BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


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



January 14, 2014 12:18 am  #21


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

mmmm... conundrum http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/love.png
That's such a beautiful word...

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I wonder if Sherlock is finally coming to terms with his emptions, and this is the fallout from that?

That's what I hope. And I hope the fallout will be over at some point... Sherlock is so unpredictable like that, it's absolutey unsettling...

Last edited by Whisky (January 14, 2014 12:19 am)


_____________________________________________________________

"It is what it is."

http://i58.tinypic.com/2j432ti.jpg
 

January 14, 2014 8:22 am  #22


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

anjaH_alias wrote:

Hanka wrote:

Weirdness wrote:

In reference to "I know everybody else is very happy about this, however, I am not. It seems very "Yeah, he did kill someone, but it's okay, since, you know, Magnussen was a bad guy." Not really my way of thinking.", in the canon it was very much the same. Even though Sherlock was not the one who killed him, he condoned it enough to hold John back and they did nothing to stop it.

Just curious, did you feel the same about John killing the cabbie in the first episode?

Interesting question. I do remember finding it wrong (as I already implied, I am opposed to murder in every situation), but it was at the very beginning of Sherlock - as you said, the first episode - and I did not yet care about the characters as much as I do now. Also, John killing the cabbie can quite easily be classified as self-defense (through a third party), especially if one begins to like the characters and everything. The cabbie was kind of threatening Sherlock's life (again, not the clearest case of self-defence, but it's possible to get away with that if you want to). With Magnussen, the case is completely different. He's not threatining anyone's life.

Not? The husband of Lady Smallwood e.g. committed suicide as we could see from a newspaper during HLV. And with a blackmailer like him this is surely not the first person he has driven to death.

That is, of course, true, but he is not directly threatening a life. He does not have a weapon. To me, killing/hurting somebody is only an option if they actively threaten your own/somebody else's life, and if it is the only remaining option. For cases like Magnussen's, there's something called a justice system. I obviously do see the problem here. One would have to keep Magnussen away from everyone, literally no contact at all, and accuse him of calumny (in about 2000 cases). I mean, calumny is accusable, isn't it? And as he said, he does not have evidence in a lot of cases. And I am sure there's no shortage of victims. Only problem would be that Magnussen would try and blackmail the judges, jury, prison officers, ... 

And did Sherlock really suspect Magnussen having it all in his head? I mean, he thought it was his glasses... I think John's gun was supposed to be the last resort - if possible to be avoided at all costs. Also, he sounded very convinced when talking about Appledore (to John) and looked utterly shocked when Magnussen told him about his mind palace.
 

     Thread Starter
 

January 14, 2014 8:22 am  #23


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Whisky wrote:

I love love love HLV. But I really long for "boring" cases for the next series - where Sherlock can be secretly brilliant in a small setting of Baker Street and doesn't have to save the whole world of everybody around him

Agree, I know that feeling! 




 

Last edited by Harriet (January 14, 2014 8:22 am)


Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.   Independent OSAJ Affiliate

... but there may be some new players now. It’s okay. The East Wind takes us all in the end.
 

January 14, 2014 11:35 am  #24


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

But drawing on canon, where a victim of CAM shoots him dead and Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as witnesses do nothing about it; no police, nothing. They collude completely in the murder, therefore accepting that this is an acceptable action and a form of justice.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't make people into heroes John. Heroes don't exist and if they did I wouldn't be one of them.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdq1pcLCUR1rs9hrro1_500.jpg
 

January 14, 2014 1:29 pm  #25


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Davina wrote:

But drawing on canon, where a victim of CAM shoots him dead and Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as witnesses do nothing about it; no police, nothing. They collude completely in the murder, therefore accepting that this is an acceptable action and a form of justice.

Yup.  Personally, I'm glad there wasn't a cop-out like that in this episode.  Sherlock himself got his hands dirty when it mattered the most to him.  Maybe it wasn't the 'clever' thing to do, but it was justified, IMO.


__________________________________________________________________Bigby: Will you shut up?
Colin: Well, maybe if my throat wasn’t so parched, I wouldn’t have to keep talking.
Bigby: Wait, that doesn’t make se-
Coline: Just give me a drink, please.
 

