BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » The Final Problem: First impressions

besleybean · May 22, 2017 7:27 pm

As I've mentioned before: possibly an accident of timing...they just don't know if we will get anymore.

SusiGo · May 23, 2017 7:10 am

Schmiezi wrote:
I don't mind all those flaws in logic. What I mind is the story arch: We are told that Sherlock will move on from what happened at Sherrinford and Musgrave, thst he will grow, that he will deal with what happened in the past and that all this will surely change him - but we don't know if we will be able to watch it.

Those six seconds at the end of TFP are not enough.

Well, I mind both. Of course I want to see how Sherlock and John grow from all those experiences. But I am also very fond of logic in a TV show. And, honestly, compared to some others shows I have been watching - currently series 5 of "Dexter" - S4 is, well, not good. Sure, they are different, may even belong to different genres, but even if Sherlock is a "show about a detective" I expect a certain logic. And since - other than Doctor Who for example - it takes place in the real world, we must assume real-world rules. Like to learn how a person is transported from place A to a probably far-away place B instead of just waking up there in an elaborately constructed container without ever learning how that happened. Or how people are thrown out of the window by an explosion and remain unhurt. Or how a flat explodes, throwing to people out of the window, but the whole building and even part of the furniture remain whole.
For example the blast in TGG was believable. House opposite 221 destroyed, Sherlock's windows shattered. Realistic. Fit for 21st real-life London. With TFP they left real life behind. And I do not understand why.

besleybean · May 23, 2017 3:33 pm

I think they just had a ball with the last episode.
I enjoyed the ride.

Liberty · May 23, 2017 4:28 pm

Yes, I don't think it was meant to be 100% realistic. Supposedly they survived the fall because of the awning over Speedy's. (The CIA man that Sherlock threw out of the window wasn't seriously injured despite repeated falls, so I wouldn't assume that was automatic anyway!). It looks to me as if they are deliberately jumping out of the window, rather than being thrown out by the blast. But it's fantasy - I think there was no plot purpose to be served by them being injured and it was believable enough that they'd survive it (certainly more believable than Sherlock surviving flatlining).

DramaQueen · July 10, 2017 8:31 pm

cmb711 wrote:
Sorry, not impressed. It had some good emotional punch in many places; these actors are good at that. But. . .

As others have said, I can't imagine institutionalizing a five-year-old in the 1970's or later (?) and never again referring to her existence. I can't imagine having three children, one of whom kills or at least does something to lead to the death of another's best friend, and not putting the whole family into serious counseling from the beginning. I can't imagine having a missing child on your property and not thinking to search an open well. I can't imagine taking someone who is deprived of the most basic human contact, including touch, because you are afraid of her influence over people, and giving that person access to the internet, through which she could easily influence others long-distance (a possibility that is never mentioned, which seems strange to me in this day of internet recruiting of terrorists). But mostly, I cannot believe that a woman who had spent her entire life in mental institutions with "minimal human contact" could for an instant pull off her acting jobs as Faith, E, and the psychiatrist. Look at her as she is portrayed in this episode; she may be able to be persuasive and to mentally "take over" someone who spent a lot of time with her one-on-one, but no one, ever, would mistake her for a normal human being.

Excellent statement.
My only feelings were " Why they do something so absurd at the very end?" and " How abyssal I hate this monster".

Pity. 😭

besleybean · July 10, 2017 8:40 pm

I can only repeat that I'm sorry people feel this way.
I love it.

DramaQueen · July 10, 2017 11:59 pm

besleybean wrote:
I can only repeat that I'm sorry people feel this way.
I love it.

No need to be sorry - tastes are differ, perceptions too.

I (for example) can not understand how anyone could "love" the idea of a six years old child nonnegligent killing another child and burning down its own home.
And then, as adult torturing its family and coldblooded killing again and again.

Maybe I understand the world a bit different, it’s ok.

