BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Who Killed Shan?

The Doctor · August 10, 2012 12:25 am

Only, we know that Gattis and Moffat are deeply moral, and constantly explore morals in their work; another element to confirm that Sherlock could not be this calculating killer. Yes, Sherlock can and will kill but he wouldn't create such a long set-up. Seeing him kill like that would break the very idea of Sherlock who is deeply humantistic. Believe me, there is still plenty of darkness left anyway...

hypergreenfrog · August 10, 2012 8:23 am

ancientsgate wrote:
I realized when I posted the idea that everyone would jump on board and say nooooo, of coooouuuurrrrse not, he could neeevvvvvver do that! But you know what? That just makes the idea more intriguing to me; I'm perverse that way. A-OK with me if you aren't, but I am. *shrug*

You completely missed what I was trying to say earlier-- these new writers can take Sherlock to places ACD never could or would have, just because of the era our Sherlock finds himself living in, if nothing else. To canonical Sherlock purists, I imagine more than a few of them have a tough time with this modern-day Sherlock in the first place-- adding some characters to ACD's original stable, changing others, adding all this modern-day tech stuff, etc. To some purists, that might be anathema.

For the fear of coming across as a smartass frog, you never actually posted any idea. You asked us who we thought killed Shan at the end of TBB, and we answered. From your OP, I had no idea that you had any hypothetical ideas in mind, I thought you were asking because you were not sure about the meaning of that scene.

The theoretical aspect of how far Mofftiss are willing to push their Sherlock in any direction is something that has been discussed quite a bit, albeit usually based around different character traits (Johnlockers out there, you know what I mean). There is nothing wrong with discussing these possibilities, and I wouldn't call anyone delusional because of it. But whether there is a potential darker side to the BBC Sherlock Holmes and whether or not we will get to see any of it on screen is a matter to be dwelt upon elsewhere.
It cannot be the answer to the question "Who killed Shan".

ancientsgate · August 10, 2012 9:06 am

hypergreenfrog wrote:
For the fear of coming across as a smartass frog, you never actually posted any idea. You asked us who we thought killed Shan at the end of TBB, and we answered. From your OP, I had no idea that you had any hypothetical ideas in mind, I thought you were asking because you were not sure about the meaning of that scene...... whether there is a potential darker side to the BBC Sherlock Holmes and whether or not we will get to see any of it on screen is a matter to be dwelt upon elsewhere. It cannot be the answer to the question "Who killed Shan".

The discussion.... evolved..... as the last couple of days have unfolded, as they so often do on the forum. My original question was more of a thinking-out-loud thing, I guess. Of course I was pretty certain that it was Moriarty to whom Shan was "speaking" in her final moments. But the writers/showrunners/actors had just left us with that little scene at the desk, John on one side, Sherlock on the other. The Asian person out in the street, drawing a cipher on the mailbox, directly across from 221B (coincidence? I thought it was probably a message meant for Sherlock himself-- why else that location?) and Sherlock sitting there all catwhoatethecanary-ish, as only he can be. Frankly, there are IMO many, many, many scenes all throughout all 6 episodes, that hold potential hidden meaning. I was simply wondering if this was yet another. I came here to talk out loud about it. Perhaps, in retrospect, that was a mistake, since much has been made of my questionable right to speak about anything here because I'm too dumb and uneducated about all things ACD to understand our Sherlock and what makes him him.

These discussions go where they go. If we were ultra-careful to only post our answers in the "correct" thread(s), we'd be all day finding out where they should go, and then no one who wanted to could follow the discussion all over the board anyway. Useless.

sherlockskitty · August 12, 2012 12:58 am

ok....the census here seems to think it was Moriarty who had Shan killed. But what if it was someone else with the initials M? like....Mycroft, Moran, Milverton, Or A Mr. something that we don't know about? Yes, I put Mycroft in there. There's just a glimmer of a possibility that he knew where Shan was hiding, and..he doesn't like loose ends.....well, now that I think of it, there's really no way to back this up. I don't know anymore.

ancientsgate · August 12, 2012 2:27 am

sherlockskitty wrote:
ok....the census here seems to think it was Moriarty who had Shan killed. But what if it was someone else with the initials M? like....Mycroft, Moran, Milverton, Or A Mr. something that we don't know about? Yes, I put Mycroft in there. There's just a glimmer of a possibility that he knew where Shan was hiding, and..he doesn't like loose ends.....well, now that I think of it, there's really no way to back this up. I don't know anymore.

