BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Mary

tonnaree · July 17, 2015 12:23 pm

nakahara wrote:
Kittyhawk wrote:
Actually no. But it works both ways round: You say Sherlock thinks Mary is dangerous and might kill him and John. And yet he puts John in the line of fire. Or doesn't stop John from putting himself in the line of fire. In my book that's not how friends behave.

And John's behaviour in the episode merits its own thread...
It is actually possible that Mary was the one in danger during her stay at Lenister Gardens. John is a perfect shot too and he goes armed into a dangerous situations....

Who knows what could´ve happened if Mary would indeed try to point a gun at him?

A girl can dream..........................................

Lola Red · July 17, 2015 12:32 pm

Oh don’t get me wrong, I am not waiting for the “Mary and John Watson show” either (as much as I love Martin and Amanda) . But I really hope all that HLV drama around her serves some larger purpose. Mary does not have to hold centre stage for more of her past to transpire. I just hope and pray that they did not just give her that assassin past to “make things more interesting”, but because it will be vital in a future plot twist (starring Sherlock and John).

Last edited by Lola Red (July 17, 2015 12:33 pm)

nakahara · July 17, 2015 12:36 pm

Lola Red wrote:
Oh don’t get me wrong, I am not waiting for the “Mary and John Watson show” either (as much as I love Martin and Amanda) . But I really hope all that HLV drama around her serves some larger purpose. Mary does not have to hold centre stage for more of her past to transpire. I just hope and pray that they did not just give her that assassin past to “make things more interesting”, but because it will be vital in a future plot twist (starring Sherlock and John).

Yes!

SusiGo · July 17, 2015 1:28 pm

Me, too.

Kittyhawk · July 17, 2015 2:25 pm

nakahara wrote:
....
It is actually possible that Mary was the one in danger during her stay at Lenister Gardens. John is a perfect shot too and he goes armed into a dangerous situations....

Who knows what could´ve happened if Mary would indeed try to point a gun at him?

That's actually a very good and interesting point - and for the record, in that case I wouldn't have blamed John for shooting her.

RavenMorganLeigh · July 17, 2015 5:57 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
Johnlock is great, but it is even better to see it in different situations, how it withstand the test of time, marriage, perhaps even children.
I am sure that Sherlock and John's marriage will withstand the test of time and that they would even be able to deal with the presence of children.

RavenMorganLeigh · July 17, 2015 5:59 pm

Lola Red wrote:
Oh don’t get me wrong, I am not waiting for the “Mary and John Watson show” either (as much as I love Martin and Amanda) . But I really hope all that HLV drama around her serves some larger purpose. Mary does not have to hold centre stage for more of her past to transpire. I just hope and pray that they did not just give her that assassin past to “make things more interesting”, but because it will be vital in a future plot twist (starring Sherlock and John).

Hear, hear!

Harriet · July 17, 2015 6:04 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
Johnlock is great, but it is even better to see it in different situations, how it withstand the test of time, marriage, perhaps even children.
I am sure that Sherlock and John's marriage will withstand the test of time and that they would even be able to deal with the presence of children.

RavenMorganLeigh · July 17, 2015 10:26 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Valley of Fear already has been adapted. It was, along with the dancing man, the base for the Blind banker, and the little Moriaty stuff in it has already been used, too. The only part left is the "wrongly identified victim".

Somehow, I don't think Mary fits the bill for a "victim"....

mrshouse · July 18, 2015 3:11 pm

Harriet wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
SusiGo wrote:

I am sure that Sherlock and John's marriage will withstand the test of time and that they would even be able to deal with the presence of children.

