Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[BLS_Pro]

 

When Sherlock talked to Mary and said, "I don't understand - I said I was sorry, isn't that what you're supposed to do?" I believe he really meant that. He just didn't get it. But when John left, I think Sherlock started to realise the depth of John's anger and sorrow. He caught up quickly after that

I don't believe he meant it at all.  He was acting.  And he lets this facade down only at the end when replying to Mary's question: "You don't know anything about human nature do you?l"  "Mmmm, nature?  No." he replies flippantly.  "Human? he says more slowly, pausing to give Mary a serious look.  "No" he states in a deeper, self-confidant tone.  And then he smiles.  This is Sherlock essentially winking at Mary.  And Mary smiles back at him.  She gets it.  This was NOT blindness but knowing action.  Recognizing that his WHY she immediately says she will help Sherlock. "I'll talk him round."

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

Which seems to be a huge contradiction with Mycroft protecting Sherlock from the memories. Their whole relationship is one big outburst of brotherly compassion, isn't it?

Not a contradiction.  He has brotherly love for both of his siblings.  That is why he doesn't allow them to simply be executed.  He does "the best he can" given his purposeful distance from "sentiment".  It is his lack of understanding - his lack of general empathy - which is his problem.

 

In other words, its not that he doesn't have relationships with others.  It's that one would not call them "warm" relationships.  Warmth is NOT the first thing that springs to mind when talking about Mycroft. 

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

In this indescribable mess of an episode, I would quite like to know HOW Evros knew about Molly as Sherlock's pressure point.

So, HOW did she know about the little pathologist and her crush on Sherlock? Their one brief glimpse on the doorstep of the psychotherapist's house was enough to do the usual deducing trick of the Holmes tribe, but not enough to fathom sentiment.

When a story has an antagonist who can "reprogram" people's minds in five minutes just by talking to them, this is the least of my questions and concerns.  ;)

[Arcadia]

I think there is at least one way Moffatiss can still continue to develop Sherlock and John: explore Sherlock's personal sense of justice.

 

In the books, Holmes didn't always hand the criminal over to the police. If the criminal was actually a decent person who only killed once out of rage, revenge etc and didn't look like they would commit any further crimes, then Holmes would let them go. Examples of short stories where he did so were 'The Devil's Foot' and 'The Boscombe Valley'. Holmes was a bit of a vigilante in the books. He wasn't always on the side of the law. He used his own sense of justice at times. Watson used to argue sometimes when he saw Holmes take justice into his own hands.

 

I'm surprised we didn't see this trait in BBC Sherlock considering that they wanted to humanise Sherlock. Showing a personal sense of justice in him would be a good way of showing how he has developed empathy. However I can see Moffatiss explore this idea in a potential fifth season because it would flow on logically from where Season 4 left off. Season 4 ended with Sherlock trying to make up with Euros in his own way so it could make sense for him to develop his own sense of justice by the next season.

 

It seems to me we've seen plenty of his personal sense of justice, the big one being shooting CAM. But in TAB he sympathizes with the "murderous women", and insults the person whose life has been threatened, Sir Eustace. He doesn't report John's role in shooting the cabbie. He saves Irene. He tells John not to bother checking on the injured guard in CAM's office, because the man is a neo-Nazi. Heck, he protects Mary, the woman who almost killed him when he was just trying to help her.

 

Personally, I'd rather see him learn his proper role in the process; he solves the crimes, but lets the system mete out the justice. Because sometimes he makes mistakes that can have truly awful consequences. I find it reassuring that he tries to help Eurus, but doesn't try to free her; I think that's a sign that he's learning not to play God.

 

Of course, if there is a next season, Moftiss will turn that all on its head, because that's what the Moftisses DO!

 

What would have happened if Euros had blew up the appartment of Molly? She was able to do so, we saw earlier.

 

Molly would have died, and Moftiss would have received death threats. :P

 

 

Well, in the case of the "groundbreaking and historical", it's my understanding that it was Amanda who said that ... and she doesn't speak for Moftiss anymore than I do. If I recall, Mark or Steven even tried to play down that statement. But it's very, very hard, once something you don't want said is out there, to unsay it. Even well-meaning people will miss the retraction, and hear only the "unapproved" version. But it's my understanding that's exactly what happened here ... Amanda was a little too enthusiastic, and Moftiss tried but largely failed to tell everyone that her remarks were to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

....