Yes, the consensus is that it was Moriarty. You allude to the thing I was trying to get at when I started this thread, that maybe it was someone else or that someone else was involved. Mycroft doesn't like getting his hands dirty any more than Moriarty did, and Mycroft (IMO) would not hesitate to see a gangster/criminal taken out who directly threatened his brother, then, now, or in the future. And he's well-connected enough to get it done, too. Again IMO. Don't shoot me, please. I think the writers like playing with our heads-- like, duh, huh? *g*

kazza474 · August 12, 2012 5:56 am

sherlockskitty wrote:
ok....the census here seems to think it was Moriarty who had Shan killed. But what if it was someone else with the initials M? like....Mycroft, Moran, Milverton, Or A Mr. something that we don't know about? Yes, I put Mycroft in there. There's just a glimmer of a possibility that he knew where Shan was hiding, and..he doesn't like loose ends.....well, now that I think of it, there's really no way to back this up. I don't know anymore.

Mycroft is just like his brother, he would not plan to kill anyone. Too messy, too non-intelligent. And that is what we've been trying to get across here, killing is not a smart option. Both Sherlock & Mycroft know that there are far more intelligent ways of neutralising someone.
Killing is so barbaric & lacks intelligent thought process.
Apart from which, all that they do has a theme of being for the good of the public.

This episode was very simple & really does not have any loose ends or unanswered questions. It was very straightforward & what we saw is what we got.
You guys can speculate all you like, feel free to find something more here, but the episode was the worst one (public opinion) and written by Steve Thompson (so no real input from Moftiss in the writing). It's little wonder most posters are agreeing that there's nothing to find here because I really believe those facts show it to be true.

ancientsgate · August 12, 2012 10:06 am

kazza474 wrote:
This episode was very simple & really does not have any loose ends or unanswered questions. It was very straightforward & what we saw is what we got. You guys can speculate all you like, feel free to find something more here, but the episode was the worst one (public opinion) and written by Steve Thompson (so no real input from Moftiss in the writing). It's little wonder most posters are agreeing that there's nothing to find here because I really believe those facts show it to be true.

I liked it. I like all the episodes, each for different reasons; I find them all to be delightfully unique. I like that it was written by Thompson, not Gatiss et al-- it has a bit of a different feeling about it for that reason. Any Sherlock is Good Sherlock, IMO.

KeepersPrice · August 12, 2012 6:43 pm

Well, this certainly turned into an interesting discussion. I like it when threads spark an interest and turn in different directions; and I hope we can all agree to disagree without rancor within our Forum Family. I'm a Libra, a Unitarian Universalist, and a fan of John Watson, so to me, more often than not, concerning threads, discussions, and various points of view found here. "It's all fine."

I'm going to be boring and give my simple response to the original 'who killed Shan' question. No doubt in my mind it was Moriarty who called the shots (so to speak). Like many others, I was confused at first about 'M', until I saw the 'Great Game'. Those infrared rifle target dots focused on Shan were the same as the ones focused on John and Sherlock and on Moriarty's various hostages. Snipers with rifles is Moriarty's modus operandi.

'M's' presence factors into every episode in Series 1 and 2 - no reason to think tBB would be any different.

veecee · August 13, 2012 12:47 am

I hope we all feel free to "think out loud" about the show on the forum. I wouldn't want anyone to feel that others thought he/she was stupid for proposing a reasonable line of discussion.

(Of course, practically everyone is an idiot. Sherlock said so.)

Davina · August 13, 2012 2:49 pm

I think that Mrs. Hudson had Shan killed. She plays this nice, landlady-not-housekeeper type but you know what they say...still waters run deep!

veecee · August 13, 2012 7:00 pm

Davina wrote:
I think that Mrs. Hudson had Shan killed. She plays this nice, landlady-not-housekeeper type but you know what they say...still waters run deep!

Yeah. We don't know her first name, do we? Could be Mary, Melinda, Murderess...who knows?

Davina · August 13, 2012 8:24 pm

Molly! It could be Molly!

The Doctor · August 14, 2012 12:14 am

It seemed to me there was a mean streak to the cyclist from Reichenbach Falls. He could have done it too seeing he had no alibi!

veecee · August 14, 2012 2:46 am

Davina wrote:
Molly! It could be Molly!

