Mary Morstan

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, T.o.b.y said:

I just wish she had merely run away and the boys had never found her. Not dramatic enough I suppose. 

Considering how Moftiss likes to keep options open, I'm actually surprised that they didn't go that route.  Sure, it's not canon (though who knows, Watson was very vague about it) -- but then the original Mary was apparently not an ex-ninja either.

[bronzeblues]

The problem with Mary is, as someone already mentioned, this bloody pressure to go all feminist with her. And when I mean feminist, I mean this need to make any "strong" female into a super badass ninja or spy or assassin/whatever. Because I guess being a nurse is just too damn weak for some people never mind it's far more admirable than being a gun for hire. And then it just gets worse and worse. Another problem I see is Sherlock being way too chummy with her EVEN AFTER SHE SHOOTS HIM MY EFFING GOD. Notice the way he smirks at her when they talk about both of them using Janine for their own goals. You know when John says in HLV that Sherlock and Mary should have gotten married he's not actually that far off. I think that case can be made for Sherlock actually being reminded of Irene when he learns the truth about Mary. After all, both are intelligent and dangerous(except as much as BBC's Irene felt different in comparison to ACD's Irene she never felt out of place and wrong to me, Mary did) Sherlock's words about doctor's wife sure boredom actually ring true. Mary "the assassin" doesn't seem like someone eho would actually ever settle down abd certainly not with someone like John. From the moment we learn this big secret about Mary everything feels off. Just horribly off. And it is... but then we actually get a character that the writers got even more wrong than Mary... if that's even possible. 

[Arcadia]

Just curious: which character is that? Eurus?

I'm tired of the "badass female" myself, but I find I'm more tolerant of it when I think of Sherlock as inspired more by Marvel and Ian Fleming than by anything ACD ever wrote. I have to keep reminding myself that Sherlock is, according to Moftiss, basically a boyhood fantasy brought to life. Boys at the age when girls are "icky", to boot. How do boys keep girls from being icky? Well, by making them as boy-like as possible! Give 'em a gun and make them run around shooting things, dress 'em in paramilitary clothes, etc. No chance the girls will spoil the fun if they're doing the exact same things the boys do, right?  

Now that I think on it, it would be interesting to see how the fandom would have reacted if John had been a woman and Mary a man. We'd find the assassin background easier to swallow, I bet. A bit. Okay, maybe.....

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Of course John has a military background -- but we've known that from the first episode (or even before that, for anyone familiar with prior incarnations).  And that doesn't bother me, but I don't think that's just because he's a man.  It's because it was never a secret.

Now I think if it were suddenly revealed that Mike Stamford was a former gun for hire -- that would bother me.  Because we've always known him as an amiable, easy-going med-school instructor.

If Mary had been introduced as, say, an edgy police detective, I don't think the revelation of her background would have bothered me so much.  But of course it was the shock value that Moftiss was going for, their boyish equivalent of ha-ha fooled ya!

[bronzeblues]

13 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Just curious: which character is that? Eurus?

I'm tired of the "badass female" myself, but I find I'm more tolerant of it when I think of Sherlock as inspired more by Marvel and Ian Fleming than by anything ACD ever wrote. I have to keep reminding myself that Sherlock is, according to Moftiss, basically a boyhood fantasy brought to life. Boys at the age when girls are "icky", to boot. How do boys keep girls from being icky? Well, by making them as boy-like as possible! Give 'em a gun and make them run around shooting things, dress 'em in paramilitary clothes, etc. No chance the girls will spoil the fun if they're doing the exact same things the boys do, right?  

Now that I think on it, it would be interesting to see how the fandom would have reacted if John had been a woman and Mary a man. We'd find the assassin background easier to swallow, I bet. A bit. Okay, maybe.....

 

 

 

Yes, I am talking about Eurus. While this show hadn't been what it used to be for a while TFP is the moment people actually started to wonder whether this show was ever as good as everyone thought.That,I think, in itself tells everything one needs to know about the finale. 

I also think the fact that Sherlock to the writers was some sort of boy fantasy is the root of all the flaws that just became more and more obvious over time. Someone wrote how this is a show about smart people written by stupid people who think smart people are indistinguishable from wizards. That explains a good part of this show in a nutshell, I think. Eurus is not exceptionally brilliant. She is a character someone wrote when using heavy drugs. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't think the Moftisses are literally stupid, nor do I suspect they're actual druggies -- but I do think you have a point.  They're not as smart as Sherlock Holmes, so they have to cheat and invent cases that they know how to solve (same way Conan Doyle did it, one assumes).  And recently they've obviously been humoring their little-boy fantasies a bit too much to suit most people who aren't little boys.

All of this does tend to dull one's appreciation of the show as a whole.  I am still hoping, however, that they meant what they said -- what we've seen so far is the modern version of how the boyish Holmes of Study in Scarlet became the mature Holmes of the later tales.  So next time they return from hiatus, they'll be back to telling proper updated Holmes stories.

