Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Pseudonym]

I don't agree with casting AA just because she had good chemistry with MF - who's to say another actress wouldn't? BC's parents being actors is convenient, and I like them because they are his parents, but really it seems like lazy casting to just cast Sherlock's parents with BC's parents, John's wife with Martin's... not to mention we also had BC's at the time girlfriend in TBB and Gatiss' husband in TRF. 

[Surelock]

Just because casting is lazy doesn't mean it doesn't work out well. It's not just in Sherlock but in other shows, films etc as well.

 

For example Robert Downey Jr. is praised for his portrayal of Tony Stark. Tony Stark has a lot of alcohol and behavioural problems and one of the main reasons why Downey can act out those problems so well is because earlier in his career he suffered from the exact same problems. 

 

Similarly Peter Dinklage is praised for his portrayal of the dwarf Tyrion Lannister in Game of Thrones. Tyrion feels mistreated by the people around him because he's a dwarf and the reason why Dinklage can act out his frustrations so well is because Dinklage himself has suffered similar abuse in his real life as he suffers from achondroplasia.

 

Usually actors have gone through similar experiences to the characters they portray end up portraying their characters extremely well. From a casting standpoint, it just makes sense to always get an actor that has already experienced what the character they portray is going through.

[gerry]

I don't agree with casting AA just because she had good chemistry with MF - who's to say another actress wouldn't? BC's parents being actors is convenient, and I like them because they are his parents, but really it seems like lazy casting to just cast Sherlock's parents with BC's parents, John's wife with Martin's... not to mention we also had BC's at the time girlfriend in TBB and Gatiss' husband in TRF.

What actress from TBB was BC's girlfriend?

[sfmpco]

 

I don't agree with casting AA just because she had good chemistry with MF - who's to say another actress wouldn't? BC's parents being actors is convenient, and I like them because they are his parents, but really it seems like lazy casting to just cast Sherlock's parents with BC's parents, John's wife with Martin's... not to mention we also had BC's at the time girlfriend in TBB and Gatiss' husband in TRF.

What actress from TBB was BC's girlfriend?

 

 

Olivia Poulet.  She was the one wearing the very expensive jade hairpin relic.

[gerry]

 

 

 

I don't agree with casting AA just because she had good chemistry with MF - who's to say another actress wouldn't? BC's parents being actors is convenient, and I like them because they are his parents, but really it seems like lazy casting to just cast Sherlock's parents with BC's parents, John's wife with Martin's... not to mention we also had BC's at the time girlfriend in TBB and Gatiss' husband in TRF.

What actress from TBB was BC's girlfriend?

Olivia Poulet. She was the one wearing the very expensive jade hairpin relic.

The secretary, thanks. I don't follow the personal lives of all the people on this show so I didn't know about all of the connections. Wow, they've really made it a family affair.

[Pseudonym]

Interesting article... I have to say that it makes a lot of sense with the idea of how they pointedly kept John and Sherlock apart. 

 

https://medium.com/@lizbaessler/what-went-wrong-with-sherlock-102d19330257#.idubp4xum

[bedelia1984]

Interesting article... I have to say that it makes a lot of sense with the idea of how they pointedly kept John and Sherlock apart. 

 

https://medium.com/@lizbaessler/what-went-wrong-with-sherlock-102d19330257#.idubp4xum

 

Even though I'm guilty of being pleased by some of the nods they give to the fans in episodes like The Empty Hearse, and almost all of the Abominable Bride, I do wonder what sort of show Sherlock would have been if they had made it in its entirety in some kind of bubble, without the engagement of the fans.

[Pseudonym]

Better I suspect. It's a bit annoying really that these days there is no way for a creator not to be exposed to fan reactions. I also think that all of the early accolades gave them a bit of a big head to the point they began to think they could do no wrong. 

 

I did enjoy these episodes, but in the greater scheme of the show they are definitely problematic. :(

[bedelia1984]

My favourite observation that she made  in the article was the one about how in season one he only knew a few words in German, and then in later seasons was fluent in Serbian. That's what the change was- the ascent into super-Sherlock.

