesn't follow the same logic. in the 5th game, Sherlock just has to find Adult Euros and play with her. That's what the whole 5th game is about. The 5th game doesn't do anything to prove that there is no good and bad or that morality is meaningless.

Because that wasn't the point of any of the mazes.

 

But you are correct that there is a disconnect between the games.  The fifth game is the final problem - and was planned as such from the beginning.  So why ANY of the other mazes?  How are they connected.  WHY did the different personalities, who seem to have different focus and potentially conflicting goals, end up cooperating to get to the end game?

 

There's no dispute between us about these points.  The only thing I've said is this problem is a result of the writers not explaining her character as they needed to explain it. 

 

Put simply, character contradiction is not change nor an arc. 

 

 

 

Even Adult Euros acts different when she's on the TV in Sherlock's old house. In Sherrinford she kept talking about how there's no difference between killing the innocent or guilty. However in Sherlock's old house, she starts talking about how she was lonely on the TV. How does that make any sense?

 

That's a shift in her focus, not a contradiction.  WHY did she shift her focus?  Again, bad writing doesn't tell us. 

 

 

 

That's the problem with Adult Euros' personality. It's like she has 2 separate adult personalities: one being the psychopath that wants to prove there's no good and bad and the other being a lonely person that wants a friend.

Being a ruthless dictator who tortures everyone - and being lonely person who wants a friend - are not mutually exclusive -personalities-.  A brutal murderer can want to be loved.  He doesn't have to have a multiple personality disorder to be both a murderer AND lonely.

 

 

 

I don't see how any of Euros' first 4 games had anything to do with 'landing'. Each of them was designed to prove her hypothesis of morality being meaningless.

 

Euros was NOT conducting the kind of experiments where a scientist goes in with no idea of the result. Rather she was conducting the kind of experiment where a scientist has an idea of the result but wants to run the experiment so they have irrefutable proof that their hypothesis is correct. For Euros, it's clear she already had an answer and just wanted to prove it with each of the first 4 games.

 

In the 1st game, after John refused to kill the director, the director shot himself. Then Euros shot the director's wife and said that John's moral code didn't grant him any advantage because now two people were dead instead of one.

 

In the 2nd game, Euros first killed the innocent suspects. John then yelled at her why she killed the innocent. Euros then killed the guilty and said it made no difference. Killing the guilty or innocent isn't any different and that was supposed to show morality was meaningless.

 

In the 3rd game, after Sherlock made Molly confess to him, Euros revealed that she actually hadn't planted any bombs in Molly's house. Sherlock made Molly confess because he was following his moral code of being the hero. However he ended up toying with her emotions so Sherlock's moral code ultimately made him do a bad thing. That one again proves that morality is useless. That's why Sherlock was angry and destroyed the coffin.

 

In the 4th game, Euros asked Sherlock to shoot either Mycroft or John. Once again his morality was useless. He had to give up one of his loved ones and his morality did nothing but make the decision more difficult. The point of this once again was to prove that morality was useless.

 

That's what Euros was doing. She was trying to confirm her hypothesis of morality being useless in the first 4 games. 

 

However in the 5th game, Euros starts talking about how she was lonely and she tries to blame Sherlock for it. That completely contradicts how she was behaving earlier. She believed morality was useless but now she's trying to use morality to make Sherlock guilty or something. What happened to morality being useless? Playing with a lonely person is the morally right thing to do so why were the first 4 games about morality being useless?

 

This is why it doesn't make sense for Euros to be a lonely person who was angry at Sherlock for not playing with her. Her whole philosophy was that morality was useless so in her mind being lonely or not lonely should be meaningless. It doesn't matter if Sherlock treated her well or treated her bad. She doesn't believe in good and bad (she said so herself in those tapes that John and Mycroft were watching of her). It should make no difference to her.

