Swanpride wrote:

Actually, in a lot of the well-known stories (Scandal in Bohemia, The final Poblem, The Red-headed league) Watson is married. One of the cases even starts with a patient coming to him (the engeneer's thumb) rather than at baker street. Doyle might have gotten tired of thinking up reasons for Watson to go off with Sherlock, but the truth is that the starts of those stories tend to be way more interesting than the usual "we were in our living room and a client turned up" or the "I looked through my files and I can finally tell this story".

I agree with this, I think it adds a real layer to the stories.

Even for those who would like them together, poised to fight crime or bicker at the drop of a hat...John was always going over to stay with Holmes. Nearly every time his wife went away to visit anyone, it seems (not quite) he was over staying with Holmes. (which is unusual. Even in victorian times, adult men didn't really do this, afaik, any more than today. If I were a canon Johnlocker-and I am not- that's where I'd be looking).

But I also agree with those who say that they are not sure they can trust Mary. Contract killing isn't in any way morally ambiguous. And she did shoot Sherlock. The alternative was .... not to shoot Sherlock. She did not have to shoot Sherlock. To be willing to nearly kill a friend-and Sherlock was saved by his own intelligence, she probably would have killed anyone else-in order to stop your husband from knowing your dodgy past is really not the action of a character with integrity or who I could really trust.

Swanpride wrote:

More important, Sherlock Holmes had his dark side, too. He was not all lawful, he often let criminals get aways with their crime when he considered their motives sound. Sometimes he acts himself like a blackmailer in a way, pressuring guilty parties to pay for what they want to keep secret. We have gotten so used to "Sherlock Holmes the Hero" that we have forgotten that he was not written as one, but as a flawed character - with a fascinating intellect.

In the Canon, Holmes never killed anyone, with the exception of Moriaty which was a bit complex. He did not kill CAM. He possibly killed Tonga in the Sign of Four but that's complex as several pistols are described as being fired and we don't know whether he was carrying a gun at all. And that was sheer self defence.

To me, there is a real difference between being willing to make a personal decision not to report someone to the police, which is what he did from time to time, and firing a shot that killed someone. There is no British legal requirement to report a crime, it IS discretionary. 

To have shot a blackmailer in order to save the marriage of a contract killer really does seem...well, its quite a different Holmes.

CAM was not self defence and there is no possibility that Sherlock felt personally threatened. Even with the taxi driver in SiP, John arguably believed, given what had gone before, that he was acting in defence of Sherlock's actual life. There would be no way in British law that Sherlock's shooting of CAM would be considered anything other than first degree murder (I went to law school-in Britain-, btw, - as well as being a graduate chemist :-) )

 

belis wrote:

SolarSystem wrote:

Again, I agree. And I also have some difficulties with Sherlock and Mary both saying it's practically John's fault that he ended up with her, just because he chose her. And that she is the way she is because John chose her. Come on! She is like that because she decided, for whatever reasons, to be like that. John fell in love with her, right. And yes, it's right that he loves and needs "the thrill of the chase", the adventure... but this...? I don't really like how this part of the scene in 221B plays out...

My take on this is that he chose her becouse of the way she is. Not the other way round. I think that he knew all along, maybe subconciously that there is something 'different' about her. An inkling that he decided not to question any further. Why would he for example let his pregnant wife go with him to the drugs den in a dogy part of town and leave her alown in the car? It's as if he knew perfectly well that she can hold her own.

yes really agree this is a great take on it
 

Actually its even more complex re the name

Yes its because of baring-gould but its not after him-he suggested the name William etc...So this has been around a VERY long time.

With that in mind I am really sure that the reference is to the third brother, Sherringford. But because it is quite a subtle fanfic reference I wonder if that might be all we get.

Ok I know I am going to be in a minority here but

Please, please do not let it be moriaty who is the other brother

didn't work on the x files and won't work here. 

It COULD be a general fanfic universe reference because a third Holmes brother does pop up in Doctor Who and other places and he is generally a bit off the wall, iirc. 
 

