BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » I don't like HLV

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · January 14, 2014 9:06 pm

Lily wrote:
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.

Totally agree here!

I thought TEH and TSoT were very weird and jarring in tone because they are different from Series 1 and Series 2, but I thought that HLV would explain and lead to a reason why those two episodes are the way they are.

But sadly, the episode really seemed abit underwhelming and cringeworthy in many aspects. The ending... unlike The Great Game where we are left in suspense about how Sherlock and John are going to get outta of this and TRF where we are left with an emotional roller coaster as we are left with feeling worried about John and what Sherlock is going to do as well as figure out how he faked his death, HLV actually let me feeling: That's it? That's how it ends? And not the good kind of That's it? The bad kind... the one feeling cheated.

Still, I worry about Sherlock's mental and emotional state. There had been some hints that there is something broken inside Sherlock. But never explained. I was hoping HLV will explain Sherlock's out of character transition. I thought maybe something terrible was going to happen that will make Sherlock actually go "See! Look at what these emotions do to me!! Get in the way!" sort of thing... I don't know.

Also, felt like the villian was lackluster. The actor was great, though. He played the part well.

All I'm saying is that Series 1 and 2 are my favorite series and Series 3 is the one making go: Did all of that actually happen?

stoertebeker · January 14, 2014 9:58 pm

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
Did all of that actually happen?

That's what I am asking myself now, after watching HLV a second time. Are the things we saw really the way they took place. I don't have specific idea yet (well, there will be enough time to elaborate some theories again ) but with HLV I have this nagging feeling that there is something wrong. Something doesn't quite fit.

I do actually like the episode, the mind palace scenes are brilliant, the villain also, great acting from Ben and Martin. It's just the thing with Mary that spoiled the episode for me (no offence against Amanda, she acted her part very good).

Last edited by stoertebeker (January 14, 2014 10:00 pm)

Lily · January 14, 2014 10:16 pm

What also really frustrates me is that this episode destroyed Mary as a character for me. I really, REALLY loved her in episode one and two, she was kind and funny and clever, and just a truly enjoyable character. And then from the first moment in episode three on she suddenly seemed like a completely different person. And it all comes back to her shooting Sherlock with no acceptable reason. I either have to accept a reason that doesn't make any sense in my opinion, or assume that she really was willing to kill him, which makes her a terrible person.
Great choices, really.

WATYF · January 14, 2014 10:24 pm

I had posted this elsewhere, and then someone told me about this thread, so here I am.

I agree with most of the objections being raised here. Despite thoroughly enjoying this series up to this point, I was extremely disappointed by this episode.

Here's the problem.... Sherlock is a genius. He's a cold, indifferent analytical machine. His uses his wits in all circumstances and that's how he always prevails. And yet, here we have a case wherein he was out-smarted at every turn, where all of his efforts were dashed by his opponent, where his "plan" to beat the bad guy was extremely rudimentary and transparent, and in the end, when he stood there dumbfounded at how completely he had been beaten, his only remaining option was...... brute force??

And why, you ask? Well... because he loves his dear friend John so very much...

???

First, that's not noble. It's murder. (Which ruins whatever good motives he may have done it for) Second, it's not clever. It's unthinking violence. (Which ruins any conceptions we might have about how clever he is). Third, a move like that, for the motives that they want us to believe he did it for, is not even in his character. (Which ruins our ideals of him as a dispassionate bastion of reason).

So now he's a sentimental momma-bear protecting her cubs using any force necessary?

The entire last part of the episode I was just waiting.... waiting for Sherlock to pull the metaphorical rabbit out of his hat. To reveal how he had anticipated his opponent's moves and for him to declare "Checkmate!". But nothing. It was just, "Let him flick you in the face John.... OK, well, now I guess I'll just shoot him".

And to top it all off... it ends up that (maybe?) Sherlock was wrong about Moriarty being dead. Egads.

Everyone seems to be going on about how dreadfully they handled the "Mary" character in this episode. Seems to me that they're doing much more dreadful things to the titular character.

