Incidentally, I asked a very similar question in the Bond Air thread - and we pretty much agreed that the whole "terrorist plot" didn't make a lot of sense. Btw, there was no crypted mail - the line on Irene's phone, photographed from a Ministry of Defense employee, was seat assignments in clear. There's absolutely no indication in the show of how "the government" ever learnt of the terrorists' plans, or why it is a problem that Moriarty now knows which airplane will be filled with dead people.

At least I haven't found anything in about half a dozen viewings. And it took me a number of viewings to even realize that the plot doesn't make much sense - the episode is just so much fun to watch!

Kittyhawk wrote:

Incidentally, I asked a very similar question in the Bond Air thread - and we pretty much agreed that the whole "terrorist plot" didn't make a lot of sense. Btw, there was no crypted mail - the line on Irene's phone, photographed from a Ministry of Defense employee, was seat assignments in clear. There's absolutely no indication in the show of how "the government" ever learnt of the terrorists' plans, or why it is a problem that Moriarty now knows which airplane will be filled with dead people.

At least I haven't found anything in about half a dozen viewings. And it took me a number of viewings to even realize that the plot doesn't make much sense - the episode is just so much fun to watch!

 
Oh sorry, haven't checked if there had ever been a similar question. I just thought this thread would be the best one for my question.
But obviously I'm not the only one having a hard time to struggle through the twisted plot . I just don't know why this all this terrorist-plane-dead people plot is needed and what should it lead to.
From the beginning the case deals with Irene having some delicate photos but not wanting to blackmail anybody, but "just" wanting to keep the photos to have a personal insurance. Until the point when the CIA guys from America come to her house to get the phone. WHY?

The "terrorist-plane-dead people plot" comes from a deleted (or not even filmed?) scene in a James-Bond-movie (which is why Mycroft says: "Bond Air is Go!"). Moftiss liked the idea and so they used it.

Personally I have doubts whether Moftiss could write a good thriller/crime story (along the line of "Inside Man", "Bound", "Die Hard", or "Jack Reacher") to save their lives. For me the plots have always been the weakest point of the show. And Moftiss are constantly saying something like "Sherlock is not a detective story, it's a story about a detective...."

kornmuhme wrote:

 What do you think is his most embarassing moment? The moment when he finds out that Irene has manipulated and used him to decipher the mail on her phone? (I'm thinking of the scene in the plane with Mycroft, Sherlock and Irene. Mycroft is revealing to Sherlock that he's become a traitor.)

Yeah, that scene. Personally, I think the most embarrasing moment would be when Mycroft says: "I'm sorry. I didn't realise." If I was Sherlock, that would've been the most humiliating thing Mycroft could've said. Much, much worse than any anger or smugness.

That moment is Sherlock at his lowest, in my opinion. (Not lowest as in Sherlock acting horribly or low, but the moment when he feels the lowest and smallest). Or so I see it.
 

SusiGo wrote:

Just bumping a very old thread. 

There seems to be a logical error in the Christmas scene. Sherlock gets Irene's text, walks to the mantelpiece, unwraps the phone, and instantly deduces she must be dead. And (immediately) afterwards he and Mycroft meet at the morgue where Sherlock identifies her alleged body. So she must have been "dead" when she sent the message to him. Of course she could have sent the text immediately before being murdered but then she had already sent the phone to his flat. So why does he not at once deduce that something is fishy? Am I missing something or is it just a plothole? 

Bumping an even older thread! I must have missed this first time round!

Not a plothole, this is just more evidence for my pet theory that Sherlock was colluding with Irene!   I think he does deduce something: that Irene wants him to cover for her.   There are a few supposed "plot holes" that I think are in fact clues.  I think some of what you are saying here is actually part of Sherlock's deduction.  It's clear that Irene is alive when she sends the text, so why would Sherlock think there was a body?  And why wouldn't he try to stop her being killed - he doesn't even try to phone or text back or track the phone?   Why does he immediately phone Mycroft instead?  Because he's covering for her. 

The morgue scene could well be immediately afterwards because of course Irene would have prepared the body before sending the text.  But Sherlock needs to be quick if he's to be the one to identify the body.  With him there, I suppose they don't do anything further to check the identity, which wouldn't have happened if (Irene hadn't sent the cryptic message and Sherlock hadn't deduced she needed him to help her fake her death and hadn't told Mycroft to look for a body and) Sherlock, the great detective, hadn't been there. 

