Offline
My post covers several topics so I created a new post. Sorry for inconvenience and sorry that it is too long!
I am grad to hear your opinions.
My theory covers:
What is the final problem?
Why did Moriarty kill himself?
Why not Molly?
Relationship between Moriarty and Carl Powers (who is Moriary?)
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Problem: 1) Who is Moriarty's pressure point?
2) Who is Moriarty?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Remember the following conversation at 221B between JM (Jim Moriarty) and SH (Sherlock Holmes).
Moriarty:Â Every hotel bedroom has a personalized TV screen. And every person has their pressure point, someone that they want to protect from harm. Easy peasy.
Sherlock:Â So how are you going to do it? Burn me?
Moriarty:Â Oh, that's the problem. The final problem. Have you worked out what it is yet? What's the final problem? I did tell you. But did you listen?
Most naturally, the final problem is how to do with the competitor's pressure point. Moriarty said "every person". Then logically, Moriarty should have "the person he wants to protect". Answer to this will lead to "who is Moriarty?, worth the final problem. (Sherlock said  "what are you?" after "IOU, glycerin molecule". I think this is "what are you, Moriarty?")
------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer to 2): Dead classmate of Carl Powers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the "Great Game":
John: Anything on the Carl Powers case?
Sherlock: Nothing. All the living classmates check out spotless, no connection.
John: Maybe the killer was older than Carl?
Sherlock: The thought had occurred.
Sherlock said he had checked all the living classmates including senior (or perhaps junior). This implies that there are dead classmate(s) and he did not check them.
Moriarty's first crime is "Carl Powers Murder" and the second may be to fake the death of himself.
Nobody knows who Moriarty is.
He can be anybody, Jim Moriarty, a consultant criminal, Jim from IT, Richard Brook, an actor... But this means he is not anybody. Remember that he uses "Anonymous" as his name on the John's blog.Â
As Moriarty did based on information obtained from Mycroft (according to John supposition), to reveal the Moriarty's identity must be Sherlock's final problem.
If Carl were alive, he would be 32 in 2010.
There might be one or more dead classmates but by excluding girl(s) and those who died grown up (such people can be identified by their photos) the target can be easily limited.
Yes, Moriarty was "staying alive"! On the rooftop he himself answered to the question! "Final promlem-- staying alive!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Answer to the final problem 1): Molly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the our-of-character behavior?: That Sherlock said "you" not "your help"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Â
By the process of exclusion, the answer to the final problem is Molly, the only person whom Sherlock contacted. And I have another reason.
Please remember the following conversation at Bart's Hospital.
Molly:Â What do you need?
Sherlock:Â You
It is too romantic and not precise for Sherlock.
If he means "preparation for fake suicide", he should say "your help".
He prefers exact expressions and is not a romantic person.
I think this is an out-of-character behavior.
So I think Sherlock meant that he exactly needed "Molly".
After that, he sent a text:
Come and play. Bart's Hospital rooftop. SH
PS. Got something of yours you might want back.
Conversation at rooftop.
Moriarty: What? What is it? What did I miss?
Sherlock: You're not going to do it? So the killers can be called off, then, there's a recall code or word or a number. I don't have to die...if I've got you.
Yes, Sherlock had got something, the pressure point of Moriarty.
So Moriarty had to recall the order to protect it. This means Moriarty's loosing the game.
But he killed himself, which left Sherlock only two choices:
1) to fall, or
2) not to fall, which will result in his friends' death.
Of course Moriarty knew that Sharlok would choose 1).
In this case, the game is draw. So he killed himself.
So Moriarty's pressure point (the person who Moriarty wants to protect) should be Molly, and information she has about him. I suppose she is his sister. Sherlock might have found the name of Molly as a family of the dead classmate.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classical Sherlock Holmes says that Moriarty has two brothers. Then Molly can be one of them.
And this is a reason why Sherlock thought Moriarty must have excluded Molly from the target. (It should be noted that Sherlock did identify the target. So the reason that Moriarty might underestimate Molly is not correct.)
My further assumption is that Molly and Moriarty are a daughter and a son of the cabbie in the Study in Pink.
Their family names are similar.
Molly Hooper
Jeff Hope (cabbie)
Jeff seems to be around 60. So his children might be around 30.
According to the Molly's blog, she is 31.