WATYF

WATYF · January 14, 2014 10:30 pm

And as someone pointed out ealier, they really, really.... really... need to stop using the "high functioning sociopath" line. Not only is the entire term "sociopath" inapplicable to Sherlock because of the very empathetic motives he demonstrates in this episode, but there is really no such thing as a "high functioning" one...

http://io9.com/5933869/stop-calling-sherlock-a-sociopath-thanks-a-psychologist

WATYF

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · January 14, 2014 10:41 pm

WATYF wrote:
And as someone pointed out ealier, they really, really.... really... need to stop using the "high functioning sociopath" line. Not only is the entire term "sociopath" inapplicable to Sherlock because of the very empathetic motives he demonstrates in this episode, but there is really no such thing as a "high functioning" one...

http://io9.com/5933869/stop-calling-sherlock-a-sociopath-thanks-a-psychologist

WATYF

Yes! I get tired of the show and people pointing out that Sherlock is a sociopath.

He is not a sociopath. He is an arrogant manchild with the emotional sensitivity of a tabloid newspaper, but throughout the series, he is learning to be more emotionally mature by the guidance of John and others like Molly.

Lily · January 14, 2014 10:42 pm

I disagree with this point. I don't think that they are trying to tell us that Sherlock really is a sociopath, but that he is using this label as some kind of protection. He tries to convince everyone and himself that he has no heart and is not affected by emotions, and calling himself a sociopath is the easiest way to do this.

LoveIsAViciousMotivator · January 14, 2014 10:47 pm

Lily wrote:
I disagree with this point. I don't think that they are trying to tell us that Sherlock really is a sociopath, but that he is using this label as some kind of protection. He tries to convince everyone and himself that he has no heart and is not affected by emotions, and calling himself a sociopath is the easiest way to do this.

Oh! I don't mean that with my comment. Sherlock calls himself a socipath is the easiest excuse to give people so he doesn't have to emotionally mature.

I just don't like the writers using it and some fans saying Sherlock is a sociopath.

Maybe in a future series, Sherlock would realize that using that label is just unhealthy and stop calling himself that.

Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (January 14, 2014 10:50 pm)

stoertebeker · January 14, 2014 11:03 pm

Mouse wrote:
Think about it: "Mary" has super-spy skills that rival Mycroft's, super-weapons skills that rival (or even exceed) John's as well as medical knowledge, and she's apparently clever and smart enough to fool Sherlock. Add to this the fact that John loves her and is devoted to her and she'd kill for him in a heartbeat. She's basically another Sherlock, and I don't want another Sherlock. I watch this show for Holmes and Watson. I enjoy the supporting characters, but that's what I like them to be: supporting. I don't see how Mary, with her oh-so-mysterious past and super!spy skills can possibly be relegated to a supporting position after this. I don't know how they're going to wrap this up, but if Mary is going to stay around and a baby is brought into it, I can see me losing interest really fast. I went into HLV hoping they wouldn't kill her off, or that she would at least not turn out to be a villain who was just using John, but now I'm thinking those might have been better alternatives.

Well, we'll see what happens.

Yes, yes, exactly!! With this secret-agent-killer-queen background Mary got raised almost on the same level like Sherlock and John. The show don't need that and I am sure most fans don't want that. It's about Sherlock and John. Mary could have been a nice "add-on" like Molly or Mrs. Hudson (sorry, I know this sounds a bit mean) but in this way no, it just doesn't fit.

I really really hope Moftiss are going to come up with something clever.

zeratul · January 15, 2014 12:07 am

Btw about SHerlock loosing his analytic skills. Remember in The sign of three, when he is drunk and not able to deduct? We are even shown the weird thoughts of him. So how could he deduct CAM when being on morphine? I think this is to blame...

RavenMorganLeigh · January 15, 2014 1:22 am

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
WATYF wrote:
And as someone pointed out ealier, they really, really.... really... need to stop using the "high functioning sociopath" line. Not only is the entire term "sociopath" inapplicable to Sherlock because of the very empathetic motives he demonstrates in this episode, but there is really no such thing as a "high functioning" one...

http://io9.com/5933869/stop-calling-sherlock-a-sociopath-thanks-a-psychologist

WATYF
Yes! I get tired of the show and people pointing out that Sherlock is a sociopath.