 

I didn't really agree with all her criticism of their handling of Johnlock- I suspect the creators didn't have total say over the trailers, and also thought the way John is shown behind him sort of ruled out the John/ Sherlock 'I love you'. But, then again, I do agree the show really suffered from the fact the two weren't onscreen together as much, or at least it felt that way? They had a beautiful scene together in TLD, but it was late coming, and a lot of TFP felt too artificial to be satisfying in terms of their friendship.

 

Again with the extremes... I didn't really need to know what Sherlock would do when asked to shoot John and Mycroft. I already knew he loved both of them, I didn't need TFP's high stakes drama to tell me that. On the other hand, I would have loved to have scene more normal, ordinary human moments between John and Sherlock, and all the characters really. Maybe a scene between John and Mrs. Hudson, after Mary died? Or, seeing as she already has a small scene with Sherlock, pretty much anything with Molly, or Lestrade, would have been lovely.

[Surelock]

Interesting article... I have to say that it makes a lot of sense with the idea of how they pointedly kept John and Sherlock apart. 

 

https://medium.com/@lizbaessler/what-went-wrong-with-sherlock-102d19330257#.idubp4xum

 

I've always seen shipping as mostly a marketing tool. The creators keep putting suggestive elements between two of their fictional characters so all the shipping fans will dig deep into their work, keep buying it and spreading the word of it. I think shippers are some of the most passionate members of any fanbase so appealing to them is a good way of marketing your work.

 

That's why I don't see why Moffatiss would try to keep Sherlock and John apart just to dispute Johnlock. I think the primary reason why John and Sherlock were apart in this season is because of the focus on character's pasts (Mary and Sherlock). John didn't really fit in well with either of them.

 

Honestly this author sounds a bit like Johnlock shipper herself. Maybe she was disappointed that this season didn't do enough to advance Johnlock?

 

I have a theory that there are more people in the Sherlock fanbase that support Johnlock than we think. However since Johnlock has developed a bit of stigma around itself, I believe some fans nowadays won't admit that they support Johnlock. So in essence they're closeted Johnlock shippers.

 

I do agree with the other points of the article though.

[Pseudonym]

I don't know, after the blow up over Johnlock earlier in the year I wouldn't be surprised if they were hyper aware of trying to avoid it. I don't think they wrote them apart for that reason, but there is definitely a disconnect even in T6T. And of course the Irene part being shoe-horned in, which I've already made my feelings clear about so I won't linger on that. I don't agree where she says 'it's natural he would fall in love'  - if it does continue I really hope they don't go down that route. 

 

As to the 'I love you' trailer edit, I agree they likely didn't have control over that - and BBC marketing seemed to love the idea of pushing Johnlock to try to get viewers, I seem to remember there were quite a few tweets that were a bit on the nose for the TJLC guys. 

[Redbeard]

My favourite observation that she made  in the article was the one about how in season one he only knew a few words in German, and then in later seasons was fluent in Serbian. That's what the change was- the ascent into super-Sherlock.

 

I didn't really agree with all her criticism of their handling of Johnlock- I suspect the creators didn't have total say over the trailers, and also thought the way John is shown behind him sort of ruled out the John/ Sherlock 'I love you'. But, then again, I do agree the show really suffered from the fact the two weren't onscreen together as much, or at least it felt that way? They had a beautiful scene together in TLD, but it was late coming, and a lot of TFP felt too artificial to be satisfying in terms of their friendship.

 

Again with the extremes... I didn't really need to know what Sherlock would do when asked to shoot John and Mycroft. I already knew he loved both of them, I didn't need TFP's high stakes drama to tell me that. On the other hand, I would have loved to have scene more normal, ordinary human moments between John and Sherlock, and all the characters really. Maybe a scene between John and Mrs. Hudson, after Mary died? Or, seeing as she already has a small scene with Sherlock, pretty much anything with Molly, or Lestrade, would have been lovely.

 

I agree about the extremes, and it wasn't just Sherlock but it was - rather annoyingly - Mary and Eurus.  These two side characters were so extreme they were like bigger, better versions of Sherlock and John (the main characters of the show!).  Mary is like a Super-John, not just a soldier but an elite superspecial assassin spy!  Eurus is like Super-Sherlock, the most intelligent and logical person ever with mind control powers and who even taught him how to play viollin!  It was just too much.  Whatever John and Sherlock were, Mary and Eurus bested them.  Enough! Give me an ordinary London world, with mysteries and crimes, and the super intelligent Sherlock and his faithful friend and colleague, John, navigating it all and making everything right.  Give me human moments and for goodness sake, make the show about THEM!  I hate that I know more about Mary and Eurus than I do about John Friggin' Watson!  ugh. I am going for a glass of merlot now lol.  

