BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Hints of the Final Problem in previous episodes?

SolarSystem · January 17, 2017 11:15 am

Whisky wrote:
I wonder about Moriarty. So his intention was to get Sherlock killed, and himself as well, or that's what I thought in TRF.

I used to think the final problem was very close connected to "staying alive". To the way Moriarty was so bored, brilliant minded but bored.

If he intended to kill both of them, why put up a riddle. If he didn't intend to kill both of them, why bother about that dramatic set-up on the roof. Except from Sherlock jumping, there was no gain, was there. It was about Sherlock dying, and if it wasn't, why would he shoot himself? He seems to be the kind of man who would want to see the pay-off. What if Eurus never got out of that cell. What if she changed her mind - she isn't a reliable person to carry out some plan from years ago. Moriarty would have been dead and nothing would have happened to Sherlock. What kind of plan is that?

Those thoughts might actually be obsolete, because if I understood correctly Eurus has the power to reprogram people, right? (And even writing this is totally weird, it's so over the top...) So maybe what we saw in TRF didn't have anything to do with Moriarty really, but only with Eurus. Moriarty merely executed what Eurus had programmed him for. Which would negate quite a few things we saw in TRF...

besleybean · January 17, 2017 5:58 pm

No, I think that was all Jim.

Elemental · February 14, 2017 7:57 am

I found this http://ivyblossom.tumblr.com/post/156024472590/thecutteralicia-thecutteralicia-this-is-a

To sum up, in THoB, Sherlock tells Henry: “Someone needed to keep you quiet; needed to keep you as a child to reassert the dream that you’d both clung on to, because you had started to remember…You couldn’t cope. You were just a child, so you rationalized it into something very different. But then you started to remember, so you had to be stopped; driven out of your mind so that no one would believe a word that you said.”

This is pretty similar to what we saw in TFP, and seems a bit too complicated to be a coincidence.
If it was indeed foreshadowing, my mind is just blown

Liberty · February 14, 2017 8:09 am

It's curious that Sherlock can work it out when it's about somebody else, but he never applies it to himself. I suppose the amnesia is him still not wanting to go there (despite hearing triggers).

besleybean · February 14, 2017 5:24 pm

Gosh yes, I had completely forgotten that HOB stuff...fantastic.

Rache · February 17, 2017 7:15 am

Yeah I know, this scene is indeed quite strongly a mirror/foreshadowing.I still wonder why Sherlock hasn't got the slightest doubts in his own case. And I don't really see it that the writers have planned this all along for Sherlock. There is some tiny scene missing, a word, a glance, an unusual camera shot that could give you the feeling "oh, hiw curious, there must be something else to this."

I wonder if you directly copy Sherlocks words to his own case: who is it who wanted to prevent it that Sherlock remembered? That he had to be stopped and noone would believe a word he said? Mycroft???
The first thing: probably yes. Remembering would have certainly caused Sherlock pain. To solve his trauma it would have been better to remember, just like Henry Knight. And Mycroft did the wrong thing out of love.
But all the other points like making him unbelievable?

besleybean · February 17, 2017 7:18 am

Well of course Mycroft would later be shown to try the trigger words like ' Redbeard'. to monitor Sherlock's readiness for the truth, possibly.

Lis · February 17, 2017 7:41 am

I don't know how much they planned it but I definitely thought of HOB when it was revealed Redbeard was not actually a dog.

I remembered this line by Sherlock in particular.

"Childhood trauma masked by an invented memory. Boring!"

besleybean · February 17, 2017 7:43 am

Little did he know...

Elemental · February 17, 2017 8:41 am

Rache wrote:
Yeah I know, this scene is indeed quite strongly a mirror/foreshadowing.I still wonder why Sherlock hasn't got the slightest doubts in his own case. And I don't really see it that the writers have planned this all along for Sherlock. There is some tiny scene missing, a word, a glance, an unusual camera shot that could give you the feeling "oh, hiw curious, there must be something else to this."

I wonder if you directly copy Sherlocks words to his own case: who is it who wanted to prevent it that Sherlock remembered? That he had to be stopped and noone would believe a word he said? Mycroft???
The first thing: probably yes. Remembering would have certainly caused Sherlock pain. To solve his trauma it would have been better to remember, just like Henry Knight. And Mycroft did the wrong thing out of love.
But all the other points like making him unbelievable?

