Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Johaylon]

 

So, did I miss it because of the buffering or didn't they explain how John wasn't shot?

 

How did Molly and Sherlock become okay again? We didn't get any dialog between them explaining to Molly what happend...

 

And making Moriaty just a puppet of Eurus in this episode is sad in my eyes. I loved him being that one special villan.

 

John was shot with a tranquiliser.

 

I don't know about Molly.

 

Yes they took away from Moriarty. Also I was livestreaming and the stream got cut off. Did they explain how Moriarty returned? How did he fake his death? Or was he a twin, double etc?

 

 

Do you want the answer to this question and let me tell you what happened? It will lead to spoilers. I think you better watch yourself

 

My opinions about the episode now:

-For eurus to be able to control people just by talking to them is idiotic. Even supposing thats not idiotic, she left the prison on the previous episode, played games with sherlock, just to get to talk to sherlock in prison and or him to help her, then stay locked again? That also seems stupid.

-Mycroft always says that he is the smart one between the two of them, and I know that he is, however in this show they never show it. I think that the show is sherlock oriented so mycroft doesnt get much screen time to show how smart he is, but in this episode, he looked like an idiot. And I hated it

[Arcadia]

Having read most of the posts here there is one thing I still don't get: How does Eurus do her mind control stuff? Only by using her voice? By saying special combinations of words/phrases? Is it a kind of hypnosis?

 

I'm no expert, but I believe that is the kind of thing they are implying, yes. Is it realistic? I have no idea. I do know that some people are "gifted" with the ability to sway people to their side; look at the recent American election. And I've heard or read somewhere that some criminals are extremely -- eerily -- charismatic: "exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others." So for myself, I assumed that's what they were going for.

 

And then the Samara story: Sherlock hated the story, so he rewrote it. Like his memory. Which makes me wonder if there was another outcome initially written for the dog, like that he had to be put to sleep (HLV) but they decided to change it. And I wonder why Sherlock didn't rewrote his memory into something happier than this, if he got trough the trouble.

 

According to something I just read (after following one of those many links you kind people have been posting) -- yes. It was Mark who proposed they turn Redbeard into Victor. (I'll see if I can find the remark again later today.) So here's how I understand the evolution of that plot point: they planted the idea, back in TSo3, of Sherlock's childhood trauma; Redbeard dying. I assume that at the time, they were thinking that it would turn out that Eurus drowned the dog, which is why it was so traumatic for Sherlock; not just because the dog died, but because it was his sister who killed it. So traumatic, in fact, that he buried the memory of his sister, and believed the dog had been put down, instead. And then tried to turn himself into an unfeeling machine, so it wouldn't hurt so much.

 

Then they decided to up the ante by having Redbeard be a child, instead of a dog. So now, Sherlock not only forgot what happened, he forgot who it happened to. Well, actually, not forgot ... suppressed.

 

So in that sense, he did choose a happier memory ... a dog was put down, instead of a childhood friend being murdered by his sister. And he didn't "get through" the trouble, he suppressed it. It still bothered him.

 

One last thing ... I don't think they're trying to say that the child Sherlock did all this intentionally; so he didn't actually choose a happier memory, it was just his brain's way of trying to protect him from the horror of what actually did happen. But the emotional pain remained, so as he grew up he tried to train himself not to feel.

 

Last, but not least... I wish there will be a special episode at some point because I don't know what to do.

 

Welcome to the hiatus!! :D (Is it still called a hiatus if we don't know if it will ever end?) I think that's why this forum, and so many other platforms, were formed; people don't know what else to do when there's no more episodes, so they collect on the internet and start sharing theories, or creating funny gifs, or write their own stories. So at least you're in the right place! Come on in, the water's fine.

 

I don't think they dumped on Molly at all.  She took control of that situation by asking Sherlock to say "I love you" first.  Why would she ask him to say those words first?  Because out of some unrequited love fantasy she just wanted him to say the words to her once?  No.  It was because she has always seen through his BS and would know if he was being sincere.  And he was sincere the second time, which is why she finally said it in return.

