Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[J.P.]

What are you trying to do to this forum, J.P.? :lol:

 

 

Me? Why? Im not a cannibal. :D

 

No, seriously, thank you, guys. I start to see the light again and feel like I could survive.

 

 

There is another little aspect making my emotional situation, well, complicated. I like the makers. Really, really like them. So admitting of not liking what they done is sooooo difficult. And I swore to myself that I won't blame them for not making it my show. So there.

 

I do believe that the part of the problem are our expectations. (Please slap me if I'm repeating myself, because I'm sure I've written about it already, but don't know where). Not only because the show is not what we wanted it to be (mostly without even being able to articulate what we do want) I mean, the whole thing has objective flaws and they are huge. But then again, do we really expect Mofftiss to be flawless? To write the ultimate, perfect story that makes a perfect show? Is there such a thing? Were other seasons flawless? We have a whole damn thread about fixing HLV(?)

 

Knowing this doesn't fit as an emotional first aid - I knew I would have this problem and look how I look like. :/ But once the emotions are settled I think it's worth to think about it.

 

We could plan a little excersise for the afterlife (I don't dare to call it hiatus anymore) - to take some great movie and take it apart the way we take apart this show. I wonder how it turns out.

[BLS_Pro]

Sherlock himself probably would have pulled the trigger on the first guy, while Mycroft and John couldn't.

Indeed.  I believe that is why he was excluded from being the trigger man. Foregone conclusion.  And we essentially get proof of it in the very next 'experiment', where he explicitly chooses who will be killed, and explicitly, essentially says 'Pull the trigger on this one'.

[BLS_Pro]

He saw Mary die.

Yes.  And he didn't even turn pale, let alone vomit at the sight.  His actions here ARE out of the explicit character we have seen, been told about, and can deduce.

[bedelia1984]

Small interview with Stephen Moffat about The Final Problem

 

I've got to say, the things this man says really make me wonder about him.

[BLS_Pro]

Not jumping, but I do find this sort of comment rather offensive.  I've known quite a lot of people in the community and they're not dopes.

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.

 

Trying to shift the attraction from the mind TO her being a domin8trix is a non-sequitur (at BEST).  It's like saying "He's infatuated with her because her profession is Garbage Collector."  It is most certainly NOT - and does a purposeful dis-service to Sherlock (and, one could argue, feminism) by claiming it IS.

 

(Edited because it took me forever to discover that the 403 error was because this forum software doesn't like the correct spelling of domin8trix - sigh)

Edited January 17, 2017 by BLS_Pro

[J.P.]

 

He saw Mary die.

Yes.  And he didn't even turn pale, let alone vomit at the sight.  His actions here ARE out of the explicit character we have seen, been told about, and can deduce.

 

He gulped heavily. That's much for him :P

 

[Surelock]

Erm… I start to have problem with this thread. It's too fast, it contains too many issues, all mixed up and confusing.

May I suggest getting some more specific threads, like e.g. problems with the story arch, unsolved mysteries, emotional response, what we actually liked about it?

 

Well, as I've stated in an earlier post, the biggest problem in the character arc for me is how they portrayed Euros for the first hour contradicts how she's portrayed in the last half hour.

 

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'.

[J.P.]

(Oh dear ... now it occurs to me that Jim didn't need to reveal Sherlock's attachment to Molly, he only needed to reveal her crush on Sherlock; and Sherlock's apparent indifference. That allowed Eurus to test how Sherlock dealt with Molly's affection; it didn't matter whether he returned it or not, it only mattered that he was humiliating her, and whether he could bring himself to do it. Drat. Well, heck, I still think I should win something. )

 

What about winning hearts and minds? :P

Seriously, this is very good.

[Arcadia]

Hi all,

New to this forum. I just wanted to ask if anyone noticed that in the episode "His Last Vow" (Season 3 Episode 3), when Sherlock meets with Charles Magnussen, the "Napoleon of Blackmail", Magnussen can be seen "scanning" Sherlock's pressure points, and among the rather extensive (and repetitive) list, one thing stands out — "Redbeard". 