He is not a sociopath. He is an arrogant manchild with the emotional sensitivity of a tabloid newspaper, but throughout the series, he is learning to be more emotionally mature by the guidance of John and others like Molly.

I wholeheartedly agree with this-- he's absolutley NOT a sociopath.

Sherli Bakerst · January 15, 2014 1:45 am

The first time I watched HLV, I didn't like it at all. The second time, I liked it more. I'll watch it additional times for nuances I missed. However, I really, really liked Lily's post explaining the problems she had with this episode: I agree with everything you say. There are discrete scenes in HLV that I like but as a whole, it's not one of my favorite episodes. Otoh, since Sherlock is so far above the run-of-the-mill TV, even the worst episode is great.

Re Mary: I never liked her in TEH or TSOT. I posted my reasons in those threads and won't repeat them here. But, the thing that gets me about Mary in HLV is that it's such a cliche to make a female character well-liked and pretty, with a hint of mystery, and then reveal that she's actually a little Nikita. It's just so far-fetched that I think I actually laughed when that came out because it was so over-the-top.

But, a question: I don't remember specifically--was it ever stated explicitly that Mary was an assassin? I mean, in those words? CAM said she was a bad, bad girl and was very wicked, and he said something about the CIA (at least, someone did). But do we know for sure that she was an assassin and killed people for hire? Because maybe she did other dastardly deeds; just because she "went rogue" doesn't mean she had to be an assassin. Just because she killed people doesn't mean she was an assassin--maybe there were good reasons for killing whoever and she was justified in doing that. Maybe her comment about going to prison for the rest of her life meant for a different crime. But maybe I'm forgetting something.

Anyway, my point is that if it's only implied that she was an assassin--and John never read the flashdrive--and by CAM at that, why should anyone believe that? Maybe saying that is another red herring, meant to make people dislike her and then, in Series 4, "The Truth" will be revealed and show that everyone was wrong about her--again!--and that's why we will feel sympathy for her when something awful happens to her. Guilt is a very powerful emotion!

The Doctor · January 15, 2014 2:48 am

Weirdness wrote:
"Yeah, he did kill someone, but it's okay, since, you know, Magnussen was a bad guy." Not really my way of thinking.",

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

We had an interesting discussion ages ago about how John is actually shown as a sociopath in this scene because he seems genuinely unconcerned about having taken someone's life....

The Doctor · January 15, 2014 3:01 am

Hanka wrote:
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.

This scene made me long for an extended edition in Lord of the Rings-style for the first time.

Indeed, the timing between murder and call back seems off.

And why is Mycroft alarmed by someone using a Moriarty-animation? Because of the reach - all screens in Britain? Or... ?

RavenMorganLeigh · January 15, 2014 4:04 am

The Doctor wrote:
Weirdness wrote:
"Yeah, he did kill someone, but it's okay, since, you know, Magnussen was a bad guy." Not really my way of thinking.",

Just curious, did you feel the same about John killing the cabbie in the first episode?
We had an interesting discussion ages ago about how John is actually shown as a sociopath in this scene because he seems genuinely unconcerned about having taken someone's life....

BINGO! I've been thinking that for a long time-- would that be a dramatic twist or what? John; so invested in being normal, has almost made being normal an art form-- and it turns out that it's because he's a sociopath, in search of a cover life. Ouch!

LoveBug54 · January 15, 2014 4:20 am

LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
Lily wrote:
I disagree with this point. I don't think that they are trying to tell us that Sherlock really is a sociopath, but that he is using this label as some kind of protection. He tries to convince everyone and himself that he has no heart and is not affected by emotions, and calling himself a sociopath is the easiest way to do this.
Oh! I don't mean that with my comment. Sherlock calls himself a socipath is the easiest excuse to give people so he doesn't have to emotionally mature.

I just don't like the writers using it and some fans saying Sherlock is a sociopath.

Maybe in a future series, Sherlock would realize that using that label is just unhealthy and stop calling himself that.