Because that was the "plot hole" which had me seeking out forums (and finding luckily finding these ones!) all those years ago - how could the great detective misidentify a body - one which we'd been told he'd seen clearly (the code for the safe).  After all these years, the only explanation that really fits is that of course he knew it wasn't Irene - he didn't even have to deduce that, because he had gone there, knowing Irene was alive, with the purpose of misidentifying the body so Mycroft wouldn't look for her any more.  And then he vaguely pretends to grieve, just as he does at the end, when he helps her fake her death yet again.

(I actually think that as well as covering for Irene, he gets some enjoyment out of fooling Mycroft!).

Anyway, thanks to the lovely Ariane De Vere https://arianedevere.dreamwidth.org/19415.html I found yet another clue.  The texts that Irene has sent.  She gives him a headsup with the one before "Mantelpiece".  "I'm thinking of sending you a Christmas present".  (What better Christmas present than the phone for him to puzzle over?).  So he knew to expect something.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but I'm guessing "I saw you in the street. You didn't see me" is a nod to the ACD story where Irene's disguise fools Sherlock in the street! 

 

Last edited by Liberty (June 11, 2020 4:18 pm)

It's a nice touch!  And of course, the end seems to be a nod to the end of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes!  I'm sure we've discussed it before - my memory is hazy.   I do miss these discussions! 

I was just watching some of this episode again and thinking how great Lou is in it!

Liberty, I think the meeting in the morgue could be the next day. Or late the same night.

BUT - I loved that theory, especially because you watch an entirely different movie with this assumption in mind, it makes Sherlock even smarter and we know he can fake feelings - or lack of them. The only element that doesn't really work 100% with this version is the scene in the power plant.

This was bugging me so much, that I asked Steven about it. Was a bit of hardship with my English, at first he didn't understand what I'm talking about. Apparently I'm cursed to ask crazy questions.

And - according to him Sherlock thought Irene is dead. Which it's kind of funny: sometimes Mofftiss seem to have no idea what they are actually doing, lol.

I have always wanted to ask them about it, JP!  I'm so glad you did!  Just wish they would have said more about it. 

I agree about it making Sherlock smarter - I love that it makes the story involve another deduction, and more deception.  And I completely believe Sherlock would be driven not only be being fascinated by Irene, but by wanting to get one up on Mycroft! 

But the comments about the power station scene: I can think of a couple of possiblities.  One is that it's written ambiguously, because we are meant to try to make our own deductions but never really know, so both alternatives have to be possible.  I think that is very likely, but it's not completely satisfying for me!  

The other is that (given that Sherlock has to know that wasn't Irene's body on the slab, and so has to know she's faking her death) Sherlock thinks that Irene was killed anyway, after she faked her death.   Why would he think that?  My only suggestion is that he expected that there would be contact from her and that she would get the phone back somehow.  She did say she needed it.  So Sherlock thinks she sent him the phone to help fake her death, but then the fact that she doesn't try to get it back means she died anyway.

My problem with that theory is that it's such a short space of time (it is just a few days between Irene's "death" and Battersea, isn't it?  Not a year?  I get so mixed up with the timelines!).  

Then there's Irene meeting John at Battersea.  Apart from it being a great set piece, why did she do that?  The surface explanation is that she doesn't think it's safe to let Sherlock know she's alive, so she contacts John expecting him to lie to Sherlock, get the phone off him and give it back to her.   But I don't think she would think that John would do that - and he doesn't.  But leaving all that aside, I do think the scene maybe plays better if Sherlock thinks she is dead.

But then the flaw with that surface reading, is that Irene seems to need Sherlock to deduce what's on the phone, doesn't she?  So there's no point in her having the phone back without him knowing.  She needs to seduce him into breaking the code. Maybe she didn't plan to do that and only thought of it later, but I like to think of them both deducing and planning! 

Another thing in favour of Sherlock thinking Irene is dead, is that he doesn't try to break into her phone until after he knows she's alive.  You'd think the "Christmas present" might be the puzzle of the phone and he would have fun trying to guess the password.  But he doesn't seem to want to until later.
 

He's a darling.