Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[T.o.b.y]

Totally! Oh yes, Mrs Hudson would have been a much better narrator!

[J.P.]

Yes, I like that idea.

[gerry]

I still don’t think it needed a narrator. Then again I didn’t like the montage.

[Arcadia]

Either way works for me. I do get, however, that it's meant as a tribute to Mary, and I find some value in that.

[gerry]

Why does an assassin for hire who lied about who she was until after she was caught warrant a tribute? I’ll never understand why you’re supposed to view her as a some sort of patron saint. Her stay on the show didn’t warrant that for me.

[Arcadia]

Are patron saints the only people who warrant tributes? I didn't realize that. I always thought they were a sign of gratitude or respect on the part of the giver.

[gerry]

Why should either of them be grateful or respect her? Given the state of John’s marriage at the time of her death, why would he respect the person that lied to him and want to tribute her? He was so disillusioned at the time he was texting another woman. It seems like the writers were elevating her to a status in death that she didn’t achieve in life or more like the writers wanting to give a tribute to the actress but I’m not sure why the character deserves it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... more like the writers wanting to give a tribute to the actress ....

 

I suspect you're right about that.  They realized that she (the actress *and* the character) had been in every episode of S3 and S4 -- except that one -- and wanted to include her one last time.  Who knows -- being in six episodes might have been put into her contract before the writers had completely nailed down the plots.  And the narration might have originally been written as Mrs. Hudson's voice-over.  Doubt we'll ever know for sure, short of getting our mitts on a really early draft of the script.

[Janyss]

Did I already tell you how much I love this memory scene? Mycroft is completly immersed in his memories and in the same time tells his own version of the story...

[Arcadia]

More stuff from the recent "Sherlocked" convention:

"I asked Steven about his motivation for changing the coffin scene from Molly being trapped inside to the phone call.  He wanted Sherlock to come face to face with being an absolute dick.  To see for himself how cruel he can be and deal with the consequences.  He stressed that the scene is not about Molly at all, but entirely about Sherlock learning to deal with his feelings, that Molly would have had a great eyeroll and called him a bastard (meaning that she’s capable of dealing with it) but it pushes tremendous growth for Sherlock.  I wanted to ask why they chose Molly to do that but the conversation moved on (and I felt it would be kind of redundant really)." (Source.)

I'm not sure that scene illustrates the point Moffat claims they were trying to make. Sherlock thinks he's trying to save the life of a friend; how does that make him cruel? Because he doesn't love her the way she wants to be loved by him? You can't force affection … hmm. I think I'm missing something.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, me too.  I liked it just fine before the explanation.

[T.o.b.y]

16 hours ago, Arcadia said:

More stuff from the recent "Sherlocked" convention:

"I asked Steven about his motivation for changing the coffin scene from Molly being trapped inside to the phone call.  He wanted Sherlock to come face to face with being an absolute dick.  To see for himself how cruel he can be and deal with the consequences.  He stressed that the scene is not about Molly at all, but entirely about Sherlock learning to deal with his feelings, that Molly would have had a great eyeroll and called him a bastard (meaning that she’s capable of dealing with it) but it pushes tremendous growth for Sherlock.  I wanted to ask why they chose Molly to do that but the conversation moved on (and I felt it would be kind of redundant really)." (Source.)

I'm not sure that scene illustrates the point Moffat claims they were trying to make. Sherlock thinks he's trying to save the life of a friend; how does that make him cruel? Because he doesn't love her the way she wants to be loved by him? You can't force affection … hmm. I think I'm missing something.

I think it's more about Sherlock realizing how badly he has treated Molly in the past rather than him being particularly mean to her in that specific situation. 

He calls her with an odd request and her first response is to assume he is mocking her and the feelings he knows she has for him. It doesn't even occur to her that something is wrong because his being a dick is just so common in her experience. 

[bedelia1984]

21 hours ago, Arcadia said:

More stuff from the recent "Sherlocked" convention:

"I asked Steven about his motivation for changing the coffin scene from Molly being trapped inside to the phone call.  He wanted Sherlock to come face to face with being an absolute dick.  To see for himself how cruel he can be and deal with the consequences.  He stressed that the scene is not about Molly at all, but entirely about Sherlock learning to deal with his feelings, that Molly would have had a great eyeroll and called him a bastard (meaning that she’s capable of dealing with it) but it pushes tremendous growth for Sherlock.  I wanted to ask why they chose Molly to do that but the conversation moved on (and I felt it would be kind of redundant really)." (Source.)