They not only had Sherlock calling himself a sociopath, they had him convincing John that sociopaths are what John is attracted to because he is an adrenaline junkie! That had to be some of the biggest load of shite dished out by any character in this series.

RavenMorganLeigh · January 15, 2014 4:50 am

LoveBug54 wrote:
LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
Lily wrote:
I disagree with this point. I don't think that they are trying to tell us that Sherlock really is a sociopath, but that he is using this label as some kind of protection. He tries to convince everyone and himself that he has no heart and is not affected by emotions, and calling himself a sociopath is the easiest way to do this.
Oh! I don't mean that with my comment. Sherlock calls himself a socipath is the easiest excuse to give people so he doesn't have to emotionally mature.

I just don't like the writers using it and some fans saying Sherlock is a sociopath.

Maybe in a future series, Sherlock would realize that using that label is just unhealthy and stop calling himself that.

They not only had Sherlock calling himself a sociopath, they had him convincing John that sociopaths are what John is attracted to because he is an adrenaline junkie! That had to be some of the biggest load of shite dished out by any character in this series.

What I want to know is: WHY does Sherlock feel that he deserves that label? Did someone label him thusly, when he was young? Did they cause damage, he might not have suffered? Maybe Mycroft? Or... the other brother?

sj4iy · January 15, 2014 5:17 am

LoveBug54 wrote:
LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
Lily wrote:
I disagree with this point. I don't think that they are trying to tell us that Sherlock really is a sociopath, but that he is using this label as some kind of protection. He tries to convince everyone and himself that he has no heart and is not affected by emotions, and calling himself a sociopath is the easiest way to do this.
Oh! I don't mean that with my comment. Sherlock calls himself a socipath is the easiest excuse to give people so he doesn't have to emotionally mature.

I just don't like the writers using it and some fans saying Sherlock is a sociopath.

Maybe in a future series, Sherlock would realize that using that label is just unhealthy and stop calling himself that.

They not only had Sherlock calling himself a sociopath, they had him convincing John that sociopaths are what John is attracted to because he is an adrenaline junkie! That had to be some of the biggest load of shite dished out by any character in this series.

I believe Sherlock's words were that John is attracted to a dangerous lifestyle. That's not at all the same as saying he's attracted to sociopaths. He simply is attracted to people who like danger. Correlation doesn't not equal causation.

SolarSystem · January 15, 2014 6:01 am

zeratul wrote:
Btw about SHerlock loosing his analytic skills. Remember in The sign of three, when he is drunk and not able to deduct? We are even shown the weird thoughts of him. So how could he deduct CAM when being on morphine? I think this is to blame...

I think it's that in combination with emotions that get in his way. And like someone mentioned before: it is a vicious circle of some sort at this point, because on the one hand we want him to show more emotions, on the other hand we want him to be the clever detective with those mind-blowing analytical skills. It seems we can't have both at the same time, and it will be interesting to see how this will develop in Series 4.
When Mycroft says to Sherlock on the phone that he hopes Sherlock has learned his lesson, maybe he's also referring to emotions...? Maybe Sherlock now has learned that caring really isn't an advantage, that it gets in his way (something he has propagated in the first two series himself) and that he has to find a way to... solve this problem.

LoveBug54 · January 15, 2014 6:04 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
LoveBug54 wrote:
LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:

Oh! I don't mean that with my comment. Sherlock calls himself a socipath is the easiest excuse to give people so he doesn't have to emotionally mature.

I just don't like the writers using it and some fans saying Sherlock is a sociopath.

Maybe in a future series, Sherlock would realize that using that label is just unhealthy and stop calling himself that.

They not only had Sherlock calling himself a sociopath, they had him convincing John that sociopaths are what John is attracted to because he is an adrenaline junkie! That had to be some of the biggest load of shite dished out by any character in this series.

What I want to know is: WHY does Sherlock feel that he deserves that label? Did someone label him thusly, when he was young? Did they cause damage, he might not have suffered? Maybe Mycroft? Or... the other brother?

I think he says that to keep people at a distance.