Whisky wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

(2) The character of "Mary" generated a lot of buzz.
 

I think that's due to a better mystery to discuss. My opinion. I only discuss Mary because she is the most discussion worthy thing that happened in series 3 (apart from the usual discussions). Had there been more to go on about Moran or whatever, she wouldn't have generated such a buzz I suppose.

But again, this isn't something that just sort of happened. I think it's pretty clear that when you write a character in the way Mofftiss have written Mary - as the seemingly likeable girl that turns into some sort of black widow - that this will be the thing that fans will be talking about afterwards. You are right, there isn't much else in S3 to talk about really, it's Mary and what she did to Sherlock and John and what happens from there. But Mofftiss decided to write S3 that way, it didn't happen by accident.
 

Whisky wrote:

Yes, but if they want us to discuss Mary, the ambiguity needs to stay there, at least till the next series. And yet many here say that what we have seen in HLV is as much as we get - forgiveness by John, Mary Watson instead of A.G.R.A, and that's that solved. By your argumentation, the only way to go would be a new take on Mary in series 4 which resolves the ambiguity. And yet I cannot see the writers hint that way.
So if you say, you don't believe in a new dynamic for a longer time, you also think the Mary arch isn't finished?
I mean, that's what I would call bad writing - to create an inconclusive characterization, and then never tell the truth but make the character simply loose importance or write it off in some way

Or, maybe it's a kinda-sorta Post-Modernist approach-- ( which I tend to not enjoy)  where it doesn't have to make sense. Moffat said in an interview that he doesn't trust backstory. He doesn't like having to do background writing--before doing the series itself, which tells me that he's more invested in plot turns and twists than contiuity of character. I think Mofftiss likes creating controversy-- and Mary has done that. It may also be the "Evil Woman Redeemed By The Love Of A Good Man" trope Moffatt seems to be fond of...., and if that's the case-- Mary may actually become "one of the team." 

Sigh. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Or, maybe it's a kinda-sorta Post-Modernist approach-- ( which I tend to not enjoy)  where it doesn't have to make sense. Moffat said in an interview that he doesn't trust backstory. He doesn't like having to do background writing--before doing the series itself, which tells me that he's more invested in plot turns and twists than contiuity of character. I think Mofftiss likes creating controversy-- and Mary has done that. It may also be the "Evil Woman Redeemed By The Love Of A Good Man" trope Moffatt seems to be fond of...., and if that's the case-- Mary may actually become "one of the team." 

Sigh. 

Heavens, don't give me nightmares...
 

So you all really think that they will give up what they professedly love most about Canon - the dynamic between Holmes and Watson? And that Mary will become a completely good guy in series 4 with resurrected Moriarty as sole baddie? Come on. 

Neither do I. I still trust them. 

I'm not sure if this is something serious, but I had to smile at what people still discover...
http://bagogems.tumblr.com/post/101984927897/warmth-and-constancy-its-just-a-little

Whisky wrote:

tonnaree wrote:

I still trust in Moftiss.

I have trust issues  

Ha, me too. To some extent. I know it's their show and they can do with it whatever they like, but well, I think that's exactly what Moffat thought when he took over "Doctor Who"...  
 

I'm not in the slightest into Dr. Who and know next to nothing about it. Did Moffat save it or ruin it?

mrshouse, ask ten people about it and you will most likely get ten different answers.
In my opinion he wrote absolutely wonderful episodes for Who when he was 'just' a writer and not the show runner. But when he took over as show runner it felt so different to me - and not in a good way. It took me forever to get used to it.
But of course I know that "Sherlock" isn't "Doctor Who" and that Moffat certainly has a very different connection to "Sherlock", which has always been 'his own' show. And I don't want to be too negative, believe me. It's just that with his version of Who I always had the feeling that he wanted to do something extra-special, and while doing that he neglected the things I had loved so much before. And that's what I see in S3 to some extent... neglect of some of the things I loved so much in S1/2. I really hope there is a good reason for that and he'll give that back to me eventually. (And yes, I repeat, it's his show, not mine...) 

I have moved this discussen from the Sherlock and Sholto thread because it fits in here better:

Ah-chie wrote:

REReader wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

Interesting thread. The comment "neither of us were the first, you know" is something I've always interpreted as Mary saying John has had girlfriends before Mary and very close friends before Sherlock. It's meant as a comment (and sort of comfort) to Sherlock when Mary sees his obvious discomfort and jealousy. I imagine since Sherlock has never had any close friends before, he probably assumed John hadn't either. And I can actually understand that stinging a bit.

This is how I automatically understood it; it seems the simplest and most likely meaning.

Make that a "three-sie"!  This is how I understood it too.  It's pretty clear to me that Mary, because she is more of a social person than Sherlock, is just gently clueing Sherlock into the situation when she picked up on his confusion as to Sholto's and John's relationship.  It's a lovely scene actually and one I really like because it one of the ones that shows a connection between Mary and Sherlock, as it relates to John (their common denominator).

-Val
 

When I first watched it I still liked Mary a lot. (She hadn't shot Sherlock by then, of course, so I was really fond of her. Yet, I always thought that comment a bit mean.

She knows enough about Sherlock and John to understand how much John means to Sherlock, andthat John is most likely the first person ever to call Sherlock "best friend".

Now, "comforting" him in his jealousy with pointing out that unlike Sherlock, John had many friends before does not sound comforting to me. It feels more like rubbing salt into the wound and then changing the subject fast.

I always thought that scene was supposed to underline her unknown pregnancy by showing her a bit bitchy. (She fusses over the wine instantly afterward, another sign of her pregnancy.)