Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[J.P.]

I didn't try go construct a certain headcanon backstory.

 

Essentially, the explanation of TFP went partially in the direction I expected. I always felt Mycroft tries to protect Sherlock from harm. I just thought it would be something simplier. And something Sherlock remembers. An emotional trauma so intense, that it almost destroyed Sherlock. So Mycroft decided to teach him to stay unattached, and of course he must show how it goes. Being me, I do find this situation psychologically believable: Mycroft being an extreme introvert, so staying away from connections wasn't THAT hard for him. And Sherlock desperately wanted to be like his brother. He craves attenntion. I wrote it ages ago - to me Sherlock trying impressing people, was basically Sherlock trying to impress Mycroft.

[Arcadia]

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........

I read through your idea and it seems very plausible. TBH, I don't see why it can't function alongside the backstory we were shown. Once Eurus was out of the picture, I think everything would have progressed pretty much as you outlined. I know Mycroft said that the way Sherlock turned out was all due to Eurus, but I don't take that very literally ... nothing's ever that simple. Plus it was Mycroft saying it ... Mycroft, who thinks he's always right. So of course he thinks any poor choices Sherlock made in his life were due to his trauma, and not to having an overbearing big brother ....

 

The thing about the parents and therapy ... for all we know, they spent a fortune on therapy for Sherlock, and it just didn't work. He may be the dimmest of three children, but he's still one of the smartest men alive ... maybe he thought his own solution was better than anything a therapist could come up with. Maybe he was just resistant to therapy ... some people are. I don't think it really matters, anyway; what matters is he turned out the way he did, and the root of it was his murderous sister.

 

Which reminds me ... at the end of T6T, Sherlock is visiting a therapist. At the beginning of that scene, she asks him about a recurring dream ... which I now take to be a dream of water. I suspect that was supposed to be a bit of a clue, there. But they never developed it, for some reason, and we are left to assume that the only reason Sherlock went to see Ella was to get her to help him "save" John. But maybe there's more to it than that, after all.

[Arcadia]

And reviewing my own post, it reminded me of a thought I've had several times when visiting this thread ... I think it's helpful to remember that we don't have to take everything we see/hear on this show quite so literally as we sometimes seem to do. Such as John and Sherlock being blown out the window. They only have so much time to tell a story in, I think it's perfectly acceptable to skip over all the bits about how they landed on Speedy's canopy and had to have bandages and stitches, and broken bones set, and what have you. The rest of the story does not necessarily take place five minutes later, weeks could have gone by. The show may seem more realistic if they did all that, but it doesn't really advance the story. So filmmakers find short cuts to get around things like that.

 

Same with Mycroft's "everything you are now is due to Eurus" assertion ... just because he says it that way, doesn't make it literally true. IMO, it's just a quick way to get the viewer into the story, without having to explain the actual psychology or recap Sherlock's entire history. I.e., sometimes what you see/hear on screen is just a stand in for what "really" happened. The audience is expected to be savvy enough, and familiar enough with the medium, to understand it that way. I suppose some of you might call that lazy or bad writing, but imo it's just the tools of the trade.

[Pamela]

And reviewing my own post, it reminded me of a thought I've had several times when visiting this thread ... I think it's helpful to remember that we don't have to take everything we see/hear on this show quite so literally as we sometimes seem to do. Such as John and Sherlock being blown out the window. They only have so much time to tell a story in, I think it's perfectly acceptable to skip over all the bits about how they landed on Speedy's canopy and had to have bandages and stitches, and broken bones set, and what have you. The rest of the story does not necessarily take place five minutes later, weeks could have gone by. The show may seem more realistic if they did all that, but it doesn't really advance the story. So filmmakers find short cuts to get around things like that.

 

Same with Mycroft's "everything you are now is due to Eurus" assertion ... just because he says it that way, doesn't make it literally true. IMO, it's just a quick way to get the viewer into the story, without having to explain the actual psychology or recap Sherlock's entire history. I.e., sometimes what you see/hear on screen is just a stand in for what "really" happened. The audience is expected to be savvy enough, and familiar enough with the medium, to understand it that way. I suppose some of you might call that lazy or bad writing, but imo it's just the tools of the trade.

I so totally agree. Moffat and Gatiss give us the credit to be able to fill in the gaps and make logical assumptions. I can't point to when and where, but I know they've said as much in interviews.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

Yes, they do have some information about Sherlock's mother, and the line about his father being the sane one. There is a lot of room for elaboration there. I think it is really hard to place their mother on a scale, but wouldn't be surprised if she is extremely intelligent on a level with Sherlock and Mycroft. Which if it were true, would suggest she has been using that intelligence for something. The book I for some reason feel was written many years ago, and I understand her being focused on the children whilst they were small, but what about after that? And also, what did the father do? I almost picture them having a Sherlock/ John relationship where the 'sane' on balances out the brilliant one- but there are moments when that has flipped too, and Sherlock has seemed the sane one whereas John has done something unpredictable- that could be true for Mr and Mrs. Holmes too. The Eurus situation would be really hard on any marriage.