January 14, 2014 1:40 pm  #26


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Hanka wrote:

That is, of course, true, but he is not directly threatening a life. He does not have a weapon. To me, killing/hurting somebody is only an option if they actively threaten your own/somebody else's life, and if it is the only remaining option. For cases like Magnussen's, there's something called a justice system. I obviously do see the problem here. One would have to keep Magnussen away from everyone, literally no contact at all, and accuse him of calumny (in about 2000 cases). I mean, calumny is accusable, isn't it? And as he said, he does not have evidence in a lot of cases. And I am sure there's no shortage of victims. Only problem would be that Magnussen would try and blackmail the judges, jury, prison officers, ... 

And did Sherlock really suspect Magnussen having it all in his head? I mean, he thought it was his glasses... I think John's gun was supposed to be the last resort - if possible to be avoided at all costs. Also, he sounded very convinced when talking about Appledore (to John) and looked utterly shocked when Magnussen told him about his mind palace.

There is no justice system for people like Magnussen.  People in high places tend to have dirty little secrets, and he owns people in high places...do you think they would ever dare put him on trial?  How often are rich people convicted of crimes in comparision to those of the middle class and poor?  It's not because they are better people...it's simply because they can buy the best lawyers or know the best people.  And Magnussen was even more brilliant...he had no evidence.  It was all in his head.  That's why Sherlock knew he had no recourse but to kill him- a case against Magnussen would go nowhere, and would simply serve to make Magnussen get vengeance the best way he knew...by ruining the lives of Sherlock's loved ones in the newspapers.

It's the way the world works, and Sherlock knows it.  So do I.  It has nothing to do with conspiracy or belief...my mother in law has worked for lawyers all her life and some of the stories of 'buddyism' she tells would turn your stomach.  Politics is even more corrupt the higher up you go.  There isn't a judge or jury in the Western world that would have convicted Magnussen, and that's the long and the short of it.  And he was responsible for the death every person who committed suicide (like Lord Smallwood in the episode when he was face with the threat of being condemned as a pedophile for an honest mistake) and every life he destroyed (Lady Smallwood is now a widow).  I don't understand how people would see a man with a knife and say that he's more of a threat than a man like Magnussen when they know what he's capable of.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 14, 2014 1:45 pm)


__________________________________________________________________Bigby: Will you shut up?
Colin: Well, maybe if my throat wasn’t so parched, I wouldn’t have to keep talking.
Bigby: Wait, that doesn’t make se-
Coline: Just give me a drink, please.
 

January 14, 2014 2:20 pm  #27


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

sj4iy: I totally agree! It was the only way to stop Magnussen. There would never benn a chance for justice.
And is there really so much difference to kill someone with ones own hands or to drive somebody into suicide?

 


-----------------------------
“Why do you go away? So that you can come back. So that you can see the place you came from with new eyes and extra colors. And the people there see you differently, too. Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving.”
Terry Pratchett - A Hat Full of Sky
 

January 14, 2014 3:11 pm  #28


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

I think in one of the newspapers there was also a mention about a politician being arrested for corruption - I think the one member of the commission we see speaking in the beginnig and whose "pressure points" Magnussen verifies.Also, I do agree that they would never bring Magnussen to justice in the tribunal - this is the whole purpose to introduce the opening scene of the episode: he pretty much "owns" everyone, English prime minister included: he doesn't do "much harm" to important people as Mycrof put it, only as long as they do what he wants them to do.What's more, in this moment he has a leverage on Mycroft, as well, because he managed to trap his little junkie brother, about the only person in the world Mycroft cares about.

 

January 14, 2014 3:44 pm  #29


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Hanka wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

Hanka wrote:


Interesting question. I do remember finding it wrong (as I already implied, I am opposed to murder in every situation), but it was at the very beginning of Sherlock - as you said, the first episode - and I did not yet care about the characters as much as I do now. Also, John killing the cabbie can quite easily be classified as self-defense (through a third party), especially if one begins to like the characters and everything. The cabbie was kind of threatening Sherlock's life (again, not the clearest case of self-defence, but it's possible to get away with that if you want to). With Magnussen, the case is completely different. He's not threatining anyone's life.