 

I love this idea. However, I also remember that Sherlock is a fine actor, and he's perfectly capable (as John well knows) of pretending to be sincere.

 

Having said that, my personal belief is that he genuinely loves Molly, and in that moment of fearing he might lose her, he realized just how much he loves her. But not in that way. Never, I think, in "that way."

 

I don't think they dumped on Molly either, but I am sad that her character arc, tiny though it was, seemed to have ended with her slapping him in the face in HLV. With this episode we see that she still loves him desperately, but not how she is coping with it. Then that chipper, smiling version of her at the end ... I have a hard time believing she would feel that free and easy in his presence, after that. Unless they had a real heart to heart at some point, in which case Moftiss owes us another episode. A Molly-centric one! Yeah, bring it on!

[Arcadia]

ETA:  OK, I need everyone's opinion on something.  Mycroft says that he periodically drops certain keywords to Sherlock to see whether or not the repressed memories are coming back.  So that works for him saying "Do you remember Redbeard?" when he was on the phone with Sherlock during John's wedding reception.  But how do you square that with Mycroft having a childhood story about the East Wind coming to take the unworthy, namely Sherlock.  So, a young Mycroft knew that his little brother was traumatized by the death of his best friend at the hands of his in-real-life-turning-homicidal younger sister who happened to be named "East Wind," and he thought that threatening Sherlock that he was next was a good way to check in on Sherlock's mental stability?  Mycroft really was a rubbish big brother.

I think one of the points they were trying to make was that Mycroft really wasn't as smart as he thought he was. He is the one who successfully suppressed his humanity, and as a result made some glaring errors. Which he is only now beginning to admit to himself.

 

Plus, it was a much younger, probably less self-controlled Mycroft who told that East Wind story; a little deliberate cruelty wouldn't be amiss at that age. I imagine there were times when he found his little brother completely annoying, and struck back. He probably bullied Sherlock a  bit too (I have an older brother ... 7 years older, in fact. And yes, they do this to their younger, whiny siblings! :D ) Hence, their prickly relationship. Urk, gotta run.

[Janine M. Adler]

After viewinng it 4th time I think it would work as a special or stand alone episode, not as a series finale. I like puzzles, but it seems to have no relation with previous 2 episodess. Euros taking over the asylum is simply weird. If she is so phycotic then how she got out there and lived like normal people and what's the point of her return to Sherrinford? Where did she got transportation or money? How did she know the paths of London when she was locked away since she was a child? It makes no sense.

I think the story would work better if Euros was an illegal child of daddy Holmes, maybe brainwashed by Moriarty or maybe a Morierty sibling too, with whom daddy Holmes had an affair, lived away from the Homles family. It'd be great if she was troubled person but not locked away in somewhere secret. It'd be nice if the puzzles were set in London, like it happened in TGG. It'd be very gripping. I don't hate the storyli,mbne much, parts of Sherlock's childhood were really heartbreaking, but I hate the grey walled set. It gave the whole episode a cheap feelings. And It is simply unrealistic that she arranged all the puzzles and fake entrances in an asylum. Not to mention the cheap explosion. How did they survived? It makes no sense.

I still like the plot, but I guess I hate the cheap set and grey walls

[BLS_Pro]

Btw - nice little coincidence: Freeman's show Fargo's sixth episode (which aired in early 2014) was titled Buridan's Ass.

[Pamela]

I believe she returned to Sherrinford because that's where she had the most control. And she got her money from those she had control over at Sherrinford. And as for knowing her way around London, with her intellect, she figured it out.

[J.P.]