 

And reviewing my own post, it reminded me of a thought I've had several times when visiting this thread ... I think it's helpful to remember that we don't have to take everything we see/hear on this show quite so literally as we sometimes seem to do. Such as John and Sherlock being blown out the window. They only have so much time to tell a story in, I think it's perfectly acceptable to skip over all the bits about how they landed on Speedy's canopy and had to have bandages and stitches, and broken bones set, and what have you. The rest of the story does not necessarily take place five minutes later, weeks could have gone by. The show may seem more realistic if they did all that, but it doesn't really advance the story. So filmmakers find short cuts to get around things like that.

 

 

The fact they are not dead from the bomb didn't bother me. As you say, it is partly a narritive device. I know nothing about explosions, so when they seemed okay afterwards, I just assumed that it was a type that looks extra fire-y but doesn't have a far reach- don't they do some calculations about the best spot for Mr. Hudson to be in, which assumes the blast is quite limited, otherwise why bother? A little convenient, sure, but then Eurus was not ready for them to die, not before she could torture Sherlock with her carefully ordered dangling garridebs pulleys, reverse glass illusion signs,  and custom-made coffins. Sometimes I like to imagine the conversations she has with those craftspeople!

[Surelock]

 

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........

I read through your idea and it seems very plausible. TBH, I don't see why it can't function alongside the backstory we were shown. Once Eurus was out of the picture, I think everything would have progressed pretty much as you outlined. I know Mycroft said that the way Sherlock turned out was all due to Eurus, but I don't take that very literally ... nothing's ever that simple. Plus it was Mycroft saying it ... Mycroft, who thinks he's always right. So of course he thinks any poor choices Sherlock made in his life were due to his trauma, and not to having an overbearing big brother ....

 

And reviewing my own post, it reminded me of a thought I've had several times when visiting this thread ... I think it's helpful to remember that we don't have to take everything we see/hear on this show quite so literally as we sometimes seem to do. Such as John and Sherlock being blown out the window. They only have so much time to tell a story in, I think it's perfectly acceptable to skip over all the bits about how they landed on Speedy's canopy and had to have bandages and stitches, and broken bones set, and what have you. The rest of the story does not necessarily take place five minutes later, weeks could have gone by. The show may seem more realistic if they did all that, but it doesn't really advance the story. So filmmakers find short cuts to get around things like that.

 

Same with Mycroft's "everything you are now is due to Eurus" assertion ... just because he says it that way, doesn't make it literally true. IMO, it's just a quick way to get the viewer into the story, without having to explain the actual psychology or recap Sherlock's entire history. I.e., sometimes what you see/hear on screen is just a stand in for what "really" happened. The audience is expected to be savvy enough, and familiar enough with the medium, to understand it that way. I suppose some of you might call that lazy or bad writing, but imo it's just the tools of the trade.

 

Okay suppose Mycroft's 'The man you are today is your memory of Euros' quote isn't mean to be taken an absolute explanation for Sherlock's character.

 

What about Mycroft's other quote?

 

Remember in Sherlock's flat this episode, Mycroft said to Sherlock 'I never bullied you. I used trigger words to update myself on your condition. I was protecting you.' Do you believe this quote not meant to be taken literally? 

 

It appeared to me that what Mycroft was saying that all these years Sherlock was misinterpreting Mycroft's actions. Sherlock thought that Mycroft was bullying him because he wasn't as smart as his elder brother. However Mycroft's statement seems to suggest that was never Mycroft's intention. Mycroft just wanted to protect Sherlock so he put on the persona of a bully. He was actually just checking to see if Sherlock's memories resurfaced. At the same time he went on his anti-sentiment speeches so he could stop Sherlock from becoming sentimental and subsequently remembering his memories of Euros.

 

This makes Mycroft less relateable to me. Mycroft and Sherlock are superhuman but one of the most human aspects of the two of them is their sibling rivalry. Everyone who has a sibling has competed with them in at least one point of their life. The sibling rivalry dynamic between Sherlock and Mycroft made the relationship between them feel like a relationship between two real brothers.