 

Was this a sneaky easter egg that the creators snuck into an early episode of Sherlock? Sorry if this is common knowledge — just kinda got excited when watching reruns to see such an important plot element in "The Final Problem" show up in an older episode. :P

 

Cheers,

L

 

Hi Lost! Glad you found us!

 

I was just reading the interview with Steven Moffat that Pamela posted (here: http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/3549-episode-43-the-final-problem/?p=114485 )and based on that, I would have to say yes ... they knew who Redbeard was going to turn out to be as far back as The Sign of Three (if you recall, Mycroft mentions the name there, as well.) At the time they just told us it was Sherlock's dog that had to be put down, but of course it turned out to be something more.....

 

 

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. :D

Not jumping, but I do find this sort of comment rather offensive.  I've known quite a lot of people in the BDSM community and they're not dopes.  They're just people whose sexuality happens to work that way.  They're no more dopes than people whose sexual tastes are vanilla.  They're unorthodox, I grant you, and most people don't understand their feelings, but the same could have been said at one time about people in the LGBT community.  In fact, it would be fair to say that many people still regard anyone whose sexuality isn't heterosexual and vanilla as dopes.

 

Though I'm pretty much a Johnlocker, I can imagine Sherlock being fascinated not only by Irene Adler's intelligence but also by the way she plays with power and the renunciation of power.  I could well believe that his fascination with mind games could apply in his emotional and sexual relationships too and I don't think that that would mean he was a fool.

 

 

Ah, sorry. Caya's correct (below) about my intent, but I can see why you might take offense. I'll go back and change it. My apologies, I think I'm a little giddy from all the posting.

 

I'm not Arcadia, of course, but I think what she meant in her post was not to disparage BDSM folks (hey, kink and let kink) but to make fun of this:

 

 

As in, men who are in all likelyhood unaware of their own fetish (but no less fascinated by it).

 

 

We could plan a little excersise for the afterlife (I don't dare to call it hiatus anymore) - to take some great movie and take it apart the way we take apart this show. I wonder how it turns out.

 

I'm game! Shall we deconstruct Citizen Kane or Forrest Gump? :D

 

Small interview with Stephen Moffat about The Final Problem

 

I've got to say, the things this man says really make me wonder about him.

I empathize, but I thought he was actually reasonable this time. Well, the remark about Molly was a bit insensitive. He really needs to learn to stay off the subject of women.

[BLS_Pro]

 

Well, as I've stated in an earlier post, the biggest problem in the character arc for me is how they portrayed Euros for the first hour contradicts how she's portrayed in the last half hour.

I don't consider that a character arc there.  An arc is a change in a character from the beginning to the end of the arc.  She doesn't change.  Both characters are there from beginning to end.  THAT is the problem.

 

And yes, they are contradictory.  That is one of the problems with the writing of the episode.  There is no connective tissue between the two characteristics (or personalities, if she is split - the fact that we don't KNOW if that's what's going with her, or if it's something else is a MASSIVE part of the writing problem).  As I noted in a different post, If these were two different people, the writers would have had to explain their relationship, how their seemingly different POVs, apparently different goals (if not cross-purposes) were supposed to work together toward a common, EXPLICITLY PLANNED goal of getting Sherlock to the homestead and getting him to rescue the little girl.  That wasn't spur of the moment.  That was part of what Eurus has intended to do from the start.  But HOW to get from point A, with one personality in the 'lead', to point B where the other personality is the focus, is the problem they did NOT solve.

 

I would say the only arc Eurus experiences is the one where she goes the 'right' way this time (from the wrong way she went last time).  WITH Sherlock's love, she can now 'land'.  She isn't isolated or alone.  But she does now have to learn how to act given that she has landed.  That is what she doesn't know how to do - and why she is shut down near the end.  And, beginning with music, Sherlock begins to teach her.

 

THAT is her arc.  Nothing changes for her before "the room".

