Continuity (?) in Sherlock

[Hikari]

10 hours ago, Caya said:

Good comedy punches up, not down. Playfully making fun of themselves and their creation - okay, go for it. Mocking their fans and their dedication - a bit not good.

Seconded.  I don't really see how anything in the final season can be construed as 'playful', unless one is a psychopath.  Mark Gatiss dressed up like the Gorton fisherman . . eh, rates a half-smile from me.

After an initial reaction of disappointment to TEH--specifically *the criminal waste* of Sebastian Moran as a character--Really, what a squandered opportunity!!  Moran, Moriarty's chief henchman and lieutenant is just as scary as his boss.  He blithely assassinates people with his airgun, doesn't just hide in a rented room and press a button on a computer.  Perhaps--this Mary is supposed to be the 'Moran'?  How similar the names--Moran, Morstan--I did quite like some of the bits.  The Sign of Three is great craic . . and the first bit of HLV is as well  . . 'Billy' is sublime.  But it all goes off the rails and never recovers.

[Carol the Dabbler]

15 hours ago, Hikari said:

Before we 'knew' Mary's proclivities, when we were intro'd to her at the engagement dinner, she seemed like a 'creative' type, not a nurse/receptionist in a government-run clinic.  That was Amanda's own style informing Mary.  So many other things they could have done with this character, wholesome things, like adding a sassy gal who knows a skip code and has a memory like a steel trap to the detective business as the Girl Friday/co-investigator.  Or they could have paid homage to the original Mary, John's lovely, traditional, yet surprisingly independent-minded wife by having her modern counterpart do something nurturing of her own like baking artisanal breads or running a nursery school.

Or both!  *sigh*  But the Moftisses seem to think that the only strong female characters are BAD female characters.

16 hours ago, Hikari said:

I still don't understand why Mofftiss felt compelled to make Mary a ninja assassin, especially if they were going to introduce 'Euros'.  How many sociopaths can one small doctor collect around himself?

See my previous comment.    

15 hours ago, Hikari said:

For me Sherlock jumped the shark when Sherlock came face to face with John's wife in her assassin gear and took a bullet in the chest.  Subsequent events were both the writers and John Watson losing their minds, in my opinion.

You have more patience than I do!  But yeah, that did it for sure.  Up till then, I was still able to think of it as the same show, albeit with a different tone.

16 hours ago, Hikari said:

I did like the device of Sherlock explaining (or, condescending to) 'Phil', his former antagonist and audience stand-in, who, like many of the audience had wasted three years of his life heatedly divising, discussing and discarding 'theories' during the explanation portion.

I hadn't quite thought of it that way, but yeah.  I wouldn't say I "like" it, but now that you mention the analogy, it could easily be construed as dismissive to the fans, rather than the tip of the hat they claim to have intended.  Maybe they don't understand the difference?

16 hours ago, Hikari said:

the issue of Mary and Euros and the toxification of the the Sherlock/John relationship . . those I did object to.

Me too.  As for the latter, yes, that sort of thing could happen in real life.  Tempers do flare, and friends are forgiven.  But sheesh, guys, you're writing for a (supposed) drama series, not a soap opera!

On 5/11/2021 at 3:50 AM, Caya said:

Good comedy punches up, not down. Playfully making fun of themselves and their creation - okay, go for it. Mocking their fans and their dedication - a bit not good.

No argument.  They claim it was an hommage to the fans, and maybe that really is what they thought they were doing.  But it's sure not how it came across.

Funny how we're all still hanging around here, isn't it?  Well, I still like the show, at least the first two seasons, most of the third season (albeit not as well), The Abominable Bride, and selected bits of the fourth season.  But more importantly, I enjoy the discussions here (about Sherlock and about everything else).

 

[Arcadia]

On 5/10/2021 at 11:46 AM, Carol the Dabbler said:

That was carefully orchestrated by the government, though.  Apparently too much dirty laundry would have been exposed if the murder had come to light.  So instead they said that one of Mycroft's retinue had fired accidentally.

Or do you understand that, but think it was the wrong way to handle it?

 

Wrong way to handle it, because it didn't address the issue that bothered me ... in my world, there should be some consequence for committing murder. But there was none. And I don't much care for the idea of a world, even a fictional one, where it's "okay" simply because the "good guy" did it.