By dumping Molly I meant they left her out. They didn't give her any complete story/character development. She disappears in a kind. There is no reason, why she's so unhappy when Sherlock calls her, there is no link between the call and the emotional load of the scene, and happy Molly at the end. (thinking of it: maybe those angry feminists see it, as if she was so in love, that she abandoned all her dignity and jumped, each time Sherlock said jump) In the other thread I wrote, I wished they gave her a few second scene of talking to Sherlock and clearing the situation.

 

Hiatus? I call it afterlife for lack of a better term. Post-hiatus, maybe? :D

 

Yes, how someone for years used to a reduced environment was able to find her way in London. She might have seen TV, but being there is another thing. How she was able to keep her absence secret is another HUGE hole.

[J.P.]

Crosposted with Pamela

[J.P.]

Here is a meta about John and PTSD, you need to skip the other theed text blocks

http://byjovewhataspend.tumblr.com/tagged/meta

[J.P.]

This little guy makes even me go AWWWW. As long as he stays on the photo.

 

[bedelia1984]

I don't think they dumped on Molly at all.  She took control of that situation by asking Sherlock to say "I love you" first.  Why would she ask him to say those words first?  Because out of some unrequited love fantasy she just wanted him to say the words to her once?  No.  It was because she has always seen through his BS and would know if he was being sincere.  And he was sincere the second time, which is why she finally said it in return.

 

People will say that Molly isn't canon and they'd never do anything with her, but Eurus isn't canon and they did a ton with her.  

 

That was my reading of the scene too, but I can understand people being conflicted. I read a quote from BC (which I can't find a reference for, so maybe it is not to be trusted), saying that in the scene Sherlock hadn't decided whether it was true or not, and similarly MG saying its important that it can be read either way. I definitely suspect the writers of merely keeping their options open by showing so little of Molly. I think on some level they are thrilled that an original character of theirs has integrated so well into story, and they do have a lot of affection for the character. It's a shame Louise Brealey does heartbreaking so well. I do think the writers like letting the actors show off their best skills, and they write to her strengths. Maybe if she studies throwing knives or some ninja skills to the same level, they'd give her something different if there's a next season!

 

It's a good point about Eurus too, they have now got their own separate canon with her, and it would be intriguing to see where they go with it.

 

 

ETA:  OK, I need everyone's opinion on something.  Mycroft says that he periodically drops certain keywords to Sherlock to see whether or not the repressed memories are coming back.  So that works for him saying "Do you remember Redbeard?" when he was on the phone with Sherlock during John's wedding reception.  But how do you square that with Mycroft having a childhood story about the East Wind coming to take the unworthy, namely Sherlock.  So, a young Mycroft knew that his little brother was traumatized by the death of his best friend at the hands of his in-real-life-turning-homicidal younger sister who happened to be named "East Wind," and he thought that threatening Sherlock that he was next was a good way to check in on Sherlock's mental stability?  Mycroft really was a rubbish big brother.

 

 

My take on Sherlock and Mycroft was that they have both been privately grieving for the loss of their sister in their own ways- Sherlock has blocked it out entirely, and Mycroft has put most of his energy into trying to save the rest of the family from dealing with her. They haven't lost her completely, of course, but there is a hole in their family. I don't blame him for handling it so poorly as a child. Can you imagine, a three sibling family, one turns dangerously insane, the other blots out her existence, and then you've got Mycroft, probably feeling like he is close to insanity himself in this new twisted version of reality. In the beginning he might have tried to bring Sherlock back to reality, sometimes he might have been angry at Sherlock for giving himself a free pass whilst Mycroft dealt with the unpleasant realities (a dynamicwhich played out again in their adult relationship), and then he may have learned to accept it.

 

The angle that really bothers me though, is the parents- how could they let Sherlock and Mycroft continue like that, one in denial, the other likely in a lot of pain. Why were they surprised that Mycroft thought it was a good idea to pretend Eurus was dead? They seemed to think it was okay letting Sherlock go on like that. There has to be more backstory here, like they were way too busy with something else to have a clue what their kids were doing.