Not? The husband of Lady Smallwood e.g. committed suicide as we could see from a newspaper during HLV. And with a blackmailer like him this is surely not the first person he has driven to death.

That is, of course, true, but he is not directly threatening a life. He does not have a weapon. To me, killing/hurting somebody is only an option if they actively threaten your own/somebody else's life, and if it is the only remaining option. For cases like Magnussen's, there's something called a justice system. I obviously do see the problem here. One would have to keep Magnussen away from everyone, literally no contact at all, and accuse him of calumny (in about 2000 cases). I mean, calumny is accusable, isn't it? And as he said, he does not have evidence in a lot of cases. And I am sure there's no shortage of victims. Only problem would be that Magnussen would try and blackmail the judges, jury, prison officers, ... 

And did Sherlock really suspect Magnussen having it all in his head? I mean, he thought it was his glasses... I think John's gun was supposed to be the last resort - if possible to be avoided at all costs. Also, he sounded very convinced when talking about Appledore (to John) and looked utterly shocked when Magnussen told him about his mind palace.
 

Of course he was shocked and of course he was expecting a real vault.
To the rest? I would agree to you for my personal life in reality. But "Sherlock" is not real and - as I already said somewhere else - I don´t have to use my normal, political correct moral compass necessarily here. For me the whole point has a absolute working inner logic: Sherlock can´t act differently. If he does, John would be under permanent thread for the rest of his life. He would be a marionette in the hands of a cold fish. (And also England is threatened with that, because we know that there is a direct line from John to Mycroft aka the British government). Sometimes even in real life cases fall through our justice system. This one here is one of that. With the knowlegde in his mind Magnusson can destroy the lifes of a lot of people. Having proof is not the point, he puts it in the papers. Fairy tales, very dark ones.
 

 

January 14, 2014 4:21 pm  #30


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

Last edited by Hanka (January 14, 2014 4:22 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

January 14, 2014 4:36 pm  #31


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

While I basically agree with you, Hanka, I have my doubts if this killing was presented as something ok to do.
"What have you done, Sherlock?" - and the crying child that shows perhaps more of the consequences some other murderers have to face. Broken innocence.
And it's also not a classical hero theme to turn into a disturbed child after killing someone.
I'd rather say the scenes allow a wide range of interpretation and let the audience think whether it was ok or not and not find a perfectly comfortable solution.

Last edited by Harriet (January 14, 2014 4:37 pm)


Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.   Independent OSAJ Affiliate

... but there may be some new players now. It’s okay. The East Wind takes us all in the end.
 

January 14, 2014 4:57 pm  #32


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Hanka wrote:

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

So accusing someone of being a pedophile in the newspapers doesn't directly threaten their life?
 


__________________________________________________________________Bigby: Will you shut up?
Colin: Well, maybe if my throat wasn’t so parched, I wouldn’t have to keep talking.
Bigby: Wait, that doesn’t make se-
Coline: Just give me a drink, please.
 

January 14, 2014 5:02 pm  #33


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

I guess there are things worse than death.


And I honestly think that everyone is able to kill under certain circumstances. Just the circumstances differ. If anyone dares to hurt the people I love and care for there will be no place to hide for them. Or - of cause - if my life was threatened.

sj4iy: Agree totally.


-----------------------------
“Why do you go away? So that you can come back. So that you can see the place you came from with new eyes and extra colors. And the people there see you differently, too. Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving.”
Terry Pratchett - A Hat Full of Sky
 

January 14, 2014 5:23 pm  #34


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Criosdan wrote:

I guess there are things worse than death.


And I honestly think that everyone is able to kill under certain circumstances. Just the circumstances differ. If anyone dares to hurt the people I love and care for there will be no place to hide for them. Or - of cause - if my life was threatened.

sj4iy: Agree totally.

