SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

I can believe there could be places to hide in a cemetery but I think of them as kind of open fields...and he doesn't seem very well hidden, in that scene. I'm surprised that John didn't light eyes on him, actually, because at that point John would still kind of be looking for him.

If he had seen him briefly in the distance than he would probably assume that it was his mind playing tricks on him. It's very common in the early stages of grief to see the dead person everywhare.

I agree though that we don't always get a satisfactory explanation. I think it's more fun that way. We can spend a lot of time on this forum speculating. ;)

Last edited by belis (January 26, 2014 10:23 am)

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

how did he manage to be in Pakistan, (or wherever?) right when Irene was about to be executed...show up at her execution...no one recognizes him...and no one he associated with in London knew he had gone there?

Well, considering that several parts of Series 3 occurred only in Sherlock's mind (and other people's minds), perhaps he didn't really go and save Irene after all.  Perhaps that was his imagination, his mind allowing him to envision what he would have liked to have happened. 

I was rather confused when I watched that in SIB but now, after seeing all the inner scenes Sherlock has in these latest episodes, maybe that's all that scene was, too.  That makes a lot more sense, to me anyway, than Sherlock actually going to wherever and saving Irene.  Or, it could also be Irene's fantasy and hope for what she wanted to happen--Sherlock to the rescue--but it was all just in her mind and she was, in fact, executed.

Willow wrote:

But usually we know we are in Sherlock's mind; there is no such 'framing' in SIB. We do see her in Sherlock's mind in the later episode but he tells her to go away; this does not seem to tie in with the 'wishful thinking' hypothesis.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but...  Isn't Hounds the first time we see Sherlock's mind working; not his deducing with words floating around but the inner workings of his mind?  So maybe in Scandal, the writers/producers tried to show that but realized it didn't work out real well and in subsequent episodes, they made it more clear.  I'm just postulating here; I'm not really sure what I think. 

Last edited by Sherli Bakerst (January 26, 2014 4:45 pm)

Sherli Bakerst wrote:

Willow wrote:

But usually we know we are in Sherlock's mind; there is no such 'framing' in SIB. We do see her in Sherlock's mind in the later episode but he tells her to go away; this does not seem to tie in with the 'wishful thinking' hypothesis.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but...  Isn't Hounds the first time we see Sherlock's mind working; not his deducing with words floating around but the inner workings of his mind?  So maybe in Scandal, the writers/producers tried to show that but realized it didn't work out real well and in subsequent episodes, they made it more clear.  I'm just postulating here; I'm not really sure what I think. 

Well, the only way to be sure is if Irene Adler turns up incontrovertibly in the flesh and says thanks for helping me out, and even then we would be sceptical; we like Sherlock enough to critically analyse it so almost by definition we are sceptical people interested in puzzles.

But I see no reason for Sherlock to clutter up his Mind Palace with false memories; the entire point of his not knowing Sholto's room number in TSOT is that he has to throw some stuff out. If we accept that he was telling the truth about that then I think it unlikely that he would deliberately mess up his brain.

And if he was going to imagine himself heroically saving the day, the dialogue would, I think be a little more over the top.

'When I say run, run'

is a beautifully crafted line, and I love the image of them running like hell after Sherlock has inflicted some damage with his scimitar, but stereotypical heroes don't run away; they stay and fight the bad guys. 
 

lil wrote:

TRF a solution was always meant to be a joke.There never was going to be a solid solution.

The writers know nothing is new, all stories are based on very few themes in the end. At heart Sherlock is a morality tale and a romantic tale.
All good writers know this and often make jokes on older original versions of the theme/tale.
This is why in Animal Farm the pig is named Napoleon , funny because its a political tale/theme.

The writers in Sherlock know a morality tale is about good V evil/bad.
They make jokes with Moriarty all the way from the start based on the Original Bad Guy.
A few Examples...theme tune sinnerman..the fall(of man)the apple..the side of the angels..the virgin (innocent)....getting burnt....and so many more.
The final problem in good v bad is as Moriarty says. One can't exist without the other.
Moriarty s solution is to force Sherlock to become a bad guy too.
(Via doing a bad thing before dieing.Suicide)
This is all jokes/the writers having fun comparing Moriarty to the original morality tale and the Original Bad Guy.In the Original morality tale.
Have you guessed who?

Who does that make sherlock? The anti Moriarty (heh another joke there)
Sherlock maybe a bit like the Original good guy?
Jokes/the writers having fun with sherlock..healing the sick, unexplained magic tricks..people following him...people turning on him..dieing to save people...rising from the dead.....

You get the joke yet?
The fall solution always was meant to be an unexplained magic trick..its a joke on the underlying theme.

Thats why the solutions given are also jokes..but they also have a ....well if you didn't get the joke ....here is perfectly plausable solution version....if you want it.
While at the same time maintaining the jokes/fun with the theme.

If something seems odd on the surface, compare it to the underlying theme...
In scandal...wasn't Irene a kinda fallen woman..?
And at the end wasn't she still worth saving.....?
Oh hahahhaha...maybe another joke on the original......

The wheel turns..and Nothing is new.

But in order to make that hypothesis work we would have to postulate that ACD saw Holmes as a Christ like figure, and clearly he did not. I see no evidence that Mofftiss, who genuinely adore the canon, would mess around with it to the point of making it completely uncanonical; Irene Adler has been updated, as has Moriarty, but they are still entirely recognisable as flowing from ACD.

As far as I am aware Mofftiss have no theological axes to grind; there is a difference between recognising the concepts which have profoundly influenced our culture and asserting that those concepts are manifested in single individuals. I haven't a clue as to whether solution 3 is the correct one, but it is not contradicted by anything we have yet seen on screen; it is feasible. I have some sympathy with Moffatt pointing out that there are very few ways in which someone can jump off a building and survive, and any solution would seem rather uninspired by comparison with some of the fantasies propounded in the real world at the end of the last season.

ACD's original explanation of how Sherlock survived the Reichenbach Falls is not hugely plausible but we do not therefore ascribe it to his Sherlock being God; I see no reason to believe that Mofftiss have decided ACD was wrong on that one...
 

@Willow. This is the MGT Sherlock cake tho, not the ACD one .
The writers decided before they started what they wanted the picture on their Sherlock cake to look like.
Almost everything discussed here in this forum is only  a slice of cake or cake flavour and irrelevant to the whole thing, so forget that for a moment and imagine at the end what the whole will look like.

They are using the theme I describe above to shape the whole.


Quote Mofftiss..."dr who is a god trying to be a man where as Sherlock Holmes is a man trying to be a god."

That / this is their vision of Sherlock....stand back....try to see the picture on the cake when it's finished.


TRF plausible explanation is the most complex one possible because when its all over they just want you to skip it and say...he did a trick/faked it and came back to life.....

When you retell the moftiss version of Sherlock in several years time...it will be very familiar.

The whole thing....well the picture on the cake.....well..its not preachy or religious.
Its something like a funny arty bath-tub-Sherlock......, hilarious.

Last edited by lil (January 27, 2014 7:00 am)