Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[sfmpco]

regarding S5....

 

http://www.ibtimes.sg/sherlock-season-5-mark-gatiss-steven-moffat-reveal-fresh-start-original-story-6892

[sfmpco]

A nice article about TFP and the 4th series in general.

 

http://www.arre.co.in/culture/sherlock-bbc-benedict-cumberbatch-john-watson-steven-moffat-mark-gatiss-sir-arthur-conan-doyle/

[Arcadia]

I like a lot of what she says, but she makes the same mistake as the haters; she reads too much into the story. I don't believe for a second that ACD had any particular character arc in mind for his Holmes. And Moftiss have already said they didn't have this particular outcome in mind until Season 3.
 
Also she uses sarcasm to put down people who disagree with her, which I find rather immature.
 
But I like her take on TFP ... it's where "the entire legend of Sherlock Holmes is contextualised – his hankering for a heartless state of being triggered by the heartbreak caused by the death of his best friend." I get so wrapped up in how Sherlock provides context for Eurus that I forget about the context she provides for him.

[Inge l-w]

And what exactly is the rationalisation behind a non-existent third sibling, who is certifiably more dangerous than Dr Lecter?

They are not both Sherlockians, only Mr Gatiss is/was (after this series, it is doubtful), Mr Moffat is a good scriptwriter, but even his run on Dr Who is about to end. Now, both will have time to play their little parlour game of Sherlock, and leave us with the bitter aftertaste of an inadequate series, which didn't even address the questions raised in S3: how and why did Moriarty come to the rescue at the end of HLV at the precise moment of Sherlock's exile beginning if he has been dead since TRF?

It was admirably acted ( factoring in the demands of the script), but not even competently filmed, seeing all the comments about Benedict's stature and makeup, the lighting, the sets, and even the uninspired music. It loops in on itself from previous episodes so much that one wants to blank it out.

If they break the mould by copying from several past thrillers just to get some cheap feels in possibly their last episode, then they shouldn't blame anyone but themselves for the fallout.

Take the grenade in the flat: Euros finds Sherlock nicer in TLD and wants to blow him to bits within less than a month?

Euros says in TFP that a mutual friend gave her the original Faith Smith's notes: she has Sherrinford under her control, Moriarty is dead, who IS the mutual friend with Culverton Smith?

Sherlock Holmes is all about the use of logic and observation, they made a pantomime figure out of him.

[Surelock]

And what exactly is the rationalisation behind a non-existent third sibling, who is certifiably more dangerous than Dr Lecter?

 

I think Euros was just created to be used as a hook to explore Sherlock's backstory.

 

One thing I've noticed about BBC's Sherlock is that Moffatiss always try to tie in different stages of Sherlock's developments to a current mystery, adventure etc.

 

For example in A Scandal in Belgravia, they wanted to explore Sherlock's idea of love so they decided to write the episode to be about Irene Adler. In The Hounds of Baskerville, they wanted to explore Sherlock's fear so they decided to use the alleged ghostly hound from the books. Similarly Culverton Smith was used in The Lying Detective as a hook to explore Sherlock and John's relationship when its stretched to its near limit.

 

The difference is that Euros didn't work well as Adler, Smith or the Hound. I think the main reason for this is because she was an original character rather than something Moffatiss adapted from the source material.

 

I think Moffatiss may not be that good with originality. If you look at their works, you'll notice that a lot of it is just adaptions, continuations etc of other works. I think they're good at giving new life to an old idea but I don't think they're that good with bringing up a new idea from scratch.

[Arcadia]

Now, both will have time to play their little parlour game of Sherlock, and leave us with the bitter aftertaste of an inadequate series, which didn't even address the questions raised in S3: how and why did Moriarty come to the rescue at the end of HLV at the precise moment of Sherlock's exile beginning if he has been dead since TRF?

 

That's what TAB was about; Moriarty had an accomplice.

