SusiGo wrote:

Of course they may do that. But I honestly wonder how many fans they would lose over such a development. For many fans the Sherlock-John relationship is the main focus and the thing they love most about the show. And Mary does change the dynamics, even if she is in the background looking after the child (which I for the life of me cannot imagine her do). 

I must confess that I too have difficulty in seeing Mary content to sit at home looking after the baby, whilst John and Sherlock are off adventuring together. I think ACD knew very well that it was almost impossible to fit suburban domestic bliss for Watson into the framework of the stories; it takes attention away from the centrepiece, and that is never good...
 

Hm, not quite convinced...
She had too annoying moments for my likes in the whole relationship of the two leaders, or do I have to say now there are three of them?
But this is about Baby Watson: Being an MD for pediatrics and raising three kids I'm definetely not fond of killing kids on-screen. I really LOVE good crime stories but I avoid them like pest and cholera when it comes to killing children... I also see now evidence that the baby isn't John's. When I read Mofftiss-interviews my prediction for the moment would be both Mary and the kid will stay. I have to say that I would probably be one of the fans to quit. Just not my show, not the one I fell head over heels in love with.
I agree Amanda is popular, I just don't feel she had to ...well.. take over the show.
 

@mrshouse, no reason to be harsh. I actually read your post wrong. No or now makes quite a difference here. I had to read it again after Swan asked.

@Swan. "In any case, I think if it works or not, it will depend entirely on how the writers do it. And I doubt that the fandom will figure that much in their plans..."
I fully agree with you and (God forbid!) I hope there will be NO influence from the fans.
I still trust in their "independence" and their ability to create a great show.
And I think it is a bit... "hasty" to say "I would quit the show and the fandom". Because it's all up to them and I trust them. 

Last edited by Mattlocked (March 13, 2014 5:37 pm)

Swanpride wrote:

Yeah, I admit the very idea that Moriarty might be alive makes me cringe....

Oh yeah, me too, although I love Andrew. But again: We don't know today if and how he will be back. (Although I noticed he lately talked about his role as Moriarty in the present time again..... Before he was like "I did...." and "it was...." Hm.)

Swanpride wrote:

...but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to sell in a way that I end up liking the twist nevertheless. Remember how unpopular Scott's rendition of Moriarty originally was, until season two rolled along and a lot of his critics got into his craziness?

No, I don't remember, as I did join the fandom kind of belated.  But it shows that we just don't know. But what else should we do while we are waiting?    As long as it stays fun, it's okay to speculate and think over several possibilities.
 

lil wrote:

I think the infamous picture of a horned Mary..were cuckold horns.(wiki it )
I don't think the baby is Johns..and there is ambiguous evidence Mary may have cheated.
Maybe John wouldn't abandon it , if Mary died , but if the real father..or Marys real family were revealed he would have no choice or claim.
It's likely the marriage isn't even valid anyway.

Sorry...controversial i know.....

 
The marriage isn't valid; that's a straightforward legal point. The rest is more complex, but I wonder if Moftiss are whispering 'Norbury' in our ears...

Mattlocked wrote:

That makes me remember the scene with Mary's ex at the wedding, when she wanted to hug him but he rejected her.
Maybe he is the father.

I think the 'rejection' was more an expression of abject terror than anything else; Sherlock had put the fear of Dog into him...
 

I think it would be easier if the Mary's pregnancy was a fake. I don't think they'll kill the baby or Mary (basically everybody is fed up with a grieving John, and anyway, Sherlock BBC is not Game of Thrones).

And please, no cheating Mary, it sounds so cheap... like a sitcom. Anyway in this case John would consider the child like his. I don't see him rejecting the child and saying "Well, the baby is not mine, get out Mary".

But Moftiss have to get rid of the baby. I don't want to see a Mary feeding a baby while John and Sherlock are happily arresting bad guys. It's acceptable in ACD because it was Victorian time, but in a modern TV show (about a modern Sherlock), it's just ridiculous. 

I'm kind of dubious with Mary's character, but I wait to see how Moftiss will deal with it. But in any case, please, no child! I don't want to watch Sherlock becoming a sort of The Big Bang Theory.

Last edited by Ozymandias (March 15, 2014 4:41 pm)

Why not? When Sherlock deduced the signs of pregnancy, Mary was just at the beginning of the pregnancy. They went on honeymoon, they came back, the Magnusson thing happens (when she shot Sherlock, her belly wasn't really swollen). Then comes the Watsons argument. We can suppose that John came back in 221B until Christmas, when he apparently decided to forget Mary. So he never see Mary naked with a huge belly. 

I don't say it would be a great plot, but it would be logical (and less heart-breaking/ordinary than a miscarriage and/or the death of Mary and/or the baby). I really don't think Moftiss are going to put a baby, it would entirely change the dynamic of the show. 
 

Hm... very good points. 

I have never thought of the theory that Mary would of been cheating on John... its a great twist.. and I could almost see Moftiss doing it. 

Especially because we never really see anything happening between John and Mary.

But latching onto some previous theories about what will happen with a baby in 221B:
-Okay, I highly doubt that the baby will be taken away by either
--social services
--grandparents
--death
-- a miscarrage is an idea, but we have to think- Moftiss made Mary have a baby for a reason. Would they just kill it off like that- just for the grief of the audience? It seems too artificial for me. 
-Maybe Mary will raise the baby at her flat?
-Maybe the baby will suffer some kind of ailment (blindness, deafness, paralysis, etc.) and have to be kept at a special home?
-Maybe, even though I'm contradicting myself, Social Services WILL come, and take the baby away?

Anyway. I do not think that having a baby in the show will completely ruin it. Moftiss is probably thinking very hard about this circumstance. THEY MUST HAVE A REASON FOR MAKING MARY PREGNANT. We now just have to figure out what it is. Then, we can figure out if it will live or die, stay or go, or be affected by Sherlock/John's weirdness. 

It would be cool to see the baby grow up throughout further seasons, maybe becoming a kind of "friend" to Sherlock.

Baby-Watson and Sherlock's pet dog are imo just a device to make the audience drown in emotions to prevent them from thinking.
Kids and animals are often used when authors are out of their depths and don't know how to go on.
It's poor writing style. I don't believe in pets and babies without any purpose. Doyle made use of animals only for crime solving purposes. Take the dog in the Vampire case where the dog gave a clue. The baby was the victim.
Doyle used dogs to help Holmes to chase after criminals. But that's it.

When we get a pet dog, a baby, a wedding with hugging and kissing, declarations of love, Sherlock folding serviettes, sooo sweet music that it hurts, we should ask ourselves immediately "What's going on?" 
I am not an expert in music in any way but this wedding composition of Sherlock's is really awful. Well done!