For Sherlock, everything works 

Quite off topic, I know... You know, tobe, that since your former post clever hubby keeps rotating the pillows between us when we watch ASiP?

Am I the only one that thinks the out of character thing sherlock did was reaching out to John during the phone call. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. It seems out of character because it is a massive form of emotion which sherlock doesn't have really, along with the crying which I truly don't believe was fake. It seems to support all the Johnlock theories but I wonder if he could be directing someone (not John) to do something. I think the Molly theory, however likely, is far too trivial and obvious. I just wonder what sherlock could have actually been doing by reaching out to John. I don't think this is what he was actually doing, or maybe happened to combine the actions by connecting with his friend in his "last moments" , and also directing the homeless network to start moving the safety net, or the biker to set off.

Somebody on here has told me their theory and I'm actually going with it, until I am shown otherwise. But obviously I'm not going to say anything, I have no idea whether they have actually put it on here.
But for 'the bits'.
I have no doubt Molly has helped somehow, otherwise what was the whole point of the ' I need you' thing. How much she knows and has helped, I don't know.  I do hope it consolidates Sherlock and Molly's friendship, but we'll have to see.
The reaching out thing was just to stop John coming any nearer, so he couldn't see what was going on.
Steven has indicated the tears are fake.  I think he's partly right, tho I do think Sherlock is upset at what he's having to do to John. Sherlock had to seem a broken, suicidal man.
It's Sherlock throwing down his phone, apologising and asking for a moment are the obvious out of character things to me...tho mainly naming Molly as a friend.
Still don't know if the ball thing is a red herring.
I am assuming Sherlock did go to Mycroft for help, but I don't know...

besleybean wrote:

Steven has indicated the tears are fake.

Where did he say that? Do you have a link? I´ve never read that....

besleybean wrote:

Still don't know if the ball thing is a red herring.
I am assuming Sherlock did go to Mycroft for help, but I don't know...

This ball thing seems to be a trick of Houdini, one of his secrets - if you google ball+armpit+houdini you can find a link. This together with the sentence "it´s a trick, a magic trick" makes sense to me, I don´t think it´s a red herring because it matches so well. Besides that I and a lot of my friends have never heard of that trick before TRF and the discussions around it. Maybe we are alone in the world but for me a red herring only makes sense if most people are lead into the wrong direction. But how can this happen if nearly nobody realizes what the ball could mean? Or is that trick so well-known and common? Could be, but for me this was absolutely new.

To Mycroft: The more often I listen to the last talk Sherlock has with Moriarty on the rooftop the more often I am looking automatically for microphones or similar things which try to get everything what happens there. I am sure that both brothers are working together (as well as they can ;-)) and Mycroft has enough possibilities to close roads secretly, to surveille rooftops etc. Too obvious seem Sherlock´s questions to me, he gets everything out of Moriarty, about his network, about the key code but also about the bad game he played with Sherlock as "Rich Brook". The timing of sending John away before (with that fake news about Mrs. Hudson being shot) on the one side and the text of Moriarty (I am waiting) on the other side had been too perfect if there wasn´t somebody outside of St. Barts arranging a lot. John was sent away short before Moriarty appeared - this can´t be coincidence. So, who did manage that? For me it can only be Mycroft.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (December 29, 2012 9:44 pm)

Thanks for the quote. Hm, let´s see what´s going to happen. I am not convinced that the tears are fake. Moffat also said that we can see Sherlock developing more and more human, "nearly becoming a hero". (He said sorry to Molly for instance without anymore reason than saying sorry to her). But I am sure it´s not only pure sentiment, somehow the writers will break these simple romantic thoughts ;-). That alone would be too easy, too emotional and therefore not Sherlock.

But what could be more convincing that falling from that rooftop and lying in your blood? Plus emotional speech before.... The tears are only made for us, or? Neither John nor the assassins can see them.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (December 30, 2012 11:18 am)

kazza474 wrote:

anjaH_alias wrote:

..................... Plus emotional speech before.... The tears are only made for us, or? Neither John nor the assassins can see them.

The tears are part of delivering a credible 'performance' for John.
As I have said before, just as any good telephonist knows that a smile can be detected on a phone call; Sherlock knows that real tears can be detected also. Very hard to be convincing by 'just sounding' like you are crying.
Besides, John's not THAT far away really & he DOES see him after the fall.
Made for us? I doubt it; better ways to trick an audience than that. I mean look, if the tears WERE supposed to be simply to fool an audience, it didn't work did it? And that is NOT Moftiss's style.

I don´t know, of course it could be that Sherlock cried to make his speech more convincing. But is that all? I mean Benedict Cumberbatch plays that very convincing and realistic - he even tries to hold the tears back at one time! -, this is not like the tears he did in TGG for instance. To me it can´t be only fake although I am aware that the whole rooftop thing is a much more important situation, so Sherlock must give everything and can´t play slapstick like in TGG. I think Sherlock is absolutely aware what he does to John in that moment - he had enough time to find that out during the whole episode (and he did that with his questions from time to time). And he is no stone. But I agree that it can´t be "only" sentiment, that wouldn´t fit to him and wouldn´t fit to the writers who always break emotions which come from Sherlock. There´s more, of course.
John sees but doesn´t observe ;-)) - I doubt that he is able to see anything about tears in that short moment he is seeing Sherlock after the fall. As a piece in that whole "Gesamtkunstwerk" they seem to be too small for me.
I never meant by the way that the tears were to fool the audience. I just wanted to say that we are the only witnesses of them. And I for myself "believe" in them as true in the way I explained before. So they don´t "fool" me. It makes the fall even harder, it´s not a usual cliffhanger here: We as audience know that Sherlock survived, but does that knowledge make things better? Obviously not, if we look at the internet discussions, because - besides the "how-dunnit-implications" - we feel mainly with John who doesn´t know anything.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (December 30, 2012 12:08 pm)

And for me, yes I really feel for John, more than anybody...but I'll still think him crass if he takes the anger thing too far, at The Reunion.

QuiteExtraordinary wrote:

From Sherlock's point of view, even if his tears are not only part of the performance, I bet it's not because he feels so sorry for poor John. Rather because he knows that he has to leave John and his other friends, his home and all his possessions behind for some time, maybe forever. That cannot be nice, even for somebody as "cold" as Sherlock. But I don't think he has suddenly learned to worry about how his actions will affect the emotions of others. That would be too much out of character. He would have to be a completely different person when he comes back then, it would change the whole show. I don't think he'll suddenly become all emotional.

But would he become that materialistic? After all, it is all part of a plan. And he is always so sure of himself when he has planned something out. I doubt it would bother him that much as he knows he will be 'back' eventually.



*ponders*
Perhaps he's like me; often when I know there is no way I can avoid getting hurt (like just before the brick I dropped lands on my foot) I will react as if already hurt. Maybe the tears are for the 'thumping' John will give him when he 'returns'?