Pretty much agree with everything in that reply…  although just wanted to add, with all the range of mixed feelings and debate this has already gotten, that it's hard to tell what was anticipated and what wasn't, for your argument.  How would Sherlock know that Moriarty would try to 'beat' him by suicide, and therefore not look down and see the not-fall he had planned?  He also wouldn't know that John would get back in time from trying to send him away for safety (if that was indeed his doing).  Or that the sniper's view was also out of sight of whatever he did (which was more important, to call them off). 
So unfortunately, yeah… John ended up being his harshly 'credible witness' to not risk his friend's lives once he 'left', and it needed to be believable, if they were being watched.  But still a shame he couldn't trust his too-honest friend's 'acting' abilities to give even a vague hint to hold onto.

BrettHolmes wrote:

I do think that it is a shame that the reunion between Sherlock and John in this series had to be a painful and uneasy one. In the original story called “The Empty House”, it was a joyful if not moving affair (especially if you see the adaptation of it with Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke).

I think in the light of how TRF ended, it makes total sense that the reunion between Sherlock and John in TEH was a painful one - although I have to add that for me personally the real reunion took place much later in the episode.
Also, I found John's initial reaction on seeing Sherlock again in the first restaurant to be extremely and utterly moving! Yes, two minutes later he was at Sherlock's throat, but just watch John closely before that and you'll see all the pain and loss and hurt and grief of the last two years right there in his face. I was very, very moved by that.
 

Of course John does have a point there! But in keeping with Arthur Conan Doyle's version, who didn't care one ounce about Watson's feelings (as Tobe has already pointed out above), Moftiss also made Sherlock fail to tell him sooner.
But I also think it has something to do with Sherlock not being good at communicating things to someone in a subtle way, so he possibly truly just didn't know how to approach this. John matters most to him and I think it is incredibly difficult for him to break something of this magnitude to someone he truly cares about, as we all could witness in the actual reunion scene.
Sherlock continues to be socially somewhat inept, it's who he is, and he can't communicate his emotions very well.

I agree that Conan Doyle's reunion of Watson and Holmes is somewhat weak. I loved having them reunited when I first read the stories as a kid, but even then I thought Watson was a bit daft in the way he just accepted Holmes's return and the cock and bull story he is being told about why he couldn't contact him sooner.

I loved the reunion scene in TEH. I thought it was fantastically acted out by Martin Freeman and it seemed a very realistic reaction (between two blokes anyway). If my best friend pulled such a stunt on me, my first reaction would be to just try and actually kill him for all the pain he caused me and also due to an overpowering feeling of having been betrayed by someone so close to me.

I'm not sure.
I think John was meant to return to the Hospital because things had been put in place to stop him figuring out that the jump was a hoax (the cyclist, the truck, etc.,)
Sherlock needed him out of the way while these things were set up, and while he faced Moriarty.
But he needed him to witness the jump because, come on, John would never in a million years have believed that Sherlock had killed himself unless he witnessed it - and John had to believe he was dead.
You can tell when Sherlock's tears are supposed to be real, imo; and in that scene they were, because he regretted hurting John, and he didn't want to leave his present life behind.
And yeah, I get that the pleasure at seeing Sherlock alive would soon give way to anger at what he'd been put through, but I hated the almost slapstick style violence that followed

tonnaree wrote:

Even though he knew it was going to be horrible for John.  I believe that's why he was crying on the phone.  I believe those tears were real.
 

 
Moffat has gone on record to confirm that the tears were fake and used to manipulate John.

"Whereas all of Sherlock’s emotion on the rooftop when he’s talking to John in “The Reichenbach Fall” is completely faked — he’s just trying to give his friend a bad time so he’ll be in an emotional state to believe what’s about to happen…."

and

Interviewer: "Were Sherlock’s tears in Reichenbach real?"

Moffat: "He’s Sherlock Holmes, he knew exactly what he was doing. Sentimentalise him at your peril."

The scene on the roof was Sherlock being season 1 and 2 Sherlock, not realising how much people care about him and how much he affects them.

Mary

SolarSystem wrote:

I agree, Tinks. If Sherlock had not wanted John to be there when he jumped, he would have engineered for John to be detained at 221B (or wherever else) far longer. It must have been obvious to Sherlock that John would return the minute he realized that Hudders is perfectly fine.
Sherlock needed John to leave the hospital so that he could prepare his plan and set it into motion. Once that was done, John had to come back.
Sherlock a cold-hearted bastard? Nope. He did this because he had to do it like this.  

Ok.  I see that now.  Why have the other stuff in place if he didn't expect John to be there.

However, in my heart and head canon I will always believe Sherlock's tears were mostly real.  I think he may have started out using them to convince John but that his true feelings started to come out.

Also, Moffit lies. 
 

Sherlock has faked the waterworks too often for me to ever believe his tears could be real in anything we've seen so far, including the rooftop and the train. At this point, the only way a crying fit of his could convince me that it has a bit of truth and genuine feeling to it is if he was under some sort of drug, like THOB, that could believably lower is inhibitions.

The roof scene was just Sherlock being his showy actor self and doing something truly horrible. The only reason I think it's forgiveable is because of the snipers.

Mary
 

Tinks wrote:

See, this is a problem that I've found I have with this show, especially since season 3.
You're not the only one, Mary, who I've seen express a viewpoint that seems almost like a dislike of Sherlock.

You have to understand that someone I cared about did that to me, inexplicably threw himself off a building, not considering the ripple effect that it would have had. The days and months and years that followed were unimaginable. It almost destroyed the man I loved and it fragmented our relationship. It was the singular most defining moment of my life.

I don't care if Sherlock is a fictional character because he was created by real breathing people who decided that this was the characterization they were going with. I understand this side of Sherlock, just as I understand John's violent side, but I don't like them. These dimensions to the characters is what makes so human, so real, that they are both beautiful and ugly at the same time.

Something wonderful did come out of this mess. Sherlock finally grew up and became the great man that Lestrade hoped he would be one day.

As for John, I'm not sure yet if he's going to be okay, but it's only been two years and he's had a rapid succession of traumas (witnessing Sherlock's 'suicide', Sherlock's resurrection, and Mary's betrayal) that mean he needs time to heal. I look forward to seeing what become of his character in season 4.

Mary

besleybean wrote:

John does have a point:Sherlock is a murderer.

When does he say that?