 

I suspect Euros' contradictory character is a result of Moffat and Gatiss (who both wrote this episode) having different ideas of what they wanted to do with her character. One of them wanted to make her a psychopath that believes that morality is useless and wants to prove it. The other one wants Euros to be a misunderstood person who's lonely and wants a friend. However i don't think Moffat and Gatiss realised that these two aspects don't fit together into a personality without coming into conflict with one another.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I went for my daily news and found that Sherlock finale rating hits all-time low, one of the main reason was because the episode was leaked online before it was broadcast on TV. It was suspected to be leaked by "unauthorized external third party" of Russian Tv channel, the leaked episode was in Russian language version.

here for full news.

 

From that, it links to Mark Gatiss's poem, defending critic about Sherlockbond.

Here is a critic who says with low blow

Sherlock’s no brain-box but become double-O.

Says the Baker St boy is no man of action –

whilst ignoring the stories that could have put him in traction.

 

The Solitary Cyclist sees boxing on show,

The Gloria Scott and The Sign of the Fo’

The Empty House too sees a mention, in time, of Mathews,

who knocked out poor Sherlock’s canine.

 

As for arts martial, there’s surely a clue

in the misspelled wrestle Doyle called baritsu.

In hurling Moriarty over the torrent

did Sherlock find violence strange and abhorrent?

 

In shooting down pygmies and Hounds from hell

Did Sherlock on Victorian niceties dwell?

When Gruner’s men got him was Holmes quite compliant

Or did he give good account for The Illustrious Client?

 

There’s no need to invoke in yarns that still thrill,

Her Majesty’s Secret Servant with licence to kill

From Rathbone through Brett to Cumberbatch dandy

With his fists Mr Holmes has always been handy.

 

Mark G

 

 

P.S. I was worried that Sherlock would be too bond-y when I first saw the trailer, but then realize everything I could see impact my judgement, so I stop watching and reading anything related to S4 before actually watching the episodes.

And tbh, I am okay about the bondiness, it is not as bad as I thought it would be, and I like Sherlock kicking asses, and he kicks asses in Canon too.

[Arcadia]

 

 

Hey!! IT IS TRUE!! (Channeling Mrs.Wenceslas)

There are always times when I find brainy men much sexier (eventhough they look like a giant-grouper-hitting-reef-face-first-because of-strong-current) than 'other' man (I don't know how to describe them, before they impress me on something other than physicality they are just a lump of talking shadow :P)

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

 

And if you see my post *deeply* :P, I said they have to attract me with their brain first, after that, they start to take shape from talking lumpy shadow into a face and if they look like Khan... hooba hooba!!

 

Yep. What I said. :D

 

(Okay, before anyone goes off on me ... this is what VBS and I do. It's called "humor." Yeah, we suck at it. Sue us.  )

 

@Euros personality

I see a lot of posts saying that she is totally different with girl on the plane and that doesn't make sense, something along the line.

 

While I agree that something could be developed more, I however don't see the necessity in this episode. They could do a special, or anything to bridge the little girl, crying one at the end and psychopath in the middle, but again, to me, what they show in this episode is enough.

 

Of course the girl in the plane is different. At that time she was just taken away from her family and totally alone among unfamiliar faces. She didn't have any remorse to kill Redbeard and burn down the family house but she always has one desire, to be loved by his brother. There are quite a lot of examples in real life about psychopaths loving their family and has no qualm killing others outside his circle. Just read one not long ago but the name escapes me right now. And I think that's what she is. She was already what she was and grows more into the heartless psychopath we saw in the games, but the little girl who wants affection is still, always there.

I take that in TLD, the scene where Sherlock and her having chips together was the best thing she remembers and always wants, and "Nicer" means hell lot more.

 

From the games she plays with Sherlock, I think there are more to them than just games. She gives Sherlock difficult decisions, put him through dillemas, emotional realization that Sherlock loathes, wanting him to be clever during stressful situation, wanting him to see how 'difficult' it is to decide on the sides he takes. I think, all those games, are probably her way to make Sherlock goes through what she probably went through. It's hard to understand, of course, it would take couple of season to get how this complicated mind works and thinks, that's why the bits they give in the episode are enough, because it's not about her, we could draw analysis and conclusion ourselves from those. What is important is how it impacts Sherlock.