Note that the Downey movies are about to return after an eight-year hiatus.  So what we're facing isn't at all unusual.  We just have to think of Sherlock as a series of films rather than an ordinary television show.

[bronzeblues]

Don't get me wrong I don't think Moffat and Gatiss are literally stupid or doing drugs for real. I was just trying to make my point. The fact that they are not as intelligent as Sherlock Holmes means nothing since... no one is. That's especially true if we are talking about BBC Sherlock because as the time went on his "deductions" were made up out of thin air. In fact, that just reduced my perception of him being incredibly intelligent. That's not the same problem I had with RDJ's Sherlock or Miller's Sherlock. While they are both incredibly perceptive and smart I never though "puff, he just made that up out of thin air". Their deductions were always plausible more or less. 

As for the continuation of the series I don't think it' s happening for a number of reasons and frankly I don't want it to. TFP with that awful Mary narration and cheesy frame of John and Sherlock jumping in the air(shudders) felt like goodbye. Also, they just hit rock bottom at the end and you can only screw up so much before passing the point of no return.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, bronzeblues said:

As for the continuation of the series I don't think it' s happening for a number of reasons and frankly I don't want it to. TFP with that awful Mary narration and cheesy frame of John and Sherlock jumping in the air(shudders) felt like goodbye. Also, they just hit rock bottom at the end and you can only screw up so much before passing the point of no return.

All I can say is, I hope you're wrong on all counts there.  But I think at this point it's anybody's guess.

The worst possible outcome would be if they did make one or more new episodes and they were clearly even worse than TFP.  Any further hope would then be virtually impossible.

[bronzeblues]

53 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

All I can say is, I hope you're wrong on all counts there.  But I think at this point it's anybody's guess.

The worst possible outcome would be if they did make one or more new episodes and they were clearly even worse than TFP.  Any further hope would then be virtually impossible.

I somehow doubt it's even possible to make an episode worse than TFP. I mean what would have to happen? Remember that time when people thought The Blind Banker and THOB were weak? That was nice 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Agreed.  TBB and THoB are arguably weak episodes of Sherlock, but they are undeniably episodes of Sherlock, they are each based on a popular canon novel, and at least some of their apparent plot holes may be justifiable (details upon request).  TFP, despite its title being directly from ACD, and despite having a terrific opening scene and a few classic moments, strikes me as just a whole lotta .

Yes, I am sad to say that if anyone is capable of writing a nominal Sherlock episode that bears even less resemblance to prior episodes, if would be the Moftisses.  (I would not have believed that TFP was possible till I'd actually seen it.  Probably twice.)  Of course they are also the two people most capable of making an absolutely wonderful new episode of Sherlock.

And of course, tastes vary widely among fans.  Even though I'd have to put TFP as my fourth favorite S4 episode, I seem to recall some people saying it's at the top of their list.

[bronzeblues]

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Agreed.  TBB and THoB are arguably weak episodes of Sherlock, but they are undeniably episodes of Sherlock, they are each based on a popular canon novel, and at least some of their apparent plot holes may be justifiable (details upon request).  TFP, despite its title being directly from ACD, and despite having a terrific opening scene and a few classic moments, strikes me as just a whole lotta .

Yes, I am sad to say that if anyone is capable of writing a nominal Sherlock episode that bears even less resemblance to prior episodes, if would be the Moftisses.  (I would not have believed that TFP was possible till I'd actually seen it.  Probably twice.)  Of course they are also the two people most capable of making an absolutely wonderful new episode of Sherlock.

And of course, tastes vary widely among fans.  Even though I'd have to put TFP as my fourth favorite S4 episode, I seem to recall some people saying it's at the top of their list.

Someone said that while TRF might be a great episode of Sherlock it was the worst thing that happened to this show since that turned out to be a death sentence for any serious detective work. While I have my reservations with TRF primarily because of Moriarty whom I dislike because of all the teatrics I can't deny that the moment they suggested Sherlock hired "Richard Brook" to play Moriarty wasn't brilliant. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Admittedly there hasn't been much focus on detective work since TRF, but I don't think the episode is necessarily to blame.  Admittedly it's one of my favorites (due in part to the amazing performances), so I may be biased in its favor.  But merely being present at the scene of a crime does not ipso facto mean you're the guilty party.

Do the people you're paraphrasing (from social media?) say *how" TRF was supposed to have killed the detective work, or is their argument basically just the timing?

[Arcadia]

I just have to jump in here and say that I thought T6T was far worse than TFP. That's just me of course, I know some people loved it. And some people say TFP is their favorite episode. And/or that the fourth season is their favorite.