On 5/10/2021 at 1:22 PM, J.P. said:

Looking back I think we might have put much too much meaning into something that was meant as a playful new adaptation of the old materials. This would explain Mofftiss sometimes strange reactions.

Probably. And yet how many of us said that we, in some way,  identified with the character of Sherlock? It wasn't just about finding meaning, I don't think -- something about Sherlock's character made many of us feel that we'd found one of our tribe. (Look how many of us still celebrate our introversion, for example. )

I think I have to put most of that down to Ben's performance, and not to any grand scheme of the writers. I still remember reading one interview, where Ben indicated that he had asked Moffat what Sherlock's motivation was for a certain scene. And Moffat's response was, basically, "he doesn't have one." So Ben was left to invent his own, it seems. And it works to make Sherlock seem very real to us. But that "realism" isn't necessarily supported by the scripts. 

16 hours ago, Hikari said:

Re. Janine

Someone mentioned before, don't know which thread now, that before Sherlock cultivated Janine without her knowledge as a useful tool for access to Magnusson, *Mary* had pipped him to the post, and a long time prior, as a matter of fact.  J. was maid of honor at Mary's wedding, a role usually reserved for one's closest friend, if one isn't choosing (or doesn't have) a sister or other close female relative.  John admits when proposing to Mary that 'it hasn't been long', ie. that they've been dating.  Maybe they knew each other for a couple of years at the surgery before becoming a couple . . but just how long Mary has been cultivating Janine is a mystery.  How would those two ever have organically become friends, with their very disparate careers?  Janine seems quite a bit younger as well, so how many social circles would there be that overlapped between them?  Yet, here's J. in the premier supporting role in the female side of the bridal party.  There are some other bridesmaids too . . then all those wedding telegrams with well-wishes for 'Poppet'.  For an 'orphan' who's only posing as a nurse named Mary Morstan, she's collected a lot of pals.  There was the ex-boyfriend interrogated by Sherlock . . bit of low-hanging fruit for our Mary . . She was really going deep underground cultivating this younger and rather vapid set of social acquaintances.  So--she targeted Magnusson, because it surely was not sheer coincidence that her 'best friend' just happens to be CAM's PA.  Why?  Was she actually still a sleeper agent the whole time?  Did she actually fall in love with John or--a more blood-chilling explanation:  did she cultivate him too, as an asset?  Surely the person closest in proximity and feeling to Sherlock Holmes is a useful person to know.  A lesser bit of wonderment is--what exactly does she do at the surgery?  Is she a nurse or is she just a receptionist?  I don't suppose it'd be hard for a CIA operative (I don't necessarily say 'ex-operative', either . . ) to fake up a nursing credential, but working in a medical clinic it would become apparent pretty quick if she didn't actually know what she was doing.  So, all the more reason to suspect that Mary in fact chose to work at *that* particular NHS clinic because the (late) Sherlock Holmes's best mate/confidante/business manager/publicist worked there.  Her duties at the surgery would not otherwise seem to be a good fit for her considerable skill set.  Before we 'knew' Mary's proclivities, when we were intro'd to her at the engagement dinner, she seemed like a 'creative' type, not a nurse/receptionist in a government-run clinic.  That was Amanda's own style informing Mary.  So many other things they could have done with this character, wholesome things, like adding a sassy gal who knows a skip code and has a memory like a steel trap to the detective business as the Girl Friday/co-investigator.  Or they could have paid homage to the original Mary, John's lovely, traditional, yet surprisingly independent-minded wife by having her modern counterpart do something nurturing of her own like baking artisanal breads or running a nursery school.

Mary is unmasked in HLV, but so many threads are left dangling, because it doesn't seem like Mary had really given up the covert espionage business at all but had just gone a bit dormant.  We see she still had all the kit.  I still don't understand why Mofftiss felt compelled to make Mary a ninja assassin, especially if they were going to introduce 'Euros'.  How many sociopaths can one small doctor collect around himself?  For me Sherlock jumped the shark when Sherlock came face to face with John's wife in her assassin gear and took a bullet in the chest.  Subsequent events were both the writers and John Watson losing their minds, in my opinion.