 

However this episode seemed to suggest that the sibling rivalry from Mycroft's side was a farce. He never meant to hurt Sherlock. He was just protecting him from painful memories. So basically Mycroft was able to put on a false persona ever since he was 13 and tricked Sherlock into thinking that he was someone that he was not for years and years and years. That's not relateable. Who has siblings that are capable of doing that? Most people know when their siblings are acting different or hiding something even if they're not close to their sibling. I know Mycroft is superhuman so within the context of the show it may be possible for him to pull something like this off but I think if a character is too superhuman they just cease being a likeable character. There needs to be some humane element to them. Something that everyone can relate to. Sibling rivalry was a good way of doing that but this episode seemed to diminish its effect.

 

That's the ironic thing about Euros. Euros was supposed to be about making Sherlock and Mycroft more human but, since she was linked to their history in such a contrived way, she ended up dehumanising Sherlock and Mycroft's relationship with one another. 

 

EDIT - Also I forgot to mention this earlier but in The Lying Detective, when John questions Mycroft about his other sibling, Mycroft attempts to lie but John catches him lying. If Mycroft is such a great actor then why couldn't he deceive John? I mean John isn't as smart as Sherlock but Mycroft had fooled Sherlock for years and years into believing that he was bullying him.

[gerry]

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!

I'm curious what gives you the impression that the writers have a lot of affection for Molly. Given Moffat's recent EW interview and season 4, I wouldn't think so.

 

I don't know about whether that BC quote is true but I felt from first viewing that BC played Sherlock like he was surprised by his feelings when he said I love you the second time. With the subsequent breaking of the coffin, my opinion is that the " he loves her but not in that way" interpretation may be too simple. I'd imagine it's more complicated than that and I wouldn't be surprised if the writers wrote it ambiguous on purpose. The only thing I can't figure out is why they had John keep pushing the Irene Adler angle in TLD since it hasn't seemed like they had any intention this season of bringing her character back.

[MycroftsUmbrella]

 

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........

I read through your idea and it seems very plausible. TBH, I don't see why it can't function alongside the backstory we were shown. Once Eurus was out of the picture, I think everything would have progressed pretty much as you outlined. I know Mycroft said that the way Sherlock turned out was all due to Eurus, but I don't take that very literally ... nothing's ever that simple. Plus it was Mycroft saying it ... Mycroft, who thinks he's always right. So of course he thinks any poor choices Sherlock made in his life were due to his trauma, and not to having an overbearing big brother ....

 

 

I was thinking something similar, because Mycroft saying he wasn't bullying him but merely testing his mental state, may be partly true, but I'm pretty sure he was ALSO deliberately bullying him a bit, as siblings do, once he realised that Sherlock could cope with it to a certain degree. Otherwise he wouldn't have constantly told him how much smarter and better he is. It's a bit like my 10 year older sister saying now that she didn't put films or music on that she knew scared me whenever I was in her room just to help me lose my fear of horror type movies/ things, when she was about 14 to 18. I wouldn't believe her that either. In my experience that's not how siblings that age (or even later on) think and is rather the kind of the excuse older siblings make later on rather than admitting to having been mean. So I'm pretty sure it's not all due to Euros, but also to how Mycroft treated him and how their relationship developed later. He just doesn't want to accept that because it's easier not to.

 

 

Also, sorry to jump back in the threat a bit (like it isn't confusing enough as it is without a mind palace to store the different bits of information away), but I just re-watched the episode. I have come up with a theory about, well way of looking at, Euros 'split personality' that I didn't consider before. Watching it the second time I noticed glimpses of other emotions than enjoyment of learning from her little sadistic experiements in Euros, and she most definitely was enjoying something in them. I might be imagining it because I wanted to, but there were slight shimmers of sadness/ jealousy in the previous experiment, when she witnessed certain moments between John/ Sherlock and Sherlock/ Mycroft. So I'm not so sure anymore it was all about proving that there is no such thing a morality anymore, but I think all of it was more means to make Sherlock realise what the final problem was and guide him (manipulate him) towards coming to find her. Although part of her brain was really trapped and feeling lonely 'on the plane', I think she had a lot more control over it and deliberately switched in between the two personalities beforehand. If she had chosen so, she might have been able to get out of it by herself to a certain degree (though probably not fully), but she didn't want to as it would have defeated the purpose of making Sherlock love/ forgive her and being the girl on the plane was in her mind the only way to get there.

 

I know it sounds a bit far fetched and I might have made my interpretation up to make it work for me when it didn't before (especially the scene in the burned out house at the end). But looking at it this way, with her being more in control of the more lonely side that is looking for companionship, all of the planning she must have done to set up the Moriaty thing as well as the experiment and final conclusion in the house makes a lot more sense to me. She just always wanted Sherlocks attention who she clearly craves some sort of love from (in a twisted way), ever since she made up the riddle as a kid and had years to set up a way of doing it, aided unknowingly by her somewhat naive und underestimating older brother Mycroft. Looking at it that way she ironically gets exactly what she wants in the end, by using that vulnerable side, and has all she every cared about by playing the violin with her brother and otherwise feeling no need to talk to anyone for the time being. Until she gets bored maybe, then she probably would kill again as Mycroft says. But for now she's content with just having her brother's attention. I know it paints her in a lot more sociopathic and I guess somewhat evil light, but without much morals/ empathy to go by it might seem like a logical way of acting.