I'm not sure that scene illustrates the point Moffat claims they were trying to make. Sherlock thinks he's trying to save the life of a friend; how does that make him cruel? Because he doesn't love her the way she wants to be loved by him? You can't force affection … hmm. I think I'm missing something.

I always think when Moffat gets asked about this kind of stuff his instinct is to go to extremes and try to make things sound as dramatic as possible.

I can see how there were lots of awkward feelings laid bare for Sherlock there, but he was still trying to save her life, rather than being 'an absoulte dick'- (I know that's probably paraphrased). I often find his choice of language when he talks about Sherlock's bad behaviour a little odd, as if there is something titillating about how badly he behaves towards people.

It might sound strange but for me that scene is more complex than how Moffat describes it. I think another part of that is that Gatiss as the other writer on the episode says you'll never know if he meant the words or not. It's all just the usual Moftiss antics, as far as I can see. I do find it strange that in a scene where Louise Brealey gives such an astonishing performance Moffat says the scene isn't about her character at all. I get a lot from that performance, and what Molly experiences in those moments, and I think without her experience of it mattering, the scene sort of falls flat.

Though possibly that was the underlying weakness of many of the TFP set pieces, if they are just about Sherlock alone and not at all his relationships with others, they can tend towards being a little self-reflective, navel-gazing and bland

[Arcadia]

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

I think it's more about Sherlock realizing how badly he has treated Molly in the past rather than him being particularly mean to her in that specific situation.

I thought they alluded to that in TAB, too, but somehow it made more sense to me there. And yet, it seems to me after ASIB he's been pretty nice to her. No, he hasn't courted her, but if he doesn't feel it, he doesn't feel it, that's all. Sad for her, but not his fault, is it?

I don't know, still puzzling over this one.

[Arcadia]

50 minutes ago, bedelia1984 said:

I always think when Moffat gets asked about this kind of stuff his instinct is to go to extremes and try to make things sound as dramatic as possible.

I can see how there were lots of awkward feelings laid bare for Sherlock there, but he was still trying to save her life, rather than being 'an absoulte dick'- (I know that's probably paraphrased. I often find his choice of language when he talks about Sherlock's bad behaviour a little odd, as if there is something titillating about how badly he behaves towards people.

It might sound strange but for me that scene is more complex than how Moffat describes it. I think another part of that is that Gatiss as the other writer on the episode says you'll never know if he meant the words or not. It's all just the usual Moftiss antics, as far as I can see. I do find it strange that in a scene where Louise Brealey gives such an astonishing performance Moffat says the scene isn't about her character at all. I get a lot from that performance, and what Molly experiences in those moments, and I think without her experience of it mattering, the scene sort of falls flat.

Though possibly that was the underlying weakness of many of the TFP set pieces, if they are just about Sherlock alone and not at all his relationships with others, they can tend towards being a little self-reflective, navel-gazing and bland

I think I basically agree with most of this. There's something about TFP I can't quite get a grip on; I have the feeling the writers thought they were showing us something shattering, but unfortunately for me, I get lost somewhere in the hyperbole. The stakes never seem quite high enough, or something.

I think there IS something titillating about Sherlock's behavior, isn't there? I think several of us on this forum have mentioned that Sherlock says the things we wish we dared to. It's part of why he appeals to us, I think. And in a weird way it's part of the charm of the character. Unless he's attacking Molly, then we all want to strangle him.  

[T.o.b.y]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I thought they alluded to that in TAB, too, but somehow it made more sense to me there. And yet, it seems to me after ASIB he's been pretty nice to her. No, he hasn't courted her, but if he doesn't feel it, he doesn't feel it, that's all. Sad for her, but not his fault, is it?

I don't know, still puzzling over this one.

It's not about courting her or returning her feelings. Just about respecting them. And yes, he was behaving better. Which probably made it just so much worse for her when he called seemingly just to stomp on her heart. 

Molly could have died, Sherlock thinks before Eurus reveals that she never went to the trouble of actually setting up explosives, because she doesn't trust him to have a proper reason for his odd request. That drives the point home a little more forcefully than a drug-fueled conversation they had in a fictional past that only happened in Sherlock's mind anyway. 

I am not saying I like that scene (although Louise's acting is stellar) or that I think it was necessary or that I am particularly fond of the whole Sherrinford thing (I am not). Just that I think I understand what the writers were trying to get at. 

I don't blame them for making everything about Sherlock - the show is called Sherlock and it should focus on him. That's fine with me. Doesn't mean the other characters don't matter. The way Louise Brealey plays Molly, she is made to matter, regardless of what the writers originally intended. I really love her performance. 