In comparison with that, the rather anti-climactic 'reveal' of 'How Sherlock Did It' (the Fall) is the height of rationality.  Very funny how Mofftiss hewed strenuously to the laws of physics in that instance but threw caution to the winds in going all Arkham Asylum with the 'reveal' of Euros and Redbeard.  I did like the device of Sherlock explaining (or, condescending to) 'Phil', his former antagonist and audience stand-in, who, like many of the audience had wasted three years of his life heatedly divising, discussing and discarding 'theories' during the explanation portion.  I guess we can take Sherlock's dismissive, 'aren't you lot silly'? attitude as indicative of the writers' attitude toward their fans.  I don't believe it's a writer's responsibility to pander to his/her audience's expectations . . but I do expect well-written material that holds together and still lets the audience have their dignity.  I always understood the gay subtext in the episodes was just a tease for humor, not a promise that 'more' was on offer . . John Watson has always historically been a hetero character and Sherlock Holmes is not tuned to the carnal frequency.   But the issue of Mary and Euros and the toxification of the the Sherlock/John relationship . . those I did object to.   The whole last season and most of HLV felt like a two-fingered salute from Mofftiss to the viewers to me.

Ah yes. The whole character of Mary is a continuity nightmare. Look, she's a sweet, funny nurse! Wait, she's a deadly assassin! No, she's not, she's a heroic rescuer! Oops, hold on, she's sweet and funny again. Oh, wait, that's just John's memory of her.

I think when it came to Mary they focused far too much on plot and not at all on character, and so she never seems real. She's a device instead of a character. Which is too bad, because I absolutely adore Moffat's portrayal of her in TLD. Well ... I guess it's a portrayal of John's memory of her. But John had to develop that image of her based on something. I still wish they'd taken time to explore more of that side of her instead of being in such a rush to kill her off.

 

[Arcadia]

35 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Funny how we're all still hanging around here, isn't it?  Well, I still like the show, at least the first two seasons, most of the third season (albeit not as well), The Abominable Bride, and selected bits of the fourth season.  But more importantly, I enjoy the discussions here (about Sherlock and about everything else).

We sort of cross-posted, but yeah ... this.

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I don't much care for the idea of a world, even a fictional one, where it's "okay" simply because the "good guy" did it.

I don't think that was the reason given, but let me go check...,

Oh, right, of course -- at the end of His Last Vow [here], Sherlock is on his way to a special assignment, AKA exile and almost certain death, when Moriarty's image pops up on every screen.  There's apparently a really quick top-level phone conference, and the plane turns back.  Mycroft's explanation is that Sherock is needed (by England).

So it's a lot more pragmatic than "the good guy did it."

 

[Arcadia]

25 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I don't think that was the reason given, but let me go check...,

Oh, right, of course -- at the end of His Last Vow [here], Sherlock is on his way to a special assignment, AKA exile and almost certain death, when Moriarty's image pops up on every screen.  There's apparently a really quick top-level phone conference, and the plane turns back.  Mycroft's explanation is that Sherock is needed (by England).

So it's a lot more pragmatic than "the good guy did it."

 

Yeah, but that's not what I meant. He was brought back to deal with Moriarty, but that alone doesn't absolve him of murder ... he's just become a useful tool for the government.

What I wanted to see ... and never got ... was acknowledgement that appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner ... as Sherlock did ... carries consequences. But Sherlock suffered no consequences; neither legal nor personal. And that doesn't sit well with me. I know the show is fiction, but it functions in a world that is based on the one I live in, and I don't like the suggestion that it's okay to do what Sherlock did and just saunter away from it. While stuffing your face with cookies, no less. The opening of TST was a very, very ugly moment, for me. I lost a lot of respect for the character of Sherlock in that moment.

Besides, it's another continuity issue. Oh my, Sherlock's a murderer, we have no choice but to send him to his death. Oops, wait, we need him to deal with Moriarity. Oh, lookie, guess what, there's alternatives to exile and death after all! Gee, who knew? 

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

What I wanted to see ... and never got ... was acknowledgement that appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner ... as Sherlock did ... carries consequences.

If Sherlock had indeed been flown off to meet his doom, would you have found that more appropriate?

And what would you then have considered an appropriate governmental reaction to the apparent return of Moriarty?

 

[Hikari]

4 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Yeah, but that's not what I meant. He was brought back to deal with Moriarty, but that alone doesn't absolve him of murder ... he's just become a useful tool for the government.