 

In T6T, Sherlock confirms Moriarty made the tape before he died. In TFP we learn his accomplice was Eurus.

 

As to why Sherlock was saved from exile, I presume it's because Eurus wanted to play with him. Which means she's been in control at Sherrinford for quite some time.

[bedelia1984]

In regard to the article above by N. Misra, I think she had a lot of interesting points, well-expressed, but there is so much with which I do not agree. The idea of Eurus representing Sherlock's final chance to beat Moriarty has merit, but I think she's trying too hard to make it fit 'canon'.

 

Eurus can also be seen to represent Sherlock's struggle with his own demons- his repressed emotions and his repressed past. Moftiss have a lot of respect for the original work, in my opinion, but they have also made some huge changes- Eurus herself is one and leaving John and Mary's daughter alive is two- and I don't think either is an expression of some extended version of canon. Their take has always struck me as both more analytical and inward-looking as to Sherlock's character, and more forward-reaching in terms of where they want the character to go.

 

About her comments about the fandom- I don't agree with the writer that there is anger because people saw Sherlock being emotional. In fact I think a lot of us have found rather a lot to like about the episodes in general. And those who didn't, have quite complex and personal reasons for feeling as they do. I would think only a small minority object to seeing Sherlock experience emotion or fallibility. It has been a part of the show from the beginning actually, right from ASIP

 

 

 

 

For example in A Scandal in Belgravia, they wanted to explore Sherlock's idea of love so they decided to write the episode to be about Irene Adler. In The Hounds of Baskerville, they wanted to explore Sherlock's fear so they decided to use the alleged ghostly hound from the books. Similarly Culverton Smith was used in The Lying Detective as a hook to explore Sherlock and John's relationship when its stretched to its near limit.

 

The difference is that Euros didn't work well as Adler, Smith or the Hound. I think the main reason for this is because she was an original character rather than something Moffatiss adapted from the source material.

 

I think Moffatiss may not be that good with originality. If you look at their works, you'll notice that a lot of it is just adaptions, continuations etc of other works. I think they're good at giving new life to an old idea but I don't think they're that good with bringing up a new idea from scratch.

 

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree that Adler worked better than Eurus. I imagined the original Adler to be so much more intelligent and less obvious, and I still cringe at how they wrote her in Scandal, and that's keeping in mind that she was canon! If they were trying to tackle his feelings on love, as I agree with you they likely were, I wish they would have given a more rounded view of her character.

 

I thought Hounds was splendid, too, and Culverton Smith's character functioned perfectly in TLD, though he was a little cartoonish, I still loved the episode.

 

There are things that are not clear about Eurus' character, certainly, and she isn't perfectly drawn but there is still so much more for them to do with her- she's a complex, ambitious character. She's hard to read, she's more interesting than pretty much any female villain I've seen on TV this year.  I think it took some... well, let's say, guts... to write a character like Eurus, and I'm glad they've written a female character too, even if it was easy to guess, and even if they are going to struggle a bit, as they seem to  sometimes with the female characters, when they get it right, they can actually surpass themselves. They were really smart with the casting too, the fact that they got Sian Brooke, so adept at inhabiting grey areas, meant that they got away with some of the ambiguity more than they would have with most actresses.

 

One part of Eurus that makes more sense of the characters, is that if you look at Mycroft and Sherlock (more as we first meet him, than at the end)- they both have some problems in their interaction with women in particular- Sherlock, early on, behaves quite badly toward Molly and I for one have never understood why Mycroft is so rude to Mrs. Hudson! I always had a head canon that those issues stemmed from a poor relationship with their mother- but now I wonder if there is something in it relating to their sister, and the first relationship either had to a girl their own age turning out to be so toxic- almost enough to give you a phobia of girls?

[Boton]

I They were really smart with the casting too, the fact that they got Sian Brooke, so adept at inhabiting grey areas, meant that they got away with some of the ambiguity more than they would have with most actresses.

 

 

 

Agree.  That woman can play crazy better than almost anyone.