I don't know a lot about how mirrors work, but I guess it's not necessary for them to be 100% exact. Anyway, maybe they liked the idea of the trauma first and they reused it with Sherlock, and now it looks like cool foreshadowing xDD

About Mycroft wanting to prevent Sherlock to remember: I have the feeling that there is more about that than just concern about the way Sherlock would react. In some way looks like Mycroft wants to preserve the statu quo with his parents, Sherrinford, etc. Sherlock has stronger ethics than Mycroft, and he is also valuable to him just the way he is, and changing that in any way could have unexpected consequences for everyone (and for the government). For me it's more about that than about protecting Sherlock at all costs.

besleybean · February 17, 2017 5:06 pm

I don't know if Sherlock does have higher morals than Mycroft...

Kae Em · February 17, 2017 5:30 pm

besleybean wrote:
I don't know if Sherlock does have higher morals than Mycroft...

I fully agree with you there, I was quite puzzled by the remark of Sherlock having stronger ethics than Mycroft as well. Sherlock's morals/ethics are quite - what could be the right word - flexible?

Last edited by Kae Em (February 17, 2017 5:32 pm)

Kae Em · February 17, 2017 5:45 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Whisky wrote:
I wonder about Moriarty. So his intention was to get Sherlock killed, and himself as well, or that's what I thought in TRF.

I used to think the final problem was very close connected to "staying alive". To the way Moriarty was so bored, brilliant minded but bored.

If he intended to kill both of them, why put up a riddle. If he didn't intend to kill both of them, why bother about that dramatic set-up on the roof. Except from Sherlock jumping, there was no gain, was there. It was about Sherlock dying, and if it wasn't, why would he shoot himself? He seems to be the kind of man who would want to see the pay-off. What if Eurus never got out of that cell. What if she changed her mind - she isn't a reliable person to carry out some plan from years ago. Moriarty would have been dead and nothing would have happened to Sherlock. What kind of plan is that?
Those thoughts might actually be obsolete, because if I understood correctly Eurus has the power to reprogram people, right? (And even writing this is totally weird, it's so over the top...) So maybe what we saw in TRF didn't have anything to do with Moriarty really, but only with Eurus. Moriarty merely executed what Eurus had programmed him for. Which would negate quite a few things we saw in TRF...

I don't think Eurus reprogrammed Moriarty:

a) Sherlock already mentioned in TEH that Moriarty obviously had a death wish, which had already been aparent in TGG/ASiB in the swimmingpool scene: He did seem to enjoy the thought that Sherlock would kill them all by shooting the bomb.

b) And then, in TFP, Eurus at some point mentions that Moriarty was quite keen on the idea of dying if his death would actually cause more problems than him being alive. So I don't think there was any reprogramming going on or necessary. What we saw in TRF was just a plan that had been partly Eurus' idea (especially the part about Sherlock having to chose between his won death and the death of his friends), but Moriarty wasn't acting as her tool but on free will.

c) And about the initial question: I think Moriarty thought that in case Sherlock didn't jump, Eurus would finish the "killing Sherlock" job for him, Holmes killing Holmes. I don't think he knew in detail what she had planned when he recorded those videos, he just recorded some random, mainly tube themed snippets he thought might serve as some last torture before Eurus would kill Sherlock. And Moriarty knew enough people with influence to make sure Eurus got all she needed to get out of that cell.

Last edited by Kae Em (February 17, 2017 5:47 pm)

Elemental · February 17, 2017 6:23 pm

Kae Em wrote:
besleybean wrote:
I don't know if Sherlock does have higher morals than Mycroft...
I fully agree with you there, I was quite puzzled by the remark of Sherlock having stronger ethics than Mycroft as well. Sherlock's morals/ethics are quite - what could be the right word - flexible?

I actually paused a bit after I wrote that and thought "really, does he?". But I decided to leave it because that's how I perceive the characters, although it's true that I don't have any concrete proof to back it up. Maybe I see Sherlock more like a black-and-white, good-vs-evil kind of person, whereas Mycroft looks much more shady to me. Of maybe Sherlock is just more naive and Mycroft has more intelligence and power and ends up making more difficult choices that affect more people (like "do I leave Eurus alone with Moriarty, or do I stop preventing a terrorist attack when I know I could?").

Maybe my comment was also biased because I just rewatched HLV and Sherlock behaves really well in it, fighting CAM, trying to save Johns marriage, etc.

My position in this is not fixed at all, so thanks for your input.