[bedelia1984]

15 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think I basically agree with most of this. There's something about TFP I can't quite get a grip on; I have the feeling the writers thought they were showing us something shattering, but unfortunately for me, I get lost somewhere in the hyperbole. The stakes never seem quite high enough, or something.

I think there IS something titillating about Sherlock's behavior, isn't there? I think several of us on this forum have mentioned that Sherlock says the things we wish we dared to. It's part of why he appeals to us, I think. And in a weird way it's part of the charm of the character. Unless he's attacking Molly, then we all want to strangle him.  

Well yes, and they have done these things better and more subtly before. For example, what Moffat says about TFP is what they actually did in the party scene in Scandal, no death threats required, and the scene was all the better for the human-ness of it. I'm not sure what the point would be in the TFP scene if it was just a re-hash of the party scene in a less organic format.

Yes, and about Sherlock in general  But I am always struck by the fact that the moments Moffat sounds most excited are often ones I felt they went too far- like the end of HLV.  Though I have to temper that by saying I don't think he's as bad as Moffat says in TFP, so I guess that's all relative.There is something attractive about the brutal honesty of his character- but equally they do incredible, exciting things with his character in TLD when he has that heart to heart with John- again, no violence required.

[Hikari]

So here is a very basic conundrum that bothers me about this episode.

One of the (mild) laughs to be had in an otherwise grim episode is Sherlock's complete cluelessness about who Margaret Thatcher is.  It brings a smile until one recalls that in "The Hounds of Baskerville", also written by Mr. Gatiss, Sherlock not only is perfectly conversant with Mrs. Thatcher's identity, but actually his knowledge of her nickname among her intimates and supporters was the lynchpin of solving the entire mystery.  (The password is MAGGIE.)

Yet, 5 years on, Sherlock exhibits no recognition of Mrs. Thatcher at all when seeing her photograph, set up as the centerpiece of a shrine in Tory home.  Did he cleanse the hard drive so thoroughly?  Is he pretending, for a joke (not really Sherl's style, one wouldn't have thought.)  Or--most likely to this viewer--did MG go for the cheap laugh with no regard for what he'd written previously in his own prior script?

TGT is near the bottom of my rankings, with good reason, I think.

[Arcadia]

I've always thought that Sherlock was pretending to not know who Thatcher was as a delaying tactic; he wanted more time to study the table the bust was missing from. The reason I think that is because of John's line: "For God’s sake. You know perfectly well who she is. Why are you playing for time?"  

[T.o.b.y]

14 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I've always thought that Sherlock was pretending to not know who Thatcher was as a delaying tactic; he wanted more time to study the table the bust was missing from. The reason I think that is because of John's line: "For God’s sake. You know perfectly well who she is. Why are you playing for time?"  

That's what I think as well. 

[besleybean]

Works for me...

Actually, I think they entertained several plans.

But I think in the end, circumstances forced their hands.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Carol the Dabbler
Moved here (along with several following posts) from another thread (though the posts that Bev was agreeing with seem to have been dropped in the process).

[J.P.]

According to this website as the event in ASIP happened around the time Eurus met Jim. And this started the whole story from S1-S4.

Now - who of them actually initiated this meeting and why!

[Arcadia]

9 hours ago, J.P. said:

According to this website as the event in ASIP happened around the time Eurus met Jim.

I think you mean ASIB, no? Which is the time that makes most sense to me

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:28 PM, bedelia1984 said:

Maybe, also, if we're allowed to fill in the backstory, having lost a hyper intelligent, criminally inclined sister, Sherlock might have started to subconsciously seek ingenius criminals elsewhere, whilst on some level really looking for her? (I know, it's giving them too much credit for planning!)

Actually, now that I think on it, isn't that basically what Moftiss were doing … filling in the backstory, trying to explain why Sherlock is the way he is? (So we might as well, too! ) Although it's pretty obvious they didn't plan it from the beginning, but tried to fit it into the existing narrative. And I think by and large it works. Whether we like it or not is a different matter...  

[bedelia1984]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I think you mean ASIB, no? Which is the time that makes most sense to me

Actually, now that I think on it, isn't that basically what Moftiss were doing … filling in the backstory, trying to explain why Sherlock is the way he is? (So we might as well, too! ) Although it's pretty obvious they didn't plan it from the beginning, but tried to fit it into the existing narrative. And I think by and large it works. Whether we like it or not is a different matter...  

I have very few problems with Eurus- I mean, sure, in my heart if the lost Holmes sibling was Mary, or Moriarty, I would have loved it, but to drive the story forward, it might make more sense to close those chapters and start something new. The only thing I'll be upset about is if we dont get any more. 😢

[besleybean]

I agree whole heartedly.