[BLS_Pro]

Moftiss have already said they didn't have this particular outcome in mind until Season 3.

I agree with your conclusions about Doyle not having an 'arc' in mind for his Sherlock.  I don't recall ever having read anything from Doyle pertaining to such an arc, let alone intending it from the beginning.  But, while Season 3 is when Moffitiss decided specifically on the Redbeard/sister arc "outcome", they were essentially telling us from the beginning that their story was of Sherlock's humanization, right?  IOW, their goal of developing Sherlock into a "good man" - they had that 'particular character arc in mind for their Holmes' all along.  That particular outcome wasn't decided in S3 (though the particular means to how they would achieve that arc was decided in S3). 

 

 

[BLS_Pro]

And what exactly is the rationalisation behind a non-existent third sibling, who is certifiably more dangerous than Dr Lecter?

To show why Sherlock needed to be humanized in the first place - ie justification for their entire story arc.   Eurus is Sherlock absent selfless love of others.  She is essentially what Sherlock was at the beginning of the entire series (though magnified, of course, to make the distinction more apparent - ie psychopath to Sherlock's sociopath).

 

That is the rationale behind choosing Smith as the lead up villain as well - to establish Ego (selfishness) as the "signature in human destruction" which is "hidden in plain sight" - the element in Sherlock which had to be 'arrested' to make him "good".

 

Fundamentally, Mofftiss creates Sherlock's main villains to be his demons - reflections of his own Ego.  He is essentially battling himself.  Like those villains, Sherlock's own Ego must be stopped.  That is the lesson he finally learns in S4

 

[Surelock]

 

 

 

For example in A Scandal in Belgravia, they wanted to explore Sherlock's idea of love so they decided to write the episode to be about Irene Adler. In The Hounds of Baskerville, they wanted to explore Sherlock's fear so they decided to use the alleged ghostly hound from the books. Similarly Culverton Smith was used in The Lying Detective as a hook to explore Sherlock and John's relationship when its stretched to its near limit.

 

The difference is that Euros didn't work well as Adler, Smith or the Hound. I think the main reason for this is because she was an original character rather than something Moffatiss adapted from the source material.

 

I think Moffatiss may not be that good with originality. If you look at their works, you'll notice that a lot of it is just adaptions, continuations etc of other works. I think they're good at giving new life to an old idea but I don't think they're that good with bringing up a new idea from scratch.

 

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree that Adler worked better than Eurus. I imagined the original Adler to be so much more intelligent and less obvious, and I still cringe at how they wrote her in Scandal, and that's keeping in mind that she was canon! If they were trying to tackle his feelings on love, as I agree with you they likely were, I wish they would have given a more rounded view of her character.

 

 

I largely agree with this criticism (except with Euros being better than Adler but that's just a difference in value judgement). Do note though that our opinions are in the minority.

 

On IMDB 26,529 viewers have rated A Scandal in Belgravia to be 9.6/10 which makes it the second highest rated episode after The Reichenbach Fall .

 

Also A Scandal in Belgravia was nominated for an Emmy for its writing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Writing_for_a_Limited_Series,_Movie,_or_Dramatic_Special#2010s

 

It didn't win but it was the only Season 2 episode that was nominated. Not even The Reichenbach Fall got a nomination.

 

There's something I've noticed when I look at Sherlock episodes that are nominated for an Emmy for their writing: they're all written exclusively by Steven Moffat. The episodes that Moffat wrote alongside Gatiss don't get nominated. It's only when Moffat writes an episode by himself does it get a nomination. I guess most critics think Gatiss is a weaker writer and brings down the quality of the writing.

 

For Season 4, I expect The Lying Detective to get a nomination as well because it was written entirely by Moffat.

[Surelock]

 

Now, both will have time to play their little parlour game of Sherlock, and leave us with the bitter aftertaste of an inadequate series, which didn't even address the questions raised in S3: how and why did Moriarty come to the rescue at the end of HLV at the precise moment of Sherlock's exile beginning if he has been dead since TRF?

