KeepersPrice wrote:

I was very impressed with the way Ben played the Sherlock arc toward gaining more 'humanity' in this show. On my second viewing I was mesmerized by his subtle expressions of sorrow and helplessness - his realization that he had brought Mary back to her own 'Samara' in London. That the genius show-off with the God-like intellect is not God and cannot make everything all right or solve everything. He had always managed to save the day in some way, but not this time. And now realizing that his inability to protect Mary also means his loss of John -John who always believed Sherlock could solve everything. All this culminating in the scene with Sherlock's visit to the therapist - whether or not in his mind-palace. I loved how this scene paralleled John's visit after the fall. It was highly emotional for me to see where Sherlock learning to care has led him. The high drama of their rift is going to tear my heart out before this is over.

The angst of the Johnlock there is legendary.  The Johnlock authors are going to have a field day.


 

Vhanja wrote:

In this interview, Steven elaborates on this exact issue and how they will deal with it for the coming two episodes:

http://ew.com/tv/2017/01/01/sherlock-season-4-premiere/

Interesting read. I don't really pay that much attention to what the writers have to say about their show, because I prefer to just sit and watch and come to my own conclusions. In this case however I find it interesting because it seems that they have meant a lot of things to mean a particular thing - and I just don't see it. I don't see Sherlock's lifestyle being responsible for Mary's death, I don't see Mary being so much better at this than Sherlock (and John) - if she were so much better, she wouldn't be dead now. And there is more. So I'm actually wondering what kind of show I'm watching. Am I just dumb or are the writers failing in getting across what they're trying to tell? Because if what they're trying to tell me with TST is that it's Sherlock's fault then well... nope.  
 

She simply could have pushed him aside instead of jumping in front of him. It would have taken the same amount of time and with her abilities and since she is so much better at this than Sherlock or John, it wouldn't have been a problem for her.

Canon: She never was an ex-agent and more clever than everyone else.

ancientsgate wrote:

The angst of the Johnlock there is legendary.  The Johnlock authors are going to have a field day.


 

Indeed! :-D (I feel a bit Bad about it but you are absolutely right.)

Last edited by Schmiezi (January 3, 2017 9:43 am)

Lola Red wrote:

even if it feels a bit weird talking about this (seeing as the jumping in front of a bullet after it has been fired is one of my least favourite - since so very unrealistic - trope), but no: it would not take the same amount of time to jump in front of someone and to push him to the side. The impact with a stationary person would slow you down, then you would have to unbalance said person and get both of you out of harm's way. So in total, it would take you longer and your time-frame in that situation is very limited 

Well, I'm sure we all agree that neither jumping in front of Sherlock nor pushing him to the side would work in reality anyway. Mary would have barely moved one way or another while the bullet had already hit Sherlock.

 

Last edited by SolarSystem (January 3, 2017 9:55 am)

SolarSystem wrote:

 Because if what they're trying to tell me with TST is that it's Sherlock's fault then well... nope.  
 

He stated in that interview that it was NOT Sherlock's fault, so I don't see how that is what they are trying to tell.

John's immediate anger is understandable I suppose... he lost Mary; when he was about to confess to having lied to her... and he turns all his conflicting emotions outward. He must be incredibly triggered with his PTSD in those moments too... 

His long term anger and distancing him towards Sherlock... maybe it's to protect Sherlock from himself? I know that is a strange answer. But maybe he's afraid to say something that he could never take back if his emotions got the better of him again

If Mary had not rushed at Norbury ready to kill her , maybe the gun would have stayed in the handbag?
One of the  problems I had with Mary in a moralistic way was exposed here. The secretary sold secrets had retired and wanted to just have a bit of peace. The parallels with Mary were all there.
Mary was forgiven for worse crimes. Yet the old lady was not to be offered similar.Especially by Mary herself. I wrote after HLV that forgiving Mary would turn them into crime solving hypocrites, but I wonder if maybe Sherlock would have walked away if Mary had not been there? The puzzle was solved after all. Maybe had Mary been more forgiving herself she would have walked away.
Karma ? Destiny ? I think there is a sort of neatness to the death after all.

Edits - sorry new pc making everything  atm.

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (January 3, 2017 1:06 pm)

Yes, it was too personal for Mary.  And perhaps also for Sherlock, by extension.  Again, it's not clear what Sherlock was trying to achieve by the aquarium set up, apart from putting on a show (although I suppose there needed to be a show, for us, the viewers!).   Lady Smallwood was just stopped and interviewed.   That would have kept it away from Mary. 

I do think Sherlock wanted Mary to see Norbury, for her own satisfaction.  Now AJ, who was supposed to be not that different to Mary, was determined to murder the person he thought was responsible for betraying them.   It doesn't seem a reach to think that Mary might want her own revenge on Norbury, even though she didn't go through what AJ did.   It also seems to be John who calls Lestrade and Mycroft, and gets some backup.   Maybe Sherlock knew he would do that, maybe not.  It looks on the surface as if he'd planned for himself, Mary and John to confront Norbury together - presumably have her arrested after, but didn't he think that those two loose cannons might fire off when they were face to face with her?