mrshouse wrote:

Huh? She should be close enough to Martin to know, that he didn't mind Johnlocky stuff, at least the more artificial stuff.
Amanda can have quite an explicit and dirty humour if it fits her purposes but not if it doesn't
Not only double but multiple standards if you ask me.

 
I would agree with you that filming three eps of Sherlock with Ben and Martin means that she probably has a pretty good handle on BC's sense of humor. I've seen loads of places where Martin has made comments that were 'dirty' or 'profane'. He likes to shoot the bird in photos too.

It was all in good fun.

tonnaree wrote:

Snootiegirl99 wrote:

Zatoichi wrote:

We may not have problems watching Sherlock and John deal with murderers and criminals, but welcoming a criminal that nearly killed off one of the protagonists and badly betrayed the other back into their "circle of trust" is a whole different story..

I might buy that Mary shot because she was desperate, and because that´s what her trained assassin reflexes told her to do. But I don´t buy that she never even once tried to explain herself when she had the chance afterwards, instead she went after Sherlock with a gun, ready to finish him off for good in Leinster Gardens. If Sherlock hadn´t took the precaution of her picture on the facade it´d have been the end of him.
 

I just re-watched ASiP yesterday. John is a cold-blooded killer from the first episode! And we all accept that. Maybe that's why he's able to accept Mary's past too.

John kills only when he knows that Shelock's life is in danger. 
 

 
I think the 'imminent danger' is exaggerated. There's no weapon on Sherlock. He could have overpowered that guy if he had wanted to. John could have fired a warning shot to shake Sherlock out of his trance of proving his intellect. There were alternatives to shooting to kill. But John didn't take them.

Zatoichi wrote:

Snootiegirl99 wrote:

And in a show that is essentially about murder, it seems like splitting hairs to have a problem with a named character being a criminal more than a nameless character. The show is about crime and violence and John and Sherlock's addictions to such things. And I think it's assumed that the audience doesn't have a problem with such things either. Or we wouldn't watch it.

This is fanciful tv after all.

We may not have problems watching Sherlock and John deal with murderers and criminals, but welcoming a criminal that nearly killed off one of the protagonists and badly betrayed the other back into their "circle of trust" is a whole different story..

I might buy that Mary shot because she was desperate, and because that´s what her trained assassin reflexes told her to do. But I don´t buy that she never even once tried to explain herself when she had the chance afterwards, instead she went after Sherlock with a gun, ready to finish him off for good in Leinster Gardens. If Sherlock hadn´t took the precaution of her picture on the facade it´d have been the end of him.
 

I just re-watched ASiP yesterday. John is a cold-blooded killer from the first episode! And we all accept that. Maybe that's why he's able to accept Mary's past too.

Sherlock is a scientist and chemist. He deals in physical facts. Mostly.

When he's deducing, he also dabbles in a LOT of anthropology despite claiming to not understand other humans very much.

Magnussen built his empire on purporting to spread the 'truth'. Journalist rely on sources to confirm things they didn't witness themselves. The facts are filtered through a human consciousness who reports, a human consciousness who writes the article, a HC who edits, and all of the HCs who read the article. That's a lot of POVs for fact to trickle through.

Remember playing telephone as a child?

Sherlock takes exception to Magnussen passing off truth, that is unsubstantiated and shapes the world, as facts.

besleybean wrote:

Actually no.
The truth will out.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Fact is fact whether human beings exist or not. Truth not so much.

Liberty wrote:

I agree that he doesn't do it just to make John happy.  I think it's an extension of what he did with Moriarty, for similar reasons, and so not as out of character as it initially appears. 

It did bother me, because although Magnusson is so clearly evil, he's mostly just printing the truth about people, or threatening to.  And I still don't believe that he only preys on people who are different - I think he preys on anyone if it suits his purposes, and sometimes for no purpose other than fun.  But there's more to it than that - from what he says about Mary, he'll go that step further to arrange to have people killed at a distance, and also he's getting closer and closer to controlling the government.  He's beyond the law in a similar way to Moriarty. 

He is very similar to Moriarty. Just a different approach to 'crime'.

I suspect that Mycroft's question to John "He chooses to be a detective. What does that tell us about the nature of his heart?" Shows that Sherlock has a very big heart. Why else would he turn his energy and personal safety toward helping people who were victims of crimes? Yes, they are puzzles, but there are other puzzles in this world to solve too.

Alone keeps me safe, he says. But that doesn't necessarily sound like it's his first choice. Ah, so complex.

silverblaze wrote:

Interesting topic. I'm not so sure about 1, though. He disappeared to dismantle the network, not to protect John. The reason why he didn't let John in to the secret was that it would have jeopardise the whole situation. 

I really wonder what they will pull out, character arc wise, in season 4. I would suspect that he'd become a bit more detached again, because I think they've gone as far as possible on the emotional Sherlock scale. 

Moffat said somewhere that having an emotional life does not make him a better person and that makes a lot of sense. However, I also believe that bonding to another person is the ONLY thing that can make someone a better person. 

 
You know, I was kind of thinking the same thing. He faked his death to keep Moriarty's people from hounding him as he went after them. But the 'protect John' sentiment seemed to be strong here, and I started to think maybe that was the way to go. He might have said after his return that he did it to protect John, but the idea of faking your death in front of someone who cares about you is not an act of caring or protection. And why didn't Mycroft just drop a hint or two John's way?

No, it seemed that Liberty was self-editing according to an etiquette I didn't know about.

You are spelling his name to co-workers trying to Google him.

You are willing to re-watch the train-wreck that is STID just to appreciate his performance (that was a huge moment for me).

You feel a little glow of woman-power every time he objects to Cumberb*tches.'