Jump to content
Undead Medic

Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

What did you think of "The Final Problem?"  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Add your vote here:

    • 10/10 Excellent.
    • 9/10 Not quite the best, but not far off.
    • 8/10 Certainly worth watching again.
    • 7/10 Slightly above the norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
    • 5/10 Slightly sub-par.
    • 4/10 Decidedly below average.
      0
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
    • 2/10 Bad.
    • 1/10 Awful.


Recommended Posts

Well, we lowly goldfish cannot get over plot holes the size of the Moon's craters, as somebody above said! (...) Suspense of disbelief can only go so far in the face of 'oh, so clever writers'! Respectfully suggest Mr Gatiss goes to read some children's books, they have tight, interesting plots to intrigue an interest a budding imagination!

I think the criticism was for the whole series, not S4.*

I do understand that for a casual viewer TAB hardly makes sense.

 

People like to be spoonfed, and are upset if they don't understand all immediately.

On the other side, we don't always have to go and find the lowest common IQ denominator and adjust the quality of every production to it. :D I think this is what Mark was trying to say.

 

There is not enough challenging stuff in TV, because producers are afraid the audience might not be able to cope. :(

 

*ETA: S4 however is a bit of another story :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - in regard to The Hungry Donkey, Moriarty's story as a child is HIS solution to the problem of the donkey -  the Final Problem.  He has the donkey EAT the baby.  Moriarty EATS people - he chews them up.  THAT is why we got the reference to cannibals when he enters the prison.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VERY interesting episode; I thought it was VERY GOOD! 

 

HOWEVER...

 

If this was the LAST "Sherlock" episode EVER, I will be VERY UPSET!  :blowmytop::cry:    PLEASE, someone tell me if there's any hope for any more!!  Not that I could EVER get enough of "Sherlock", especially with Beautiful Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role!!   :wub:

 

Personally, I don't think you have to worry.  In the interviews I have read with Moffatt, Gatiss and Benedict, they have all acknowledged it's possible this could be the end, but they all sounded like they want to do more.  I think there will be more, eventually.  I think of these four seasons as a kind of "Prologue"...if it comes back I think it will be fresh and original with all new story directions.  I am excited and optimistic.  You should be too. (After all when when both writers explicitly state they are not planning on this to be the end, and one of the biggest stars in the world says it would be "galling" to never play Sherlock again, I think odds are it will happen). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLS, another good one. :D

I really, REALLY wonder if Mofftiss are aware of everything they stuff in their stories.  They are not the beeping Wikipedia! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think you have to worry.  In the interviews I have read with Moffatt, Gatiss and Benedict, they have all acknowledged it's possible this could be the end, but they all sounded like they want to do more.  I think there will be more, eventually.  I think of these four seasons as a kind of "Prologue"...if it comes back I think it will be fresh and original with all new story directions.  I am excited and optimistic.  You should be too. (After all when when both writers explicitly state they are not planning on this to be the end, and one of the biggest stars in the world says it would be "galling" to never play Sherlock again, I think odds are it will happen).

But they may get tired of the fandom BS and BBC may not be willing to deal with another possible… let's call it fallout.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I have watched this smorgasbord of a rollercoaster, I can safely say that as a loyal, dedicated fandom, without sexual undertones marring the whole, since I have expressed my view on Sherlock being above all matters of the flesh, a bit like his superfluous, non-existent sister in canon, we have been taken for a ride of the worst kind! The only thing the creators can do to us now is kill us in an HH Holmes murder suite or dump us in the nearest waterway laden with chains!

The final episode was as anticlimactic as such a thing could possibly get, and suspension of disbelief doesn't even start to cover its self-satisfaction and self-aggrandizement. They certainly need to take some time off, remember that their audience is made up of ordinary goldfish, connect the dots instead of giving us leaps of imagination, and then come back with a case-driven series, since they themselves have admitted their version is all grown up at the end.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLS, another good one. :D

I really, REALLY wonder if Mofftiss are aware of everything they stuff in their stories.  They are not the beeping Wikipedia! :o

 

I don't know if they are aware of everything.  But everything I've referenced is definitely purposeful on their part - as was their Sixth Sense version of Bride.  They know what they're doing.  They don't always execute it well, sacrificing plot and character to 'theme' etc (which is why, for instance, despite that the 'Missing Glass' scene hurts characterization, it is there because they wanted to show that the barriers people erect are not there - they wanted the hand holding scene), but they are aware they are doing it all.

 

This level of integration does NOT happen by accident.