 

 

Diverting to a different topic for a moment ... does anyone remember this from the end of TAB?

 

So what's the "Scarlet Roll Mop" (red herring) here? Do we have any idea now why we were allowed to see this little snippet?

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

Right. You love Khan ONLY for his intellect. Yup. Gotcha.

Stop conflating 'liking someone because they are attractive (among other things)' with 'liking someone because they are a domin8trix'.  BIG difference between the two.

 

You: "Not only that, but recall it is NOT her sexuality or sexual proclivities to which Sherlock is drawn."

Me: "Wanna bet?"

Sorry.  I thought you would KEEP the context of domin8trix in regard to the terms sexuality and sexual proclivities (as opposed to the context of beastiality or any other specific forms of sexuality and sexual proclivities).  If you are going to DROP the explicitly established context, well I am happy to repeat my statement with that context made EXPLICIT so the statement is UNMISTAKABLY clear:

 

"Not only that, but recall it is NOT her sexuality AS A DOMIN8TRIX or sexual proclivities AS A DOMIN8TRIX to which Sherlock is drawn,  Irene NAMES it - "brainy is the new sexy".  He is attracted to her MIND (as she is to HIS), NOT to her being a Domin8trix."

 

(As noted, since physical attractiveness and being a domin8trix are NOT synonyms, the above does not preclude Sherlock also finding Irene attractive - or even nice smelling, or have good taste in beer, etc etc ad nauseum.)

 

I presumed this context was already unquestionably clear, not ONLY because -I- explicitly specified the context, but because -you- were NOT attacking men simply for being drawn to women who are attractive or like particular football teams etc.  You explicitly argued: 

 

 

I don't know what's wrong with them, but this isn't the first drama to have a strong, intelligent man become infatuated with a domin8trix. And frankly, I'm not sure I want to know why. I mean, ew ... seriously? But it's a thing, apparently. Dopes. (And before anyone jumps on me, yes, I know some women are fascinated by it too. Dopes.

 

As I stated, Sherlock was NOT attracted to Irene BECAUSE she was a domin8trix.  And, as I stated, those who try to shift Sherlock's attraction from her mind TO her being domin8trix are engaging in a non-sequitur (at best - and in fact are likely engaged in much WORSE behavior).  It is like saying "He's infatuated with her because her profession is Garbage Collector."  That is PURPOSEFULLY misrepresenting his attraction - and thus intentionally doing a dis-service to Sherlock (and arguably to feminism) by that misrepresentation.

 

Hopefully that clears up any possible confusion over context now.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

@J.P

Sorry if you feel that way.

 

I was worried that S4 would have horrible impacts and messes me up (it weird yes, and I think I am a bloody strong person but Sherlock is.. different. That's why I'm here in padded cell with you guys, although mine is not exactly padded anymore because I bit them off. They, the padding, looks like chiffon cake on difficult days, so yeah :p)

 

I actually built up lots and lots of defence before it :p and really got cold feet and wanted to bolt from watching. But I couldn't, because it means I could no longer go to internet because there would be spoilers.

 

So I was in fully geared exoskeleton watching it, and eventhough I had played all the worse scenarios on my head and ready for them all, I was still squirming worrying about Molly and Mycroft as they were high on my dead list. Not because of bloody Game of Thrones, but because I really thought their deaths have potential for the plot and makes sense. Needless to say I am relieved they are fine.

 

I'm not sure which area you are dissapointed at, to me, eventhough it's not the same, I could still rely on Sherlock and Mycroft as people I can strangely relate to. I am glad Mycroft doesn't make the call as far as I know. Eventhough there are more to see in Sherlock, Irene and Molly, it remains a struggle, dysfunctional relationship that the coffin has to be destroyed (it looks so flimsy it must be good to destroy them, I bet I could do it as fast :p)

 

Mycroft, Sherlock and Eurus relationship is nothing ordinary. I am not sure about Mycroft and Eurus, but Sherlock is certainly loved by both of them, in very unsual way. Sort of my sibling minus the killing and arson :p, but there are more to that. There are resentments, rage, like mentioned, perhaps jealousy. There are still problems in communications, expressions, normal interactions, struggles, showing affections.

