Willow wrote:

I agree with almost everything you say; my only reservations are that Moftiss are ACD fanboys, and Benedict has made it very clear that he signed up for the show provided it is true to the original spirit. Moftiss have acknowledged that if either Benedict or Martin pull out then it's game over. I would like Sherlock to continue for many years to come, Moftiss know it can be done from the example of Montalbano, so I really don't think that Moftiss will destroy their own creation by writing stuff which would make the lead actor pull out...

Well, I wouldn't hold Ben (or any of them) to anything that was said 5 years ago. They started this Sherlock version not knowing for sure if it would be accepted. Now, 5 years down the pike, it's proven to be a real money-maker for everyone involved. Not only that, but it's the one thing that boosted Ben's career into the stratosphere, the one thing that helped open other doors to bigger international projects and make him the A-list actor he is today. So whether or not he'd quit Sherlock over creative decisions, I find that doubtful. He, Moftiss, Vertue, the BBC, et al are now all-for-one-and-one-for-all, they've found a very lucrative cash cow (and in Ben's case, one that only demands a couple months of his time every couple of years, and all filmed not far from home). I don't think I'll live long enough to see any of them to say "uncle" just because of creative differences. As you said, Moftiss are fanboys, and although they fancy themselves very clever and smart, they do at heart want to tell good Sherlock stories, and I can't imagine a time when they won't be doing so, albeit with their 21st century glasses welded firmly to their faces.
 

There is a difference but yes, I can see where you're coming  from.

Violence is never acceptable other than in self defence...this is TV, tho, not real life.

" I think there are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore to some extent, justify private revenge." SH  Milverton case.

Sherlock/John always had their own ideas on justice , but I always agreed with them morally.  But they never turned on innocent people, or each other.

ancientsgate wrote:

lil wrote:

Sherlock/John......never turned on innocent people, or each other.

They still don't, although John came close this season, but only because Sherlock let him, out of his own regret and guilt. I do hope our days of seeing John try to throttle Sherlock and then hit him in the face, as well as having John stand by and indulge in hissy fits, while Sherlock lingers in the doorway, dying while no one notices, are well and truly behind us now. Enough of that; a little goes a long way.
 

 
Absolutely agree with you

ancientsgate wrote:

lil wrote:

Sherlock/John......never turned on innocent people, or each other.

They still don't, although John came close this season, but only because Sherlock let him, out of his own regret and guilt. I do hope our days of seeing John try to throttle Sherlock and then hit him in the face, as well as having John stand by and indulge in hissy fits, while Sherlock lingers in the doorway, dying while no one notices, are well and truly behind us now. Enough of that; a little goes a long way.
 

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I mean, really-- John tried to strangle Sherlock--twice. That would be considered attempted murder. The head butt was ramping down from that. And as far as we know, Sherlock never hit back, barely even tried to defend himself. And he's a good fighter. He just let John have at. 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 13, 2014 2:48 am)

A certain kind of suspension of disbelieve is necessary to enjoy a fictional story, of course. But it has to be believable and internally consistant. I can accept a wormhole travel in Star Trek but not in Sherlock Holmes. A show shouldn't break its own established laws. In American action movies a hero can do virtually anything. We are used to that.
But Sherlock Holmes is for me about science and logic, so I expect something better.
When the viewer sees plot holes 5 minutes after the show ended (or in our case 5 weeks) e.g. when he opens the fridge to get himself a beer, it is called fridge logic in TV tropes (look it up). It can be fridge horror when it is really awful or fridge brilliance when the viewer can think about it and is gets better.
Which kind of fridge trope are we dealing with?

Also I think it's written in such a way that leaves us trying to work out what was done to provide a clue to future events, and what was meant to be taken at face value, plus there are definitely red herrings thrown in along the way, too!
I think it has the desired effect of keeping viewers talking long after the episodes go out, and keeping them interested enough to tune in again after the long breaks between each series

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.
 

ancientsgate wrote:

We don't yet know what Mary did in her past, what official capacity she was involved in. Sherlock guessed she was CIA and not British, but I don't remember that that was confirmed.  But anyway, I just wanted to make the point that the role of official assassin, working for the military or for a government agency, while damned distasteful to us "regular" folks, is something that does happen, and it's all legal and above-board. In the US, our military calls that kind of assignmt black ops. So while you and I might make noises of disgust about what Mary did in her past (the fact that Magnessun said she was a lowlife doesn't make it so.... after all, a snake calling someone else low, what does that mean?), she may have been entirely working for the good of the governement who employed her. I suppose, when the next season of Sherlock rolls around, some of these questions will be answered. One can hope.
 

But wasn't she supposed to have gone rogue? As in freelance? If all she did was on the up-and-up, why would she need to go into hiding? ***Why would she need to hide it from John, who is ex-military? Of all people, he would understand, right?***