 

Apologies in advance if my rambling doesn't completely make sense. It's hard to actually write down what my mind is piecing together about it, even more so to put it in any sensible words to explain it to others.

[Pamela]

No apologies necessary, MU. I enjoy your rambling.

[bedelia1984]

 

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!

I'm curious what gives you the impression that the writers have a lot of affection for Molly. Given Moffat's recent EW interview and season 4, I wouldn't think so.

 

I don't know about whether that BC quote is true but I felt from first viewing that BC played Sherlock like he was surprised by his feelings when he said I love you the second time. With the subsequent breaking of the coffin, my opinion is that the " he loves her but not in that way" interpretation may be too simple. I'd imagine it's more complicated than that and I wouldn't be surprised if the writers wrote it ambiguous on purpose. The only thing I can't figure out is why they had John keep pushing the Irene Adler angle in TLD since it hasn't seemed like they had any intention this season of bringing her character back.

 

 

I have to say I didn't much care for the tone of what Moffat said in that article. But, I also think he's a little annoyed that they got caught out on a pretty deft bit of sidestepping they did in the fallout of the 'I love you' scene. I do take his point that the scene is much more about Sherlock and how he is affected, but I think he's willfully ignoring the fact that the audience mostly felt quite concerned about how Molly was afterwards as well- so there was a real short-changing in the emotional pay off. I think it was JP who mentioned the feminist angle there in having Molly seem to suddenly swing to being fine again, serving what suits Sherlock- but to me it is more that she's serving the Moftiss aim of not showing their hand too soon.

 

The thing about Moftiss is that they sometimes apply the same narrative tricks to relationship arcs as they do to dramatic ones- you know, buried clues, delayed reveals etc- but that is pretty hard to get away with when we have spent the better part of a decade with these characters. I still think he is proud of Molly as a character- because he has said before he believes Sherlock adores her, because she's such a hit with some fans, and because she's their own unique work too, not derivative of anyone else. He comes under fire a lot about the way he writes women, so I can understand him being defensive, but I don't think he really believed the throwaway remark he made about Molly, and I think it under-served Louise's really considered portrayal, which was a shame.

 

Even the Irene Adler thing in TLD, in my opinion was sort of a 'look right, no left' approach to where they were going next. Though I don't discount that SM is very fond of that character too- I haven't heard MG talk in such glowing terms of her. I wonder are the team a bit divided on what they want to do with the women? And then also, it's not unheard of for a man to like more than one woman at once.

 

I was thinking recently that if they do go forward, they now have three significant female characters that are not canon- Rosamund, Eurus and Molly. Which is kind of nice, because it makes the story feel more contemporary to me, if they do go forward, that the lineup of characters is that bit more gender-balanced. 

[Arcadia]

Okay suppose Mycroft's 'The man you are today is your memory of Euros' quote isn't mean to be taken an absolute explanation for Sherlock's character.

 

What about Mycroft's other quote?

 

Remember in Sherlock's flat this episode, Mycroft said to Sherlock 'I never bullied you. I used trigger words to update myself on your condition. I was protecting you.' Do you believe this quote not meant to be taken literally?

Not completely, no. I mean ... I assume Mycroft himself basically believed what he said. But I don't think that necessarily makes it true, or even that we, the audience, are expected to believe it was true.

 

In other words, Mycroft may have thought he was doing it for Sherlock's protection, and that it never took the form of bullying. But what happens later kind of belies that, doesn't it? It is shown that, whatever his intentions, Mycroft screwed his little brother over pretty well by trying to make Sherlock more like himself. It's only when Sherlock sheds that influence that he becomes a more complete person. Or that's how I read the circumstances, anyway.

 

EDIT - Also I forgot to mention this earlier but in The Lying Detective, when John questions Mycroft about his other sibling, Mycroft attempts to lie but John catches him lying. If Mycroft is such a great actor then why couldn't he deceive John? I mean John isn't as smart as Sherlock but Mycroft had fooled Sherlock for years and years into believing that he was bullying him.

 

Is Mycroft a great actor? Sherlock is ... we've seen it, and it's canon. But I can't think of any reason to think Mycroft is. He's unemotional, but that's not the same thing. At any rate, one of the themes of this episode is that he's not as smart as he thinks he is, and they've been showing for some time now that John isn't as dumb as the Holmes boys make him out to be. And John himself didn't really believe it; he was shocked to learn there really was a 3rd sibling.

 

As for bullying ... as someone who has a 7-year-older brother of her own, I can say that it's easy for a young child to misinterpret an older sibling's actions, and those misunderstandings can rankle well into adulthood. It took me awhile to realize that my brother didn't mean to torment me when I was younger; he just thought he was being funny. Actually, once I got old enough to understand the joke ... he was pretty funny. So I would guess Mycroft didn't mean to "bully" Sherlock, exactly ... but we've seen for ourselves that he tries to tell Sherlock what to do at times. Now that would rankle even me! :D

 

I'm curious what gives you the impression that the writers have a lot of affection for Molly. Given Moffat's recent EW interview and season 4, I wouldn't think so.

For me, it's simply because they've said so, on several occasions. Hers was meant to be a walk on part, but she was "so good" that they decided to keep her around.

 

I don't know about whether that BC quote is true but I felt from first viewing that BC played Sherlock like he was surprised by his feelings when he said I love you the second time. With the subsequent breaking of the coffin, my opinion is that the " he loves her but not in that way" interpretation may be too simple. I'd imagine it's more complicated than that and I wouldn't be surprised if the writers wrote it ambiguous on purpose.

Oh, I think it's quite intentionally ambiguous. Because they looooove to torment us! :D

 

The only thing I can't figure out is why they had John keep pushing the Irene Adler angle in TLD since it hasn't seemed like they had any intention this season of bringing her character back.

 

Same reason. Fans. Torment. Repeat. :P

 

Also, sorry to jump back in the threat a bit (like it isn't confusing enough as it is without a mind palace to store the different bits of information away), but I just re-watched the episode. I have come up with a theory about, well way of looking at, Euros 'split personality' that I didn't consider before. Watching it the second time I noticed glimpses of other emotions than enjoyment of learning from her little sadistic experiements in Euros, and she most definitely was enjoying something in them. I might be imagining it because I wanted to, but there were slight shimmers of sadness/ jealousy in the previous experiment, when she witnessed certain moments between John/ Sherlock and Sherlock/ Mycroft. So I'm not so sure anymore it was all about proving that there is no such thing a morality anymore, but I think all of it was more means to make Sherlock realise what the final problem was and guide him (manipulate him) towards coming to find her. Although part of her brain was really trapped and feeling lonely 'on the plane', I think she had a lot more control over it and deliberately switched in between the two personalities beforehand. If she had chosen so, she might have been able to get out of it by herself to a certain degree (though probably not fully), but she didn't want to as it would have defeated the purpose of making Sherlock love/ forgive her and being the girl on the plane was in her mind the only way to get there.

 

I know it sounds a bit far fetched and I might have made my interpretation up to make it work for me when it didn't before (especially the scene in the burned out house at the end). But looking at it this way, with her being more in control of the more lonely side that is looking for companionship, all of the planning she must have done to set up the Moriaty thing as well as the experiment and final conclusion in the house makes a lot more sense to me. She just always wanted Sherlocks attention who she clearly craves some sort of love from (in a twisted way), ever since she made up the riddle as a kid and had years to set up a way of doing it, aided unknowingly by her somewhat naive und underestimating older brother Mycroft. Looking at it that way she ironically gets exactly what she wants in the end, by using that vulnerable side, and has all she every cared about by playing the violin with her brother and otherwise feeling no need to talk to anyone for the time being. Until she gets bored maybe, then she probably would kill again as Mycroft says. But for now she's content with just having her brother's attention. I know it paints her in a lot more sociopathic and I guess somewhat evil light, but without much morals/ empathy to go by it might seem like a logical way of acting.

 

Apologies in advance if my rambling doesn't completely make sense. It's hard to actually write down what my mind is piecing together about it, even more so to put it in any sensible words to explain it to others.

I confess I haven't quite figured out what Eurus is/isn't yet. I keep hoping one of you all will figure it out, then I'll just steal your idea. :d

[Arcadia]

I have to say I didn't much care for the tone of what Moffat said in that article. But, I also think he's a little annoyed that they got caught out on a pretty deft bit of sidestepping they did in the fallout of the 'I love you' scene. I do take his point that the scene is much more about Sherlock and how he is affected, but I think he's willfully ignoring the fact that the audience mostly felt quite concerned about how Molly was afterwards as well- so there was a real short-changing in the emotional pay off. I think it was JP who mentioned the feminist angle there in having Molly seem to suddenly swing to being fine again, serving what suits Sherlock- but to me it is more that she's serving the Moftiss aim of not showing their hand too soon.

