BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » The theory he told Anderson

besleybean · January 4, 2014 10:46 am

For some reason the body had been retained, I don't know why.
A mask? The child was old and bright enuogh to understand a mask!
Killing the poor guy? That's just Moriarty, I guess.

Last edited by besleybean (January 4, 2014 10:47 am)

sherlocked · January 4, 2014 11:04 am

Mrs.Wenceslas, I agree. That's the most jarring part of theory No 3. Even, if i let the need for an extra body on the pavement slide, the existence of a believable double, who winds up conveniently in Molly's morgue, is just too much. And think about it: even, if such a doppelgänger existed and was willing to do some stage work for Moriarty, and was killed after frightening the little girl, wouldn't Moriarty destroy this body? This would be exactly the kind of evidence, which would clear Sherlock from the suspicion of having been involved in the kidnapping, and Moriarty knew, that Molly was very familiar with Sherlock. She would recognize the similarity, too, especially, since the suspicion of Sherlock was out there. Masks can be very realistic, btw. We've seen one on Moriarty at the beginning of TEH. Was pretty good, wasn't it? And a man, wearing a Sherlock mask, would only have to show himself briefly, maybe in darkish light, to frighten the girl.

Mrs.Wenceslas · January 4, 2014 11:05 am

agree, completely!

Last edited by Mrs.Wenceslas (January 4, 2014 11:06 am)

silverblaze · January 4, 2014 11:25 am

Nah, theory 3 makes all the puzzle pieces fit and it's all technically possible. This is the one, guys!

Maybe it's not perfectly plausible to everyone, well it's just fiction, realism only goes so far.

BTW it says something of the troll qualities of mr. Gatiss that the character that is used as stand in for this fandom reaction is Anderson.

Sherlock Holmes · January 4, 2014 11:25 am

beekeeper wrote:
I don't think we are going to get an explaination. You know why? Because, as Anderson said, ANY explaination at this point will be a disapointment to the fandom. We have picked over everything, I really doubt there is anything the internet hive mind has missed at this point.

And yet Anderson's explaination doesn't work really either, as he points out.

So I don't think they are going to tell us.

I really do think this was repeated more recently by one of the showrunners but I can't remember where or who. I think I read it in print, maybe the Radio Times or something.

You know what, that's what they think, but they're totally wrong. Right now, ANY explanation would make me absolutely over the moon. To quote John, I don't care HOW he did it...I'm not bothered if the theory has plot holes or isn't particularly exciting. I just want an actual non-ambiguous explanation. ANY.

silverblaze · January 4, 2014 11:28 am

But it isn't ambiguous. It really isn't. Andersons reaction makes it so. He is us.

Sherlock Holmes · January 4, 2014 11:29 am

silverblaze wrote:
But it isn't ambiguous. It really isn't. Andersons reaction makes it so. He is us.

Exactly. Anderson's reaction makes it ambiguous. Why couldn't he just have told that theory to John?

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 11:30 am

silverblaze wrote:
But it isn't ambiguous. It really isn't. Andersons reaction makes it so. He is us.

Agree. For me it´s done. Anderson only reflects the doubt and probably disappointment of the fandom. And that they will never be satisfied, they will never believe totally, want to have it complicated. They showed "our" reaction already in the show - love that.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 4, 2014 11:31 am)

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 11:32 am

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
But it isn't ambiguous. It really isn't. Andersons reaction makes it so. He is us.
Exactly. Anderson's reaction makes it ambiguous. Why couldn't he just have told that theory to John?

Because John was not interested in the "how". Sherlock tried .

Sherlock Holmes · January 4, 2014 11:34 am

anjaH_alias wrote:
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
But it isn't ambiguous. It really isn't. Andersons reaction makes it so. He is us.
Exactly. Anderson's reaction makes it ambiguous. Why couldn't he just have told that theory to John?
Because John was not interested in the "how". Sherlock tried .

He was at the end! When they were in the hallway, about to go out and meet the press. That scene would have been so much better then. The scene with Anderson was in a completely weird place anyway, breaking up the train drama like that.

sherlocked · January 4, 2014 11:35 am

Sherlock Holmes, I'm with you. Everybody's taste is different. Some think, this uncertainty is brilliant. I belong to the faction, who wants a clear explanation, however flawed. Maybe, what Anderson heard, was it, period. But Anderson says himself: 'Why would he tell ME?' That makes it pretty ambigouos to me. And Mofftiss said themselves, that it is a plausible theory, but why would Sherlock tell Anderson? Maybe, they are just messing with us, but that makes it ambigouos.