 

In short, while we see much more of them, they are still as awkward and emotionally dysfunctional as ever that makes me fond of them on the first place. Only now, John knows much more about Sherlock that's why I hope he wouldn't anyhow blame him or kicking him around anymore.

 

And that is what I believe and want to take away from S4. And it helps. Hopefully for you too.

[Arcadia]

Another article ... mostly stuff we've seen already, but a little longer: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-01-15/mark-gatiss-and-steven-moffat-reveal-where-sherlock-could-go-in-series-5

Of particular interest to me was this bit:
 

Moffat added: “I suppose it’s that Sherlock now finally understands that’s he’s stronger and smarter than Mycroft in a way. But not because he is actually smarter – he’s less smart – but because his emotions, his connections to other human beings, the wisdom he has gained from his connections he has made in the world, make him stronger.

"He sees that, partly because the extreme of [his sister] Eurus who has no connection to anything, is just pure brain, not understanding anything about what it is to be human. [This] makes him realise everything he has worked towards, everything he has tried to get away from himself and deny about himself, is what makes him the strongest."

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

That's what Euros was doing. She was trying to confirm her hypothesis of morality being useless in the first 4 games.

I already explained why I disagreed with your premise.  You didn't contradict my argument, but simply expanded upon your own.  It doesn't change or invalidate my argument.

 

Of course, my larger point is that it doesn't matter WHICH of us is right because we both agree there is no connection between the games - it 'doesn't make sense' how or why Eurus was going from where she started to where she finished.  The writers didn't provide the necessary connective tissue.  They wrote her badly.

 

 

However in the 5th game, Euros starts talking about how she was lonely and she tries to blame Sherlock for it. That completely contradicts how she was behaving earlier. She believed morality was useless but now she's trying to use morality to make Sherlock guilty or something. What happened to morality being useless? Playing with a lonely person is the morally right thing to do so why were the first 4 games about morality being useless?

 

Saying she is lonely doesn't have anything to do with morality.  As I pointed out, and you've NOT contradicted, a completely immoral (or amoral) person can be lonely - or angry - or happy - or jealous - or feel any other emotion.  That is NOT a contradiction. 

 

As you say, even YOU don't understand WHY she is bringing up loneliness.  You say explicitly she might be "trying to use morality to make Sherlock guilty OR SOMETHING."  You do NOT know.  It is NOT clear - not at all.  THAT is the problem.

 

 

This is why it doesn't make sense for Euros to be a lonely person who was angry at Sherlock for not playing with her.

Her whole philosophy was that morality was useless so in her mind being lonely or not lonely should be meaningless.

You know what a rationalization is - right?  And you know it doesn't change one's feelings - right?

 

That one's feelings and one's ideas are at odds with one another is NOT an indication that her characterization "doesn't make sense".  In fact, it is a fact of life for almost ALL people.  People DO hold contradictions.  They experience feelings which contradict their ideas all the time (revealing, whether they identify it or not, that they hold conflicting ideas - ideas being the result of what one thinks).  People experience these contradictions ALL the time.  Eurus has such a DEEP contradiction it seems to have literally split her consciousness into two.  She is desperate to resolve the contradiction - the conflict - the divide SHE cannot surmount or unite.  She's tried to resolve it - all her life - and hasn't been able to resolve it.  NOT by herself.

 

THAT is what it means to say she can't land.

 

She can't land by herself.  She can't unite herself.  She can't resolve the contradiction in her BY herself.  She needs help.  She needs the one person she knows who is somewhat like herself and who seems to HAVE resolved it.  She needs Sherlock.  That is why she is DRAWN to Sherlock, not matter WHICH personality we are talking about - and is why she PANICS when she thinks she's going to lose him.  HE is her salvation - and she has known that since the beginning - as her poem says explicitly.