 

Also, about Moriarty's briefly mentioned brother, was that a setup that could lead to something more? Is it too optimistic to consider a what you would like to see in season 5 thread?

[sherlockandjohn]

I'm having a hard time keeping up with this thread, but I don't think the following links have been posted. They are both Moriarty-related in some way.

 

First, there's an Easter Egg(?) or something similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4zUihgtB8k.

 

The other one is a funny compilation of people's reactions to Moriarty in The Final Problem

[BLS_Pro]

The angle that really bothers me though, is the parents- how could they let Sherlock and Mycroft continue like that, one in denial, the other likely in a lot of pain. Why were they surprised that Mycroft thought it was a good idea to pretend Eurus was dead? They seemed to think it was okay letting Sherlock go on like that. There has to be more backstory here, like they were way too busy with something else to have a clue what their kids were doing.

I was wondering about this myself. Is it psychological practice to encourage the maintenance of repressed/false memories rather than try to reveal and heal them? It doesn't seem like the field would encourage repression.

[bedelia1984]

 

The angle that really bothers me though, is the parents- how could they let Sherlock and Mycroft continue like that, one in denial, the other likely in a lot of pain. Why were they surprised that Mycroft thought it was a good idea to pretend Eurus was dead? They seemed to think it was okay letting Sherlock go on like that. There has to be more backstory here, like they were way too busy with something else to have a clue what their kids were doing.

I was wondering about this myself. Is it psychological practice to encourage the maintenance of repressed/false memories rather than try to reveal and heal them? It doesn't seem like the field would encourage repression.

 

 

Absolutely. It can't be healthy, even from a social point of view- it changed how Sherlock interacted with Mycroft, his parents and the whole world. And it's not like they could say, oh, but he's doing so well with this repression, when they've shown him developing a drug problem as a young man too.

 

I mean, even for a person's basic safety- if you have a sister out there who has been making sketches that say RIP Sherlock, you need to know about it. 

 

They need to explain about the parents if they come back. I don't buy they are just the sweetest, simplest couple ever, baffled by their criminal/junkie/mastermind children.

[jadpdr]

On the whole, I tend to agree with Janine Adler, Boton, Bedelia and Pamela, and definitely with Surelock about the problems of TFP. In the end, it's not even clear what The f#%#^%g problem is. It was a hugely disappointing, extremely camp and wimpy end to a series that started with such promise as to become a worldwide phenomenon. They couldn't please all fans, so they went for Sophie's Choice and Saw, and some other series, and to h%#% with smashing their fan base into as many splinters as Sherlock left the coffin.

[Pamela]

This little guy makes even me go AWWWW. As long as he stays on the photo.

 

He really is a cutie. Perfect childhood reflection of Sherlock.

[Pamela]

I don't know how to do a link, but here is the URL for a youtube video I found after checking out one above I think is great, an explanation of TFP by Deep Geek:

 

 

Oh, apparently, all I have to do is copy and paste in the URL. Who knew?

[J.P.]

It might have worked better if the parents died in the fire. But maybe the makers couldn't resist having Ben's parents in the movie. :D

 

I was wondering about this myself. Is it psychological practice to encourage the maintenance of repressed/false memories rather than try to reveal and heal them? It doesn't seem like the field would encourage repression.

This is now a common practice. Indeed they don't try to reveal the traumas anymore, and try go give you tools to manage the fallout. It was dissappointing to me, because I have to live with a shadow staying behind my back all the time. There are certain situations that trigger an emotional meltdown, but I don't even know WHAT EXACTLY in those situations does this.

 

The explanation I've got is that revealing traumas tend to push the person in an acute crisis first. I've also been told by one young woman who's trauma surfaced after she ate cannabis cookies, that she would rather not knowing the truth (whatever it was) Dunno, maybe the psychiatrist indeed know better. Or there is no money to care for people having a relapse.

