Given that the series has emphasized the aloneness of all of the main characters...how come so many people at the wedding?

We were told it was "thin on Mary's side," which implies that John had more people to invite than she did. Now, with John, we get some mixed messages about his social life: we hear about his "friends" (plural), but we've heard they hate him.

But at Sherlock's grave he said, "I was so alone." 

And many of the obvious ones - including his own sister and the one other friends we knew about before Sherlock, weren't there.

In many shows, particularly comedies, the reverse happens: we get several plotlines throughout the series about friends or relatives visiting, and then in the wedding episode...they're not there.

Ozma wrote:

OK so let me recap this, John nearly died himself from the pain of seeing Sherlock jump to his death, then pined for him for 2 years - now Sherlock tells him  that it's unlikely that they'll ever meet again, and he has no reactions at all??

Didn't this seem a bit weird? Was John so attached to him before only because he had no one else??

I see Ozma's point. But I feel more strongly about not liking / buying / agreeing with John's reactions after Sherlock is shot, as I have said.

I actually thought that John's saying, "The game is over" said a lot. It COULD suggest that he will miss "the game" more than Sherlock himself, but somehow, I didn't think so. 

And I, too, was struck by the timing: he kind of JUST got Sherlock back. And after Sherlock got his name cleared, he actually destroys his own good name through his own actions.

But on the other hand, it's possible that given what John now has seen and knows about Sherlock, he is able to hope that Sherlock will come out alive.

I think we were supposed to believe she got involved with, and married Frank Hudson before realizing what he was up to. She says her attraction to him was physical and she found out bad things about him later...

But of course, CAM could always twist the story...

Tinks wrote:

I think there are some brilliant points made in here.
I want to say that I'm not anti Mary at all, but I am anti what Moftiss did with her and really don't understand at this stage why they did it.
John could've found out about her past in any other way, and forgiven her, but having her shoot his friend, having John behave the way he did and then having him forgive her without even bothering to check her file for who she really was - the whole thing just feels like the rug has been pulled from under our feet.
It would only make sense now, if, as has been suggested, John was to find out who she really is and deal with that in a way that doesn't involve blaming Sherlock, but I really don't think that will happen, and while I'm happy to accept Mary as part of the show's future if she's in it for the long run, at the back of my mind, I can't get past the callousness of either her shooting Sherlock in the way she did or of hers and John's behaviour towards him afterwards

Also, on the subject of Ben staying in the show - it did cross my mind that IF he got too busy to carry on with it, the writers have got themselves a nice little set up with Mary and John where they could do a spin off if them solving crimes together while Sherlock's supposedly off on other cases.

If it weren't for the shooting of Sherlock, the writers could pull off a twist of having Mary's "background" be fake - a plant (by Mycroft?) - or some sort of switch with some other CAM victim -  to trap CAM into "pressuring" someone who is in fact innocent, or for whom the essential point of the pressure doesn't exist. (Hey, these writers are capable of that?)

That would still make Mary essentially a spy or government agent of sorts, but more, well, honorable.
 

What was the problem with putting Sherlock in an actual prison? Does Mycroft think he's smart enough to escape? Even under extreme security conditions? Is he afraid Sherlock fans (readers of John's blog) will riot? A case could be made for prosceuting John too, as an accomplice, even if from we what we saw, he wasn't, morally.

(Pretty ironic - Moriarty "smeared" Sherlock but his reputation has been so thoroughly turned around that when he actually kills someone, it's not safe to prosecute him in the normal way.)

Or could it be that Mycroft advocates this punishment because he secretly believes Sherlock will actually survive the M16 mission? Perhaps Sherlock did something very like, and survived, during his two years of hiding? It's supposed to be "hardly merciful," and mean near-certain death, but it also seems like the kind of adventure Sherlock would be amenable to, and therefore, not entirely a punishment.

Or does Mycroft know/believe that the REAL punishment, in the sense of the thing that truly hurt and upset Sherlock, is the separation from John?

I'm wondering, too, about the accuracy / honesty of NOT exiling Sherlock because he's the only one who could stop Moriarty: what about Mycroft himself? Seems like Sherlock's out-gambiting Moriarty before took a LOT of involvement by Mycroft...

Willow wrote:

miriel68 wrote:

Also, because Sherlock realized that he would never be able to free John & Mary from Magnussen's threat AND that he just handed M. the leverage on Mycroft he had been trying to get for such a long time.

It just struck me, that S. waited to shoot M. when the helicopter & special forces were in sight, because he wanted it to be absolutely clear that John is not involved in the murder. He could have "dealt" with M. in a more discreet way but in that case John would be almost certainly be considered his accomplice and Mary's past would be also investigated by the police.

Indeed so; this is why I disagree strongly with the interpretation that Sherlock 'broke' because CAM was nasty to John. Sherlock didn't break at all...
 

I understand that John wasn't really "involved" in the shooting -  there was no plan to kill CAM when they went to Appledore (at least, they didn't discuss one), and that Sherlock was the only actual shooter - but I can imagine many prosecutors (or whoever represents "The Law") prosecuting John as well: often if there are two people on the scene together, especially in the case of a break-in, and only one shoots, the other will be treated as an accomplice.

And I question whether Mary is really safe: what about the "people" CAM could have "called on"? Has he left any instructions for them?