She said her father is dead.
Children in the cabbie's photo a little look like Molly and Moriarty.
I admit there is a leap of logic and there are other possibilities.
Â
I conclude that Molly was not involved in the fake suicide of Sherlock simply because she was not asked for. This explains why she was referred in Sherlock's note.
If she had helped his fake suicide, she must have known that Sherlock pretended to be a fraud. (The reason why Sherlock pretended so is not to tell the true reason, to die for friends. If no reason, John must think "why Sherlock killed himself?")
Mycroft might have helped his brother's fake death by himself as described in the classical Sherlock Holmes.Â
--------------------------------------------------------------
I O U: Â Not clear
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption 1): Name or code of the second case (fake death) of little "Moriarty"
I haven't yet cleared what IOU means, but I think it relates to the fake death of little Moriarty, since Molly reacted to IOU very much and repeated it twice.
Besides Sherlock pays a much attention not to tell John about IOU.
After he muttered IOU at the laboratory, he confirmed that John had not listened to him.
He might think IOU is anything dangerous. He tends to protect John from danger. He did not talk about the enemies in Blind Banker (both at 221B and at Soolin's flat). He sent a message on his blog to Moriarty to meet him at the pool without John as well as the last roof top meeting.
Assumption 2):Â I Or You
Moriarty said "IOU a fall"
This means Either of us, the looser, shall fall.
This is a variant of a "You-or-I-will-die Game" in the Study in pink.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weak points:
My theory cannot explain:
1) what the hidden camera is and why Sherlock did not turn off it.
2) why the little girl screamed.
3) why the scene after Sherlock met Molly and before he sent a text to Moriarty is inserted. If he had got the answer, he need not be so irritated.
Thanks for reading my theory!
Offline
Hi Kiku, welcome. So much to read and I could comment on many things you said. Just one little point for the moment:
Kiku wrote:
Molly: What do you need?
Sherlock: You
It is too romantic and not precise for Sherlock.
!
Sherlock's answer "You" (yes, there is a second situation) isn't necessarily romantic.
It's just brief:
Offline
The other argument against this brief interchange being of vital importance is that it was not included in the airing on PBS.
Just because the cabbie is in his 60s it does not follow that his children would necessarily be as old as you suggest. This is actually the case in real life with Phil Davis, the actor who plays the cabbie.
Offline
Hmm.
I think first of all you need to understand a bit more about the canon; it wasn't written as a serial where we need to know what happened in other stories in order to solve later stories. The creators have followed suit here and each episode is a stand alone item. As they have said themselves, all we need to know is in this episode.
So an elaborate link of the characters like you have made is hardly likely and also not in keeping with the simplicity of plots which is also a key element here.
- Sherlock telling Molly he needs "you" is simply someone using a short statement. There's no emotion attached to that word, unless the reader/viewer wants to add some. You say Sherlock is precise in his words, well in this instance he IS precise as well as concise, which is also a trait of Shelock's speech. No use using superfluous words when one conveys the message.
- The character of Molly is simply one added by the creators for 'human interest', don't expect hers to be one that is central to unlocking the mysteries in anyway. She's just 'eye candy' for a certain demographic of viewers.
- Don't make any attachments between John's blog that we find online and the TV series. While it was created by someone attached to the BBC show it is not meant to be part of it; again just 'eye candy' for fans.
- The final problem (as it was in the canon) is simply the continuous 'meddling' of Sherlock in Moriarty's plans; the constant clashing of these 2 and to solve this problem one of them has to be removed from the equation. Moriarty has no problem staying alive until he sees fit to become otherwise. So it's hardly a problem. You seem to have listed several 'final problems'; these are really only problems for you, not the characters in this show.
- IOU is simply a taunt Moriarty uses to get under Sherlock's skin. In his eyes, he owes him a fall from grace, just as Sherlock had given him one in the eyes of his fellow criminals. It's no key for anything, just a taunt he likes to repeat to be annoying.
The assumptions and leaps in logic you have here are far from a solution in the style of this series.
You have not heeded the words of the creators at all; 'romanticise at your peril' and that the solution is 'simple'.
What you have created is a storyline for a soapie styled serial aimed at a teenage/ early 20's audience, plenty of credibility flaws and lots of loose threads waving around in the breeze waiting their turn to be used when new ideas run out.