I do agree that both have "flexible" morals. One having stronger ethics than the other doesn't mean either of them are moral compasses to anyone.

besleybean · February 17, 2017 6:42 pm

I am just still not sure that Sherlock's ethics are stronger. He apparently feels no remorse for shooting an unarmed guy in the face.

Kae Em · February 17, 2017 9:13 pm

Elemental wrote:
I actually paused a bit after I wrote that and thought "really, does he?". But I decided to leave it because that's how I perceive the characters, although it's true that I don't have any concrete proof to back it up. Maybe I see Sherlock more like a black-and-white, good-vs-evil kind of person, whereas Mycroft looks much more shady to me. Of maybe Sherlock is just more naive and Mycroft has more intelligence and power and ends up making more difficult choices that affect more people (like "do I leave Eurus alone with Moriarty, or do I stop preventing a terrorist attack when I know I could?").

Maybe my comment was also biased because I just rewatched HLV and Sherlock behaves really well in it, fighting CAM, trying to save Johns marriage, etc.

My position in this is not fixed at all, so thanks for your input.

I do agree that both have "flexible" morals. One having stronger ethics than the other doesn't mean either of them are moral compasses to anyone.

It's very interesting how differently characters can be perceived. But that's what keeps the discussion interesting I always had the impression that general ethics were a concept that Sherlock probably wasn't even fully aware of. It's not that he's purposely unethical, but he does a lot of stuff that is considered to be unethical by the majority of people. I think quite often this happens just because he doesn't seem to know better and doesn't have any moral compass at all. For example:

1) whipping a corpse (ASiP)
2) keeping a severed head in his fridge (TBB)
3) purposely solving a case slowly, not caring at all that there's a victim with a bomb strapped around his body who has to wait in agony hours longer because of the delay (TGG)
4) trying to give his best friend a hallucingogenic drug and scare him half to death to prove he was right (yes, the drug was not in the sugar, but he tried; HOB)
5) Forcing a confession out of his best friend by making him believe that he's about to die (TEH)
6) Showing a little boy pictures of a corpse and promising him to show him pictures of beheadings (TSoT)
8) Threatening Mary's ex and almost scaring him to death (TSoT; don't misunderstand me: I love that scene, but Sherlock's behaviour surely can't be considered ethical)
7) Shooting CAM in the head (HLV; yes, CAM had it coming, but what Sherlock did can't be considered ethical)

That's just the most obvious examples, there are also some more subtle moments.

On the other hand, how often do we see Mycroft do anything really unethical?

1) Ok, some people might claim the "abduction" of John in ASiP might be unethical. But it's not an actual abduction, it's powerplay: He shows John that he's a powerful man and suggests he gets into the car, which John does. John doesn't seem to feel very intimidated (I think he quite enjoys Anthea's company) or abducted in that scene, he's intrigued about what's going on. But yes, Mycroft is misusing his power a bit there, so I'm going to concede that there's something unethical about it (even if he does it for the right reasons, he could have chosen another way to do what he did)
2) Stealing dead bodies and put them on plane to prevent a terrorist attack (ASiB). Ok, that wasn't just Mycroft, there were many other parties involved in that plan, including the CIA. And there Mycroft was faced with two choices: Either trick the terrorists by making them believe they succeeded or risk another terrorist attack with hundreds of casualties.That's an ethical dilemma he didn't really have an other way out than chosing the one or the other, so I wouldn't hold that against him.
3) Giving away personal details of Sherlock's life to Moriarty in order to get pieces of important information that could save lives out of Moriarty (TRF). If what Sherlock tells Anderson in TEH is actually true, then this was something that Sherlock and Mycroft had planned from the start, so there's nothing unethical about it because he had Sherlock's consent.
4) Then comes the one in TFP you mentioned before: The choice of either letting Eurus talk to Moriarty and preventing several terrorist attacks or letting hundreds (I assume) people die. Again an ethical dilemma where he didn't really have a chance to avoid a somewhat unethical decision, so I can't hold that against him.

Mycroft is generelly faced with quite some difficult ethical dilemmas and he usually choses the option that saves more lives. Not really unethical, in my eyes. So generally, as I perceive it, Mycroft has a stronger moral compass than Sherlock does, he's just ended up in a position where he probably gets stuck in moral dilemmas on a daily basis.

Last edited by Kae Em (February 17, 2017 9:14 pm)

Elemental · February 18, 2017 12:03 am

Kae Em wrote:
It's very interesting how differently characters can be perceived. But that's what keeps the discussion interesting

Absolutely!