Ozma wrote:

lil wrote:

Incidentally. I am assuming the "William" of "William Sherlock Scott Holmes" is after William S Baring Gould (no idea what the S stands for btw)

(or it could be WIlliam Gillette-who I THINK was the first adaptor of Sherlock Holmes and to whom ACD gave the carte blanche to change anything and everything about the canon, Sherlock, what have you?)
 

I think they said something like that yesterday at the Q&A...but then again I could have easily dreamt it. Too much data in my head at the moment

cool . 

turns out the S in baring gould is stuart, so I am going with the theory that its his mother's maiden name. Its nice for her and Mrs H to have matching initials.

Its just occured to me, that in the brilliance that is Moftiss, Mary is not going to die. Not ever. And nor is her child.

Why? Because these guys almost delight in not giving the fandom what they want but rather making us realise that their way is actually the best way. That things ARE better with Mary. (ok I know not everyone agrees...)

If this were Dr Who, somehow, there would be a flashforward to the day Mary buries John after a long and happy life together.

OTOH this will be one well protected kid.

Re comments above about her being a killer. I need to rewatch the episode (damn you, employment!) but I agree that this is unsettling and I somehow hadn't really appreciated that. How do you forgive someone for being a mass murderer? Anyway, will have another look.  

Its really not canon, thats the only slight issue I have. Not with it not being canon per se but with how it will work with future episodes. Obviously there are some cannonical stories where Watson's wife is mentioned (though not as many as you might think). I just wonder how they will weave in a role for Mary. But to be fair, that hasn't stopped them at all so far.

silverblaze wrote:

beekeeper wrote:

The thing is, there isn't much point in a huge cliffhanger. We've just been through that and they have just shown us that they wont' even neceassrily resolve the cliffhanger unambiguously. Two years waiting and we are just teased even more really in TEH (which is great, btw). BUT I don't see the fandom as getting hugely worked up with possibilities with any cliffhanger. We know by now that Sherlock is effectively indestructable and Mycroft has limitless powers of arranging stuff. The real cliffhanger is the baby and Mary-is that really going to happen (hope so!) and if so, wow.

I'm glad they didn't do a great cliffhanger this time. It's a good device but it gets really tiresome when overused. For me it shows that the Moftiss know what they're doing. 

I'm getting rather convinced of the 'Mycroft did it' theory but then I'm trained as a scientist and we like simple solutions. Screenwriters maybe less so. 
 

another trained scientist here! <geekwave>

But you see, I think the "Mycroft did it" IS simpler.  

Swanpride wrote:

The "not seeing each other for a month" is canon, too. After Watson married, he sometimes barely saw Holmes.
Well, the good thing is that retirement is out of the cards for now...it is Janine who goes to Suxess and in her case, gets rid of the bees....

yes I did like that line. 
 

anjaH_alias wrote:

For me it´s not a cliffhanger. And honestly I don´t need cliffhangers to stay a fan. I am happy with this. And whether this was really Moriarty - I doubt that - we will see. Maybe another villain.
Or just Mycroft. His first words to Sherlock, when Moriarty is back on scene are: "Have you learnt your lesson?" As if the starting plane was a kind of punishment (and that it was obviously to Sherlock) and never meant to reach a destination. As if he knew that the exile will be very short. He could have arranged that all to get his brother out of the official penal system, imo that´s also a possibility. And material about Moriarty to make a little film clip he should have enough .

yep this is my interpretation. its mycroft. which does not mean moriaty is not back . it just means mycroft found a way out of it for Sherlock.

The thing is, there isn't much point in a huge cliffhanger. We've just been through that and they have just shown us that they wont' even neceassrily resolve the cliffhanger unambiguously. Two years waiting and we are just teased even more really in TEH (which is great, btw). BUT I don't see the fandom as getting hugely worked up with possibilities with any cliffhanger. We know by now that Sherlock is effectively indestructable and Mycroft has limitless powers of arranging stuff. The real cliffhanger is the baby and Mary-is that really going to happen (hope so!) and if so, wow.