 

The thing about Moftiss is that they sometimes apply the same narrative tricks to relationship arcs as they do to dramatic ones- you know, buried clues, delayed reveals etc- but that is pretty hard to get away with when we have spent the better part of a decade with these characters. I still think he is proud of Molly as a character- because he has said before he believes Sherlock adores her, because she's such a hit with some fans, and because she's their own unique work too, not derivative of anyone else. He comes under fire a lot about the way he writes women, so I can understand him being defensive, but I don't think he really believed the throwaway remark he made about Molly, and I think it under-served Louise's really considered portrayal, which was a shame.

 

Even the Irene Adler thing in TLD, in my opinion was sort of a 'look right, no left' approach to where they were going next. Though I don't discount that SM is very fond of that character too- I haven't heard MG talk in such glowing terms of her. I wonder are the team a bit divided on what they want to do with the women? And then also, it's not unheard of for a man to like more than one woman at once.

 

I was thinking recently that if they do go forward, they now have three significant female characters that are not canon- Rosamund, Eurus and Molly. Which is kind of nice, because it makes the story feel more contemporary to me, if they do go forward, that the lineup of characters is that bit more gender-balanced.

 

It took me awhile, but I learned ages ago to take Mr. Moffat's more, uh, insensitive remarks with a grain of salt. He's not a precise speaker, and he comes across worse in print media than sound/video. But I agree, I get the feeling they're getting a little tired of everyone being a critic. It's taking some of the fun out of it. Price of success, I'm afraid.

[bedelia1984]

 

It took me awhile, but I learned ages ago to take Mr. Moffat's more, uh, insensitive remarks with a grain of salt. He's not a precise speaker, and he comes across worse in print media than sound/video. But I agree, I get the feeling they're getting a little tired of everyone being a critic. It's taking some of the fun out of it. Price of success, I'm afraid.

 

 

It must be getting to them. I can imagine somewhere in the planning stages they were thinking they'd have it seem like Molly was just background in 1 and 2, and nobody would expect the scene that happened in 3, when actually a lot of us slightly more... ethused... fans where saying 'But where is Molly and why is there no meaty scene for her?' from from the beginning. I know not everyone is that obsessed, but for the fans that are, it's getting pretty hard to surprise us. We usually have the advantage of time, for theorising too.

 

The world Moftiss must inhabit, where they were planning on springing that time-lock coffin scene on us... what a world to live in...

[Redbeard]

 

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.

 

 

Well there is no proof that he was "seriously dwelling" on it, heck, he could have just been acting/biding time while he ran through a million scenarios in his head.  Poor Sherlock was traumatized and confused.  Ultimately, what matters is that his decision was that he would rather sacrifice his own life than kill John OR Mycroft, and that is very loving, and noble. 

[gerry]

Acadia, I agree. The difference for me in the storytelling in Sherlock versus most episodic tv is that the viewer generally knows which relationship is "endgame" or intended to be strung along and it's just a matter of how many seasons it takes to get there. On Sherlock they have been so effectively ambiguous that it's very conceivable that Sherlock could be alone romantically throughout or that he could possibly have a relationship. Either is easily conceivable based on the chacterization and that's unique for my tv viewing anyway.

[sfmpco]

This has some very interesting points.

 

http://bassfanimation.tumblr.com/post/156069169901/the-final-problem-euruss-crash-therapy-session

[Arcadia]

And this one, by the same person, about the "I love you," scene.

http://bassfanimation.tumblr.com/post/155947842081/i-love-you-a-mans-perspective

 

I agree with her, I would love to have more of the male perspective on this show. Tim? Alex?

[Bankomas]

Well there is no proof that he was "seriously dwelling" on it, heck, he could have just been acting/biding time while he ran through a million scenarios in his head. Poor Sherlock was traumatized and confused. Ultimately, what matters is that his decision was that he would rather sacrifice his own life than kill John OR Mycroft, and that is very loving, and noble.

There is no proof? Really? Sherlock is aiming at Mycroft from 1:07:04 to 1:07:50. Then again from 1:07:59 to 1:08:38. Pulls the safety switch off at 1:08:12 while aiming. Asks where to shoot - "Where do you suggest?". And only when he realises he can't do it, feels disgusted with oneself and says: "it took her just five minutes to do all of this to us".

And biding time? He thinks there's a girl on the plane about to crash. More like wasting time.

[Bankomas]

And i strongly disagree that ultimately only his decision is what matters.For me the result is not the only thing that is important. Which seems to be obvious. In my view it also matters how it was achieved. Otherwise they could have just shown us the outcomes without the plotlines - at the end of the day sherlock is friends with John, they are living on Baker Street, Mycroft is alive, Mrs. Hudson is alive - this is all that matters. In my opinion everything that happend and how it happened is significant. If not than why bother at all. For me it undermines the character.