 

The rationalized grown up is the wall she has created (like Sherlock) to repress that lonely little child inside of her.  But she can NOT escape that loneliness - no matter HOW hard she tries, no matter what she does, no matter what she thinks.  It remains - because she has no one to love or be loved by. 

 

I suspect Euros' contradictory character is a result of Moffat and Gatiss (who both wrote this episode) having different ideas of what they wanted to do with her character. One of them wanted to make her a psychopath that believes that morality is useless and wants to prove it. The other one wants Euros to be a misunderstood person who's lonely and wants a friend.

No.

 

And again, believing morality is useless - and being lonely - are NOT mutually exclusive conditions.  One is an idea.  One is an emotion.  They can - and DO - exist together in reality.

 

Or are you claiming heartless murderers , totalitarian dictators, those who believe in philosophies which reject the concepts good and bad, etc etc are physically INCAPABLE of feeling the emotion 'loneliness'.  If so, that is simply false - and I would suggest some good criminal psychology books.

[Van Buren Supernova]

(Okay, before anyone goes off on me ... this is what VBS and I do. It's called "humor." Yeah, we suck at it. Sue us.  )

Yah.. I forget how weird we must be :p, and of course that you suck at it. Obviously. :p

 

So what's the "Scarlet Roll Mop" (red herring) here? Do we have any idea now why we were allowed to see this little snippet?

I have no idea. Only managed to watch once for each episode.

I do remember the carpet in John's psychiatrist office is somewhat Scarlett and in weird shape. It probably means nothing, I just noticed it. I don't have anymore nonsense to offer now.

 

@BLS_Pro:

Mycroft has Redbeard as a dog in his vision as bad writing.

I don't see it as bad writing, in fact, I don't see many of the things you listed out as bad writing because I see it from different angles. It's fine if you think so, as we probably not looking at it the same way anyway.

For this particular vision, I think it's not that Mycroft lied to the audience, he thinks what he wants to believe, he has been contructing the visions for years, convincing Sherlock for years.

I believe there is a term "unreliable narator", we can't always believe story seen from character's point of view, because it's subjected to their own flaws and interpretation, normally it's slowly revealed to the audience that the truth could be somewhat different. I actually always like unreliable naration, there are many excellent examples out there.

 

 

 

 

One of the things that no one really mentions yet, is what Mycroft has done to Eurus. Uncle Rudy has a lot to it, apparently, but Mycroft was somewhat involved heavily, maybe from the start if I have to draw any conclusion from his story.

 

He was very young back then. Somehow him and Uncle Rudy, who should have good position in government, managed to cover up Eurus for decades. So both of them think Eurus is irreparable and it's right to take and lock her away. I find that difficult to digest, knowing what they knew. First, Redbeard disappeared. They didn't find the body, they didn't know what happened to him. 'Drown' was thrown around, so assuming that they searched the lake, why on earth they missed the well? Anyway, nothing is really conclusive but babbling creepy kid. Arson, of course it's horrible, but it could easily caused by lack of risk understanding. What exactly made Uncle Rudy and Mycroft thought it's okay to lock her forever based on that? Well, Eurus turns out to be murderous, if she weren't, being locked up for decades could probably turn anyone into murderous as well.

[BLS_Pro]

 

@BLS_Pro:

Mycroft has Redbeard as a dog in his vision as bad writing.

I don't see it as bad writing, in fact, I don't see many of the things you listed out as bad writing because I see it from different angles. It's fine if you think so, as we probably not looking at it the same way anyway.

For this particular vision, I think it's not that Mycroft lied to the audience, he thinks what he wants to believe, he has been contructing the visions for years, convincing Sherlock for years.

I believe there is a term "unreliable narator", we can't always believe story seen from character's point of view, because it's subjected to their own flaws and interpretation, normally it's slowly revealed to the audience that the truth could be somewhat different. I actually always like unreliable naration, there are many excellent examples out there.

"he thinks what he wants to believe"

 

He has 'fooled' himself, in other words?  No.