 

 

I think she probably meant that giving the Holmes boys a sister and not a brother- and a derranged one at that- was something new and groundbreaking. I kind of think it is, too. To me she's the first real convincing female supervillain they have had. I know they had the lady in TBB, and Irene, but they've never had a female criminal mastermind. I know a lot of us guessed it and all, but we're probably overthinking it slightly compared to Amanda, who would see it as a cool twist on the historical format

 

Ah, that's a good observation, I like that.

 

Warmth is NOT the first thing that springs to mind when talking about Mycroft.

:lol: So true. :lol:

[Inge l-w]

And it this over-abundance of love, emotions, and whatnot which made the occasional viewers drop the series. This is not even a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes, any more, it is a complete travesty. But it was filmed after the copyright law protected the character, so it became a bloated self-indulgent little parlour game, which both creators have repeatedly admitted playing with their creation. But then they shouldn't complain about the Rotten Tomatoes or possible Golden Rasberries which the last episode may attract.

Both Arcadia and Sherlockandjohn have pointed out enough non-resolved threads from the past episodes that Sherlock could have started unraveling himself. Plot holes by the lorry-load, complete disrespect to the viewer, an ego-trip fuelled by past success.

Fortunately, it is now over, and I can finally watch Endeavour in peace tonight!

Still the trapped fan, I have pre-ordered the DVDs, but that gives me the right to review my purchase, when my order has arrived safely. And they played a really mean trick: the DVD extras are paltry compared to what is available from Amazon.co.uk for download, but you have to be a UK resident.

[bedelia1984]

And it this over-abundance of love, emotions, and whatnot which made the occasional viewers drop the series. This is not even a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes, any more, it is a complete travesty.

 

The 'pastiche' aspect- I think for me how it comes across is that the show has become very fan- servicey. We love Moriarty, we get Moriarty, and the narrative bends and stretches to accommodate it- and that's such a small example. I thought so much of TAB was specially geared towards us long time fans that I worried the normal audience wouldn't like it, I was actually surprised the numbers are so high.

 

I wonder if for all of us, a lot of the joy is in the post-episode analysis, as well as the episodes, which is not a selling point for the casual viewer?

 

I realised when thinking about the ratings is that another thing that may have played a part if the Russian leak! I'm gonna be real with you all, I was so tempted to be spoiled, like never before. Of course I wouldn't have watched it when I had tickets for the next day. But I did read just enough to know that Molly wasn't killed. I was too anxious that they would kill her to resist. And it didn't ruin the episode for me, though even after reading I still thought there was a chance she would be killed until they finished the phone scene. The mood of threat over the whole season just got to me.

[BLS_Pro]

 

 

I wonder if for all of us, a lot of the joy is in the post-episode analysis, as well as the episodes, which is not a selling point for the casual viewer?

  It think it is those viewers who don't want to invest time in thinking about the show afterward whom Moffat et al are telling to go read Children's books.

[J.P.]

Inge, wasn't it so, that even ACD didn't care what others do with his figure?

 

Bedelia, now when I think about it, reading spoilers would probably saved me the pain of initial disappointment. On the other hand, I will never forget my jaw hitting the floor while watching Terminator 2. I really thought Arnie was still the baddie, unless he dropped that box of roses. It was such a precious moment. :D You can never do it right, can you?

[bedelia1984]

It's true, J.P., if something really great had happened I was playing a dangerous game. I'm going to try and be strong if we ever get more. But what if I drop my guard and it's the one episode they use to kill Molly? I may develop a complex that my spoiler problem is keeping her alive. :(

 

 

I wonder if for all of us, a lot of the joy is in the post-episode analysis, as well as the episodes, which is not a selling point for the casual viewer?

  It think it is those viewers who don't want to invest time in thinking about the show afterward whom Moffat et al are telling to go read Children's books.

 

 

I found them rude for saying that, because some children's books are masterpieces, I don't like the term being used in such a derogatory way.