All I'm saying is … it's not my perception that there's really that much of a consensus on the quality of the series over time. I know many people say the show went downhill after the second season; but many others (me, for one) think S3 is brilliant. And some people say the first episode was the best one, so presumably they think the entire series has been declining ever since!

I agree that TFP isn't to my taste, but my complaints about the quality have more to do with filmic issues than plot quality. (translation: it's visually static.) But I love, love, love the ending. And I actually rather enjoy Eurus, although her sudden reversion to frightened child at the end still doesn't make much sense to me.

But then … I don't really care a fig about canon. I enjoy spotting and/or learning about all the references to canon, but they're not why I fell in love with the show, and it doesn't bother me a bit if they never refer to canon again. They can introduce all the non-canon characters they like and I won't bat an eyelash (or know the difference, most of the time. ) I don't even care if they never solve another crime; most of my favorite bits have nothing to do with detecting anyway. 

I do hope they stay out of prisons, though. Sherlock's so much more interesting when we get to see him move.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think I prefer a mix -- episodes with casework as the basic framework, but lots of other stuff in there as well.  After all, in a show about a detective, you're bound to see some detective work, but you'll also see some of his personal life.  The casework needn't necessarily involve a crime, though.

It's probably just as well that the fans don't all agree on their favorite episodes or their favorite season -- because the Moftisses are jolly well gonna do whatever they damn well please anyhow! 

[Arcadia]

I hope so! The last thing I want is for the show to become predictable!

[bronzeblues]

5 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Admittedly there hasn't been much focus on detective work since TRF, but I don't think the episode is necessarily to blame.  Admittedly it's one of my favorites (due in part to the amazing performances), so I may be biased in its favor.  But merely being present at the scene of a crime does not ipso facto mean you're the guilty party.

Do the people you're paraphrasing (from social media?) say *how" TRF was supposed to have killed the detective work, or is their argument basically just the timing?

I think it was the question of how. Another peeve I have(as do some others) is with just cramming Moriarty into everything and anything.In fact, that's exactly the case that famous "Why Sherlock is garbage" video makes. Moriarty's "crazy Joker" type characterisation and Scott's teatrical performance only add to that pile even though I am aware many love this particular Moriarty. The writers seemed to think that everything and anything must go back to Moriarty because I guess he's the only criminal mind interesting enough(I just find him annoying really, he reminds me of those annoying bratty kids who are always the loudest on the playground). So really, with their strict "in the box" thinking they shoot themselves in the foot because they clearly didn't know what to do after they killed Moriarty. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree about Moriarty, though I liked him in the first six episodes.  They do seem to have kept him dead, at least -- but that doesn't seem to have hampered him much!  What is it so far, since TRF?  There were the fan theories in TEH, the padded-cell scene in HLV, Moriarty-the-Bride in TAB, and of course his recorded announcements in TFP.  Surely I've missed something in the other three episodes!

[bronzeblues]

They may have kept him dead-but it certainly didn't feel like that to me. The same with Mary-why the hell kill her if she is gonna be narrating John to save Sherlock(I guess she can see the future) or make speeches about "Baker Street boys" beyong the grave. 

[Arcadia]

My objection is … why introduce Mary in the first place if you're just going to kill her off 3 episodes later? That's when I have to take Carol's caution to heart; the Moftisses seems to think of these shows as a series of independent, if related, movies, not a TV series … and I'd be better off doing likewise. But it's hard for me, they're too short for movies and shown too close together! Maybe they should have broadcast them a month apart. Or a year apart, in theaters.

I like what they did with Moriarty in S3 and TAB. Hate what they did with him in TFP. He's better off as a representation of Sherlock's worst fears, or whatever.

I suspect if Moftiss had known Sherlock was going to be a long-running hit, they would have held off longer on introducing Moriarty. As it is, they wanted to use him when they had the chance. I know, I know, I sound like an apologist for the show's flaws, but I'm fond of looking at things in context. It seems a bit unfair to me to take the Moftisses to task for not being able to see into the future. Unfortunately for them, that's Dr. Strange's bailiwick, not Sherlock's.  

 

[T.o.b.y]

I think that one of the problems with Mary is that she's a side character whose main purpose, like all side characters', is to help tell the protagonist's story, but she would work much better as the heroine (or anti-heroine) of her own. To do her justice, you would need more time to explore her personality and her background, her choices and conflicts, etc. In that setting, she would have been a truly interesting and feminist character. But as Mary Morstan in the Sherlock Holmes story, she just becomes obnoxious because she out-Sherlock's Sherlock and out-John's John and I watch Sherlock for those two and not somebody else. 

Oh well. At least they made a great casting choice. I think it's mostly because of Amanda Abbington's acting that I feel conflicted about Mary rather than resentful. 