Tinks wrote:

@ravenmorganleigh
I'm with you on the way female characters are written - I've given my take a couple of times on this forum about the portrayal of "strong" women especially - Mary was great as she was to begin with but it has to be overemphasised by making her a killer, for instance!
And I'm totally with you on Molly slapping Sherlock - I don't get why so many thought this was a great moment; Molly is quiet, but strong and loyal. She has a hopeless crush on Sherlock but I've never seen her as weak, just quiet in nature.
And she was beginning to understand Sherlock, too.
Having her hit him like that seemed to take so much away from her, and I promise I do have a sense of humour! But I saw nothing funny in it, any more than I did in John head butting Sherlock.

The view of women is almost a step down from canon...for all we've heard about either Doyle or Holmes being misogynists, there aren't too many female criminals or truly "bad" women in canon, and females who break the law, or act dishonestly, are often shown to either have sympathetic reasons or to be accomplices of abusive partners who physically bully them into being accomplices. 

(There is no evidence canon-Irene is actually threatening the King except his own claim; she has actually refused to sell it back to him for money; and he is basically persecuting her. He admits he tried to abduct her to get the photograph back.)

And while the women's jobs and life goals are obviously limited by their times, many show a certain amount of spunk and the ability to look out for themselves when they need to. Mary Morstan included. Holmes has positive things to say about her as a person, even as he is warning Watson against all love. I think he even acknowledges she could be of use in their work!

There are some pretty terrible men in canon; most of the women end up looking either smarter or morally better than the males surrounding them. (Violet Smith vs. her employer; Grace Dunbar vs. Gibson; Ire

To me, the problem with this theory is how near-fatal the shooting was. It's implied Sherlock really has to fight NOT to die.

And I've said: leaving morailty out of it and considering things from the point of view of what Mary wanted, it was very STUPID (in the sense of being detrimental to her agenda) to shoot him. She's trying not to lose John...and she shoots the OTHER person John loves? She is in danger because CAM is threatening to reveal information about her past...so she shoots another person who absolutely hates CAM, will go a long way to bring him down, and will do anything to protect John Watson? (That would be Sherlock, of course.) She put him out of action, was which a good thing from CAM's point of view (and a terrible thing for the Smallwoods).

I get the sense that Sherlock may not consider her past that evil, (there are certain parallels with his own work, after all). And even if he didn't approve of it he is willing, as we see, to protect her John's sake.

Theoretically, a Mrs. Watson (well, any woman interested in John) could view Sherlock as a rival or threat to the relationship...but she was established as liking Sherlock, NOT feeling threatened, and even facilitating John and Sherlock's renewed closeness...unless it's all an act...spies do put on acts.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

I think the number of people who DID know - and therefore Sherlock was in some sense trusting more than John - was a big issue for John.

And although John didn't know this at the time of the Baker Street scene, every time he forgives Sherlock, he keeps losing him or almost losing him:

1) Reichenbach
2)  The shooting
3) the M16 mission

As I have said, John's lashing out at Sherlock during the Baker Street due to leftover anger from Sherlock's two-year disappearance might have "worked better" in the sense of being believable, if we hadn't had TSoT in between the two episodes where John shows anger. In TSoT you really felt like that issue was over, and any "tension" between them was due to Sherlock's fear of losing John...which he nonetheless handles pretty maturely...and TSoT actually feels very "series finale-ish"...but then in the NEXT episode John is once angry at Sherlock...for something that doesn't seem to be Sherlock's fault.

 I re-watched the series last night-- and i gotta tell you, I think you're spot on.. I felt like I was getting whiplash. It's like, oh greatm they're cool again, and then-- oh, here we go again--crap!

TVTropes actually uses the term "Mood Whiplash," to refer to this kind of thing. 

The other cause of the "whiplash" is that in TSoT, it seemed like Sherlock and Janine were genuinely attracted to each other, making another positive step for Sherlock toward improving his social skills and relationships.

The issue about the different ways women can be portrayed is actually an issue an issue I have with this series' Irene. The original DID push the boundaries of what was acceptable for society...she's an actress and an "adventuress," seems to live on her own, though has probably had some other affairs besides the one we hear about...but it seems like there are also people who admire her, much in the fashion of glamorizing celebrities today.

And she was shown NOT to be a cr

lil wrote:

miriel68 wrote:

I found interesting what BC said during Apple Store Q&A: that S. shot M. because he was outsmarted by him. Yes, of course it was a sacrifice and he was thinking about John etc. etc. but I think B. is right about it: there is some dark motivation about what Sherlock did, as well.

 
Yes I agreee, Sherlock was desperate to win this game , he had everything on the line. What smarts couldn't do the gun did.
Sherlock had that plan anyway I think..asking John to bring the gun. 

I've been wondering why he didn't take Mary along too. Seems like she would have been a valuable ally in a situation like this...unless Sherlock had reason to believe she wouldn't be an ally. Maybe things could have been manipulated so she would do the killing..

I don't think Sherlock and John in this universe necessarily have old-fashioned ideas about keeping women out of confrontations or dangerous situations. Of course, there is the fact that Mary is pregnant...but doesn't it seem like drugging her was taking a risk with regard to the baby?

And couldn't they have told her where they were going, even if they didn't take her along? She might have insisted on going, I suppose.