[BLS_Pro]

Another BTW - Mycroft's 'nightmare' is a mirror of the situation Eurus finds herself in: a nightmare world which makes no sense.  And, like Eurus, Mycroft calls to Sherlock: "Sherlock, help me" ie save me from this madness.

 

And, like Eurus, Mycroft is mad at Sherlock because he is the one who ultimately put him through that nightmare.  The only difference between Eurus and Mycroft - the amount of time they lived the nightmare.

[Surelock]

 

I think there is at least one way Moffatiss can still continue to develop Sherlock and John: explore Sherlock's personal sense of justice.

 

In the books, Holmes didn't always hand the criminal over to the police. If the criminal was actually a decent person who only killed once out of rage, revenge etc and didn't look like they would commit any further crimes, then Holmes would let them go. Examples of short stories where he did so were 'The Devil's Foot' and 'The Boscombe Valley'. Holmes was a bit of a vigilante in the books. He wasn't always on the side of the law. He used his own sense of justice at times. Watson used to argue sometimes when he saw Holmes take justice into his own hands.

 

I'm surprised we didn't see this trait in BBC Sherlock considering that they wanted to humanise Sherlock. Showing a personal sense of justice in him would be a good way of showing how he has developed empathy. However I can see Moffatiss explore this idea in a potential fifth season because it would flow on logically from where Season 4 left off. Season 4 ended with Sherlock trying to make up with Euros in his own way so it could make sense for him to develop his own sense of justice by the next season.

 

It seems to me we've seen plenty of his personal sense of justice, the big one being shooting CAM. But in TAB he sympathizes with the "murderous women", and insults the person whose life has been threatened, Sir Eustace. He doesn't report John's role in shooting the cabbie. He saves Irene. He tells John not to bother checking on the injured guard in CAM's office, because the man is a neo-Nazi. Heck, he protects Mary, the woman who almost killed him when he was just trying to help her.

 

 

This is true but in all of these examples Sherlock is just helping his friends (except in The Abominable Bride but that's just a Mind Palace experiment).

 

The Sherlock Holmes in the books was depicted to be more sympathetic in the sense that he was able to empathise with people he just met. Like in 'The Devil's Foot', he just met the culprit but after evaluating his character and determining that he wouldn't do wrong again, he decided to just let him go instead of giving him to the police.

 

The Sherlock Holmes in the books was a good judge of character. I felt that Moffatiss didn't capture this enough because they just had Sherlock help his friends. That's why I believe there's still room to explore this concept in a potential fifth season.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

When Sherlock talked to Mary and said, "I don't understand - I said I was sorry, isn't that what you're supposed to do?" I believe he really meant that. He just didn't get it. But when John left, I think Sherlock started to realise the depth of John's anger and sorrow. He caught up quickly after that

I don't believe he meant it at all.  He was acting.  And he lets this facade down only at the end when replying to Mary's question: "You don't know anything about human nature do you?l"  "Mmmm, nature?  No." he replies flippantly.  "Human? he says more slowly, pausing to give Mary a serious look.  "No" he states in a deeper, self-confidant tone.  And then he smiles.  This is Sherlock essentially winking at Mary.  And Mary smiles back at him.  She gets it.  This was NOT blindness but knowing action.  Recognizing that his WHY she immediately says she will help Sherlock. "I'll talk him round."

 

 

I know I should probably take this discussion to The Empty Hearse thread... but I think that thread is less active, and I'm really curious to hear people's versions of this scene

 

I interpret Mary's words like she is saying: "I know you don't really understand human nature, and that's why I'm going to help you". Sherlock's words just sound like he's making a joke, splitting human nature up in two separate terms so as to emphasize the fact that he understands next to nothing of either one.

 

I can't quite follow you as to why Sherlock would act ignorant here... That hardly seems helpful in getting John to let go of his anger and forgive him.

 

What does everyone else think?