 

That's what TAB was about; Moriarty had an accomplice.

 

In T6T, Sherlock confirms Moriarty made the tape before he died. In TFP we learn his accomplice was Eurus.

 

As to why Sherlock was saved from exile, I presume it's because Eurus wanted to play with him. Which means she's been in control at Sherrinford for quite some time.

 

 

How on earth did Moriarty and Euros work together as accomplices? Moriarty wanted Sherlock dead but Euros didn't. 

 

If Euros was willing to interfere and stop Sherlock from being sent to a deadly mission in Europe at the end of Season 3 then why didn't she intervene to help Sherlock when Moriarty was trying to kill him at the end of Season 2? Why didn't Euros just mind control Moriarty to not kill Sherlock when he came to meet her?

 

Above all this we never hear of how Euros reacted when Sherlock faked his death. Judging by how she allegedly wanted him to play with her then I find it strange that we didn't hear of her having a mental breakdown on hearing of Sherlock's alleged death. Maybe Euros just later mind controlled someone in MI6 to tell her the truth about Sherlock but there still should have been an initial outburst.

 

I bet Moffatiss would explain all this by saying that Euros predicted that Sherlock would defeat Moriarty lol.

 

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

 

For example in A Scandal in Belgravia, they wanted to explore Sherlock's idea of love so they decided to write the episode to be about Irene Adler. In The Hounds of Baskerville, they wanted to explore Sherlock's fear so they decided to use the alleged ghostly hound from the books. Similarly Culverton Smith was used in The Lying Detective as a hook to explore Sherlock and John's relationship when its stretched to its near limit.

 

The difference is that Euros didn't work well as Adler, Smith or the Hound. I think the main reason for this is because she was an original character rather than something Moffatiss adapted from the source material.

 

I think Moffatiss may not be that good with originality. If you look at their works, you'll notice that a lot of it is just adaptions, continuations etc of other works. I think they're good at giving new life to an old idea but I don't think they're that good with bringing up a new idea from scratch.

 

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree that Adler worked better than Eurus. I imagined the original Adler to be so much more intelligent and less obvious, and I still cringe at how they wrote her in Scandal, and that's keeping in mind that she was canon! If they were trying to tackle his feelings on love, as I agree with you they likely were, I wish they would have given a more rounded view of her character.

 

 

I largely agree with this criticism (except with Euros being better than Adler but that's just a difference in value judgement). Do note though that our opinions are in the minority.

 

On IMDB 26,529 viewers have rated A Scandal in Belgravia to be 9.6/10 which makes it the second highest rated episode after The Reichenbach Fall .

 

Also A Scandal in Belgravia was nominated for an Emmy for its writing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Writing_for_a_Limited_Series,_Movie,_or_Dramatic_Special#2010s

 

It didn't win but it was the only Season 2 episode that was nominated. Not even The Reichenbach Fall got a nomination.

 

There's something I've noticed when I look at Sherlock episodes that are nominated for an Emmy for their writing: they're all written exclusively by Steven Moffat. The episodes that Moffat wrote alongside Gatiss don't get nominated. It's only when Moffat writes an episode by himself does it get a nomination. I guess most critics think Gatiss is a weaker writer and brings down the quality of the writing.

 

For Season 4, I expect The Lying Detective to get a nomination as well because it was written entirely by Moffat.

 

 

I can't totally hold it against the wider audience, as elements of that episode, especially Buckingham Palace, are so much fun.

 

I'm not  surprised about the Moffat episodes getting nominated, as his writing is in some ways my favourite on the show. Case in point, I would nominate TLD too, in my opinion flat-out the best of the season, easily one of their best ever,

 

However, call me selfish and irrational, but I do wish the Emmy people would stop encouraging his obsession with Irene Adler by giving him nominations! I've heard him boast about how wonderful she is too, and then there was his recent talk about doing another Adler episode. I hope someone hides his copy of 50 shades of grey immediately! Joking aside, I sometimes feel like Gatiss has more of a big-picture view of the show that I like, whereas Moffat tends to get all the little things right.