LOL Of course!

Davina · August 14, 2012 7:03 am

Her being so sweet and nice and smitten with Sherlock could just be a front for the devilish interior that is the true Molly Hooper. The cabbie did say that Sherlock had an admirer.

kazza474 · August 14, 2012 7:55 am

No, not Molly.
But Mrs Hudson is a viable option here.
I mean let's face it, in this day & age what self respecting widow would REALLY allow someone to keep the stuff he does in her building?
WHY would she allow him to brutalise someone in her building, in full view of the neighbours?

No, something is very odd about Mrs H.
Nice pick up, Davina!
Let me get back to you on a few ideas I have.

Davina · August 14, 2012 1:27 pm

Seriously though, I see Moriarty as being the head of the Black Lotus Tong. It would be completely in keeping with his character ( we find out later) and the way in which such criminal organisations operate for him to use death as a punishment for Shan's failure and for it to also act as a warning to all other Tong members as to what can be expected if they ever fail , or betray (as in the case of Soo Lin Yau) the organisation. The idea of Moriarty sitting like a spider at the centre of a criminal web also matches exactly how organisations such as the Tongs work.

saturnR · September 5, 2012 11:25 am

Scene set some time after Blind Banker but Before Great Game:

Setting: In Sherlock's study.

Sherlock: I'm bored!
John: Well have a look at the news, you'll find a case to work on from the papers.
Sherlock: More boring! Just opinion pieces they are, not really news at all.
John: Mugging at Central Park,
Sherlock: Next!
John: Dishonest banks,
Sherlock Next!
John: Asian woman found dead in her apartment,
Sherlock: Next!
John (shows Sherlock a photo from newspaper): Hang on a minute, is that... She looks like...
Sherlock: She's dead. The Black Lotus killed her. Case solved.
John: You're not the least bit curious to know "who" did the killing?
Sherlock: Nope.

Text on screen (actually, it's more like a thought bubble above John's head): What the?

SaturnR: My thoughts exactly, lol.

It's funny how you guys are arguing about whether or not Sherlock had the moral/ethical fibre to off her The real question should be: Why isn't he the least bit curious who did the killing?

Last edited by saturnR (September 5, 2012 11:27 am)

kazza474 · September 5, 2012 11:41 am

Davina wrote:
Seriously though, I see Moriarty as being the head of the Black Lotus Tong. It would be completely in keeping with his character ( we find out later) and the way in which such criminal organisations operate for him to use death as a punishment for Shan's failure and for it to also act as a warning to all other Tong members as to what can be expected if they ever fail , or betray (as in the case of Soo Lin Yau) the organisation. The idea of Moriarty sitting like a spider at the centre of a criminal web also matches exactly how organisations such as the Tongs work.

He was a consulting criminal; the Black Lotus consulted him.
Moriarty's criminal 'group' doesn't have a name, that is too 'conspicuous' ; he simply consults with named criminal groups. Being nameless, nothing can be 'pinned' to him.
The Black Lotus is just another group stuck on his web.

saturnR : Find me an example of BBC Sherlock or canon Holmes EVER being responsible for killing anyone. It doesn't happen. Nor does he waste his time on every death that occurs. Some are inevitable, as would have been Shan's. No need to waste time investigating it. What purpose would that serve?

ancientsgate · September 5, 2012 12:52 pm

kazza474 wrote:
Find me an example of BBC Sherlock or canon Holmes EVER being responsible for killing anyone. It doesn't happen

Interesting how he has no qualms about brandishing a gun and shooting into the air or at inanimate objects, but he doesn't shoot people. I would love to see that explored a bit on the BBC show-- what would it take for him to "go there"? Who or what would have to be threatened for him to be forced into picking up a gun and eradicating that threat?

This is neither here nor there, and I realize its a rhetorical question, but... what kind of mindset would allow a person to beat someone else half to death but who wouldn't dream of using a gun to stop them in their tracks, either temporarily or permanently? A clever person, I suppose.... IMO most people who use guns on other people lack a lot of finesse and ingenuity, two things Sherlock has in spades, of course. Hmmm. Also, maybe he gets a certain satisfaction from the feeling of his fist connecting with a cheekbone or a rib or two, or his forehead slamming into someone else's forehead-- that visceral feedback would be something that pulling the trigger on a gun would never give a person.