What I wanted to see ... and never got ... was acknowledgement that appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner ... as Sherlock did ... carries consequences. But Sherlock suffered no consequences; neither legal nor personal. And that doesn't sit well with me. I know the show is fiction, but it functions in a world that is based on the one I live in, and I don't like the suggestion that it's okay to do what Sherlock did and just saunter away from it. While stuffing your face with cookies, no less. The opening of TST was a very, very ugly moment, for me. I lost a lot of respect for the character of Sherlock in that moment.

Besides, it's another continuity issue. Oh my, Sherlock's a murderer, we have no choice but to send him to his death. Oops, wait, we need him to deal with Moriarity. Oh, lookie, guess what, there's alternatives to exile and death after all! Gee, who knew? 

It might have been between seasons of Sherlock that I discovered the long-running BBC series MI-5 (called Spooks in its home market but for obvious reasons, the name was changed for syndication to America).  Is anyone else familiar?  Over ten seasons, commencing in 2001, it followed the ever-changing group of 'spooks' based at Thames House under the command of Harry Pearce (Peter Firth) and collectively known as 'Five'.  "Five" functions the same as our FBI, concentrating on terrorist threats to security at home, whilst their fractious rival cohort across the Thames at Whitehall, MI-6, like our CIA deals in international terrorist threats to the security of Britain.  There is sometimes a lot of overlap between the two agencies, with British citizens getting involved in terrorist organizations abroad and foreign nationals infiltrating Britain to commit terrorist acts on domestic soil.  Much like our two security agencies (and now we've got Homeland Security as a Cabinet-level agency, too), it's often hard to say definitively who has jurisdiction and there's a ton of inter-agency political infighting and  brinksmanship.  Events of 9/11 made it seem dicey whether the show could actually go forward at all, since probably at least half of it deals expressly with Middle Eastern terrorism.  In this world, the two greatest threats to the United Kingdom today are al-Queda and 'The Americans' . . chiefly, the jingoistic cowboys of the CIA, egged on by the American President, whoever he is.  Incidentally, our Ben appears in a small guest role as a nervous junior Five officer under interrogation for suspected treasonous activity in a Season 2 episode.  Sherlock and international stardom was still some 8 years in the future.

Five and its sister agency Six tend to recruit the brightest and the best from Cambridge & Oxford and other universities.  The ideal candidate is fit, multilingual, prepared to work all hours, cool under pressure and doesn't have many personal attachments.  They have to be comfortable operating in an often grey area between what is 'legal' in the eyes of the law, or ethical/humane in the eyes of society . . and what is required on an operational level by one's government.  These spooks are patriotic as a default, but I think it'd be really tough to reconcile a religious faith and adherence to tenets like 'Thou shalt not kill' and 'Thou shalt not bear false witness' with the requirements of the service to one's country in this capacity.  To enter the security services is to enter a world where 'truth' and 'good' are situational, where the end does justify the means and where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  In short, if one is not prepared to adopt easy lying and false identities as a lifestyle, even to one's partner, parents & children . . if one is not able to kill another person without hesitation if the operation demands it, often using resourceful means. . in other words, to live within the grey areas . . one is not equipped to do this job.  Few are, and for officers in the field, sometimes the life expectancy is not long.  Yet what these security services personnel are, at a fundamental level, are soldiers in the service of their country.  If we can accept that soldiers on the battlefield are not held culpable for killing in combat out of necessity, should these officers be labeled monsters for fighting the Cold War to win for their nation?   The trouble with Mary's past is not just that she was recruited by the CIA and had to kill while on assignment for the United States government, but that she had committed civilian crimes before that and afterwards, was a mercenary doing 'wet work' for cash.  At least, I think that this is implied--that she'd become a loose canon for sale to the highest bidder, including the terrorists she'd been fighting against while in the CIA.  I guess the fundamental question one has to fall on to one side or the other is:  Is murder ever justified, and if so, under what circumstances?  Mary had fallen on the wrong side of that line . . Sherlock killed CAM without authorization so he had as well.  Seeing as he brought a gun to the encounter, it was premeditated murder, not operational.  Would we feel differently about it if Mycroft, having assessed the threat posed to national security by CAM had had him taken out by one of his legitimate agents?  Does it make a difference?