[Inge l-w]

Weird! I thought ever since the end of TLD that AdLock became canon, with John urging him to become more normal after Irene's signature text tone. And the fact that he bothered to transfer her ringtone through several mobile phones ever since SiB.

What he should have felt in that scene was enormous guilt for treating a good and loyal friend like an extension of his hands and his brain all this time. And it's pathetic on the part of a thirty-odd-year-old medical practitioner to continue to act like a teenager with her first crush.

[Surelock]

So has anyone heard of all the theories of their being a secret 4th episode that's going to air on 22/1/17?

 

I want it to be real but it's too good to be true.

[Redbeard]

Here's a question for you all.  I'm really undecided on this.

 

Did you get the impression that John moved back into 221B, or do you think he maintained a separate home for Rosie?  In the final montage, Sherlock and John are in John and Mary's house a couple of times, especially to start the "Miss You" DVD.  There is the scene that will launch a thousand Parentlock fics where Sherlock is handing Rosie to John as he walks in the door of 221B, but I read that on the first two viewings as Sherlock and Mrs. Hudson pitching in to help mind Rosie while John is at work.  I asked Mr. Boton, and he noted, "of course, John will raise Rosie in their own house and visit Sherlock."  That's what I felt like last night; that John would be a frequent visitor to 221B but not a resident.  And that kind of jibes with ACD canon.

 

But today I see a lot of people saying that they are living together, so I was wondering if I missed something?

 

I was one of those left with the impression that John did move back to 221B.  My reasons were that I thought in canon John actually does move back in with Sherlock after the death of Mary Morstan, I thought there were no more scenes of John's house once they watched the video, the video that called them "the Baker St. Boys", and at one time I thought John came in with a suitcase but in retrospect it just may have been a diaper bag or something lol.  I'd have to watch it all again.  It's fine either way, though, I'm just happy they are partners again. 

[Pseudonym]

Hm, well this is my first foray into this thread (aside from anything transferred from other threads), and you'll have to forgive me for being long and reiterating things because there is no way I have time to catch up on 23 pages of comments. I will go back and read a few, but I don't want my initial opinions swayed so I'll do that after this. 

 

I'm a bit torn by this episode. I enjoyed it, finished it with a smile on my face, but on reflection there are a lot of things that bother me. First off, in regards to it sticking to and deviating from ACD, I don't really care about that so it doesn't really factor into my feelings on the episode. 

 

* I loved Mycroft watching the film. There was something adorable and sweet about him loving a film so much that he knows the words off by heart. There was something very human about that scene. Having toddler Sherlock climbing all over fat Mycroft is adorable, and the way Mycroft smiles at seeing those clips even though you know it would an eye roll or sneer if anyone else were present. I'm surprised he's not more alarmed at how that footage got into the middle of one of his favourite films though. 

 

* I liked the creepy beginning of him going around the house, we finally know what lies in his umbrella, though I think we all knew it would be a weapon the face it was a sword and a gun was nifty. 

 

* I love Sherlock's yell of 'that's why he stays' when Mycroft tries to evict John from the room due to Euros being a family matter. 

 

*Young Euros is brilliant. I love how the actress they chose is so innocent and yet creepy. I think it would have worked better if Euros were slightly older than Sherlock rather than younger though. 

 

*I don't like the idea that everything Sherlock is now is based on his memories of Euros. That makes it seem like he's not a real person at all, that everything he is is some fake facade, which makes me a bit iffy. 

 

*Mrs Hudson rocking on whilst cleaning was funny, though not sure it was quite pulled off. Made me chuckle though, I suspect that's how I look when I'm cleaning - I usually have my headphones blaring and a beer on hand - only way to enjoy cleaning imho

 

*SFX of explosion, with John and Sherlock flying through the windows wasn't great. I hoped it would look better than it did in the trailer the previous week, but no. Also pretty sure that leaping from a first floor window onto a concrete pavement would result in some broken bones - unless they both somehow manage to break their fall by landing on the canopy of Speedy's. 

 

*Not keen on pirate Sherlock, and the very over the top leap from the cabin with his coat flaring out Batman style. Not sure if that was meant to be so over the top to be funny or not.

 

*Finally had a Welsh voice on the series in the controller on Sherrinford - hurrah! :D

 

*Mycroft being the one in the bad disguise was a good bit of misdirection, though when he peels it off that smile is all League of Gentleman and not very Mycroft at all. Still it was funny so I don't mind it. I like that on rewatch you can actually see the guard is Sherlock, pretty obvious when you know. 

 

*The no glass in Euro's cell, thought that might be the case, but I still liked it when their fingers linked. 

 

*The fact Euros has a Strad - Mycroft must be staggeringly rich to be giving away a Strad as a treat. 