 

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.

Neither characterization makes sense WITH the other characterization ABSENT some explanation of the linkage between them.  One could argue that the adult personality is akin to Sherlock's pre-Watson personality - a rationalized, detatched facade to hide the pain of the little child within.  Ultimately, since Eurus is supposed to be an alternate version of Sherlock absent John and their love, one has to SURMISE this.  But the writers did NOTHING to actually lay even the most basic ground work to support what they were going for.

 

THAT is the bad writing problem here.

[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?  

 

[gerry]

Small interview with Stephen Moffat about The Final Problem

 

I've got to say, the things this man says really make me wonder about him.

I agree. Moffat actually seems a bit defensive on the Molly topic, like it has been a consistent negative feedback he's gotten on the episode. I mean he cut off the interviewer to defend his decision. It's really ironic that Molly is such an emotional character when one of the writers is actually quite dispassionate about her.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

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?

Sure.  Point to it IN the story. :D

[Caya]

Hello gerry and welcome to the forum!

 

Iirc Moffat and Gatiss stated in another interview that they changed that Molly scene specificially because no one but the the two of them liked it, and that finally convinced them.

[gerry]

Hello gerry and welcome to the forum!

 

Iirc Moffat and Gatiss stated in another interview that they changed that Molly scene specificially because no one but the the two of them liked it, and that finally convinced them.

Thanks! It's funny because Moffat kept speaking on how much more devastated Sherlock was by scene and yet Eurus specfiically said the whole reason why Sherlock lost that experiment was because of the effect on Molly.

 

It's quite evident the writers don't care much about the Molly character based on that interview and the lack of material the character got this season. LB does a lot with very little written support.

[MycroftsUmbrella]

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.

 

I did enjoy the fact that Sherlock made Mycroft tell their parents or maybe he chose to (?) after the entire event. Nothing screams awkward family gathering quite like having to tell the parents that one has locked away the daughter, one's own sister for her entire life and told everyone she's dead to protect the world. I kind of feel sorry for the Holmes parents, I mean they clearly have the gene combination to create some of the smartest people on the planet, but seem blissfully unaware of what they unleashed, or maybe they are deliberately not thinking about it. Because they always come across rather friendly and loving, but I guess we don't know enough to properly know.

[Arcadia]

I've moved (from another thread) a little discussion about the "I love you scene" to this thread. In case anyone wants to take a look or comment on it, it starts here: http://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/topic/3549-episode-43-the-final-problem/?p=114301

[J.P.]

Found this little snippet interesting:

 

Not so good: Benjamin Caron closed his Twitter account.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Oh dear!!

I thought I could continue to keep up with this thread if I visit it enough, since there is no new episode to worry about, but I had been reading pages and pages and pages while ignoring work.

Midway, realized that it would take forever for me to go back to those I want to reply, and when I'm constructing my reply (I am slow, bloody English :p, there will be more and more new pages!). I wanted to abort and bolt again like the other two threads, but if I did that, I would never able to catch up.

 

So let me try for a bit, not in order. Well of course, I probably miss a lot of things I read a couple of pages back, that is my punishment for relying on my lousy memory.

 

 

 

We could plan a little excersise for the afterlife (I don't dare to call it hiatus anymore) - to take some great movie and take it apart the way we take apart this show. I wonder how it turns out.

I am up for that!

There were countless times when I wish I could discuss other things I watched here and as detailed as Sherlock.

Now.. how to make you guys watch what I watch? Wonder if this episode give me an idea about that... locked room, TV without remote control...

 

 

 

 

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.

[Pamela]

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.

[Arcadia]

 

(Oh dear ... now it occurs to me that Jim didn't need to reveal Sherlock's attachment to Molly, he only needed to reveal her crush on Sherlock; and Sherlock's apparent indifference. That allowed Eurus to test how Sherlock dealt with Molly's affection; it didn't matter whether he returned it or not, it only mattered that he was humiliating her, and whether he could bring himself to do it. Drat. Well, heck, I still think I should win something. )

 

What about winning hearts and minds? :P

Seriously, this is very good.