[T.o.b.y]

You know what bothers me the most about this episode? When John says "my priorities just got a woman killed" and nobody contradicts him.

 

It's so wrong! Euros was in control of the situation the whole time, not John. It was her choice to shoot the governor's wife. Her priorities got the woman killed and nobody else's. Besides, Euros proves multiple times that she isn't playing by her own rules anyway (she killed the brothers Sherlock didn't "condemn" and she lied about the explosives in Molly's flat) and judging by what we and the other characters have seen of her before, this comes as absolutely no surprise. Sherlock pointing the gun at himself and basically saying "I refuse to play" by doing so is the only real decision any of them could have made for themselves (and if he had gotten round to pulling the trigger, I would still have argued that it was Euros who really killed him and not himself).

 

I hate how sadistic people in fiction get away with claiming that the results of any torture they impose on people are the victim's fault and that the victim had any real say in what was happening. Every time a villain says "kill soandso or else I will kill this person you love", my reply is, why should I? You have the power, the motivation and the means to kill us all and are obviously 100% evil, why should I believe that you will honor any kind of bargain with me?

 

I wonder whether Sherlock anticipated that she would stop him because by the time he pointed the gun at himself, he had realized that she had a weak spot and, given the many opportunities she had had to end his life and not made any use of, she must want him alive for some reason. I like to believe he did, that he actually outsmarted her.

[Surelock]

After viewinng it 4th time I think it would work as a special or stand alone episode, not as a series finale. I like puzzles, but it seems to have no relation with previous 2 episodess. Euros taking over the asylum is simply weird. If she is so phycotic then how she got out there and lived like normal people and what's the point of her return to Sherrinford? Where did she got transportation or money? How did she know the paths of London when she was locked away since she was a child? It makes no sense.

I think the story would work better if Euros was an illegal child of daddy Holmes, maybe brainwashed by Moriarty or maybe a Morierty sibling too, with whom daddy Holmes had an affair, lived away from the Homles family. It'd be great if she was troubled person but not locked away in somewhere secret. It'd be nice if the puzzles were set in London, like it happened in TGG. It'd be very gripping. I don't hate the storyli,mbne much, parts of Sherlock's childhood were really heartbreaking, but I hate the grey walled set. It gave the whole episode a cheap feelings. And It is simply unrealistic that she arranged all the puzzles and fake entrances in an asylum. Not to mention the cheap explosion. How did they survived? It makes no sense.

I still like the plot, but I guess I hate the cheap set and grey walls

 

I also believe the story doesn't fit as a series finale.

 

This becomes clear with Mary's epilogue. Basically Mary sums up everything by saying this was the story of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson. Well the former is true, the latter isn't. This episode barely had anything to do with John. John was mostly just a plot device in this episode. His character didn't develop or have any big moments. This episode was more about Sherlock and Mycroft and that's why it was awkward how Moffatiss took Mycroft out of the final act. It honestly looked like they took out Mycroft because they wanted to somehow force the focus back to just Sherlock and John.

 

I think Mary referenced both Sherlock and John because the books focus on their relationship. However their relationship is given a backseat in this episode as the story focuses more on Sherlock and Mycroft's personal history. That's why Mary's line in the end just feels unfitting.

[MycroftsUmbrella]

 

 

The angle that really bothers me though, is the parents- how could they let Sherlock and Mycroft continue like that, one in denial, the other likely in a lot of pain. Why were they surprised that Mycroft thought it was a good idea to pretend Eurus was dead? They seemed to think it was okay letting Sherlock go on like that. There has to be more backstory here, like they were way too busy with something else to have a clue what their kids were doing.

I was wondering about this myself. Is it psychological practice to encourage the maintenance of repressed/false memories rather than try to reveal and heal them? It doesn't seem like the field would encourage repression.