[gerry]

I've always seen shipping as mostly a marketing tool. The creators keep putting suggestive elements between two of their fictional characters so all the shipping fans will dig deep into their work, keep buying it and spreading the word of it. I think shippers are some of the most passionate members of any fanbase so appealing to them is a good way of marketing your work.

 

That's why I don't see why Moffatiss would try to keep Sherlock and John apart just to dispute Johnlock. I think the primary reason why John and Sherlock were apart in this season is because of the focus on character's pasts (Mary and Sherlock). John didn't really fit in well with either of them.

 

Honestly this author sounds a bit like Johnlock shipper herself. Maybe she was disappointed that this season didn't do enough to advance Johnlock?

 

I have a theory that there are more people in the Sherlock fanbase that support Johnlock than we think. However since Johnlock has developed a bit of stigma around itself, I believe some fans nowadays won't admit that they support Johnlock. So in essence they're closeted Johnlock shippers.

 

I do agree with the other points of the article though.

This pretty sums up my opinion as well but I'm curious to see if you agree with the it being obvious that Sherlock is going to fall in love and the Irene angle being used to prevent JohnLock? I didn't get either impression from season 4.

[Pseudonym]

 

I agree about the extremes, and it wasn't just Sherlock but it was - rather annoyingly - Mary and Eurus.  These two side characters were so extreme they were like bigger, better versions of Sherlock and John (the main characters of the show!).  Mary is like a Super-John, not just a soldier but an elite superspecial assassin spy!  Eurus is like Super-Sherlock, the most intelligent and logical person ever with mind control powers and who even taught him how to play viollin!  It was just too much.  Whatever John and Sherlock were, Mary and Eurus bested them.  Enough! Give me an ordinary London world, with mysteries and crimes, and the super intelligent Sherlock and his faithful friend and colleague, John, navigating it all and making everything right.  Give me human moments and for goodness sake, make the show about THEM!  I hate that I know more about Mary and Eurus than I do about John Friggin' Watson!  ugh. I am going for a glass of merlot now lol.  

 

Agreed! And actually show those human moments. There are too many things left off screen that we're supposed to assume. And I hate that Eurus taught Sherlock the violin, don't buy that at all. 

[Surelock]

 

I've always seen shipping as mostly a marketing tool. The creators keep putting suggestive elements between two of their fictional characters so all the shipping fans will dig deep into their work, keep buying it and spreading the word of it. I think shippers are some of the most passionate members of any fanbase so appealing to them is a good way of marketing your work.

 

That's why I don't see why Moffatiss would try to keep Sherlock and John apart just to dispute Johnlock. I think the primary reason why John and Sherlock were apart in this season is because of the focus on character's pasts (Mary and Sherlock). John didn't really fit in well with either of them.

 

Honestly this author sounds a bit like Johnlock shipper herself. Maybe she was disappointed that this season didn't do enough to advance Johnlock?

 

I have a theory that there are more people in the Sherlock fanbase that support Johnlock than we think. However since Johnlock has developed a bit of stigma around itself, I believe some fans nowadays won't admit that they support Johnlock. So in essence they're closeted Johnlock shippers.

 

I do agree with the other points of the article though.

This pretty sums up my opinion as well but I'm curious to see if you agree with the it being obvious that Sherlock is going to fall in love and the Irene angle being used to prevent JohnLock? I didn't get either impression from season 4.

 

 

Neither did I.

 

When I read that I started to suspect the author of that article was a Johnlock shipper herself and was just looking at things in Season 4 to lash out at. Her article is fairly well written except when it comes to the Johnlock stuff that sounds like a lot of nitpicking.

 

I think that scene with Irene texting Sherlock was more to reflect a change in John's character than in Sherlock's. In the past, John would have been passive and would have just said 'Whatever' if he found that Sherlock was ignoring Irene's texts.