Last edited by DramaQueen (July 11, 2017 12:01 am)

besleybean · July 11, 2017 6:15 am

Eurus was an incredibly damaged child.
In the past I have referred to her having being failed by the system. Possibly that was unfair.
Anyhow, she grew up an incredibly damaged adult.
It took Sherlock Holmes to save her and he did.
A tragic but beautiful story in equal measure.
I found Eurus a fascinating character and would love to see more of her.
But what I loved most was her relationship with Sherlock and how her cure brought the family back together.
The show is named Sherlock and he is percentage wise the big hero and everyone's favourite character: he shot an unarmed, innocent man in the face...so I think we all cherry pick our moral high ground!

DramaQueen · July 11, 2017 8:45 am

No one, damaged or not, have a right to kill a child.
Being damaged is NO alibi.

Point.

P.S. Mr. Holmes acted in self-defence and his vis-à-vis was an odious blackmailer who used to harass people.

besleybean · July 11, 2017 10:11 am

I never said it was right: Eurus was criminally insane...is that supposed to be her fault?
Sherlock executed CAM while in full possession of his faculties, does that somehow make it better?

Liberty · July 11, 2017 10:25 am

I don't think the episode proposes anything about anybody's right to kill a child. Eurus's "damage" helps to give an explanation, not an alibi. I do think Eurus is unusual in the series because of being both the client (along with Sherlock, depending on how you see it!) and the villain in this episode. (Mary was similar, briefly, but wasn't the main villain of the episode). So of course we see her villainous aspect.

besleybean · July 11, 2017 10:34 am

To me a villain is somebody who knowingly has done bad things.
Eurus made it quite clear she grew up not understanding the difference between right and wrong.
She was mentally ill.

Last edited by besleybean (July 11, 2017 10:34 am)

Liberty · July 11, 2017 10:42 am

But the structure of the Sherlock stories includes a client and a villain, I think. And they've played about with that in the past, as they did with Mary. If Eurus wasn't the villain, who was? I don't think the villain in the stories has to even knowingly do bad things or be mentally well - just the person Sherlock is up against. (I'm not going to get into real life examples because I think this is a story point more than anything!)

besleybean · July 11, 2017 10:45 am

Oh yes, every good fairytale needs a villain...I accept she was the 'villain' in the classic sense.
I just don't personally see her that way...
As you pointed out, I guess it's different in TV world than it is in real life.
Sherlock throwing the CIA guy out the window: hilarious on TV, totally unacceptable in real life!

DramaQueen · July 11, 2017 11:10 am

And I decline the idea of a "damaged" child. Why? It had a save home, loving and caring parents, lively siblings. No harassement, no abuse.
This child was mentally very ill in a bad sense of the diagnosis.

Last edited by DramaQueen (July 11, 2017 11:11 am)

besleybean · July 11, 2017 12:03 pm

How is it supposed to be a good sense?
It isn't normal for a young child to cut herself and arson is definitely a sign of a disturbed mind.
I don't think anybody grows up thinking: oh I'd like to be a psychopath...it just happens.
Yes Eurus did bad things and had to be locked up for life because of that.
What would you prefer, a public hanging or something?
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make?

DramaQueen · July 11, 2017 2:53 pm

I do not want to continue the conversation if you choose such aggressively attacking mode.

besleybean · July 11, 2017 3:05 pm

Excuse me?
I wasn't being aggressive at all, thank you very much.
I honestly am having difficulty in understanding the thrust of your argument...or point, if you you would rather.
Perhaps I could ask how you would have preferred Eurus to be presented? Or would you have preferred a brother or would you have preferred Redbeard to be a dog? Or some other story line, perhaps?

nakahara · July 12, 2017 6:35 am

DramaQueen wrote:
No one, damaged or not, have a right to kill a child.
Being damaged is NO alibi.

Point.

P.S. Mr. Holmes acted in self-defence and his vis-à-vis was an odious blackmailer who used to harass people.

I absolutely agree with you, DramaQueen.

nakahara · July 12, 2017 6:40 am

besleybean wrote:
What would you prefer, a public hanging or something?

Kicking her down from the nearest cliff would suffice, thank you.