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

When Sherlock talked to Mary and said, "I don't understand - I said I was sorry, isn't that what you're supposed to do?" I believe he really meant that. He just didn't get it. But when John left, I think Sherlock started to realise the depth of John's anger and sorrow. He caught up quickly after that

I don't believe he meant it at all.  He was acting.  And he lets this facade down only at the end when replying to Mary's question: "You don't know anything about human nature do you?l"  "Mmmm, nature?  No." he replies flippantly.  "Human? he says more slowly, pausing to give Mary a serious look.  "No" he states in a deeper, self-confidant tone.  And then he smiles.  This is Sherlock essentially winking at Mary.  And Mary smiles back at him.  She gets it.  This was NOT blindness but knowing action.  Recognizing that his WHY she immediately says she will help Sherlock. "I'll talk him round."

 

 

I know I should probably take this discussion to The Empty Hearse thread... but I think that thread is less active, and I'm really curious to hear people's versions of this scene

 

I interpret Mary's words like she is saying: "I know you don't really understand human nature, and that's why I'm going to help you". Sherlock's words just sound like he's making a joke, splitting human nature up in two separate terms so as to emphasize the fact that he understands next to nothing of either one.

 

I can't quite follow you as to why Sherlock would act ignorant here... That hardly seems helpful in getting John to let go of his anger and forgive him.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

 

Yes, I also thought that Sherlock was (a.) impressed Mary read him so well and ( b.) appreciative of her offer of help. I don't think he ever meant to upset John, he genuinely expected him to be delighted to see Sherlock again, maybe a little sore about it, but not the level of anger he got.

 

It's also worth remembering Sherlock didn't realise that John considered him his best friend until TSOT, and it took awhile to sink in. I think Sherlock's perception is a bit dulled around people he cares about, because his own emotions start getting in the way (excitement at seeing his old friend in this case), and it is almost like a short circuit happens where it is really hard for him to read both his own and his loved one's feelings at the same time- it's a system overload, if you will.

[J.P.]

System overload, yupp. :D He is so perplexed by John's reaction that he finds nothing better to say, than that stupid thing with the 'stache.

I think he is relaxed enough around Mary to admit, that he actually doesn't know something. And also he's a bit self-ironic, because he noticed that she already knew him from John's description, and he could imagine how this descrption was.

[Slithytove]

 

The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out.  It happens, sometimes.

 

Yes.  Its all just a mishmash they threw together.  The complete and astonishing level of integration, down to every small detail, including the joke "The Hungry Donkey" is just pure coincidence.  It's happenstance.  The writers aren't intelligent.  They didn't write their story to be unified so absolutely that every action and word they wrote can be explained by the one theme.  They didn't plan it.  That's just an accident (just as Bride actually being ALL about Eurus is just an accident).

 

:facepalm:

 

Obviously the writers are intelligent.  Doesn't mean they can't have plot holes (even the best episodes have them), contradictory storylines, improbable characterisation and all the other difficulties that writers face.  You can read your own meaning into the story, in which every tiny detail fits perfectly into place, but that doesn't mean that it's true.  You can impose your own narrative on fiction - people do it all the time - but you can't insist that it is the only interpretation.  You have to accept that you might, just possibly, be wrong.

 

I'll give you a non-Sherlock example.  Years ago, I had to study a Thomas Hardy poem, "The Self-Unseeing."  People had various ways of understanding the poem but one of the tutors insisted that it was about a wedding.  Read it yourself and see if you can see this meaning.  Most people couldn't but this particular tutor was convinced, and felt that every word contributed to the wedding theme.  She was reading her own narrative into Hardy's lines.

 

You believe that you understand the themes in TFP and TAB.  You may be right.  On the other hand, you may be utterly mistaken.  Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.

[T.o.b.y]

 

Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.

 

Oh, absolutely. And when dealing with a work like this that was made primarily for fun and entertainment, even more so than when analyzing a Tom Hardy poem.

 

Did the Sherlock Holmes stories ever mean anything except "Sherlock Holmes has adventures because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle needs money?" Maybe they did, maybe that meaning was intentional, maybe it's just what we choose to read into it.

 

I think you can read an awful lot into Sherlock, it's very rich material that way. There's little I personally like doing better. But I doubt that half of what I see in it was deliberately put there by the people who make it. For me, that's okay. I have just always been hoping they wouldn't go anywhere that would destroy my reading completely, but they haven't and I am very happy with this ending. Now that the series is complete, I find it much easier to just lean back and enjoy the ride.

