BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

The Empty Hearse » Flaws In Theory #3 » January 16, 2014 3:15 pm

hiatus
Replies: 40

Go to post

...or how about this... the whole of series 3 is a "life on mars" type event.  Sherlock is in a coma in Barts after the fall.

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 3:09 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

Oh, that's a good point Willow.... But he could have just told Mycroft... and agreed he has scruples, but he looked almost giddy as he fired, and why give it the "merry christmas!" if he wasn't enjoying it?  All a bit bruce willis if you ask me.

He hated CAM, wanted him dead, the series has been all about Sherlock changing... maybe his scruples were altered a bit too in the face of that annoying little wotsit.

The Empty Hearse » Flaws In Theory #3 » January 16, 2014 3:05 pm

hiatus
Replies: 40

Go to post

I agree Bruce Cook, Sherlock is messing with anderson, we don't know how he did... I'm not sure we ever will because John doesn't care how, he just cares why...and if course if M is STILL ALIVE (and I'm not convinced of that) he would have seen the whole jump and the blue bag etc... so all pointless..

The Empty Hearse » Flaws In Theory #3 » January 16, 2014 3:00 pm

hiatus
Replies: 40

Go to post

Yes, why the dead body at all?  Sherlock could just be there, or if the lookalike was so good, he could be dead Sherlock.  Why the complexity?  Sherlock jumps, lays down, ketchup on, all good.

The only thing I can think is that it is a plot device.  without the body you a) don't know why the kidnapped girl screamed at S. and b) there's no need for Molly's involvement at the scene, she could have falsified everything from her flat in her jammies..http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png


I'm always happy for a plot to have a couple of holes in it for the sake of a good story, so I'm good with it, but even so....the dead body is unnecessary..

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 2:55 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

So, overall, am I right that the concensus is that no-one else knew CAM (like, that acronym!) didn't have a vault, so left him alone assuming he did, or protected him (does this echo the way the hitmen protect sherlock in the fall, thinking he has a code?)  For all we know there is a free-for-all outside appledore on a regular basis with CIA taking our russian mafia assassins and all sorts.

So therefore sherlock is the first to discover the ruse, but why wait for mycroft before killing CAM?  Are we to assume that all that time he is stood there trying to figure out what to do?  He knew Mycroft was coming, so why kill him in front of Mycroft?  Why not straight away?

That's one of the many great things about this show.  I like that everything isn't sewn up all neat.  For example, I don't believe we have the real story on how S cheated death at Barts...

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 1:41 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

Excellent point swanpride... hadn't thought of that!

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 1:40 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

Another interesting thought... we know from the fall episode that Sherlock was faking some of the perplexity he was exhibiting in that scene (i.e. he knew the code was a fake etc...) so perhaps that is the case here?  He knew the vault was fake, he was playing up to it... another "boring Sherlock" ploy to lull the enemy?  What he had to do was prove to others that it was fake.  When Mycroft and the cavalry arrived Sherlock knew it would never be over, Mycroft would spirit him away and he could still get Mary killed.  So he had to kill him.

BTW, Hiatus is of course a homage to the great hiatus of Mr C-D himself...

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 1:36 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

Thanks for the (frighteningly quick) replies!

I am still a bit perplexed that no-one would have found out about the lack of a vault before.  But if we put that aside, it makes sense to assume that a) no-one dared to kill him in case of what would come out and b) Mycroft and his US counterparts would protect him (for the same reasons that Mycroft couldn't just destroy Irene Adler's phone).

His Last Vow » Why didn't someone kill Magnussen before? » January 16, 2014 12:56 pm

hiatus
Replies: 22

Go to post

I have a suspicion that this is really obvious, but I can't get it straight in my head..  Magnussen is supposed to have the goods on most major players in the western world "and probably beyond".  So the assumption would be that he has angered just about everyone with any power at some point.  So why hasn't someone, a despot in eastern europe, a crimelord, a secret service head, not killed him already?

If we assume that no-one (unlikely imho) knew he didn't have a vault under his house (after all, his house wasn't that secure, he had a couple of security guards but it was hardly baskerville, are we to assume that no agency in the US or UK had someone who could break in?)  Why not at least try?  Or threaten him if he didn't back off?

My theory is that Magnussen is a human version of Irene Adler's mobile phone i.e. no-one wanted to risk that if they killed him something important he knew would be lost.  Mycroft also says he is "too small" and "useful sometimes".  Does this mean there was not only no action, but a conscious effort to protect him and keep him alive?
A more obvious answer is that everyone would be worried that his death would automatically release some damaging information, but as I say above, I find it incredible that no-one figured out that the info was all in his head.

Thoughts/discussion welcome.... can't sleep until i get this....

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum