BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Four things I would prefer NOT to see in series 4

gently69 · August 15, 2014 12:06 pm

Ah yes, please. Thanks a lot, dear.

ArwendeLuhtiene · August 15, 2014 12:17 pm

Mattlocked wrote:
Drunklock was so perfectly performed. Often it's been played quite badly, but Benedict and Martin did a very great job and I loved it.

Hubby wants less sentiment and more cases.
I don't care much, I only want S4. And S5. And S6. And so on.

It's true that the performance was really good, the scene has actually grown on me with time, even though I don't like scenes where people get drunk (because I think that getting drunk, especially getting drunk to conform, is totally stupid).

I want both sentiment and cases

Overall, I too want to join the 'I just want S4' club

Mattlocked · August 15, 2014 12:28 pm

ArwendeLuhtiene wrote:
..

Overall, I too want to join the 'I just want S4' club

No problem!
I imagine it could be quite crowdy in here in a while.

ArwendeLuhtiene · August 15, 2014 12:31 pm

Yay! The more the merrier !

tonnaree · August 15, 2014 12:46 pm

ArwendeLuhtiene wrote:
Yay! The more the merrier !

May I squeeze in? I brought biscuits and Port.

SolarSystem · August 15, 2014 12:50 pm

S4...? What's that all about?

Mattlocked · August 15, 2014 1:18 pm

tonnaree wrote:
ArwendeLuhtiene wrote:
Yay! The more the merrier !
May I squeeze in? I brought biscuits and Port.

Cheers!

SolarSystem wrote:
S4...? What's that all about?

Oh, here is a replay of S1-S3 desperately needed! Emergency! Emergency! *starts the player*

Last edited by Mattlocked (August 15, 2014 1:23 pm)

tonnaree · August 15, 2014 1:56 pm

Have I mentioned recently how much I love this forum?

SusiGo · August 15, 2014 2:33 pm

tonnaree wrote:
Have I mentioned recently how much I love this forum?

You cannot mention it often enough.

La Jolie · August 15, 2014 2:58 pm

ArwendeLuhtiene wrote:
Mary turning into a 'passive housewife' while John goes off with Sherlock on cases, if they do end up having the baby. Sounds like a horrribly traditional stereotype.

I definitely don't like traditional stereotypes either, and I'm all for a modern (meaning equal) assignment of roles and responsibilities in marriages and families, both in real life and on screen. But seriously: Having a baby ties you down completely (unless you're a totally irresponsible parent, which neither Mary nor John would be, IMO). At least it ties down one parent at a time. So how can Mary NOT sit at home and be a passive housewife while John goes off on another adventure with Sherlock? Who else is going to look after the baby? Or will Mary and John split their adventure time equally from now on, arguing about whose turn it is to go with Sherlock when he turns up with an interesting case?

It wouldn't work. Everybody WANTS John (and not Mary!) to go on adventures with Sherlock, but how is it going to work, with the baby, unless Mary does turn "passive housewife"?

In most discussions about Mary's (and John's) future role in the series, people seem to overlook just what you can do and what you can't do when you have a baby. I hope the writers either take the baby out of the equation very quickly (cruel though that would be) or at least present the situation realistically...

Sorry. I'm not having a go at you, Arwiendel, I'm just pointing out a big dilemma that the writers have written themselves into by the end of S3.

SolarSystem wrote:
La Jolie wrote:
Moriarty being the villain that Sherlock has to work against. (Now the exact opposite I could see - why not throw them together having to cooperate for some higher purpose? That might be fun.)
Can I just say - although this is the thread about what we don't want to happen - that I really like that idea. Sherlock and Jim have to work together for some reason - maybe against Mary?

Well, Mary is of course not evil (There! I've said it! ) but never mind me. I just liked the idea of two characters who have had a very strongly defined, unambiguous relationship so far being thrown together in a new way that questions their previous relationship. That's the only way I can see any revived Sherlock/Jim dynamics offering anything new and interesting.

But then, Jim being a complete and utter psychopath, totally irrational and not even subject to the fundamental human instinct of self-preservation, he's probably not the right candidate for the sort of development I was envisaging. With most villains it would be interesting to see them being made to revise their goals and methods and alliances, but it's only really interesting with those that act the way they do because of their convictions. It's not interesting with those that act the way they do simply because of a severe biochemical mess-up in their brains. Someone like Jim would be physically unable to see things differently and revise their former actions accordingly...

Which all adds up, again, to "No more psychopaths, please!"

But never mind Moriarty, either. Of course he isn't back. His supposed return was just some colossal scheme of Mycroft's to get his little brother out of the crap at the last moment.

Last edited by La Jolie (August 15, 2014 3:21 pm)

ArwendeLuhtiene · August 15, 2014 4:24 pm

La Jolie wrote:
ArwendeLuhtiene wrote:
Mary turning into a 'passive housewife' while John goes off with Sherlock on cases, if they do end up having the baby. Sounds like a horrribly traditional stereotype.
I definitely don't like traditional stereotypes either, and I'm all for a modern (meaning equal) assignment of roles and responsibilities in marriages and families, both in real life and on screen. But seriously: Having a baby ties you down completely (unless you're a totally irresponsible parent, which neither Mary nor John would be, IMO). At least it ties down one parent at a time. So how can Mary NOT sit at home and be a passive housewife while John goes off on another adventure with Sherlock? Who else is going to look after the baby? Or will Mary and John split their adventure time equally from now on, arguing about whose turn it is to go with Sherlock when he turns up with an interesting case?

It wouldn't work. Everybody WANTS John (and not Mary!) to go on adventures with Sherlock, but how is it going to work, with the baby, unless Mary does turn "passive housewife"?

In most discussions about Mary's (and John's) future role in the series, people seem to overlook just what you can do and what you can't do when you have a baby. I hope the writers either take the baby out of the equation very quickly (cruel though that would be) or at least present the situation realistically...

Sorry. I'm not having a go at you, Arwiendel, I'm just pointing out a big dilemma that the writers have written themselves into by the end of S3.

Expressing your own views is never having a go at anyone unless you try to convince someone (which you weren't) or are rude (which you weren't) !

You know, I agree, this show is about Sherlock and John before anything else. That's why I worry about the baby idea.
Given that it's a Sherlock AND John show, the most probable thing, if they do end up having the baby, will be John going out on cases way more often than staying at home taking care of his daughter. The result would be, of course, Mary would be the one staying at home looking after the baby most of the time. Maybe they'll have her participate in some parts of a case, I hope so. I'm not worrying because she'll probably have less screen time during the cases, she's after all a secondary character and shouldn't have as much screen time or focus on as Sherlock and John. I'm worrying because it can help promote the traditionally sexist idea that it's always the women who should sacrifice stuff to care after the children and the home. The 'natural nurturers'.
As a disclaimer, I'll say that I have nothing against a woman who freely decided to do that (although I always think the man should also help), but I'm first and foremost against gender stereotypes and traditional roles in the media, and it's too often that we see the model of the woman caring after the children (no matter how active she might be out of the house), and the man getting to edge out of it just because he's not the 'natural nurturer'. I think both parents have the obligation to look after their children, and even more so when both parents work. Mary was a woman of action, then a nurse (thus, job). Although the show must focus on S. and John, I would find it unfair that she be forced to stay at home all the time, no matter how much the plot and the central characters demand it. It's still a stereotype that I hate, and many stereotypes survive just because of that, because the plot demands it. Yes, the show should be about Sherlock and John. Yes, that would leave Mary looking after the baby and the home way more than John. I understand that the plot would ask for that. I still don't like it.

I think that if they end up having the baby, they should at least show John taking care of her daughter sometimes, even if Mary ends up doing it more often. Similarly, I'd like to see Mary be badass in a case from time to time as well. Thus, the writers wouldn't be (probably unconsciously) promoting gender roles.

Overall, I think the baby idea was a bad idea. Domestic life doesn't fit well with the non-compromise, frantic case life of Sherlock. Both Mary and John will have to spend a lot of time with the baby, and that would mean less time for cases. Because yes, a baby is a huge responsibility and you can't really go running after criminals every time Sherlock needs it if you have a child to look after!

Also, as another disclaimer, I don't mean to have a go at anyone, either, or indeed, start a discussion about gender roles. Just stating my opinion

ArwendeLuhtiene · August 15, 2014 4:34 pm

La Jolie wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
La Jolie wrote:
Moriarty being the villain that Sherlock has to work against. (Now the exact opposite I could see - why not throw them together having to cooperate for some higher purpose? That might be fun.)
Can I just say - although this is the thread about what we don't want to happen - that I really like that idea. Sherlock and Jim have to work together for some reason - maybe against Mary?
Well, Mary is of course not evil (There! I've said it! ) but never mind me. I just liked the idea of two characters who have had a very strongly defined, unambiguous relationship so far being thrown together in a new way that questions their previous relationship. That's the only way I can see any revived Sherlock/Jim dynamics offering anything new and interesting.

But then, Jim being a complete and utter psychopath, totally irrational and not even subject to the fundamental human instinct of self-preservation, he's probably not the right candidate for the sort of development I was envisaging. With most villains it would be interesting to see them being made to revise their goals and methods and alliances, but it's only really interesting with those that act the way they do because of their convictions. It's not interesting with those that act the way they do simply because of a severe biochemical mess-up in their brains. Someone like Jim would be physically unable to see things differently and revise their former actions accordingly...

Which all adds up, again, to "No more psychopaths, please!"

But never mind Moriarty, either. Of course he isn't back. His supposed return was just some colossal scheme of Mycroft's to get his little brother out of the crap at the last moment.

Sherlock and Moriarty having to team up against a common enemy does sound cool! I would watch that! Bit similar as Thor and Loki in Dark World (although I don't think Loki is "evil", just saying). Not sure if they would do that, though, maybe we'll have psycopath Jim antagonizing Sherlock again (and probably antagonizing his friends as well. I especially fear for Molly). Or maybe it's like you said, Mycroft creating a diversion in order to save Sherlock from exile and death. Not sure how he'd make it look when it becomes clear that Moriarty is still dead and that it was a ruse, though...

Btw, another thing I don't want to see, I don't want to see Molly dying. Please don't.

Last edited by ArwendeLuhtiene (August 15, 2014 4:34 pm)

besleybean · August 15, 2014 4:38 pm

Heartbreaking.

tonnaree · August 15, 2014 5:41 pm

I don't want Sherlock and Moriarty to team up. I think that it would diminish Moriarty's character to give him any redemable arc at all. Leave him the mad sociopath that we know and love.

I also don't want him to really still be alive. A twin brother, a second in command out for revenge, I don't care. But if Moriarty didn't kill himself on that rooftop it invalidates the emotional journy we took to get there.

ArwendeLuhtiene · August 15, 2014 6:44 pm

tonnaree wrote:
I don't want Sherlock and Moriarty to team up. I think that it would diminish Moriarty's character to give him any redemable arc at all. Leave him the mad sociopath that we know and love.

I also don't want him to really still be alive. A twin brother, a second in command out for revenge, I don't care. But if Moriarty didn't kill himself on that rooftop it invalidates the emotional journy we took to get there.

I see the point of the first one. While it would be cool if they had to team up (and then go back to being enemies, perhaps?), it could seriously undermine the character, and I don't think Moriarty is one for such alliances, anyway. I personally would prefer him to stay the mad nemesis, yes. Maybe for a fanfic?

I really don't mind him about him being alive, but if they keep faking deaths, the show is going to suffer some credibility problems Please leave Magnussen dead!

besleybean · August 15, 2014 7:41 pm

Though at least, we all knew immediately that Sherlock was alive.
We all know what John doesn't, that Irene is alive

Last edited by besleybean (August 15, 2014 7:41 pm)

Schmiezi · August 16, 2014 7:17 am

Swanpride wrote:
Honestly, I think there is a lot you still can do if you have a baby, as long as you ensure that it gets the care it needs. Mrs. Hudson certainly wouldn't mind babysitting. It's not like people constantly shoot at John and Sherlock when they are on a case...in fact, John has been in more danger so far when he was not with Sherlock and someone decided to kidnap him.

I am having a four month old (See, Mattlock, I also can come up with my own experience! ), and I must say that it does limit your free time and your spontaneity. Of course you can have someone babysit, but always it includes planning ahead. And you need to be ready to let go. We decided to have my Mom babysit regularly when I was pregnant, and yet, handing baby Schmiezi over to her is a bit diffucult every time.

Besides, strange enough, having a baby changes your hormones and your behaviour. You suddenly drive more careful when baby is with you in the car, for example. And it's not just me, it's hubby as well. Apparently you just can't help it.

I am very curious about how the writers will put this into accound (should baby Watson be around for S4, which my motherly hormones make me wish at the moment).

RavenMorganLeigh · August 17, 2014 8:50 pm

I have to say, I have a very visceral response to the suggestion that Mrs. Hudson "wouldn't mind" babysitting for John and Mary--

It bothers me, because there's this expectation that older women-- who have lived their lives caring for everybody else BUT themselves-- just just be overjoyed to be saddled with childcare. They're convienient.They're default babysitters. It makes me think of irresponsible parents who don't want to make sacrifices for their own child, so--off to the grandmother, or spinster aunt, or older lady in the building they go. And if the woman is not up to it, she's looked at as being mean, or having something wrong with her. That's a lot of work John and Mary would be assuming Mrs. Hudson is up to doing...with her bad hip and all...

Just to be clear, not yealling at anyone *at all*-- just the societal expectation that older women are default childcare for everybody else.

SolarSystem · August 17, 2014 9:10 pm

All those 'practical problems' they'd have to deal with when having a baby around: I'm just not interested in seeing any of this. I'm not interested in seeing John bringing Baby Watson to Mrs. Hudson, I'm not interested in John, Mary and Baby Watson visiting Sherlock, I'm not interested in John and Mary discussing John going on a case with Sherlock... you name it.
Maybe they'd even be able to pull this off in a non-soap opera style, but at present I can plainly say that I don't want to see a baby on the show. What I can't wait to see on the other hand is what they will come up with to deal with the 'Baby Watson Conundrum'.

RavenMorganLeigh · August 18, 2014 12:49 am

SolarSystem wrote:
All those 'practical problems' they'd have to deal with when having a baby around: I'm just not interested in seeing any of this. I'm not interested in seeing John bringing Baby Watson to Mrs. Hudson, I'm not interested in John, Mary and Baby Watson visiting Sherlock, I'm not interested in John and Mary discussing John going on a case with Sherlock... you name it.
Maybe they'd even be able to pull this off in a non-soap opera style, but at present I can plainly say that I don't want to see a baby on the show. What I can't wait to see on the other hand is what they will come up with to deal with the 'Baby Watson Conundrum'.

Totally agree.

I was just thinking of something else, too.

Why do we assume that John is just dying to be a parent? I mean, really? John, with his adrenaline addiction? With his anger management issues? He's not happy with Mary-- and wasn't even before Mary shot Sherlock in the chest-- he was dreaming of Sherlock. So, why do we think that we would just adore being a new daddy?

John avoids. John doesn't like to look at his own feelings. I think he's geared to be a parent because that's what he's supposed to do; but in reality, he's got to feel trapped; after all this wasn't a planned pregancy.