I think one of the problems here may be that I'm a sociopath as well , because my definition of ethical/unethical seems a bit Sherlockian...

My comments on your examples (sorry that I don't quote each separately)

1) whipping a corpse (ASiP) -> I don't see a problem in that. The man is death and it will help solve problems with alive people involved.
2) keeping a severed head in his fridge (TBB) -> Don't see it unethical. Disgusting, yes, but unethical? I don't know. I guess I'm practical about death. In Spain we have a saying: "el muerto al hoyo y el vivo al bollo": the death to the grave, the alive eats the bread.
3) purposely solving a case slowly, not caring at all that there's a victim with a bomb strapped around his body who has to wait in agony hours longer because of the delay (TGG) -> He had the bigger picture in mind. I'm not sure this was unethical either.
4) trying to give his best friend a hallucingogenic drug and scare him half to death to prove he was right (yes, the drug was not in the sugar, but he tried; HOB) -> Yeah, that one is not pretty xD Although I can understand why he did it (he again had the bigger picture in mind). I told you, I'm a sociopath .
5) Forcing a confession out of his best friend by making him believe that he's about to die (TEH) -> Agree. Although I think maybe the last two have more to do with the dinamics between John and Sherlock than with Sherlock's ethics in general.
6) Showing a little boy pictures of a corpse and promising him to show him pictures of beheadings (TSoT) -> I don't find that unethical either. Again, corpses don't suffer anymore, and if the child gets scared, he will learn for the next time.
8) Threatening Mary's ex and almost scaring him to death (TSoT; don't misunderstand me: I love that scene, but Sherlock's behaviour surely can't be considered ethical) -> I'm not sure whether this is a lack of ethics or a lack of social skills. That's what I meant in my previous post with naivety.
7) Shooting CAM in the head (HLV; yes, CAM had it coming, but what Sherlock did can't be considered ethical) -> Yeah, I agree with this one.

This doesn't mean I think Sherlock has perfect ethics. He doesn't. But almost everything you mention doesn't have real, lasting consequences (except of course for CAM's death) and most of the times he has some kind of good intentions behind his actions.

Kae Em wrote:
On the other hand, how often do we see Mycroft do anything really unethical?

1. Lying to his parents for decades about their daughter being still alive.
2. Lying to Sherlock about probably the most important event of his childhood, which is apparently the root of all of his intimacy/relationship problems.
3. Knowing and probably approving of Baskerville-style stuff.
4. Lying to Sherlock about Irene being dead.
5. Waiting until Sherlock was beaten before he rescued him from the Serbians (he says he couldn't risk being discovered, but it's more or less hinted that it's related to the siblings' rivalry).
6. Protecting Sherlock after said CAM's murder. I mean, we all wanted that, but it's not exactly ethical.

From my point of view, Sherlock's behaviour might be more bizarre sometimes, less socially accepted, but I personally find these Mycroft moral violations more severe, because they involve feelings of living people and pretty important long life consequences. But of course, as you pointed, Mycroft is faced with more ethical dilemmas, and there is also some kind of goodwill in her decisions (he does try to protect Sherlock and his parents in his own way).

My impression is that both characters are so complex that we are all going to see what we want to se, because we are all biased by our own experiences, prior opinions and definitions of what moral is. But I hope this gives a bit more of context for my initial affirmation.

besleybean · February 18, 2017 8:40 am

I do accept what you are saying.
There are great unknowns: for example, because of Mycroft's official work, just how many deaths has he 'been responsible for' and I certainly think the issues are worth discussing: is a government sanctioned death more moral than an unofficial death etc?
But I do think we also have to take note of what we actually see on the screen: we have seen Sherlock 'execute' somebody, we have not seen Mycroft do the same and on the contrary he has stated that he 'will not kill'.
I think he's possibly stretching the truth there, but these are things we are actually shown on screen.
I am of course typing with the assumption that killing somebody is the worst thing you can do.

Last edited by besleybean (February 18, 2017 8:41 am)

Liberty · February 18, 2017 9:35 am

I suppose we could say about Magnussen that he never kills anybody, and only uses the mildest of violence. But he's evil through and through. I suppose that even with Culverton, if you took out the serial killing/violence, he'd still be a creepy, evil person.

besleybean · February 18, 2017 12:09 pm

Well yes, but my personal ethics would rule out murdering either of them.
Clearly Culverton was the worst case and yet Sherlock didn't opt to execute him...had he learned his lesson after CAM?