 

 

Absolutely. It can't be healthy, even from a social point of view- it changed how Sherlock interacted with Mycroft, his parents and the whole world. And it's not like they could say, oh, but he's doing so well with this repression, when they've shown him developing a drug problem as a young man too.

 

I mean, even for a person's basic safety- if you have a sister out there who has been making sketches that say RIP Sherlock, you need to know about it. 

 

They need to explain about the parents if they come back. I don't buy they are just the sweetest, simplest couple ever, baffled by their criminal/junkie/mastermind children.

 

 

According to Mycroft in the episode, it wasn't just a little change but, essentially changed Sherlock's entire personality. Him repressing his memory clearly wasn't a good way of dealing with the situation. It does really surprise me too that the parents didn't seem to intervene at all. Sure, it must have been hard for them too to make/ support the decision to have the daughter, who was only 7 or 8 maybe, taken to some far away safe place for 'treatment', or whereever 'Uncle Rudy' told them she was going. I wonder if they every visited her in the early days, when she was younger before she became too dangerous and aware of her own powers over people.

 

But although it is probably easier to let Sherlock live with the illusion, someone must have noticed and worried about his change in personailty after the event, as it seemed to just go beyond the fact that he 'forgot' his sister existed. In the flashbacks he seems like such a happy normal child. Probably what Mycroft would have counted as 'stupid' and 'boring' unlike his own smart intellect. But you can hardly blame Mycroft for not doing more about it though. He was still quite young himself and trying to process the situation himself. Ridiculously smart or not, that must have been difficult to deal with. I think he just did the best he could playing along with what his parents decided to go with and then when he was older control if any of it was coming back or not to be able to intervene later if necessary.

 

RE: The Holmes parents being the simplest sweetest couple. I seem to remember that Mycrofts and Sherlock mother was some sort of leading talent in physics/ math and having written some important book in the field from His Last Vow when they are all celebrating Christmas together; (which is still one of my favourite bit of an episode ever, especially after Mycroft saying to John 'Can you imagine the Christmas dinners?' when he first saw Mycroft and Sherlock together in the very first episode). But she is definitely not simple and in fact seems quite intelligent. Maybe not to the level of Mycroft or even Sherlock, but she does seem to have a better level of emotional intelligence and does seem quite caring. And we basically know nothing about their dad... But given that I do find it odd that they didn't handle the sitiation differently.

 

[Surelock]

What is especially dissappointing to me: The existence of Eurus changes the perspective of the whole show. But instead of "Aha!" it made me go "Urgs" :/

 

Instead of making Sherlock's past and the fragile relationship with Mycroft complete, it reduces them to a fallout of a childhood tragedy so unbelievable that it makes them, and the whole story, unbelievable too. That is what made me feel as if someone suddenly turned off the light.

 

If we were going to have a Tardis landing at Sherrinford, we should have been shown a reality that allows it in S1-3 already.

 

It's not the kind of "I made me" I hoped to see. It makes Sherlock a victim.

 

Slap me if I start to repeat myself.

 

Also I forgot to mention this last time but another reason why I find Sherlock's backstory to be so disappointing is because it's made to be complex and convoluted when a simpler and more believable backstory could have done the trick.

 

Around Season 2/3, I developed my own head cannon for what Sherlock and Mycroft's backstory was and it relied on just studying Sherlock's interactions with Mycroft. It went something like this:

 

1. When Sherlock and Mycroft were kids, Mycroft was smarter than him and used to make fun of him for being slow. This makes sense. A lot of talented children act like this with their less talented siblings.

 

2. Mycroft and Sherlock presumably initially lived in some remote area with their parents because it took some time for them to meet other kids. Mycroft thought that Sherlock was dumb and he desired companionship with someone who was his intellectual equal. Mycroft thought he would meet this person when he would meet other children and become friends with them.

 

3. However when Mycroft actually met other children he found that they were a lot less intelligent then Sherlock. That's when Mycroft realised that both he and Sherlock were geniuses compared to everyone else.