 

I do think part of Gatiss's issue for critics will be his love of experimenting with non-emmy friendly genres like sci-fi/ alternate reality scenarios. He's not a straight drama writer, most of the time, he can't seem to help himself from going off into weird (and mostly wonderful) tangents. I love that about his writing, honestly, but I can see how it might not be an Awards panel's cup of tea. Because of his style, I wonder if maybe he wasn't the best choice to do episode one alone, with Mary's death being such a key emotional point. But overall, I love most of his episodes, and I hope to re-watch TST and give it more of a chance, now I know how much they had to set up in it.

[Arcadia]

How on earth did Moriarty and Euros work together as accomplices? Moriarty wanted Sherlock dead but Euros didn't. 

 

If Euros was willing to interfere and stop Sherlock from being sent to a deadly mission in Europe at the end of Season 3 then why didn't she intervene to help Sherlock when Moriarty was trying to kill him at the end of Season 2? Why didn't Euros just mind control Moriarty to not kill Sherlock when he came to meet her?

One theory ... since she met Jim shortly before TRF, then perhaps she simply didn't have the means to do anything about their confrontation yet. In other words, maybe she hadn't taken over Sherrinford yet, and gotten access to their resources.

 

Or another theory ... maybe she didn't know Jim wanted to kill Sherlock.

 

Or ... maybe she was the one who influenced Jim to try and kill Sherlock. But when Sherlock was the survivor, she became intrigued by him, and wanted to get closer to him.

 

Above all this we never hear of how Euros reacted when Sherlock faked his death. Judging by how she allegedly wanted him to play with her then I find it strange that we didn't hear of her having a mental breakdown on hearing of Sherlock's alleged death. Maybe Euros just later mind controlled someone in MI6 to tell her the truth about Sherlock but there still should have been an initial outburst.

 

Or ... maybe she didn't know about Sherlock's "death." We don't know how much access she had to information from the outside world.

 

Or ... maybe she did know, but Mycroft, to keep her from being upset, told her the truth.

 

Or ... she's a psychopath. Maybe she just didn't care.

 

I bet Moffatiss would explain all this by saying that Euros predicted that Sherlock would defeat Moriarty lol.

 

And that's yet another theory too! :D

 

[gerry]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example in A Scandal in Belgravia, they wanted to explore Sherlock's idea of love so they decided to write the episode to be about Irene Adler. In The Hounds of Baskerville, they wanted to explore Sherlock's fear so they decided to use the alleged ghostly hound from the books. Similarly Culverton Smith was used in The Lying Detective as a hook to explore Sherlock and John's relationship when its stretched to its near limit.

 

The difference is that Euros didn't work well as Adler, Smith or the Hound. I think the main reason for this is because she was an original character rather than something Moffatiss adapted from the source material.

 

I think Moffatiss may not be that good with originality. If you look at their works, you'll notice that a lot of it is just adaptions, continuations etc of other works. I think they're good at giving new life to an old idea but I don't think they're that good with bringing up a new idea from scratch.

 

I'm sorry, I can't agree that Adler worked better than Eurus. I imagined the original Adler to be so much more intelligent and less obvious, and I still cringe at how they wrote her in Scandal, and that's keeping in mind that she was canon! If they were trying to tackle his feelings on love, as I agree with you they likely were, I wish they would have given a more rounded view of her character.

I largely agree with this criticism (except with Euros being better than Adler but that's just a difference in value judgement). Do note though that our opinions are in the minority.

 

On IMDB 26,529 viewers have rated A Scandal in Belgravia to be 9.6/10 which makes it the second highest rated episode after The Reichenbach Fall .