 

 

Why, thank you! Coming from you, that's ... wait, let me check ... yeah, okay, that's a compliment!

 

 

Small interview with Stephen Moffat about The Final Problem

 

I've got to say, the things this man says really make me wonder about him.

I agree. Moffat actually seems a bit defensive on the Molly topic, like it has been a consistent negative feedback he's gotten on the episode. I mean he cut off the interviewer to defend his decision. It's really ironic that Molly is such an emotional character when one of the writers is actually quite dispassionate about her.

 

 

Considering how many times people have dumped on him concerning his female characters, I'll bet he is defensive. And that dispassion thing ... I think it's his cover. It's quite at odds with his writing. I'm always surprised by how insightful some of his writing is about relationships, because he sure doesn't come across that way in interviews. Print interviews. I still maintain the best way to appreciate Moffat is to watch his interviews, not read them. When possible, of course.

 

Poor Moftiss. I can't actually know if this is true, of course, but it seems to me they've gone to great lengths to address the accusations of misogynism from way back when, by introducing first Mary, then the abominables, then a female director, now Eurus. And all they get back in return is complaints about how poorly the women are treated. :D Damned if you do and damned if you don't! Maybe they should hire a female writer ... but then they'd probably get hit for implying that only women know how to write women. Poor boys.

 

Like I said ... being a scriptwriter is tough! :-)

 

 

 

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?

 

Sure.  Point to it IN the story. :D

 

 

He knew her measurements.

 

 

Hello gerry and welcome to the forum!

 

Iirc Moffat and Gatiss stated in another interview that they changed that Molly scene specificially because no one but the the two of them liked it, and that finally convinced them.

Thanks! It's funny because Moffat kept speaking on how much more devastated Sherlock was by scene and yet Eurus specfiically said the whole reason why Sherlock lost that experiment was because of the effect on Molly.

 

She did? I missed that, have to rewatch. I'm still a little baffled as to whether he won or lost that round, or if "won/lost" even applies .....

 

It's quite evident the writers don't care much about the Molly character based on that interview and the lack of material the character got this season. LB does a lot with very little written support.

Yes, that was disappointing, as was the reduced participation of Lestrade. Although at least Sherlock finally got Greg's name right.

 

I think they love the Molly character, they just ran out of places to go with her without closing off certain futures. And the stories this season were about family; no room for her and Lestrade.

[Surelock]

 

 

I think it's more that Mycroft just doesn't have first hand experience with these things. He just sits back in his office and gives orders. He doesn't actually participate in the action. That's why he's uncomfortable about participating. I think it makes sense for him to do things like vomit after that director commits suicide. Even in the books, Mycroft basically just sat back in DIogenes Club and had Sherlock do all the practical work.

I agree that he has likely NEVER been the 'bag' man, as it were - he's never been the one to literally pull the trigger.  But it isn't that he's shown as being a coward - that he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.  He explicitly states he doesn't want to be MORALLY responsible for this person's death:  "I can't.  This is murder"  and more specifically "I will not kill.  I will not have blood on my hands".

This isn't about having the "stomach" to kill, but not having the morality to kill.  Yet we KNOW he does have the morality to kill - and to kill innocents.  He DOES have blood on his hands - and he KNOWS it.

 

If this is all about him just being a COWARD about his morals, then that is an even WORSE destruction of his characterization than I was positing.

 

 

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.

[Arcadia]

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.

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

 

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.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

 

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?

 

Sure.  Point to it IN the story. :D

 

 

He knew her measurements.

Which, as she says, proves he knew where to look at a woman - ie paid attention (as always).  It says NOTHING about being attracted to her because she is a Domin8trix. 

 

Poor deduction My Dear Watson.  ;)

[Pamela]

Re Surelock's post #247, I think it's one thing to see someone shot in the gut and quite another to see someone shoot themselves in the head.