Sherlock overstepped himself but maybe he just hastened something that would have happened to CAM in the near future anyway.  CAM never got punished for any of his crimes against humanity--until SH appointed himself executioner.  Despite his many gifts which would make him an excellent operative, he does have one major failing that could be fatal, and was, nearly, in Scandal . . his uncontrollable urge to Show Off that overrides any instinct to discretion.  Executing Magnusson was strenuously out of character due to the violence, but even canon Sherlock often appointed himself judge and jury when it came to deciding to what should happen to a miscreant.  I can't recollect any instance in Conan Doyle where Sherlock Holmes ever killed a person.  Perhaps ACD, with his devout Catholicism and his vow to 'first do no harm' could not bring himself to write his hero as a killer, even in the service of Her Majesty Queen Victoria.  In the final story "His Last Bow" Holmes and Watson *are* on Her Majesty's Secret Service, and it is implied that this is a role which Sherlock Holmes has been engaged in since his abrupt 'retirement' from the consulting business and quitting Baker Street at the tender age of only 50. and one he plans to continue.  So the 'beekeeping in Sussex' is, while a hobby SH does dabble in, also a convenient cover story for his actual activities for the Crown.    

No matter what century SH is living in, he's too valuable an asset to the Crown and to humanity in general to let rot in prison or execute, even if his actions *technically* warrant some sort of consequence.  At times like these, it's ever so helpful to have an elder brother who '*is* the British Government.  The clandestine operatives that have to commit murder for Queen and Country are supposed to remain under the radar and avoid having their fingerprints on the scenes.  Because they do tread on morally suspect areas at times, and if caught by the civilian authorities, sometimes have to be disavowed, just like Ethan Hunt.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Hikari said:

the long-running BBC series MI-5 (called Spooks in its home market but for obvious reasons, the name was changed for syndication to America)

For anyone not up on somewhat-old-fashioned American derogatory slang, the word can refer to black people -- when it's not referring to ghosts or perhaps to government agents such as those in the CIA.

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

The trouble with Mary's past is not just that she was recruited by the CIA and had to kill while on assignment for the United States government, but that she had committed civilian crimes before that and afterwards, was a mercenary doing 'wet work' for cash.  At least, I think that this is implied--that she'd become a loose canon for sale to the highest bidder, including the terrorists she'd been fighting against while in the CIA.

I never was really clear on that, especially considering the source.  Was Magnussen being honest or manipulative or what?

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

Sherlock killed CAM without authorization so he had as well.  Seeing as he brought a gun to the encounter, it was premeditated murder, not operational.

He was heading into a dicey situation, so if he's anything like the original Holmes, he'd bring it for self protection == though if he already had an inkling where the "vaults" really were, he may have had a contingency plan as well.

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

Despite his many gifts which would make him an excellent operative, he does have one major failing that could be fatal, and was, nearly, in Scandal . . his uncontrollable urge to Show Off that overrides any instinct to discretion.

Heaven knows that's true enough!

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

 I can't recollect any instance in Conan Doyle where Sherlock Holmes ever killed a person.

It's been a while since I read any canon stories, but there were definitely a few cases where he stood by and let someone die, if he thought it was deserved.  Oddly enough, for those who haven't read Conan Doyle, one of them was Milverton (the original Magnussen), who was killed by one of his blackmail victims.  But the Moftisses thought that was a fiction made up by Watson to protect Holmes from prosecution.  (And besides, they just couldn't believe that a mere female could have killed him.  )

As for whether either Holmes "should" have killed CAM, I'll leave that for others to debate.

 

[Arcadia]

4 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

If Sherlock had indeed been flown off to meet his doom, would you have found that more appropriate?

And what would you then have considered an appropriate governmental reaction to the apparent return of Moriarty?

More appropriate? Yes. More to my liking? No.

What I personally would have preferred is for Sherlock to show remorse. That's it. I wanted him to demonstrate that he was decent enough to realize that he had overstepped his authority; that he is not the arbiter of life and death. Whether that involved a pardon or not (which seemed to me the cleanest way to explain why Sherlock was condemned one minute but free as a bird the next) wasn't really important, except that it would have cleared up a loose end in a way I would have appreciated.

The fact that they made him so gleeful about getting away without even a harsh word just made it worse.

As far as the government responding to Moriarty ... there's other smart people out there, they would have managed. Sorry, Sherlock, but I don't believe you're the ONLY one who can solve problems!