 

 

 

[Loekie]

 

What would have happened if Euros had blew up the appartment of Molly? She was able to do so, we saw earlier.

 

I don't know what would have happened to Sherlock, but I would have collapsed into a weeping mess and probably been carried out of the cinema on a stretcher so as not to disturb the other guests.

 

 

Haha!

 

I think in that case Sherlock would not forgive Euros. The end would be different.  

[J.P.]

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

[Surelock]

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

True there were no explosives in the flat but Euros may have flied one of her drones into Molly's flat, similarly to what she did with Sherlock's flat in 221B Baker's Street.

[T.o.b.y]

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

I see several possibilities:

 

Either Euros was telling the truth when she said there were no explosives. In that case, she probably had a video ready showing an explosion, well enough made that Sherlock and Mycroft wouldn't be able to tell it was a fake.

 

Or she was lying. Molly's flat really was rigged but rather than admit Sherlock won that part of the game, she told him he had just put Molly through the wringer for nothing.

 

My bet is on the first version. But you never know.

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

I can't quite follow you as to why Sherlock would act ignorant here... That hardly seems helpful in getting John to let go of his anger and forgive him

It is like in TLD.  In both, he must get John past being angry.  He has to expend his rage.  It must be released rather than repressed.  Once he has released it, he can move past it - as we see happens in both.  That is John's nature.

 

[BLS_Pro]

 

 You have to accept that you might, just possibly, be wrong.

No. 

 

Just as accepting an idea is true (or possibly true) absent evidence is irrational, so too is accepting an idea is false (or possibly false) absent evidence.

 

You show me the evidence which contradicts my premise (about the integration present throughout the episode [and since Bride]).  You show me evidence that thematic integration simply does not exist - that it is only a phantom of the imagination - then I'll certainly consider that evidence.  But you just tell me to think I may be wrong for NO reason whatsoever?  Not happening.

 

The capacity for error is not evidence of error.  Sorry.

 

As to the statement about plot holes and mis-characterization, I've already said they exist and that I don't like them.  But, even there, the thematic integration explains them.

 

[Surelock]

 

 

Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.

 

Oh, absolutely. And when dealing with a work like this that was made primarily for fun and entertainment, even more so than when analyzing a Tom Hardy poem.

 

Did the Sherlock Holmes stories ever mean anything except "Sherlock Holmes has adventures because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle needs money?" Maybe they did, maybe that meaning was intentional, maybe it's just what we choose to read into it.

 

 

My personal theory is that the closest we can come to accurately reading authorial intent in a narrative is if we can find links to the author's personal history. This is why I believe Watson and Holmes' relationship is similar to the relationship that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had with one his teachers, Joseph Bell.

 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a medical student. His teacher, Joseph Bell, was able to draw conclusions from minute details. That's where the whole idea of a detective who can deduce from so little came from. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle revealed this in a letter he wrote.

 

I think it's important to note that Watson is a doctor. Why is he a doctor? I'd say it's because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was also a doctor. When he was being taught under Joseph Bell, he was a medical student who was amazed by what his teacher could do. He translated these experiences into his stories. That's how I really see Holmes and Watson's relationship being written in the books. The Sherlock Holmes books are just a curious student writing about the experiences he has with an exceptional teacher.

 

[gerry]

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

 

I will say some of my favorite scenes in the episode were the Mycroft scenes in the fourth room when Sherlock is supposed to choose between them. That was the most human I've seen Mycroft seem in the entire series run.

 

Also, it never made sense why Mum Holmes called Sherlock the grown up when he is pretty emotional and immature much of the time, e.g. Shooting the Baker Street wall when he's bored or high.

[T.o.b.y]

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

 

You mean this:

?

 

Btw, this is a shot of her face during Sherlock pointing at the Mycroft, where it looks like he's actually going to kill him before he turns it on himself. Doesn't look too pleased, either, in my opinion:

 

 

 

I can come up with a lot of theories about Euros, based on a suspicion of mine that part of her wanted to believe Sherlock was a good guy while the rest of her despised the notion. And I like to think that when she met him at Baker St, disguised as Faith Smith, she really did find him different from how she remembered and expected him to be.