I just wish they had dared to go a little bit darker with her... Not make her any kind of a villain but explore her sinister potential a bit more. That was definitely there. It felt jarring for me when they turned her into some kind of martyred saint in the end, although that's probably more John's perspective than whatever objective reality exists in the Sherlock universe. 

[bronzeblues]

Actually, I felt that the writers were trying to present Mary martyred saint in a wholly objective light. I never got the impression that was supposed to be just John's subjective way of seeing her. And that's just the thing. We were supposed to take it lightly she was a gun for hire just because she loved John and he loved her back and she appearantley wanted a fresh start. Sorry, but we have to question what kind of person she is in the first place because oh, you know...she killed people for a living. I felt Mary the assassin was actually glorified. Instead of going to prison she was presented as some sort of badass love of John's life who could shoot Sherlock and he still be all chummy with her. I mean, that's the man who seemed very iritated when his own parents came to visit him but he wants to hang around the person who shot him. I can not even begin to describe all sorts of wrong with this. 

[Arcadia]

Yes, I have a problem with that as well … the glossing over of what it really means to be an assassin. Not only Mary is let off the hook; so is Sherlock. That's one aspect of this show I don't think I'll ever get … the implication that murder is acceptable, as long as you're killing the "right" people. I can see (but don't agree with) the "necessity" of killing … but I hope I'm never convinced there's anything righteous or noble about it.

I know it's been argued that Mary is supposed to be seen as a flawed character. But I don't see where Moftiss treats her as a flawed character. No one ever questions her moral choices; even John is angry because she hid her past from him, not because of what she did in that past. Instead, she's represented as brave and funny, compassionate, smart and wise … none of which are characteristics I associate with hired killers.

I really liked Mary's personality. I find it rather amusing that she's sometimes smarter than Sherlock. I liked how she and Sherlock got along, and I LOVED what Moffat did with her in TLD, I thought that was brilliant. But I still think making her an assassin was silly, at best. Especially since the only time we see her perform the job, she's on a rescue mission. Excuse me, but that's not what assassins do; they take lives, they don't save them. So the only way I can resolve it is to decide that Moftiss simply has a rather poor grasp of English and thinks "assassin" means "hero for hire." And suddenly it all makes sense.  

[T.o.b.y]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

Yes, I have a problem with that as well … the glossing over of what it really means to be an assassin. Not only Mary is let off the hook; so is Sherlock. That's one aspect of this show I don't think I'll ever get … the implication that murder is acceptable, as long as you're killing the "right" people. I can see (but don't agree with) the "necessity" of killing … but I hope I'm never convinced there's anything righteous or noble about it.

I know it's been argued that Mary is supposed to be seen as a flawed character. But I don't see where Moftiss treats her as a flawed character. No one ever questions her moral choices; even John is angry because she hid her past from him, not because of what she did in that past. Instead, she's represented as brave and funny, compassionate, smart and wise … none of which are characteristics I associate with hired killers.

I really liked Mary's personality. I find it rather amusing that she's sometimes smarter than Sherlock. I liked how she and Sherlock got along, and I LOVED what Moffat did with her in TLD, I thought that was brilliant. But I still think making her an assassin was silly, at best. Especially since the only time we see her perform the job, she's on a rescue mission. Excuse me, but that's not what assassins do; they take lives, they don't save them. So the only way I can resolve it is to decide that Moftiss simply has a rather poor grasp of English and thinks "assassin" means "hero for hire." And suddenly it all makes sense.  

Yeah, from the little we did see of her past, "special agent" seemed to be a more accurate description of her job than "assassin". 

I can accept the lax attitude towards killing on the show because it's not a super realistic fictional universe and veers into superhero territory where violence clearly has a very different meaning than in real life. In the original stories, killing seemed OK too at times as long as the victims were evil (Milverton comes to mind). It's a "slay the dragons" thing, imo.

Unlike you, I hate Mary's ghostly presence in The Lying Detective and her DVD messages, too. Finally she's dead yet she's still overshadowing the main characters - what was the point of killing her then? The only way I can enjoy that episode is by reminding myself that it isn't so much Mary I am looking at as an inner voice of John's, a rare look inside his mind for a change and that's actually pretty interesting.

[bronzeblues]

I don't think either Moffat or Gatiss were sure what Mary was supposed to be. Secret agent? Simply an assassin? I don't know. Sherlock said something about her skills being the one of the CIA agent so that must be it. The problem is I don't care. Also her ghostly(ghastly) presence in TLD is completely unnecesssry and also melodramatic. That sort of thing has no place in a show like this. At least in a show pre-season 3 when it was actually a detective show. Even though that scene when John tells Mary he "cheated" on her is well acted from every player involved(including BC) it still feels like it came straight out of "The Days of Our Lives" or whatever the show's called. 

[T.o.b.y]

The only part that was too melodramatic for me was Mary's death scene. But I don't mind a little melodrama in general; I'm a Dickens fan.