 

4. This caused Mycroft to panic. He realised that closest person to an intellectual equal in the world to him was Sherlock. However he had teased Sherlock for years. Thus when Mycroft went to Sherlock and tried to make amends, Sherlock refused to accept his apology. 

 

5. Mycroft and Sherlock then grew into adults and went their separate ways. Mycroft was still looking for companionship so he decided to join an intelligence agency like MI6 where the smartest people in the country worked. 

 

6. However Sherlock developed a massive inferiority complex due to years of being bullied by Mycroft. Ever since he was a kid, Sherlock wanted to prove that Mycroft was wrong about him. He wanted to prove that he was smarter than Mycroft. This is why Sherlock decided to become a private detective.

 

7. Sherlock wants to surpass Mycroft and that's why he decides to never join MI6 that's headed by Mycroft. He's unwilling to accept Mycroft as a superior. 

 

8. Sherlock's desire to solve difficult cases is his way of developing and/or reassuring himself that he's as smart as Mycroft. Similarly, Sherlock's arrogant and condescending attitude is just a means for him to take out all of his frustrations that he developed on being teased by Mycroft. In a way, Sherlock adapted Mycroft's bullying behaviour. Similarly to how Mycroft teased him for not being smart, Sherlock teases other people for not being smart. Sherlock does this to reassure himself that he is smart. His arrogant attitude is kind of like a defensive mechanism.

 

9. However Mycroft still doesn't find anyone in MI6 that's as smart as Sherlock so he still tries to make up with Sherlock for years and years. That's why we see Mycroft monitoring Sherlock, giving him cases etc. I believe Mycroft really wanted Sherlock to join him and accept him as a companion. We do see Mycroft making Sherlock a job offer on the phone at the end of The Empty Hearse.

 

^I wish the backstory we got was more akin to this. It's more realistic and I prefer backstories where everyone is their own independent actor and nothing revolves around one person entirely.

 

However the backstory we get is the polar opposite.

 

So basically Mycroft was never really bullying Sherlock. He was just pretending. He was just using trigger words to see if Sherlock's memories of Euros had resurfaced. Similarly Mycroft didn't join MI6 because he sought companionship. It was presumably so he could be in charge of taking care of Euros.

 

Sherlock didn't become a private detective because he wanted to surpass Mycroft in his own way. He became a private detective because he never solved the puzzle that Euros gave him to save his friend. So Sherlock became a private detective to reconcile with the failure of solving his first case (which caused him to lose his best friend). He solves cases to deal with that depression.

 

So basically Mycroft and Sherlock's backstory revolves around one character that we never knew about before and I don't really like that. I think a more natural and simple backstory could have been more relateable and better received by at least myself.

[BLS_Pro]

Another BTW - the theme I identified for The Final Problem is essentially the same as The Doctor Who episode "Heaven Sent", written solely by Moffat. The difference being Who's story was amazingly written and executed while Sherlock's was a mess (so again I blame Gatiss)

[Pamela]

What we do know about Mr. Holmes - he's the sane one.

[Bankomas]

I wonder whether Sherlock anticipated that she would stop him because by the time he pointed the gun at himself, he had realized that she had a weak spot and, given the many opportunities she had had to end his life and not made any use of, she must want him alive for some reason. I like to believe he did, that he actually outsmarted her.

I think Sherlock did realise that he is the key to the game and that without him it wouldn't be able to continue. What I am not OK with in this scene is the fact that Sherlock, the Great Sherlock Holmes, pointed a gun at his brother Mycroft. And was seriously dwelling on the idea of killing his brother for several seconds. I was a bit uncomfortable or even disgusted by that. I would feel much better if that had never happened. I would have much more respect for Sherlock as character if he had pointed a gun at himself and started the countdown without the previus semi-readiness to shoot his own brother. This fly in the ointment took something from the Sherlock character for me.