 

*The brainwashing thing... I liked the fact Euros was in charge of the entire establishment, but the brainwashing idea strikes me as a bit stupid. Not keen on that part of the plot at all. 

 

*I hate that Sherlock is the Holmes' village idiot. I can accept Mycroft being cleverer than him, but I don't like both Euros and Mycroft viewing him as stupid. 

 

*The thing about Euros making Sherlock laugh/scream all night - what exactly was she doing to him?! Surely he wouldn't scream all night because Victor had gone missing, screaming implies she was doing something much more immediate. 

 

*The fact John realises what is going on and that they need to get out of there so much faster that Mycroft. 

 

*Moriarty - I love Moriarty's flamboyant and over the top arrival - it always seems like it should be too much but never is. Not to mention the brilliant music choice. I was sure when Moriarty turned up that he was going to be a psychiatrist that Euros had brainwashed into being Moriarty, even though that would have been cool I'm glad that wasn't the case. 

 

*Mycroft refusing to kill the governor, and retching when it was done. I've always thought of Mycroft as being completely ruthless, and as a bigwig in SIS he's bound to have ordered some pretty horrific things in his time. Although he might not have gotten his hands dirty personally I doubt he'd have that much conflict over shooting the governor, and I definitely don't think he'd feel sick over the governor killing himself. 

 

*The concept of them going through a maze of tasks is by far my least favourite part of the episode. It's too contrived and goes on too long. I gather there is a lot of discussion over the Molly scene, but I'll have to get to that after reading the comments. Can't say I had any strong feelings over it one way or the other.  

 

*I don't understand why Euros has it in for Sherlock so much more than Mycroft. Mycroft is the one who has kept her prisoner, Sherlock doesn't even remember her, and that alone seems like a bit of an extreme reason to hate him. 

 

*When we previously discussed Redbeard being a stand in in Sherlock's memory I hated the idea. I still don't like it now, it's cheesy. 

 

*I don't get why Euros, who was cold and intelligent enough to plan all that out years in advance would then have some breakdown at the end and turn catatonic. It's a bit of an anti-climax, they would have been better off killing her in a blaze of glory, she wouldn't plan all that just to give up at the end. 

 

*They throw John a rope to get him out of the well... whilst he's still chained to the floor. Obviously it means someone would come down the rope to get him, but still. 

 

*Mary's message. I like the end montage, I like the idea that they go on solving cases and I like the voiceover idea - but I wish it wasn't Mary. I don't like her being this omni-present voice narrating their future, I don't like the fact she's leaving videos after her death, I didn't like the first one commanding Sherlock to save John and I like this one even less. She's dead and she still can't seem to butt out. 

 

So... I enjoy the episode on a superficial entertainment level, but whenever I start to look deeper it bugs me. I think bring in Euros was a mistake, she would have been better off being an unrelated villain - maybe even one who had known them as kids but not a sister. The brainwashing thing is silly, Sherlock completely forgetting her and Victor is silly, and the idea of her planning all this out and then just curling up and giving in at the end is silly. 

 

 

PS, I wish they would explain Mycroft's ring. 

 

Re: John living in 221B, I think that's left ambiguous so you can believe whatever you choose. 

 

Sorry this was so ridiculously long!!

[bedelia1984]

Weird! I thought ever since the end of TLD that AdLock became canon, with John urging him to become more normal after Irene's signature text tone. And the fact that he bothered to transfer her ringtone through several mobile phones ever since SiB.

 

 

It seems at least to be open to debate what canon is, with so many of us having different view points.

 

What he should have felt in that scene was enormous guilt for treating a good and loyal friend like an extension of his hands and his brain all this time. And it's pathetic on the part of a thirty-odd-year-old medical practitioner to continue to act like a teenager with her first crush

 

 

Wait. wait. Are you suggesting there has been some kind of friends with benefits arrangement in place? Kidding, I know you aren't, but that would be an interesting conversation! :D 

 

 I think 'pathetic' is a little harsh on Molly personally- she did try to move on. Although, okay yes, it was with a guy that kinda sorta looked like Sherlock, but it was something.

[Amber§]

And this one, by the same person, about the "I love you," scene.

http://bassfanimation.tumblr.com/post/155947842081/i-love-you-a-mans-perspective

 

I agree with her, I would love to have more of the male perspective on this show. Tim? Alex?

 

This article is very interesting! I also started to think someting similar about Sherlock's words.....

 

But there's another point in this article that captured me: the author says that, if I have well understood, that Eurus was trying to fix in Sherlock what she broke many years before: the ability to love. So, it seems that, in a particular and perverse way, Eurus is trying to help Sherlock, she seems to love him as his brother. That's so interesting. She kills people, she manipulates them, but she is trying to save Sherlock....What do you guys think about it?