 

Also A Scandal in Belgravia was nominated for an Emmy for its writing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Writing_for_a_Limited_Series,_Movie,_or_Dramatic_Special#2010s

 

It didn't win but it was the only Season 2 episode that was nominated. Not even The Reichenbach Fall got a nomination.

 

There's something I've noticed when I look at Sherlock episodes that are nominated for an Emmy for their writing: they're all written exclusively by Steven Moffat. The episodes that Moffat wrote alongside Gatiss don't get nominated. It's only when Moffat writes an episode by himself does it get a nomination. I guess most critics think Gatiss is a weaker writer and brings down the quality of the writing.

 

For Season 4, I expect The Lying Detective to get a nomination as well because it was written entirely by Moffat.

I can't totally hold it against the wider audience, as elements of that episode, especially Buckingham Palace, are so much fun.

 

I'm not surprised about the Moffat episodes getting nominated, as his writing is in some ways my favourite on the show. Case in point, I would nominate TLD too, in my opinion flat-out the best of the season, easily one of their best ever,

 

However, call me selfish and irrational, but I do wish the Emmy people would stop encouraging his obsession with Irene Adler by giving him nominations! I've heard him boast about how wonderful she is too, and then there was his recent talk about doing another Adler episode. I hope someone hides his copy of 50 shades of grey immediately! Joking aside, I sometimes feel like Gatiss has more of a big-picture view of the show that I like, whereas Moffat tends to get all the little things right.

 

I do think part of Gatiss's issue for critics will be his love of experimenting with non-emmy friendly genres like sci-fi/ alternate reality scenarios. He's not a straight drama writer, most of the time, he can't seem to help himself from going off into weird (and mostly wonderful) tangents. I love that about his writing, honestly, but I can see how it might not be an Awards panel's cup of tea. Because of his style, I wonder if maybe he wasn't the best choice to do episode one alone, with Mary's death being such a key emotional point. But overall, I love most of his episodes, and I hope to re-watch TST and give it more of a chance, now I know how much they had to set up in it.

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

[bedelia1984]

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

 

 

From this article:

 

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

 

 

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not. 

[gerry]

 

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

 

From this article:

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

 

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not.

Moffat seems like an odd guy. I just googled some article where he discussed some written but unfilmed scene where Sherlock ends up naked due to Irene Adler after murdering people. Who comes up with ideas like that?

[gerry]

 

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

 

From this article:

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

 

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not.

If it makes you feel better it appears he's been saying Irene could be back since season 3. Maybe the actress's schedule hasn't permitted it yet or she doesn't like his writing either!

[Pamela]

Someone help me out please - what's this 'Irene Adler element from The Greek Interpreter?

[Surelock]

Someone help me out please - what's this 'Irene Adler element from The Greek Interpreter?

 

No idea. Adler isn't even mentioned in The Greek Interpreter. 

 

The Greek Interpreter does feature the story of a lady and her brother. Some criminals want the lady's property but her brother refuses to sign off the papers and eventually the criminals kill her brothers. By the end of the story, the criminals escape into another country but there comes news of their deaths. The official reports say they died fighting each other but Holmes chooses to believe that it was actually the lady who killed them for revenge.

 

Maybe Moffat is planning on replacing this lady with Irene Adler and doing some sort of backstory, family study etc of her.

 

However I think it's more likely that Moffat just named the incorrect story or maybe the interviewer got something wrong.

[Arcadia]

 

Moffat seems like an odd guy. I just googled some article where he discussed some written but unfilmed scene where Sherlock ends up naked due to Irene Adler after murdering people. Who comes up with ideas like that?

 

 

Scriptwriters. ;)

 

[Pamela]

 

Someone help me out please - what's this 'Irene Adler element from The Greek Interpreter?

 

No idea. Adler isn't even mentioned in The Greek Interpreter. 

 

The Greek Interpreter does feature the story of a lady and her brother. Some criminals want the lady's property but her brother refuses to sign off the papers and eventually the criminals kill her brothers. By the end of the story, the criminals escape into another country but there comes news of their deaths. The official reports say they died fighting each other but Holmes chooses to believe that it was actually the lady who killed them for revenge.

 

Maybe Moffat is planning on replacing this lady with Irene Adler and doing some sort of backstory, family study etc of her.

 

However I think it's more likely that Moffat just named the incorrect story or maybe the interviewer got something wrong.

 

Okay, thanks. I really hope I don't ever see anything connecting her and anything remotely based on The Greek Interpreter. That would really be stretching things. I'm afraid my eyes would roll.

 

Besides, didn't they already have a "Geek Interpreter" reference? ;)

[Surelock]

 

 

Someone help me out please - what's this 'Irene Adler element from The Greek Interpreter?

 

No idea. Adler isn't even mentioned in The Greek Interpreter. 

 

The Greek Interpreter does feature the story of a lady and her brother. Some criminals want the lady's property but her brother refuses to sign off the papers and eventually the criminals kill her brothers. By the end of the story, the criminals escape into another country but there comes news of their deaths. The official reports say they died fighting each other but Holmes chooses to believe that it was actually the lady who killed them for revenge.

 

Maybe Moffat is planning on replacing this lady with Irene Adler and doing some sort of backstory, family study etc of her.

 

However I think it's more likely that Moffat just named the incorrect story or maybe the interviewer got something wrong.

 

Okay, thanks. I really hope I don't ever see anything connecting her and anything remotely based on The Greek Interpreter. That would really be stretching things. I'm afraid my eyes would roll.

 

Besides, didn't they already have a "Geek Interpreter" reference? ;)

 

 

Yes you are correct.

 

You know that BBC created John's blog to tie-in with the universe? According to it, The Greek Interpreter happened on 16 June 2011:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/16june

 

However that doesn't Moffatiss won't contradict their own canon by doing another The Greek Interpreter in the future. You see John's blog also featured The Six Thatchers on 19 December 2011:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/19december

 

It's funny that we got another The Six Thatchers story set in 2015.

 

It's funny that BBC stopped updating this blog after Season 3. I guess they realised Mofatiss were going to contradict themselves again and again so there's no point. I mean this blog was already in contradiction with the events in the show as some of the dates are wrong e.g. according to the blog, Sherlock was missing for one year but according to the show he was missing for two.

 

It looks like Moffatiss don't plan out the details correctly and end up contradicting themselves as a result.

[gerry]

 

 

 

Moffat seems like an odd guy. I just googled some article where he discussed some written but unfilmed scene where Sherlock ends up naked due to Irene Adler after murdering people. Who comes up with ideas like that?

 

Scriptwriters. ;)

LOL! I wonder whether writers like Stephen King are a bit off considering what their imagination can conjure up! Regarding Moffat, if his interviews are any indication, he really does deserve the criticism for how he writes female characters. In his universe women don't seem to be 3 dimensional, fleshed out characters, yet he writes male relationship very well.

[Surelock]

 

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

From this article:

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not.

Moffat seems like an odd guy. I just googled some article where he discussed some written but unfilmed scene where Sherlock ends up naked due to Irene Adler after murdering people. Who comes up with ideas like that?

 

 

An Emmy award winning writer. That's who. 

 

 

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

From this article:

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not.

If it makes you feel better it appears he's been saying Irene could be back since season 3. Maybe the actress's schedule hasn't permitted it yet or she doesn't like his writing either!

 

 

Technically Irene had a cameo appearance in Sherlock's mind palace in The Sing of Three. 

 

I think it's more Moffat doesn't know how to bring back villains after their initial storylines are over. I mean look at what he did with Moriarty in this episode. It doesn't even make sense for Moriary and Euros to be working together since they have different end goals. But hey somehow Euros is Moriarty's accomplice. It felt like the Moriarty scene in this episode was just an easy way for Moffatiss to shoe horn him in.