sj4iy wrote:

Ozma wrote:

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:

It disturbs me greatly that we don't know who Mary is at all. There was a comment early in this thread by Lill which talk about how Moftiss manipulated us to first like Mary by making us believe she was a warm, lovely, smart woman who loved John and accepted Sherlock and then in HLV turned it all upside down, having her shoot Sherlock and then bizarrely have Both John and Sherlock forgive her for deceiving them with almost no explanation, other than, oh she's a sociopath, that must have been why you were attracted to her, John (isn't this the worst kind of victim blaming?). So why would the writers do this to us?
Do they want us to hate Mary after all so it is easier for us when she (and maybe John's baby) dies? That doesn't seem right, because they would have never got us to love her then surely? Or do they think, we like John, will just follow Sherlock's lead, and forgive her? Why. I just can't get my head around it!

I think ultimately it was a plot device - or, in the case of Mofftiss, what I feel is a huge example of 'trolling' - ie they set her up so people would like her, to then ultimately kill her off; but they knew everybody was expecting her to die in HLV so not only they didn't kill her, but they trolled us again by showing her as a baddie and then turning her into someone who John and Sherlock forgive - so pushing her again on to the side of the angels (or to be more specific and avoid misunderstanding of 'John and Sherlock are no innocent souls', what I mean by that is, pushing her towards our point of view, with the heroes - because as protagonists of the story this is what John and Sherlock are).

They knew we were expecting her death and so they turned things around, for now. I am not saying they think we don't expect her to die any more, but now they have a whole 3 episodes in which to do it, and they will take us by surprise and yes, perhaps even use her bad side to sweeten the pill and make her death more 'acceptable'. Particularly if she gives her life for them.

How is it 'trolling' to show us the good side of Mary?  She's not Satan, you know.  Just like it's not 'trolling' us to show the darker side of Sherlock.

I don't get why people are so quick to try to place people into two categories: GOOD, BAD.  Good people do bad things and bad people do good things.  Hell, even Disney has stopped the "evil witch" "good prince" crap now.  'Sherlock' is an adult show with adult themes.
 

you got that completely wrong. Completely.

By trolling I just meant, they 'tricked us into believing something and then they gave us something else'. This is what we mean by 'trolling'. It's a silly way of saying which comes from Tumblr mostly.

I am absolutely NOT making judjements about precious Mary - I was just talking about the impression they wanted to give us and them trying to trick us into one direction or another.

Just this.

Last edited by Ozma (January 15, 2014 12:24 am)

Swanpride wrote:

But does Mary know that John shot the cabbie? I doubt that John would reveal something like this easily. For all she knows, he never killed someone his whole life...he was an army doctor after all, not a sharp shooter. Even if he saw front line action, he only killed in battle, for all she knows. That is not exactly the same as targeting someone.

He was a doctor but he had 'bad days'. He might have shared something about that with his wife.

shezza wrote:

Frankly what I'm most afraid of now is the baby. I don't know if I'd be able to cope with an infant on Sherlock  So I'm really sorry for Jawn but I dearly hope the missus and the kid go. And knowing Moftiss, I just know it's never going to happen - she's about to give birth by the end of HLV so the most probable thing is that by the first episode of season 4 rolls around the kid's already arrived. 

I just hope they won't write themselves into a corner with this wife-and-kid development. Sherlock Holmes is about 221b Baker Street dammit.

If it takes them another two years to produce series four, baby Watson will be a toddler going through the 'terrible' twos!

shezza wrote:

Frankly what I'm most afraid of now is the baby. I don't know if I'd be able to cope with an infant on Sherlock  So I'm really sorry for Jawn but I dearly hope the missus and the kid go. And knowing Moftiss, I just know it's never going to happen - she's about to give birth by the end of HLV so the most probable thing is that by the first episode of season 4 rolls around the kid's already arrived. 

I just hope they won't write themselves into a corner with this wife-and-kid development. Sherlock Holmes is about 221b Baker Street dammit.

I hear ya. And I have been trying to imagine how the new series could start, and yes that could seem like a likely scenario, but - if they actually do that, then they're stuck with the kid.  I am not entirely sure they want to do that.

I deep down think that the baby was needed for HLV - to make John think long(er) and hard(er) about leaving her when he found out about who she is - because of course it would have been easier for him to leave her hadn't she been pregnant.

After that, I am not sure what the baby's point could be.

They showed us her bright side and her dark side and none of them is neccesary a lie. But truth is, if you love someone, you don't shoot the friend he's been mourning for during the last two years.
And if you really "appreciate" someone, you reevaluate your choices before throwing a blind threat and shooting them. I think.

Amy Airiel wrote:

They showed us her bright side and her dark side and none of them is neccesary a lie. But truth is, if you love someone, you don't shoot the friend he's been mourning for during the last two years.
And if you really "appreciate" someone, you reevaluate your choices before throwing a blind threat and shooting them. I think.

HA. Amidst all the ideas floating around in my head, I hadn't thought about this. Good point.

Mrs. Watson wrote:

I think series 4 will start where series 3 ended (like series 2 did). They need to address "Moriarty's" return

This is also a good point. Very good one.

shezza wrote:

I just hope that if they're actually going the mini Watson route they at least keep the baby nonsense to a minimum. Like, I don't want to see a lot of cheesy comedic scenes with Sherlock & Baby - "ha ha ha look at how awkward he is with the baby!", "look, the baby's peeing on his shirt! har har so funny" 

well, you can bet whatever you want that if there is a baby, this is exactly what's going to happen. And aww, so many scenes of Sherlock holding a gurgling baby for teenage fangirls to make gifs about! Maybe even a nice little moment with Sherlock looking at it with tears in his eyes - like a real uncle! YAAAAAY!

(warning: irony)

Imagine. Just imagine that.

If you didn't feel your skin crawl you're wrong.

And I wasn't saying that is  a bad thing. His trolling is partially what I watch his shows for.

Amy Airiel wrote:

Oh my god please don't. I'll be pissed for real if they screw the show like that. I trust them enough not to.
Anyway I don't think the show has that many teenage fangirls. Every fan I know is more or less my age... My girl cousins and their friends are far from interested.

trust me on this: if there is a baby, you *will* hear squeeeing and see gifs of Sherlock + gurgling and drooling infant.


I also trust Mofftiss - but if there is indeed a baby, there is no way the show won't play with the whole 'uncle Sherlock' thing in its comic relief moments. And that will be horrendous.

Last edited by Ozma (January 15, 2014 1:01 am)