 

However losing Mary has caused John to appreciate life more. Even the little moments that John used to take for granted, he now cherishes. He doesn't want Sherlock to take anything for granted like he did so that's why he tells Sherlock to text her back. I'm not even sure if John was certain there was a thing between Irene and Sherlock. However he didn't want to take anything for granted.

 

That scene was more about John showing concern for Sherlock than anything to do with Sherlock and Irene's relationship. It was about John telling Sherlock to make the most of his life. That's what I got out of that scene.

[gerry]

I think that scene with Irene texting Sherlock was more to reflect a change in John's character than in Sherlock's. In the past, John would have been passive and would have just said 'Whatever' if he found that Sherlock was ignoring Irene's texts.

.....

That scene was more about John showing concern for Sherlock than anything to do with Sherlock and Irene's relationship. It was about John telling Sherlock to make the most of his life. That's what I got out of that scene.

Again, we agree. That dialogue was also used to segue into John describing his view on how a woman you love makes you a better man and his guilt over not being that better man. Neither of which mirrored Irene and Sherlock's relationship with her.

[Arcadia]

I admit that I had a different response when I initially saw both TAB and S4; my first reaction was that Moffat had been stung by the various accusations of misogyny, and this was his way of proving how much respect he had for the ladies ... by making them the baddest asses in the show.

 

Should it have worked? I don't know ... personally, I'm tired of women proving they're better at everything than men. To me it's never been about being able to compete with men, it's been about being respected for what I am, instead of being dismissed for what I am not. But hey, I also get the vicarious thrill of watching Mrs. H get the drop on Sherlock Holmes.

 

Anyway, I liked Mary and Eurus both well enough as personalities, even if I don't appreciate their "superiority" as much as I feel like I'm expected to. But I'm not really bent out of shape about that either; successful or not, I appreciate the intent of creating strong female characters, even if I'm not crazy about the result.

 

But then they go and undermine it by their treatment of Molly .... oh, so if you're not an arch criminal of some kind, you aren't eligible for the affection these men exhibit for the other women in their lives? Egad.

 

I don't really think that was their intent, but it's sure dang easy to see that as the outcome. And again, it's a very "little boy" oriented view of girls ... they're only fun to play with if they're willing to get dirty and wrestle and play at being pirates. Girly girls spoil things by wanting everything to be cute and sweet and romantic and boring.

 

And they're not wrong; I myself am pretty easily bored by "traditional" girl's interests. I get why some boys don't want to have tea parties and play with dolls; neither did I, at that age. Should we insist they play with "that kind" of girl anyway? I don't know. Should we insist that girls "have" to play rough and tumble boy's games?

 

Annnd, I've sort of drifted off my point and forgotten what it was. The game is ... something.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Oh, I know ... the Johnlock stuff and keeping our boys apart. Although I feel sure they took pains to avoid stirring that pot again, I also think the separation between the two men was at the heart of the story ... we're meant to feel the separation, we're supposed to suffer through their loss of each other. In some ways, that was the only point of introducing Mary ... so her loss would break the boys apart, and we'd get to see how they found their way back to each other again. And the end result was to have John and Sherlock be closer than they ever were before. So although I agree they've taken pains to avoid the gay jokes, and to imply that both boys are strictly heterosexual, I also think they had to keep them apart for the sake of the plot, not just to squelch Johnlock theories.

 

And I also think they acknowledge, several times and in several ways, that John has been somewhat MIA in the past couple of seasons. That scene with the balloon, for instance; it was funny, but it was also a little sad, because it was true ... Sherlock was just as happy chattering at a balloon as he would have been if John had been sitting there the whole time. There were other scenes like that ... but I have to go fix lunch for me mum. But I think maybe they were acknowledging that something was a bit off in the Sherlock/John relationship. The balance of power between them was no longer the same; but the end of TLD restored it.

[Surelock]

I admit that I had a different response when I initially saw both TAB and S4; my first reaction was that Moffat had been stung by the various accusations of misogyny, and this was his way of proving how much respect he had for the ladies ... by making them the baddest asses in the show.

 

 

In a video interview he did last year, Moffat as good as admits that's what he was trying to do in The Abominable Bride:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzbi_6RWsao#t=03m05s

 

I'm guessing he also tried to do the same thing in Season 4. 

 

I wonder if ladies like you appreciate Moffat's concern?

[Pseudonym]

To be honest what really gets my back up is how frequently people fling accusations of misogyny at writers, it exhausts me. Most series with one or two male leads seem to get that criticism from people (women presumably) who feel wronged that there isn't also a strong female character - guess what, there doesn't have to be. I used to love Supernatural, seasons 1-3, and I saw the same accusations in that fandom, because Dean was all about easy hook-ups and one night stands, but of course he was, because we were seeing his world from his point of view and that's who he was. It didn't mean that he or the writers hated women.

In Sherlock we are seeing Sherlock's world, Molly has a whole life outside of the odd times she sees Sherlock, yes she's weak around him but honestly I think a lot of people are like that around people they feel strongly for, both men and women. Sherlock takes advantage of Janine, to an extent, but God knows she's feisty enough that she handles it, ahem, manfully. I hate the implication that no strong lead female automatically equals misogyny, especially if it leads to super-duper characters like Mary and Eurus being brought in. 

[Arcadia]

 

I admit that I had a different response when I initially saw both TAB and S4; my first reaction was that Moffat had been stung by the various accusations of misogyny, and this was his way of proving how much respect he had for the ladies ... by making them the baddest asses in the show.

 

 

In a video interview he did last year, Moffat as good as admits that's what he was trying to do in The Abominable Bride:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzbi_6RWsao#t=03m05s

 

I'm guessing he also tried to do the same thing in Season 4. 

 

I wonder if ladies like you appreciate Moffat's concern?

 

I appreciate the effort, if not the result. I find him pretty ham-handed about it; but then I probably would be too, if the shoes were reversed. I've tried to write & draw stories, and I've noticed my male heroes tend to be somewhat, er, effeminate. (That's one reason I used to love anime; the guys weren't so butch all the time!) 

 

And frankly, I never thought Moffat was a misogynist; he and Gatiss have many times said they just want to have fun telling stories about their boyhood hero, and it so happens women aren't a part of that world. I don't mind. But they do call attention to their weaknesses in characterization when they write women, I'm afraid.

 

TBH, in lesser hands, I'm not sure Sherlock would've had as much personality as he does. BC manages to convey all manner of nuanced behaviors, motives and emotions that I'm not convinced are in the script. Although the Moftisses must have approved that approach to the character, or they wouldn't have hired the man.

 

 

To be honest what really gets my back up is how frequently people fling accusations of misogyny at writers, it exhausts me. Most series with one or two male leads seem to get that criticism from people (women presumably) who feel wronged that there isn't also a strong female character - guess what, there doesn't have to be. I used to love Supernatural, seasons 1-3, and I saw the same accusations in that fandom, because Dean was all about easy hook-ups and one night stands, but of course he was, because we were seeing his world from his point of view and that's who he was. It didn't mean that he or the writers hated women.

In Sherlock we are seeing Sherlock's world, Molly has a whole life outside of the odd times she sees Sherlock, yes she's weak around him but honestly I think a lot of people are like that around people they feel strongly for, both men and women. Sherlock takes advantage of Janine, to an extent, but God knows she's feisty enough that she handles it, ahem, manfully. I hate the implication that no strong lead female automatically equals misogyny, especially if it leads to super-duper characters like Mary and Eurus being brought in. 

I could have skipped my post and just let Pseud speak for me (why didn't you tell me you were composing my idea for me! :d)

 

I did like Mary and Eurus, though. Mary for her personality (but not her profession! Urk) and Eurus I found mesmerizing, regardless of gender. But I do appreciate that she was a female "villain" for a change. Was she too superpowered? Eh, I take all that with a grain of salt; I just think that's Moftiss being all artsy and impressionistic.

[Pseudonym]

I was expecting no-one to agree and to be ripped apart for my lack of feminist vitriol to be honest. 

[Arcadia]

Oh, sorry to disappoint. :p Shall I go find a radical feminist and drag her in here? :d

[Pseudonym]

Yes please, I feel the need to be railed at and abused for being a disgrace and a traitor to my gender. 

[Arcadia]

See what I can do. Don't want you feeling ignored.