Just two points:

I don't actually see at this point that Moriarty is still alive. What we have seen of Moriarty in this episode can mean anything, it doesn't really mean he's still alive. We haven't seen the 'real' Moriarty, have we?

About Sherlock not seeing that Magnussen doesn't really have actual files stored away somewhere: I would say this has to do with emotions. You said a lot of things about Sherlock and emotions yourself and how those emotions have changed him in series 3. I think emotions are also responsible for the fact that he has more difficulties than ever before with his deductions. "Caring is not an advantage", "chemical defect in the losing side", "don't get involved" - he is too involved, it's personal, he wants to save Mary and John, and in my opinion this hinders Sherlock in a lot of ways and especially in seeing through Magnussen.

Last edited by SolarSystem (January 13, 2014 4:15 pm)

I don't understand why you so desperately WANT to like HLV? You are a fan of Sherlock and there are good and bad moments, so what?
I've been struggling each time, after every single episode of S3 whether I liked it or not. I actually was a bit afraid I might like it just because I WANT to.
For every single episode it turned out that I really liked it after having watched it several times, just because IMO they all are so unusual compared to S1 and S2 that I 1. had to "get used to it" and 2. had to find all those little things in every episode I love so much. And I did.
But still there are moments I don't fully agree with - whether they are mistakes or I just don't understand them. So what? I don't feel I have to force myself to love every tiny little bit about the show.

Then there were always moments in each episode which I didn't understand at once and thought they were "stupid" or even cheesy - until they were explained in the following one.
Which leads to Moriarty. Who says he is alive? I really, really love Andrew Scott and loved him as Moriarty, but I think it would be very very unbelievable if he'd be still alive. And I kinda trust in those trolls Mofftiss that they won't let that happen. 

Last edited by Mattlocked (January 13, 2014 4:26 pm)

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.
Also, I know about the canon reference, but that doesn't change that I find it wrong. They altered lots of stuff in the adaptation, why not that?
To those who wondered why I'm trying so hard to like it - don't you know that feeling of being the only one among hunreds who doesn't like something all the others seem to love? It's not the nicest feeling. I thought maybe there was something I missed or... you know, something wrong with my way of thinking.
I never said I was sure of Moriarty being alive. I just said that I hoped he wasn't. But for some reason I think he might be - you know, Andrew Scott being at this event (someone in the HLV forum wrote about, forgot the name, sorry) for HLV/series 3, and Mycoft being all "It's impossible" and "We need Sherlock back" and Moriarty's "Miss me?". I know it's not a fact, it's just a hint I didn't like.
Yup, the thing with Sherlock's emotions keeping him from solving the case is kind of what I thought/tried to express. Problem is, I don't really like Sherlock being all emotional. To me, the series looses some of its appeal because of that new turn. It's not about coping with some kind of mental disorder anymore but about using your new found abilities to solve crimes and deliberately hurt people. That's just not Sherlock to me.

But I hate that it’s become common for women to slap men on TV like it’s an okay thing to do, an accepted way to express your anger. Nobody even things it’s wrong to hit somebody because you’re angry at them.

Although I disagree with the rest I'm with you right there. Movies and TV shows need to stop that. It is simply wrong to slap a human being, whether you are a man who slaps a woman or a woman who slaps a man to show that you don't approve of them. I do blame the writers of the show for this and not Molly though. I remember Thor 2. I will never forgive Jane Foster for slapping Loki.

Regarding Moriarty... has someone said he's alive? If you are a master villain and you want to draw the attention of Sherlock... what is more intriguing than pretending Moriarty was back?

Last edited by Mary Me (January 13, 2014 6:11 pm)

Mattlocked wrote:

Hanka wrote:

...
To those who wondered why I'm trying so hard to like it - don't you know that feeling of being the only one among hunreds who doesn't like something all the others seem to love? It's not the nicest feeling. I thought maybe there was something I missed or... you know, something wrong with my way of thinking....

 
Hm. In the office I'm sitting with colleagues who could be my children. They like the usual radio program (boring), the usual tv shows(boring).
And you ask me if I know that feeling???
And then again I love Sherlock which nobody near to me even knows. And if, they don't understand me.

I guess I have to live with that! And I guess I actually CAN.

Reading this left me smiling - I'm only 17, too, and despite everything I said about HLV I do love Sherlock. Maybe you should open up to your colleagues about Sherlock, you never know
Luckily, I have a friend whom I could convince to watch Sherlock and who's just as fond as me now. We haven't talked much about HLV, maybe I should do that?

Mary Me, I don't blame Louise either! I think she did a wonderful job, you know, acting. I just don't like what Moftiss did there with having her slap Sherlock.

Thanks Mrs. Wenceslas, that did help
 

Magnusson is threatening Mary's life though. If he reveals who she now is, she is a dead woman. That s made explicitly clear in this episode.

Sherlock's killing of Magnussen to me is done to surprise those who know the canon, where we would be expecting someone (a lady most likely) such as Mary to shoot him.

I don not agree that Sherlock is less sociopathic. His callous using of people to further his plans, yes even getting engaged, is a clear example.the fact that he can mimic emotions when necessary and can mouth niceties when required to do so should not mislead us into thinking that he has real emotions invested. He doesn't.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

[
Maybe that's the problem with the show. I mean,  it's almost easier to sympathise with Dexter-- a real psychopath-- than it is for a lot of viewers to sympathise with Sherlock! And I think that's the fault of the writers. 

There's a lot of subtext and hinting that reveals that Sherlock does indeed have feelings, that he's thinking of John first -- in a lot of ways, in a thousand tiny things throughout the series. But they're not very obivious in the way that most audience members are going to get, or even accept. 

Someone in some thread mentioned that M & G do this sort of "lying " storytelling thing, where they've got a character going on about how they're a sociopath, and then they do something totally selfless. 

I think it's a way to play with audience perceptions and keep them guessing about character motivations, character arcs. But it's confusing. It strikes me as a technique that's not always effective in generating sympathy/empathy for the *main character* which is what is *needed* to have a successful story. It seems more like playing the audience's emotions-- which is, after all their job-- but I think the tactic is backfiring. 

Sorry, just rambling. 
 

Thanks for elaborating, I do think this is part of my problem, I just couldn't exactly put it into words.
This is especially important when thinking of the scene where Sherlock kills Magnussen. He says "I am a high funtioning sociopath" and then shoots him. But this murder is what makes him so NOT a sociopath - putting other people's well-being before his own and acting so irrational. I mean, seriously, Moftiss themselves said "Murder is a very human thing to do" in the QA yesterday! It's just so unfitting.

Last edited by Hanka (January 13, 2014 9:56 pm)

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.

Hanka wrote:

However, I do feel like Sherlock's new abilities have made him a lot more unbelieveable. (...) He has become more 'human' in both good and bad ways, and it seems to me that he's become less of a detective. He misses lots of clues, is constantly in need of help, afraid and apparently (according to Gatiss and the series itself) Mycroft is the smarter one. Then why do still need Sherlock?

I've been thinking that, too. Imo, Sherlock is failing too often. He's supposed to be brilliant (of course making a few mistakes now and then). But now, it feels like he's making mistakes all over, fatal ones. Where is brilliant? I miss proper deductions. I don't mind if Sherlock has his flaws. A drug habit and close attachement to people etc. will obviously slow him down. But it's getting too much. We already know that caring is not an advantage for Sherlock, and this series has proved it. I'm still alright with it now, for this series, but I don't want it to go on. I'd like deducing, brilliant Sherlock back. Maybe even in smaller cases again, like the one in TSoT. 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