 

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

Seeing as he brought a gun to the encounter, it was premeditated murder, not operational.  Would we feel differently about it if Mycroft, having assessed the threat posed to national security by CAM had had him taken out by one of his legitimate agents?  Does it make a difference?

Yes.

Such an action on Mycroft's part would have made me think less of him, but that's okay with me because a) he's not the protagonist and b) I don't think that highly of him to begin with. (Sorry Mycroft! ) He's already too morally grey for me to root for. And furthermore, that's his job. It's not Sherlock's.

I tend to have deep respect for characters who have a line they will not cross. To this day I remember the dismay I felt when Eliot Ness decided to push Nitti off the roof at the end of The Untouchables; it almost spoiled the movie for me. Worse, it seemed like from then on that movie "good guys" became just as bloodlustful as the bad guys (I'm looking at you, Die Hard.)

 But at least Ness realized he'd crossed the line. In Sherlock, they won't even acknowledge the line is there. And it diminishes my enjoyment of the show.

And that's all it does, folks. I'd enjoy the show more if they did things a certain way, it's not the end of the world if they don't. I admit it distresses me a bit that I always seem to be in the minority on this point, but I do recognize it's just a TV show, that Moftiss aren't advocating that everyone turn into Americans and start shooting whoever they like. But sometimes it's nice to see a TV character who shares your point of view. I guess I could always go rewatch some episodes of MacGyver.   

[Arcadia]

And Carol and I crossposted again! I'll have to come back later, have to go make dinner!

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

And Carol and I crossposted again! I'll have to come back later, have to go make dinner!

Maybe you can clarify this apparent gross overstatement when you do come back:

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I do recognize it's just a TV show, that Moftiss aren't advocating that everyone turn into Americans and start shooting whoever they like.

Besides, that should be "whomever." 

 

[Arcadia]

 

5 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

8 hours ago, Hikari said:

the long-running BBC series MI-5 (called Spooks in its home market but for obvious reasons, the name was changed for syndication to America)

For anyone not up on somewhat-old-fashioned American derogatory slang, the word can refer to black people -- when it's not referring to ghosts or perhaps to government agents such as those in the CIA.

OMG, I never thought of that! Another mystery solved.

5 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

8 hours ago, Hikari said:

The trouble with Mary's past is not just that she was recruited by the CIA and had to kill while on assignment for the United States government, but that she had committed civilian crimes before that and afterwards, was a mercenary doing 'wet work' for cash.  At least, I think that this is implied--that she'd become a loose canon for sale to the highest bidder, including the terrorists she'd been fighting against while in the CIA.

I never was really clear on that, especially considering the source.  Was Magnussen being honest or manipulative or what?

Join the club. I can think of no reason to believe anything CAM said, and certainly when they got around to showing Mary in her former life, it wasn't much like what he described. Another continuity issue, or just CAM being a liar? Beats me!

1 hour ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe you can clarify this apparent gross overstatement when you do come back:

4 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I do recognize it's just a TV show, that Moftiss aren't advocating that everyone turn into Americans and start shooting whoever they like.

Besides, that should be "whomever." 

Oh, I think my intent is clear enough.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

31 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

I think my intent is clear enough.

I take it, then, that your preferred method (as an American) of dealing with problem people is to shoot them.  Remind me to stay on this side of the Appalachians.

 

[Arcadia]

23 minutes ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I take it, then, that your preferred method (as an American) of dealing with problem people is to shoot them.  Remind me to stay on this side of the Appalachians.

Dang straight, we don't want yer kind over here!  

[Kat]

I'd like to say that we never find out who Uncle Rudi is for example. Why would John text a woman on the bus while being married? Yes, he had girlfriends before the wedding and many literature critics debate if he was a womaniser. Dr. Watson talks briefly in one sentence about his vast experience with women and Holmes says the fair sex is his area of experitise. However, the married doctor/John would behave like a gentleman or decent guy in modern parlance.

It's not explained what happened to Mycroft's assistant from season 1 who had a Blackberry phone or maybe it was mentioned in one sentence and now I forgot it. The virus in the data from the special episdoe mentioned by Mycroft who is fat is peculiar. Maybe it's proof that the story takes place in Sherlock's head, but it's not explained. Viruses did exist in the Victorian era, but data as a word was used differently as computers didn't exist then.