 

"Unreliable narrator"

Just because a trope exists doesn't mean it is an example of good writing.  The UN is when a character somehow (honestly or dishonestly) presents reality inaccurately.  When it is done to other characters (and thus to the viewer), it can be an example of good writing.  When it is completely divorced from the story and instead used SOLELY to trick the audience, that is cheap, bad writing.  Another example of it in Final is Moriarty coming to Sherrinford.  It is presented as something happening real-time - and only LATER revealed to have occurred years ago.  There is NO narrator, no character who is telling the story and presenting it to someone else.  There is nothing and no one IN the story to whom a delay in this info is being delivered BY or TO.  It is the writers lying (by omission) directly and solely to the audience for NO reason - not even a rationalized story reason.  It is the equivalent of a meaningless jump scare in horror - cheap and useless. 

 

In the case of Redbeard in Mycroft's mind - it is the writers patching a HOLE in their writing with the hope it isn't noticed.  But what is WORSE is that Mycroft's entire LIE is bad writing at this point too.  IT is a plot hole the size of the ocean.  At this point in the story, there is NO reason for Mycroft to lie to Sherlock about Redbeard.  The ONLY reason Mycroft does it is because the story would be over in 15 minutes if he DID.  It doesn't make sense for the character to still keep it secret, given the world shattering danger he says they are facing.  But (like Dumbledore to Harry Potter) the plot needs that bad characterization - that bad writing - to sustain itself. 

 

Redbeard in the vision is a MINOR offense compared to this.

 

Not to mention this is all delivered in the form of an info dump narration.  Now those can't always be avoided, but this entire story involved Sherlock not discovering the facts of the 'case', but being spoon fed them by others.  They TELL, rather than SHOW.  They don't make it knowledge gained through conflict.  They simply make it the streaming of pictures by along with the narration.

That is bad writing.

[BLS_Pro]

Concerning the whole supposed 'contradiction' between what Eurus wanted and morality?  John states it explicitly:

J:"You gave her what she wanted.  Context."

S:"Was that good?"
J:"It's not good, it's not bad.  It's...it is what it is."

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

Still not finding behind the scenes for this episode.  Not seeing it on the PBS site.  :(

[Surelock]

 

 

That's what Euros was doing. She was trying to confirm her hypothesis of morality being useless in the first 4 games.

I already explained why I disagreed with your premise.  You didn't contradict my argument, but simply expanded upon your own.  It doesn't change or invalidate my argument.

 

Of course, my larger point is that it doesn't matter WHICH of us is right because we both agree there is no connection between the games - it 'doesn't make sense' how or why Eurus was going from where she started to where she finished.  The writers didn't provide the necessary connective tissue.  They wrote her badly.

 

 

However in the 5th game, Euros starts talking about how she was lonely and she tries to blame Sherlock for it. That completely contradicts how she was behaving earlier. She believed morality was useless but now she's trying to use morality to make Sherlock guilty or something. What happened to morality being useless? Playing with a lonely person is the morally right thing to do so why were the first 4 games about morality being useless?

 

Saying she is lonely doesn't have anything to do with morality.  As I pointed out, and you've NOT contradicted, a completely immoral (or amoral) person can be lonely - or angry - or happy - or jealous - or feel any other emotion.  That is NOT a contradiction. 

 

As you say, even YOU don't understand WHY she is bringing up loneliness.  You say explicitly she might be "trying to use morality to make Sherlock guilty OR SOMETHING."  You do NOT know.  It is NOT clear - not at all.  THAT is the problem.

 

 

This is why it doesn't make sense for Euros to be a lonely person who was angry at Sherlock for not playing with her.

Her whole philosophy was that morality was useless so in her mind being lonely or not lonely should be meaningless.

You know what a rationalization is - right?  And you know it doesn't change one's feelings - right?