Magnussen knows that he plays a dangerous, dangerous game.  It's one thing to threaten someone's life...it's another to threaten their family.  Up until Sherlock, everyone assumed that he had the physical proof, and therefore never did anything to him for fear of that proof being found after his death.  If he had ever told anyone else what he told Sherlock, I guarantee you he would have been dead much, much sooner.


__________________________________________________________________Bigby: Will you shut up?
Colin: Well, maybe if my throat wasn’t so parched, I wouldn’t have to keep talking.
Bigby: Wait, that doesn’t make se-
Coline: Just give me a drink, please.
 

January 14, 2014 6:35 pm  #35


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

sj4iy wrote:

Hanka wrote:

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

So accusing someone of being a pedophile in the newspapers doesn't directly threaten their life?
 

Nope. It may give other people the idea to threaten the person's life, but it's not direct. (Please note that I have never said and will never say that it's an okay thing to do, or less severe than murder. It's just different, and not directly life-threatening.

And I agree, certainly a lot of people would be able to kill somebody in a specific situation. Agony can drive people to do lots of horrible things. I'm just saying it's wrong, and it shouldn't be portrayed otherwise.

Harriet: The scenes with Mycroft/John being disbelieving and horrified are great! I liked those, they seemed fitting! I just have a big problem with the phone call in the end. It makes people forget what just happened, what Sherlock just did, and basically makes it look like he'll just keep solving crimes now because nothing's really changed - even though a lot should have changed.

     Thread Starter
 

January 14, 2014 6:53 pm  #36


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Hanka wrote:

sj4iy wrote:

Hanka wrote:

I do agree with most of you, and I never denied that Magnussen was a bigger threat to humanity than a man with a gun/knife. He is a threat to a lot of people- to their sanity, their happiness - but not directly to their life. He ruins lives, but he doesn't end them. And yes, there is a big difference. By stabbing somebody with a knife, you actively decide for this person to stop existing. By making their life horrible, you may give them a LOT of arguments for killing themselves, but you do not make a decision for them. I'm not saying that what Magnussen did isn't horrible, of course it is, but it isn't concrete, you know? But, yeah, even if it was, even if he'd single-handedly killed five people, it still wouldn't justify killing him. It would only prove him/everybody who thinks like him, right.
Nobody should end another person's life, whatever the other person may have done. I mean, I do know that this is not how our world works. Sherlock is being very realistic in having its main character kill Magnussen because that's what people do in desperate situations. The problems I have are that a) it is very un-sherlocky to make this big of a sacrifice (I mean, Sherlock expects his life to be over) for somebody else (yeah, I know, character development, but that was just too much for me) and b), more importantly, that this murder, because that's what it is, is presented as an okay thing to do. Sherlock doesn't face justice. He does not get any kind of punishment for what he's done, but is called to come back and save the world. Yes, granted, it's a TV show, but this is just very, very morally wrong and unrealistic - to me. If you tell people that in this one case, murder is an acceptable action, you concede this point to every murderer out there. You tell them that, yes, there is a reason to kill another person. But it is upon none of us to decide who should live and who shouldn't. And, I guess, because of this opinion of mine, I am quite displeased with the ending. It doesn't seem to have any consequences, you know?
Also (sorry): Why not try and hoist Magnussen with his own petard? He is an important person in this country, in the whole world, and as he knew all too well, an accusation, a rumour, is very often enough to destroy somebody's reputation.

So accusing someone of being a pedophile in the newspapers doesn't directly threaten their life?
 

Nope. It may give other people the idea to threaten the person's life, but it's not direct. (Please note that I have never said and will never say that it's an okay thing to do, or less severe than murder. It's just different, and not directly life-threatening.

And I agree, certainly a lot of people would be able to kill somebody in a specific situation. Agony can drive people to do lots of horrible things. I'm just saying it's wrong, and it shouldn't be portrayed otherwise.

Harriet: The scenes with Mycroft/John being disbelieving and horrified are great! I liked those, they seemed fitting! I just have a big problem with the phone call in the end. It makes people forget what just happened, what Sherlock just did, and basically makes it look like he'll just keep solving crimes now because nothing's really changed - even though a lot should have changed.