At Sherrinford the Holmes parents just accept that Eurus is suddenly alive while Sherlock accepts her as a relative and Mycroft just lives. I'm not even sure is she stays in the facility. She escaped from it. Why didn't Trevor's parents look for him? How come Mr and Mrs. Holmes quickly accepted that Trevor's dead and didn't look for their daughter? There's mention of a fire, but for me this was inserted into the plot out of the blue.

John gets out of a well without a key to the chains. Sherlock and John survive serveral explosions during the series. They even carry guns though John is in the army. Technically he wouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in Britian this century. Mycrofy also survives miraculously when the flat is destroyed in The Final Problem. There's a lot to think about.

About Millverton kindly look my remarks about Mary shooting Sherlock ( I asked a question in January, so it's on my profile) , but not killing him as Magnussen was the target. Sherlock surprised Mary in the process of killing CAM. In the story it's the female that shoots him and Holmes knows this, as does Watson. I make a reference to the orignal story there and give a theory of my own. Thanks goes to Carol for mentioning the Milverton story.

[Carol the Dabbler]

6 hours ago, Kat said:

we never find out who Uncle Rudi is

I assume he's literally Sherlock and Mycroft's uncle (or possibly a close family friend, an honorary uncle).  We never meet him, but doesn't Mycroft say (in Final Problem) that he died some time ago?  In any case, he seems to have considered himself to be the head of the family in some sense (for example, he took charge of Eurus), as well as Mycroft's mentor, or at least his role model.  If I had to guess, I'd say he was Daddy Holmes's eldest brother.

By the way, in what appears to be the official shooting script [here], his name is spelt in the usual British way, Rudy.  The subtitles have it as Rudi, but the people who write subtitles don't generally have access to the scripts, they just go by what they hear (and sometimes guess wrong).

15 hours ago, Kat said:

the married doctor/John would behave like a gentleman or decent guy in modern parlance.

I agree!  But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be tempted.  So he might send a few text messages.  And then feel guilty about it -- which he did.

15 hours ago, Kat said:

It's not explained what happened to Mycroft's assistant from season 1 who had a Blackberry phone or maybe it was mentioned in one sentence and now I forgot it.

She made another brief appearance in Empty Hearse, the scene in Mycroft's office where Sherlock is being restored to his usual appearance after his Serbian experience.  She brings him a suit.  So apparently nothing has happened to her, it's just that she was generally in a different room on those rare occasions when we've seen Mycroft's office.

16 hours ago, Kat said:

Why didn't Trevor's parents look for him? How come Mr and Mrs. Holmes quickly accepted that Trevor's dead and didn't look for their daughter? There's mention of a fire, but for me this was inserted into the plot out of the blue.

You're right, there must have been search parties looking for Trevor, but we didn't happen to see them.  If Mr. and Mrs. Holmes were told that their daughter had died in the fire, they would have grieved, but they would have seen no reason to look for her, because they thought they knew where she was.  It might have been helpful if we'd seen a bit of that as well as the search for Trevor, but apparently Moftiss preferred to use the time for other things.

16 hours ago, Kat said:

John gets out of a well without a key to the chains.

As someone pointed out on another website, they could have lowered a bolt cutter to him -- we just didn't happen to see that part either.

 

[Arcadia]

In addition to what Carol said above:

20 hours ago, Kat said:

The virus in the data from the special episdoe mentioned by Mycroft who is fat is peculiar. Maybe it's proof that the story takes place in Sherlock's head, but it's not explained. Viruses did exist in the Victorian era, but data as a word was used differently as computers didn't exist then.

Yes, that was an intentional clue that the story was not actually taking place in the past, that it was all in Sherlock's head. There's a few other clues like that, although at the moment I can't remember what they are.

20 hours ago, Kat said:

Technically he wouldn't be allowed to keep a gun in Britian this century.

That's always bothered me too. Maybe the Moftisses think they're writing for American TV.  

Come to think of it, didn't the American Masterpiece Theatre provide some of the funding for Sherlock? Maybe they really were writing for Americans!  

[Carol the Dabbler]

If you're looking for an in-universe explanation, probably the least implausible is that John pulled some sort of stunt so that the army didn't realized he still had his gun.  Considering the meaningful long look he gave it in his sad little room (especially in the pilot, I think), his motive for cheating (which seems unlike John otherwise) may have been so that suicide would be an option.