Last edited by sherlocked (January 4, 2014 11:37 am)

besleybean · January 4, 2014 11:38 am

I took it to be a link to John reliving the horror of Reichenbach...which is partly why he is able to forgive Sherlock after, he's been through it, now.

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 11:43 am

sherlocked wrote:
Sherlock Holmes, I'm with you. Everybody's taste is different. Some think, this uncertainty is brilliant. I belong to the faction, who wants a clear explanation, however flawed. Maybe, what Anderson heard, was it, period. But Anderson says himself: 'Why would he tell ME?' That makes it pretty ambigouos to me. And Mofftiss said themselves, that it is a plausible theory, but why would Sherlock tell Anderson? Maybe, they are just messing with us, but that makes it ambigouos.

The other question again: Did Sherlock tell it really to Anderson? Or did Anderson simply fantasize and got it right this time? A clue that Sherlock wasn´t there in person could be that he knew his forename. Maybe Anderson wanted this for his own sake. But I am not sure about this, maybe the audio comments will give us a hint one time....

sherlocked · January 4, 2014 11:46 am

besleybean, though I also thought, that the place was weird, I took it the same way as you. That it was time to tell the truth. I really can't make up my mind, if that was it, or if something more will transpire. The scene at the end seemed to indicate, that eventually, Sherlock will tell more to John. A lot of theory 3 is plausible, but there are elements in it, which are just too weird, but if I knew, that was it, I'd just move on, as others have done

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 11:47 am

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Exactly. Anderson's reaction makes it ambiguous. Why couldn't he just have told that theory to John?
Because John was not interested in the "how". Sherlock tried .
He was at the end! When they were in the hallway, about to go out and meet the press. That scene would have been so much better then. The scene with Anderson was in a completely weird place anyway, breaking up the train drama like that.

Hm, I know exactly what you mean. But I think they don´t want to make it too easy for us, probably think this could be boring.
And for the weird place: There is this saying that in the moment of death you speak the truth. We as the audience fear for the life of our heroes that moment. And exactly then we are presented the truth. That´s how I explain myself the position of that scene. I like it the more I think about that.

Jacco111 · January 4, 2014 11:51 am

I don't, really. They have to give a definite answer, we have been waiting for it, so they have to give it.

sherlocked · January 4, 2014 11:51 am

anja, you could well be right, but it is still ambigouos to me, and Mofftiss' remarks make it even more so. They could well have closed the lid on the whole discussion by closing the scene with Andersons's remark of disappointment. With his breakdown they keep it deliberately open IMO. As I said, some fans love it, others hate it.

Last edited by sherlocked (January 4, 2014 11:53 am)

sherlocked · January 4, 2014 11:58 am

jacco111, unfortunately, they don't have to give us a clear cut answer. If they decide, they like it that way, it's their artistic decision. That doesn't mean, we have to like it, though. Maybe, this discussion is more fruitful, when we have seen all new episodes.

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 12:00 pm

sherlocked wrote:
anja, you could well be right, but it is still ambigouos to me, and Mofftiss' remarks make it even more so. They could well have closed the lid on the whole discussion by closing the scene with Andersons's remark of disappointment. With his breakdown they keep it

I somehow trust that everything is well thought through by them. And that we will find it out sooner or later. I just remember that I had some logical problems in THoB as well, and I started to think that it was a hole in the story. Until I discovered the clues which solved my "problems". Something like that.
I for myself don´t agree with plothole-theories, however might be the "truth". They had two years time (or even more, because the solution was clear before the fall) to work it all out and they have done it, I am sure. Yes, they could have closed the lid, but do they want it? That´s another question. We are discussing here sice days, what more could they want? I don´t know, let´s see what tomorrow evening brings.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 4, 2014 12:00 pm)

anjaH_alias · January 4, 2014 12:03 pm

sherlocked wrote:
jacco111, unfortunately, they don't have to give us a clear cut answer. If they decide, they like it that way, it's their artistic decision. That doesn't mean, we have to like it, though. Maybe, this discussion is more fruitful, when we have seen all new episodes.

Agree, they definitely don´t have to give us anything. It´s their piece of art. We might like that or not, and we in turn are free to decide to go with them or not watch it anymore (in the last consequence, of course).

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 4, 2014 12:04 pm)