 

That one's feelings and one's ideas are at odds with one another is NOT an indication that her characterization "doesn't make sense".  In fact, it is a fact of life for almost ALL people.  People DO hold contradictions.  They experience feelings which contradict their ideas all the time (revealing, whether they identify it or not, that they hold conflicting ideas - ideas being the result of what one thinks).  People experience these contradictions ALL the time.  Eurus has such a DEEP contradiction it seems to have literally split her consciousness into two.  She is desperate to resolve the contradiction - the conflict - the divide SHE cannot surmount or unite.  She's tried to resolve it - all her life - and hasn't been able to resolve it.  NOT by herself.

 

THAT is what it means to say she can't land.

 

She can't land by herself.  She can't unite herself.  She can't resolve the contradiction in her BY herself.  She needs help.  She needs the one person she knows who is somewhat like herself and who seems to HAVE resolved it.  She needs Sherlock.  That is why she is DRAWN to Sherlock, not matter WHICH personality we are talking about - and is why she PANICS when she thinks she's going to lose him.  HE is her salvation - and she has known that since the beginning - as her poem says explicitly.

 

The rationalized grown up is the wall she has created (like Sherlock) to repress that lonely little child inside of her.  But she can NOT escape that loneliness - no matter HOW hard she tries, no matter what she does, no matter what she thinks.  It remains - because she has no one to love or be loved by. 

 

I suspect Euros' contradictory character is a result of Moffat and Gatiss (who both wrote this episode) having different ideas of what they wanted to do with her character. One of them wanted to make her a psychopath that believes that morality is useless and wants to prove it. The other one wants Euros to be a misunderstood person who's lonely and wants a friend.

No.

 

And again, believing morality is useless - and being lonely - are NOT mutually exclusive conditions.  One is an idea.  One is an emotion.  They can - and DO - exist together in reality.

 

Or are you claiming heartless murderers , totalitarian dictators, those who believe in philosophies which reject the concepts good and bad, etc etc are physically INCAPABLE of feeling the emotion 'loneliness'.  If so, that is simply false - and I would suggest some good criminal psychology books.

 

 

I gave you an in-depth explanation for how each of the first 4 games were designed to confirm Euros' hypothesis of morality being useless. If you disagree then please inform me how you interpreted the purpose of each of the first 4 games. I honestly don't see how you can interpret the first 4 games in any other way. You say they're about 'landing'. Elaborate with respect to each game.

 

To be clear I don't believe that all the games are disconnected. I believe the first 4 games are connected. They're each designed to accomplish the same purpose but in rising degrees of intensity. Sherlock is put in a more morally difficult situation with each subsequent game. In the 1st game he has to deal with a guy who betrayed them. In the 2nd it's with people he doesn't know and may be innocent. In the 3rd, it's with Molly, someone who he's close to. In the 4th, it's with Mycroft and John, the two people he's closest to.

 

It's just the 5th and final game which I believe is different and honestly does basically nothing to show that morality is useless.

 

Also why do you think Euros was talking about how lonely she was to Sherlock in his old house? It looked like she was trying to guilt trip him. She was trying to say you left me alone and that made me so sad. If you want to dispute this point then tell me how else you can interpret this scene because I don't see any other way.

 

Euros was playing on Sherlock's guilt and to have guilt you must have morality. This is why I'm saying Euros was contradicting herself in the 5th game. In the first 4 games she was saying that morality is useless. In the 5th game she tries to use morality to help herself so she is effectively contradicting herself. It's ridiculous that Sherlock wins in the 5th game by going to play with lonely Euros because playing with a lonely person is the morally right thing to do. While the purpose of the first 4 games was to show that morality was useless, the 5th game can only be won by recognising the value of morality and that's why it contradicts all the earlier games.

 

I'm not saying an immoral person can't be lonely. I'm saying that Euros is an immoral person who wants to prove that morality is useless. Her first 4 games were designed to prove that point. However in her last game she tries to use morality to make Sherlock guilty. Somebody who says morality is useless and then goes on to use it is contradicting them self.

 

Euros' character isn't in the same category as Sherlock's character. Sherlock doesn't change in 1 minute like Euros does. It takes a long time for him to open up. Euros on the other hand has a whole plan for what she wants to do with the games. However in her last game she starts contradicting herself out of nowhere. What on earth caused her to change?