 

[Arcadia]

16 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

If you're looking for an in-universe explanation, probably the least implausible is that John pulled some sort of stunt so that the army didn't realized he still had his gun.  Considering the meaningful long look he gave it in his sad little room (especially in the pilot, I think), his motive for cheating (which seems unlike John otherwise) may have been so that suicide would be an option.

I've always assumed that's what was being implied (suicidal thoughts) but that also seems very unlike John to me. But despair and frustration can do funny things to people.

It's not so much the having of the gun that perplexes me, it's that he (and Sherlock) use the dam**d thing with impunity. You'd think at some point duly appointed officer of the law would have noticed its existence and confiscated the thing....  

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I've always assumed that's what was being implied (suicidal thoughts) but that also seems very unlike John to me. But despair and frustration can do funny things to people.

Yeah, plus PTSD.  John seems to be the sort of person who needs to feel useful, and that had just been kicked out from under him.

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

It's not so much the having of the gun that perplexes me, it's that he (and Sherlock) use the dam**d thing with impunity. You'd think at some point duly appointed officer of the law would have noticed its existence and confiscated the thing.

Interesting point.  Now I'm trying to think, do the officials ever actually know about it?  They knew that somebody shot the cabbie, but it appeared that only Sherlock deduced it was John.

OK, someone may possibly have noticed when Sherlock shot Magnussen with it    but maybe it was returned and forgotten as part of the whole "it never happened" thing.

When Sherlock shot the wall, the neighbors surely heard something, but there are always noises in the city -- cars backfiring, carpenters hammering, etc. -- so when it stopped fairly quickly, they may have just brushed it off as some random noise.

How about when Sherlock "summoned the police" with it at Irene's house?  That looked like a very quiet neighborhood -- but then again, if nobody actually saw him do it, the police wouldn't have known who fired the shots, and the baddies definitely had guns, so even if someone reported the sound of gunfire, the police would likely have assumed it was them.

Who can think of other times when the gun was fired and/or visible to other people?

 

 

[Arcadia]

I've always thought that Lestrade knew darn well who shot the cabbie, from the smirk on his face when Sherlock walks off to talk to John. But if not, he was practically standing next to John when he shot the Hound. And the entire police force saw Sherlock point a gun at John's head in TRF, altho perhaps that doesn't count since it wasn't John's gun.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

I've always thought that Lestrade knew darn well who shot the cabbie, from the smirk on his face when Sherlock walks off to talk to John.

I don't recall having that impression -- more like that Lestrade was amused by Sherlock, I think.  Had he even met John at that point -- and/or know any of his background?  I'll have to ponder all of that next time I watch the episode.

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

But if not, he was practically standing next to John when he shot the Hound.

Oh, good point!  Hmm.  Maybe he thought it'd be churlish of him to confiscate the pistol that may have saved his life?

1 hour ago, Arcadia said:

And the entire police force saw Sherlock point a gun at John's head in TRF, altho perhaps that doesn't count since it wasn't John's gun.

Right.  As I recall, Sherlock had "liberated" it from a policeman.  Since it turned out he was innocent, but could not have proved it without getting out of custody, the Powers the Be may have decided to overlook that relatively minor irregularity.

But surely there are more instances of John and/or Sherlock using the pistol when there were witnesses?

 

[Arcadia]

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Had he even met John at that point -- and/or know any of his background?  I'll have to ponder all of that next time I watch the episode.

They'd met when Sherlock dragged John along to see the pink lady, and later during the "drugs bust." I don't recall John's expertise with a weapon being discussed, however. 

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Maybe he thought it'd be churlish of him to confiscate the pistol that may have saved his life?

More likely to me is ... he'd already turned a blind eye to so many of Sherlock's exploits, why not one more?  

12 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

But surely there are more instances of John and/or Sherlock using the pistol when there were witnesses?

Evidently not.

There's a whole webpage devoted to the use of guns in Sherlock: http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Sherlock. Creepy, but it appears to list every instance a gun was used in the show ... John managed use his mostly when only Sherlock and/or the criminal were present. So Lestrade aside, maybe the police simply never noticed he had one. Guess that answers my question!

[Carol the Dabbler]

3 hours ago, Arcadia said:

More likely to me is ... he'd already turned a blind eye to so many of Sherlock's exploits, why not one more?

Yeah, I'd believe that.