They never once said "Murder is okay".  But this show isn't about the morality police...these characters aren't Dudley Do-Rights, who are always on the side of right and justice.  Sherlock takes on cases, not because they want to help people, but as an alternative to doing drugs.  The point is that, at some point, when you do what they do, there ISN'T a right or wrong answer.  Not everything is black and white, and not everything can be explained away with "Well, it's bad to kill," because there are all sorts of layers to that.  Some people are beyond the law and break it with alacrity.  Others are oppressed by it.  It's the way of the world and Sherlock and John are simply two adrenaline junkies wading through it all.  

Not a pretty picture?  No, it's not.  But it's the truth.  And the point is that we can see them, faults and all, and still empathize with them.  We don't have to like the decisions they make, but we simply have to see it from their POV.  There's a lot of that with this episode.  And that's why I like it.


__________________________________________________________________Bigby: Will you shut up?
Colin: Well, maybe if my throat wasn’t so parched, I wouldn’t have to keep talking.
Bigby: Wait, that doesn’t make se-
Coline: Just give me a drink, please.
 

January 14, 2014 6:54 pm  #37


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

I didn't like HLV that much either. I really don't think that it was a bad episode, but it simply felt really wrong overall. I'd been hoping for explanations on things that had happened earlier in the season; that some things that hadn't been resolved in the TEH and TSOS would start making sense in HLV, but that wasn't the case. The whole season - while having some really brilliant and touching moments - felt disconnected and a bit volatile.
I think the thing that bothered me the most is the sudden lack of Sherlock's deduction skills. He already seemed much less focused and clever in 3x1 and 3x2, with no explanation whatsoever. His change in personality (which is also never explained) and his newfound emotions could be a reason for this, but at this point it seems more like sloppy writing to me. Sherlock really came across as naive in the whole thing with Magnussen, his whole plan was so transparent and far from being elaborate. Instead of solving a case by using his mind, he takes a gun and shoots his enemy. Which may or may not be understandable in this situation, but is so far from anything I have seen on this show before, that I have a bit of a hard time coming to terms with it.
Also, they're really trying to tell us that Sherlock was unable to see through Mary? And that Mycroft did not know about her past either?
And what is it with the shooting that didn't make any sense whatsoever? So Mary apparently shot her husband's best friend and put his life in serious danger just so that she could win some time, flee from the building, and then later convince him to keep quiet about it and not tell her husband that she is actually an assassin?! Seriously?!
She had no way of knowing that Sherlock wouldn't die. He actually did die and it is almost a miracle that his heart started beating again. This wasn't 'saving his life', this was flipping a coin.
So what the writers are trying to tell us is that Mary was willing to kill Sherlock, so that she wouldn't lose John, after knowing what losing Sherlock had done to John in the first place and how much Sherock mattered to him, and that she would simply have gotten on with her life with John, pretending that nothing happened and that she certainly didn't murder his best friend?
And we're supposed to still like her after that, feel sorry for her, and be completely okay with this?
To be completely honest, to me this seemed a lot like 'We have this really cool idea of Sherlock dying and fighting his way back through his mind palace, and we want Mary to shoot him, so let's just come up with a really flimsy explanation on why this is a completely ok thing to do for Mary, and just hope that no one notices that it doesn't make sense'.
And this really upsets me because I loved Mary in 3x1 and 3x2. I thought she was a great character and I had hoped that her secret would be something that wouldn't make her a different person. They turned her into a ruthless cowardly psycho killer, but somehow Sherlock and John are okay with this and still like her, and we should too? I could have accepted Mary having a dark past as an assassin, even though I don't like that idea much, if she had acted differently when being found out and redeemed herself by that. Killing your husband's best friend so that he wouldn't find out the truth about your past, is not exactly what I would call an acceptable action.
Also, small inconsistencies like Sherlock's drug use. According to his behaviour and Molly's reaction he definitely did take something, but after taking a bath and changing his clothes he suddenly seems completely normal again. Also he suddenly seems to solve cases as an alternative for taking drugs? Since when? I always had the impression that he had taken drugs in the past to improve his thought process and become even more aware and active and to get a kick from time to time. Not that he solves case because it is the only way to not end up as an addict in a crack den. Or kid!Sherlock not really resembling adult!Sherlock and not even having the same eye colour. Or Sherlock not understanding why people wouldn't be able to put their dog down, but the memory of his childhood dog somehow being the only thing beong able to calm him down?
And after becoming more and more human and emotional over the course of the season, he suddenly is competely callous again and doesn't see anything wrong in proposing to someone just to get gain access to an office?
At the beginning of season three I was happy about Sherlock's character development, I thought, they're taking a new path, that's great. But then Sherlock started acting so curioulsy that many people thought that there must be something seriously wrong with him. I saw theories that he might even be displaying symptoms of PTSD and that something was slowing down his thought process and making his behaviour rather erratic and strange. I thought we would get an explanation in the last episode. We didn't. Instead, his behaviour changed again.
The same with Sherlock's and John's relationship. In episode one we see how Sherlock returns and how John struggles to forgive him, but in the end it seems to work out. In episode two they seem close, even though they don't live together anymore. In episode three John seems weirdly distant and cold towards Sherlock. It's like something has seriously gone wrong between the wedding and John finding Sherlock in the crack house.
I really don't understand where they're planning to go from here. Sherlock seems seriously messed up, Sherlock's and John's relationship seems somehow broken, John's wife is an ex-assassin who tried to kill his best friend, they're going to have a baby (where does that fit in the story?), Moriarty might or might not be back - what is this supposed to be?
I really hope that they have a very good plan for the next season, because right now everything seems really messed up.