 

In the manger instance what we get is the PERFECT synopsis/thumbnail sketch of Moriarty's character.  When presented with supposedly the best human being who has ever lived, what does he do?  He literally consumes him.  He destroys him in the most disgusting manner possible.  THAT is Moriarty.  That is his answer to everything - to The Final Problem.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most certainly not slap you, J.P. You and sfmpco are our founts of information on twitter and other media! That is reserved for average goldfish ex-surgeons, actual GPs, who have become single fathers overnight and cannot get it through their thick Scots skulls (no disrespect to other Scottish nationals, with Michael Faraday being one of them!), that it wasn't their alleged best friend's inability to shut up (seen as early as SiB, in his deduction of Molly's gift) that got a trained ex-assassin killed in part-expiation of her past misdeeds, including shooting Sherlock. Dr Watson needed to get his act together and shoulder the blame, instead of trying to deflect it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

And they set that up exactly in Bride.  Immediately after he says "I made me" we hear a dog and Sherlock says "Redbeard?".  It is his subconscious telling him he is wrong.  And that was the theme of the episode too.  I don't have the time to look it up, but he says to watson (just before the "I made me" scene) something to the effect 'We are the product of the ghosts of our past'.  That includes him - and since Bride is about Eurus as THE ghost in his past - it means him specifically.

 

More generally, the point of the series is that we are all victims of existence itself.  That is the writer's view.  That is The Problem.  And the only way to "save" us from it is love of others.  That is the 'saving' Sherlock had to do for John in 4.2, and that is the saving John did for Sherlock by entering his life and becoming his best friend.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can actually watch the whole series again and see something new. I remember this happened to me after TEH, when suddenly I realized Mycroft is not only annoying and powerful, but also smarter than Sherlock.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think they integrated the story theme into the end score as well. It starts out with the lone violin, but the Problem is now solved and - as such - becomes two violins and then an entire orchestra, both showing us and letting us experience directly for ourselves, the beauty of being with others.

 

(And is why we see the repetition of Sherlock going to Sherrinford - that is the sameness of being alive - The Problem. What makes it worth it? What gives it "context" ie meaning? That is the solution - The people. And we see that Sherlock has solved the problem. That is why we see Sherlock and everyone else happy in the montage at the end. What gives 221b its meaning? What makes it a HOME? All the people we see there, loving one another.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think they integrated the story theme into the end score as well.  It starts out with the lone violin, but the Problem is now solved and - as such - becomes two violins and then an entire orchestra, both showing us and letting us experience directly for ourselves, the beauty of being with others. 

 

(And is why we see the repetition of Sherlock going to Sherrinford - that is the sameness of being alive - The Problem.  What makes it worth it?  What gives it "context" ie meaning?  That is the solution - The people.  And we see that Sherlock has solved the problem.  That is why we see Sherlock and everyone else happy in the montage at the end.  What gives 221b its meaning?  What makes it a HOME?   All the people we see there.)

Good writing?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLS, can you also make sense of Moriarty subplot, especially after TAB? What was his actual purpose in the whole series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, okay, I come a little bit late, as always.

My opinion? I liked this episode really much. To be honest, I think that the series is end because, as someone was saying, we have a proper ending, without misterious deaths which aren't really a death or people flying off from buildings or other stuff. So I have to admit I'm a bit sad. But it's true that I couldn't have been waiting God knows how many years to another season; if they do it, that's very good, if they don't do it, that's ok as well.

 

Sherlock is radically changed. He "learned" to love someone (and I have some suspects that he finally realises that, after all, he's a bit in love with Molly,I though to see a sort of rivelation when he says "I love you"). He loves John, he loves Mycroft and he loves ALSO Eurus, after all she's done, because he's her brother and he wants to protect her.

 

Then

 

I recognise that this series has been quite darker, complicated and also sad in comparison with the others, but, as often appens in tv series, the more the plot goes ahead, the more the characters have to face their past, their problems, their past and, the most important, their demons. In my opinion, Sherlock and Mycroft have a lot of demons and Euros is a sort of materialisation of them. It seems like if their sister was born to remind them that nobody is superior. You can be intelligent, a genius, a hero, but there will always be someone smarter than you who tries to destroy you, your opposite. If you're good, someone evil will menace you, if you're evil, there will be a good person to contain you.

 

I reflected a lot on how is easy to fall from good to evil. You're convinced to do the right thing, then you discover you're doing bad.

 

Eurus is a very interesting human case. She speaks like a philosopher and, the most interesting thing, she doesn't say anything that's radically wrong. She only gives voice to the deepest thinking that, sometimes, everyone makes.

I didn't understand exactly what she wanted to do, if take some revenge, have fun, make a study of people but I think she suffers a lot. She kills people maybe because she thik that people have to suffer as she does.

 

There are a lot of things that' I'd like to say, but, at the moment, I think I'm not ery able to express them, maybe I still need some time to understand better what the hell happened in this series! :lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like detective stories which go too close to horror. (That's why I'm in the minority which isn't keen on Scandinavian noir, such as "The Bridge.")  Basically, I'm a wuss - someone bought me "Crimson Peak" because I like Tom Hiddleston but, so far, I've been too scared to watch it.  The use of horror tropes in TFP is the main reason why I didn't enjoy it as much as the others.  However, reading through everyone's posts, I think people have made some very fair criticisms, particularly:

 

The world's most observant man can't tell there's no glass in a window, when standing only a few feet away?

 

Eurus's command of her workforce is remarkable, considering all the effects she has to set up and the logistics involved in getting Sherlock back to his old home (inside a fake room) and John into the well.

 

Mycroft may be an unreliable narrator but his mental image of Redbeard as a dog, when he knows it was a child, is a cheat. 

 

I was also amazed that the sequence in Mycroft's house wasn't a dream.   Again, the amount of time and resources needed to set up the prank would be considerable, and Sherlock's ability to create the whole thing is somewhat surprising, given that he has only just learned about his sister's existence.  You would also think that the British government could manage a better standard of security for someone as vital as Mycroft.

 

The abrupt change in Eurus's personality in the final game is the hardest thing for me to swallow.  Sorry, but I agree with Surelock on this one.  The first 4 games do seem to be designed to reinforce her point, as outlined in the tape John and Mycroft watch, that morality is meaningless.  They point towards Mycroft's maxim that "Caring is not an advantage."  Then, in the 5th game, morality becomes important and caring is the only advantage.  Only by showing his love for the child within Eurus can Sherlock save John's life.  Huh?  What happened to the woman whose argument was that there is no such thing as good and evil?  Has she reverted to a second personality, one which craves love and needs someone to care?  If so, are these personalities aware of each other?  It appears that child-Eurus is unaware of her other self, but adult-Eurus is fully aware of her child self and uses it as part of her games.  This seems pretty far-fetched to me.  I don't think I've ever heard of a case where one personality uses the thoughts or feelings of another personality.  I'm not sure ii makes psychological sense - is it even possible?  Also, Eurus says that whenever she closes her eyes she is back on the plane, which implies that the child isn't actually another personality, but a mental image of herself.  If this is so, why did the self that regarded morality as meaningless, to the extent of seeing nothing wrong in murdering innocent people, suddenly become a person who requires a response based upon morality?

 

To change the subject, I was interested to see that people apparently feel that "trapped on a plane" was Eurus's experience post-imprisonment.  I took it to mean that she knew she was much more intelligent that everyone around her - the sleeping passengers who could not wake up - but out of control.  There was no adult who could take charge and rescue her, because she was far too brilliant (and evidently too disturbed), and thus she went on a path that led to murder, arson, incarceration and then more murder.  Or maybe I'm wrong.

 

BTW, Arcadia, I met Art Malik (yes, "Hari Kumar"!) many years ago, when he played one of the leads in a radio play I wrote.  He is slightly older than me but I think he has aged rather better than I have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Also, I think they integrated the story theme into the end score as well. It starts out with the lone violin, but the Problem is now solved and - as such - becomes two violins and then an entire orchestra, both showing us and letting us experience directly for ourselves, the beauty of being with others.

 

(And is why we see the repetition of Sherlock going to Sherrinford - that is the sameness of being alive - The Problem. What makes it worth it? What gives it "context" ie meaning? That is the solution - The people. And we see that Sherlock has solved the problem. That is why we see Sherlock and everyone else happy in the montage at the end. What gives 221b its meaning? What makes it a HOME? All the people we see there.)

Good writing?

Most certainly. I consider Sherlock as a whole an example of great but flawed Art. The flaw is not fully integrating theme w plot and characterization. The writers have a tendency to sacrifice plot and character to theme. That's the problem with this last episode - and the integration of all of them is why Lying Detective was so good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. The triumph of form over content:

Do you think a play with the same meaning would be also achieved by less excessive meens? Like Eurus getting free and holding our trio hostage with e.g. a simple grenade and a gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLS, can you also make sense of Moriarty subplot, especially after TAB? What was his actual purpose in the whole series?

I'm at work now - locations-heavy til weekend so may not be posting as much as early week. As to Moriarty and his purpose, I think I touched upon that to some degree already. I'll try to elaborate later but one question: when you say "whole series" do you mean the whole of series 4 or do you mean the entire show from the start? (This is the problem with the Brit usage of the same term to identify an individual season and an entire series - one can't always be certain which concept is being identified)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant the whole show, sorry. Especially TAB. And also what is it, that he "will do next", why is Sherlock so disturbed by him in HOB (the vision), and how the ending affects the HLV scene in the "padded cell".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant the whole show, sorry. Especially TAB. And also what is it, that he "will do next", why is Sherlock so disturbed by him in HOB (the vision), and how the ending affects the HLV scene in the "padded cell".

Copy. I'll ponder while working and post an answer, as time permits for a thoughtful reply. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can actually watch the whole series again and see something new. I remember this happened to me after TEH, when suddenly I realized Mycroft is not only annoying and powerful, but also smarter than Sherlock.

 

I'm planning to do with Sherlock what I did with Harry Potter.  After I read the final HP book, I just couldn't go back for a while; it was all so dark, even with it ending in a good place.  Then, I finally went back and read the whole series of books again, but this time I read them as Snape's story rather than Harry's story, and that changed my feeling quite a bit.

 

I think I"m going to give watching Sherlock a break for a bit (not talking about it, obviously  :D ), and then rewatch all 10 episodes as being the story of Sherlock with a repressed traumatic memory that impacts his trust and how he deals with emotion.  I think it will be fun to view it that way.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.