And may I add

nakahara · July 29, 2015 8:57 pm

Interesting: was there a real Cath or does this mean something more sinister?

http://rozzychan.tumblr.com/post/125304539389/just-sort-of-happened-wellthengameover

SusiGo · July 29, 2015 9:04 pm

Some interesting thoughts. I have wondered about "Cath" and "Beth" as well. We get quite some codes, abbreviations, etc. where Mary is concerned. Thinking of A.G.R.A. as well.
And there is definitely something fishy about the bonfire incident. We are led to believe that she asks John if he is going there out of concern for their friendship but it also makes her the only one who knows that he is going to visit Baker Street. Of course CAM's people might be observing the surgery or Baker Street, equipped with the drug, just in case, but it seems improbable.

Vhanja · July 29, 2015 9:10 pm

"Cath" could be a code, but I highly doubt she was in on the bonfire incident. That goes against her entire MO in HLV (doing everything, including shooting Sherlock, to keep John).

Last edited by Vhanja (July 29, 2015 9:10 pm)

Lola Red · July 30, 2015 2:20 pm

Even assuming that Mary was planted, how would the bonfire benefit her? She gets very close to exposing herself; Sherlock actually takes notice of her ability to recognize a skip code (he is just too busy to inquire further). Was she just poking the bear by demonstrating her abilities? Seems very dangerous for an assassin who tries to settle herself in close proximity to Sherlock (then again, the whole marrying John part basically only makes sense if Mary, or –more likely- her boss, is trying to prove that he/she is cleverer than Sherlock. That, or Mary simply fell in love with the wrong man). John was already on his way to Sherlock (who wanted his blogger back), so it was also not done to get them back together and possibly end up in a better position to gather information. So to me, CAM actually does make more sense, he needed to confirm that John was still a pressure point for Sherlock after the two year separation and the rocky reunion.

Dorothy83 · July 30, 2015 2:33 pm

sorry, I'm confused, so forgive me if I got this wrong. I tried to read some messages back but can't find where this line of argument started - are we discussing whether it was Mary that organised the bonfire?

Because I thought it was obvious and confirmed in the show that it had been Magnussen?

Lola Red · July 30, 2015 3:28 pm

The meta that nakahara posted raises that exact question, among others.
If you read in this thread or some of the others, you will see that many forum members (myself absolutely included) love to (over)analyse every detail and possibility. Especially the character Mary has proven itself very controversial (at some point we had three active threads about that character alone). In such cases, we tend to not take the show at “face value”. So we look for hidden meanings, lies yet to be uncovered, that kind of thing. Whenever someone stumbles across something that he or she finds interesting the point is discussed. Eventually, I believe about 90% of the discussion in this thread will turn out to be utter nonsense. But it keeps us entertained and engaged with the show during the hiatus, and more importantly, it is great fun.
So to answer the question, yes we are discussing Mary’s possible involvement in the bonfire and yes, the show has stated that it was CAM who was behind it, but we are discussing it anyhow, just because we can

RavenMorganLeigh · July 31, 2015 11:25 pm

I thouhgt discussion was the point of having this board in the first place, but what do I know? :-)

Yes, I think Mary was a plant. (and not the leafy kind)

Lola Red · August 1, 2015 10:45 am

do you think she was behind the bonfire? and if yes, what do you think could she gain from it?

Dorothy83 · August 1, 2015 10:52 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I thouhgt discussion was the point of having this board in the first place, but what do I know? :-)

Yes, I think Mary was a plant. (and not the leafy kind)

It was just a question, I wasn't saying people can't discuss.

nakahara · August 1, 2015 9:24 pm

What is suspicious is that attack on John could only be accomplished at one specific night - Guy Fawkes night, which is significant for its bonfires. So people shadowing John could only attack him in front of Sherlock´s house at that specific time, or their bonfire plan would fail. That means they would need the absolute certainty that John would be there at that moment.... and yet only Mary knew that John, otherwise estranged from Sherlock, is heading there to reconcile with a detective. So if they had no informations about his whereabouts from Mary, why would those two gorillas wait for John there? After he made a scene at three restaurants and publicly attacked Sherlock, that was the last place they could await him....

(I admit Mary has no motive to help Magnussen, still, this is suspicious....)