I'm starting to think much of the fanbase will be disappointed when the next series airs.
Offline
Molly couldn't be Moriarty's sister as she was dating him(not for very long, but still). Just a little bit akward.
Just a random thought, but whoever kidnapped the children would have been doing it for an obvious reason to get Sherlock, so they could have been wearing a mask likened to Sherlock's face so that it would appear that Sherlock did it because he was bored and his wall couldn't take any more damage...
Offline
@kazza474 - y'know, just wanted to say agreed with a lot of what you said! Part of the fun of loving something so intellectually well-made is noticing all the, well, intelligent writing/twists/nods in it, and chit-chatting about it with others who understand. But... yeah... sometimes I see an awful lot of over-complication and just wonder 'uhh... where the heck did they get that??' Keep it simple! And yes, I know in other threads I also indulged a little in the same kind of connect-the-dots, but it was all in fun and not really expecting all that.
The thing is, Gatiss and Moffat are huge fans known for throwing in a bunch of little nods and teases, so it's hard not to try to figure them out. ;) Or just imagine anything and everything they might do, or just appreciate all the little details they even think to put in in the first place that maybe others noticed first (i.e. the ball Sherlock was playing with, for me). Still... not bad creativity with some of the posts on here. Still wistfully waiting for the explanation behind the execution of the final problem, myself!
Offline
I agree with Kazza, there'll be disappointment and a lot of *facepalms* and *headdesks* when the 3. series starts. I really trust Mofftiss when they say it's simple.
A lot of people still do this, looking for evidence in the other five episodes instead of just concentrating on "Reichenbach".
Offline
Molly is eye candy but not just that. She is used thoughout the series as a mechanism by which aspects of Sherlock's character can be shown.
Offline
Yes, correct. Molly is basically a 'tool' for the writers.
Offline
Thanks a lot for your comments!
I did not expect I woul get so many replies so soon. I will reply soon when I have enough time.
Kiku.
Offline
P.S. I enjoyed Sherlock and John in Christmas version.(^_^) Cute!
Offline
kazza474 wrote:
Hmm.
I think first of all you need to understand a bit more about the canon; it wasn't written as a serial where we need to know what happened in other stories in order to solve later stories. The creators have followed suit here and each episode is a stand alone item. As they have said themselves, all we need to know is in this episode.
So an elaborate link of the characters like you have made is hardly likely and also not in keeping with the simplicity of plots which is also a key element here.
- Sherlock telling Molly he needs "you" is simply someone using a short statement. There's no emotion attached to that word, unless the reader/viewer wants to add some. You say Sherlock is precise in his words, well in this instance he IS precise as well as concise, which is also a trait of Shelock's speech. No use using superfluous words when one conveys the message.
- The character of Molly is simply one added by the creators for 'human interest', don't expect hers to be one that is central to unlocking the mysteries in anyway. She's just 'eye candy' for a certain demographic of viewers.
- Don't make any attachments between John's blog that we find online and the TV series. While it was created by someone attached to the BBC show it is not meant to be part of it; again just 'eye candy' for fans.
- The final problem (as it was in the canon) is simply the continuous 'meddling' of Sherlock in Moriarty's plans; the constant clashing of these 2 and to solve this problem one of them has to be removed from the equation. Moriarty has no problem staying alive until he sees fit to become otherwise. So it's hardly a problem. You seem to have listed several 'final problems'; these are really only problems for you, not the characters in this show.
- IOU is simply a taunt Moriarty uses to get under Sherlock's skin. In his eyes, he owes him a fall from grace, just as Sherlock had given him one in the eyes of his fellow criminals. It's no key for anything, just a taunt he likes to repeat to be annoying.
The assumptions and leaps in logic you have here are far from a solution in the style of this series.
You have not heeded the words of the creators at all; 'romanticise at your peril' and that the solution is 'simple'.
What you have created is a storyline for a soapie styled serial aimed at a teenage/ early 20's audience, plenty of credibility flaws and lots of loose threads waving around in the breeze waiting their turn to be used when new ideas run out.
I'm starting to think much of the fanbase will be disappointed when the next series airs.
None of us will probably come up with the right solution, but I thought that this theory was quite good, probably not the correct one but still. I think what you said was a bit mean, it's probably not the correct theory but it was enjoyable to read none the less.Â