Harriet wrote:

Because then the show would be over. She intended to kill him as she said, but the writers could not let this happen.

Actually, Moffitson took one step further. She threatened to kill him, then she immediately shot him, Sherlock actually died and then miraculously came back to life because he remembered John was definitely in danger from Mary.
 

This.^^
One only has to ponder about the question, how much closer to an actual killing we could get without killing. No space for a sheet of paper IMHO. Just for the dramatic reasons? Maybe.
But as I've mentioned several times: no problem with the shooting per se, but with the handling afterwards, and I think the meta gives some thoughts here.

For my personal likes he seems to not have included several explanatory scenes to kling on.

I found that where Moffat and Gatiss are concerned it's best to rely what is being shown in the actual show and next the writers. If you check my post you'll see that Moffits themselves have admitted time and time again that they deliberately and blatantly lie to protect from spoilers. Moriarty's survival is like the prime example. At one time Moffat himself pretty convincingly scoffed at the idea of both Sherlock and Moriarty fake suiciding at each other and now what do we see?

So bad writing and under pressure in a stuffed episode to leave out explanatory scenes? 

Well, my mistake for going to the source when trying to discover the true intent of a scene. 

But what do we regard as source in TV show? For me the foremost source material is always the show itself. We have been over this more than once but I really do not believe that I need the writers to explain me what they meant. And if I do, there is something wrong with the writing. 

Vhanja wrote:

To me, the source is the writers. Who else could the source be? But, yes, we have been over this many times before, so probably not necessary to discuss it again. Would be slightly OT as well in this thread.

SLIGHTLY OT 

But then Moffat says things like this:

Question: I was just wondering about the creative decision to bring Moriarty back. I’m thrilled, but you were very adamant he wasn’t coming back.
Moffat: Because I’ve always given this grand commitment to telling the truth! [laughter] You don’t know what’s going on there. You don’t know what’s going on there. We know what’s going on there but we’re not telling you… for bloody ages! [laughter]. It must be hell watching this show.

and then:

"Anything is possible. But we do our best to surprise you with a combination of lies and deceit. So, we’re never going to tell you what we’re going to do."

Anyone interested to know how much the great Moffitson lie to misdirect the audiance please have a look at this post.I've simply compiled together all the time they themselves admitted that they deliberately and blatantly lie to the audiance. It's an eye opener.

Last edited by tykobrian (February 19, 2015 11:40 am)

Also I don’t think Mary spared Magnusson’s life in the office because of John. That doesn’t even make sense. First of all, yes obviously John will be brought in for questioning for trespassing but surely he can’t be tried for murder? First of all the bullets found in CAM and Sherlock’s body won’t match John’s pistol, which we were told John didn’t bring with him. Then if the police theorize that the killer was John and Sherlock’s accomplice and something went wrong like they had a quarrel and Sherlock mistakenly got shot etc. they’ll have to drop the theory for lack of proof. So maybe John and later Sherlock will be in custody or monitored but they won’t be sentenced for murder.

On the other hand, the real reason I feel Mary let CAM live is because she can’t kill him until she has the documents. Let me be clear first that there’s no way Mary knows the real secret of Appledore. Because if she did know we wouldn’t see her threatening CAM before Sherlock intervened, she’d just outright kill him. So since she thinks the documents are real and are somewhere, she can’t kill CAM until she gets her hands on them. Because surely Mary thought that CAM’d have some precautions in place like in the event of his death, all ‘documents’ get published.  Yes, there aren’t any documents, but none of the people he’s blackmailing know that, so they think they have to bargain with him, not just kill him.

mrshouse wrote:

Interesting read, gave me some brain fodder:
http://xistentialangst.tumblr.com/post/73711517931/the-problem-with-mary

Interesting article, thanks for posting it, mrshouse!

I have to say that as much as I´d love the idea of a secret plan and Mary as antagonist I agree with the conclusion of the article - what we´re shown makes most sense if Sherlock really forgave Mary. 

We´ve seen him forgive or help people who hurt and betrayed him before in the show.. he doesn´t seem to hold grudges for long. Seb hated him in uni, yet he helps him solve his case and doesn´t even want to take money for it. Anderson tried to destroy his reputation and yet he talks to him quite friendly now that he´s "reformed". Irene also betrayed him pretty badly, and while he didn´t let her get away with her plan he still goes to some lenghts to save her in the end. Although I feel Mary´s betrayal is much worse, not only because he nearly died but also because he was completely unguarded towards her when she struck.. he can probably see it much more rational and acknowledge the "neccessity" for her actions.

Also he doesn´t seem to have problems with psychopathic streaks or killing people per se.. see his opinion about the Camden Garotter or that he gambled with cannibals (although I find this pretty hard to get together with his emotional reactions when innocents are killed or threatened.. for me this is a tricky point because it really touches the core of the character.)