Sorry for the rant. I still love the show. And I don't hate this episode. It made me feel uncomfortable, though, and there are just too many serious inconsistencies that I am just not able to look over.

Last edited by Lily (January 14, 2014 7:02 pm)


--------------------------------
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bc09e50c5e891b4ddace196f1395a264/tumblr_mz38vdPwKL1rxzdxqo3_500.png

"Yes, of course I forgive you."
 

January 14, 2014 7:09 pm  #38


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Lily, you have my admiration for speaking out some of my feelings which I´m fighting last days. thanks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..I've always assumed that love is a dangerous disadvantage. Thank you for the final proof...
 

January 14, 2014 8:16 pm  #39


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Yes, same with me! I was so thrilled and excited right after the episode, but with time passing more and more questions arise. Especially what you sad about Mary is exactly what I feel about her. After TEH and TSoT I really liked her and wanted to keep her in the show, as the nice clever woman at John's side who helps the boys now and then. I was sceptical about the baby thing though. But now, her character twist and the indulgent reactions from Sherlock and John spoiled the episode for me. And I also find it completly not credible. I don't like the character any more and I am not sure if Moftiss do the show a favour by keeping her.
I also was a bit horrified about the distant behaviour between Sherlock and John. After the brother-like love in TSoT it was painfull to watch them behave so cold, espacially John.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There is a place for people like you, the desperate, the terrified. The ones with nowhere else to run."
"What place?"
"221B Baker Street."
 

January 14, 2014 8:55 pm  #40


Re: I don't like HLV - help?! / Criticism

Well, thanks for your opinions, guys. I do like discussing, but sometimes it's nice to be bolstered

sj4iy, I am aware that these characters aren't angels. They're imperfect, like all of us. And I don't mind them failing, being obnoxious or even killing people. It happens, it's realistic, it should be brought up on TV. Not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that, even though they didn't say "murder is okay" directly, they did heavily imply it by having Sherlock come back to solve crimes again. In this world, no court procedure, no punishment means: It's legal. It's fine. Do it again, if you want! The main character just shot someone and two minutes later the writers are already done with that problem, since, hey, Moriarty (or whoever) is back! It becomes meaningless, not worth a few more thoughts. It's not the fact that it's part of the show that bothers me, but the way it's dealt with. 
However, I guess our differing thoughts on whether there are cases in which murder is justifiable (in any way) are what makes an agreement impossible.

Last edited by Hanka (January 14, 2014 8:56 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum