BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Baby Watson (spoilers!)

**Posted by La Jolie** October 6, 2014 4:04 pm

Liberty wrote:
I do think the moustache is a reference to other depictions of Watson, but I don't think it shows John conforming and embracing normality (or at least, it doesn't show that well) because men of John's age don't tend to wear moustaches. Maybe that's partly why it ages him. It's an older man's or a younger man's style. Far from being unfashionable, I think they can actually be highly fashionable amongst young men. Wearing a style that doesn't fit his age group, actually makes John look individual rather than conformist, I think.

I agree about it being a nod to canon. It makes for a LOT of comedy in the episode as well (which was otherwise sadly lacking in comic relief, IMO), so that alone could have been reason enough to include it.

I totally agree with Mrs Hudson that it ages him terribly. I remember when watching TEH for the first time, I at first thought that the graveyard scene was a flash-forward to a distant future in which John was 60+.

I think whether it's fashionable or not depends very much on the type of moustache and the level of grooming, and John's looked rather unkempt. It was way too long to be fashionable, anyway. It made him look like some sad old dog. Which he was, at that point, in a way, but for Mary.

I agree about the military look. (Says the daughter of a 70+ moustached ex-military man. )

As for Sherlock and children, it's strange, because on the one hand he understands them and relates to them really well because he's such a child himself in many ways (like with Archie and the kidnapped boy). On the other hand, remember the way he talks to the little girls in ASIB who ask where their dead grandfather has gone - that was about as insensitive and age-inappropriate as showing Archie the murder scene photos. So I'm not convinced that he's just "great with children" on the whole.

That said, I'm afraid I believe that this is completely irrelevant to S4, because I don't believe we will see even one minute of *anyone* interacting with Baby Watson on screen, because one way or another, there won't be a Baby Watson to interact with.

I'm not sure about any more big jumps in time in S4. Not only the Moriarty thing is completely unresolved, but also the John/Mary relationship. I'd feel terribly cheated if S4 picked up somewhere years later after HLV and all was either fine again or everyone's life was a wreck without any proper explanation given.

Last edited by La Jolie (October 6, 2014 4:07 pm)

**Posted by Liberty** October 6, 2014 4:43 pm

I think the moustache looks obviously fake (you're going to tell me now that Martin grew it for the part, and I'm going to feel awful) - that and the colouring make it less flattering. (I do think Martin looks pretty good with his own facial hair). It does age him (and our cult of youth makes it a terrible thing that a man in his 40s might look middle-aged!), but I think it is rather individual.

I wasn't bothered so much about the comments to the grand-daughters. That was blunt, but I think children would understand it. Especially precocious little children who try to hire a detective to find out what happened to the body . It's usual for people to know that dead bodies are cremated, but not usual for people to see real pictures of real, gory deaths (maybe it is now, with the internet, I suppose). Even sharing the photos seems to show a lack of respect for the dead and their families, treating the bodies as entertainment. It doesn't upset Archie, but maybe it's a little worrying that he's being desensitised to it at a young age? I agree that it's irrelevant because it's not going to happen .... but it's interesting that Sherlock, who lives in a virtually child-free world, has had quite a lot of exposure to children over the series'. (Solving the rabbit case for a child, etc.).

**Posted by Zatoichi** October 8, 2014 8:36 am

I giggled about the grand-daughters - I don´t think it was inapproriate or cruel to let them know dead bodies are cremated, I´m a big believer in telling kids the truth in simple words myself (although of course in reality it should be done more carefully and with enough time to talk about it or ask questions.)

Archie on the other hand - yes, I felt it was inapproriate, and I´d probably be upset if I took it serious. But all I can see in Archie is the creators writing their own fascinated 12-year-old self into the story, so it doesn´t bother me that much.

If I imagine Sherlock with baby- or toddler Watson (and I really hope you are right and it won´t happen in the show) I guess he´d be quite unimpressed and matter-of-fact about it. He´d largely ignore her and if not possible treat her totally competent and as mini-person and she´d love him. That´s as far as I can think about Shirley/Uncle Sherl without getting slightly unwell right now ^^.

Liberty wrote:
Talking of children, didn't Stephen Thompson talk about wanting to do an episode about Sherlock as a child? That would work as a Christmas special (in flashback) without having to worry about the timeline.

And without having to worry about getting the busy grown-up actors for a whole episode as well.. please no!

Last edited by Zatoichi (October 8, 2014 6:48 pm)

**Posted by SusiGo** October 8, 2014 9:08 am

I feel quite different about the Archie scene. To me he is a boy who is not understood by the adults around him. He withdraws because they want to get him interested in childlike things when he obviously is more interested in exploring the darker and more morbid aspects of life.
And Sherlock realises at once that the boy is like that because people do not take him seriously. Of course this is also played for fun but there is a deeper meaning behind it. Archie is a sort of Sherlock in the making which is proven when he provides the decisive clue for solving the case at the wedding.
And there is more - this is Sherlock once again defending people who are different like he did in TEH and does again in HLV.

**Posted by NatureNoHumansNo** October 8, 2014 9:52 am

just some technical details : seeing mary's figure in the end of HLV, sh'es about 8 months pregnant
-Miscarriages don't happen at this state of pregnancy
-faking a pregnancy is only possible if you see the pregnant person fully clothed, cause the belly moves with the baby kicks and so on...

So, I don't know what will happen to baby Watson eventually ( and it's not a really important question to me), but from what we saw and know in the show, she really exists and will likely come to world unless Mary get seriously hurt or ill.

**Posted by nakahara** October 8, 2014 10:43 am

Well, I don´t mind having a baby in this show if it doesn´t take a center stage. It would be kind of cute to have it around, somewhere in the background.

Also, it would really disappoint me if Moftiss brought a baby (which was not a part of a canon) to the story only to kill it cheaply in some tired cliche of "mother and child die so that the hero could have some motivation for vengeance". Bleh!

They brought this element into Sherlock, so I hope they would deal with it in a more intelligent way - and not change Sherlock into soap-opera in between.

**Posted by Harriet** October 8, 2014 11:32 am

NatureNoHumansNo wrote:
just some technical details : seeing mary's figure in the end of HLV, sh'es about 8 months pregnant
-Miscarriages don't happen at this state of pregnancy
-faking a pregnancy is only possible if you see the pregnant person fully clothed, cause the belly moves with the baby kicks and so on...

So, I don't know what will happen to baby Watson eventually ( and it's not a really important question to me), but from what we saw and know in the show, she really exists and will likely come to world unless Mary get seriously hurt or ill.

(But stillbirth happens, as well as some premature birth leading to the death of the infant.)

Last edited by Harriet (October 8, 2014 11:34 am)

**Posted by Zatoichi** October 8, 2014 11:50 am

nakahara wrote:
Also, it would really disappoint me if Moftiss brought a baby (which was not a part of a canon) to the story only to kill it cheaply in some tired cliche of "mother and child die so that the hero could have some motivation for vengeance". Bleh!.

That´s true, it´s such an over-done, boring trope..

I don´t know if I look forward to seeing how they´ll deal with the baby or dread it.. both, probably.

SusiGo wrote:
And there is more - this is Sherlock once again defending people who are different like he did in TEH and does again in HLV.

I really like that Sherlock takes him seriously, I do. However I still think it´s important to protect children from gore and violent deaths up to a certain age, there´s a reason why movies and games containing it come with an age-restriction. Even a morbid child can be harmed by seeing actual beheadings or maggot-eaten corpses, it has nothing to do with not taking them seriously and everything to do with protection. But well, Archie was fine and it´s Sherlock after all, within this universe I´m fine with a lot of things I´d find troubling IRL.

**Posted by nakahara** October 8, 2014 12:33 pm

Zatoichi wrote:
I really like that Sherlock takes him seriously, I do. However I still think it´s important to protect children from gore and violent deaths up to a certain age, there´s a reason why movies and games containing it come with an age-restriction. Even a morbid child can be harmed by seeing actual beheadings or maggot-eaten corpses, it has nothing to do with not taking them seriously and everything to do with protection. But well, Archie was fine and it´s Sherlock after all, within this universe I´m fine with a lot of things I´d find troubling IRL.

Sadly, there´s such violence in movies, TV series, children´s programmes and newspapers nowadays that Archie hardly needs Sherlock to be desentisied to it.

Thankfully, most children do not realise how serious that stuff they are being exposed to really is.

**Posted by besleybean** October 8, 2014 1:31 pm

I think that''s the problem!

**Posted by mrshouse** October 8, 2014 1:36 pm

Well I will say for I have nothing to hide that I don't want a baby around, not in this kind of show. I love having family in real life and when I'm in the mood for this kind of thing I switch to different kinds of show altogether. The wedding taking center stage for a whole episode was enough, thank you. A Christmas special with a neonate and John and Mary looking all teary eyed? Uncle Sherlock retrieving to their bliss? No, thank you. Or Mary coming out of retirement because her private bliss is threatened yet again?? Double no thanks. I can hardly recount shows changing for the better when toddlers turned up. Have Dexter for example, or Dr. House. I seriously hope we just don't get to see it.

**Posted by silverblaze** October 8, 2014 2:06 pm

Wait a minute, did a Sherlock screenwriter say something about a future episode? Well, it must be true then. Especially because it's on the internet.

Baby wise, I honestly have no clue. For most of the characters I at least have some ideas what they could do with them and whether that's likely but the baby... nothing, blank. They must get rid of it at some point, maybe they will come up with something more original than killing it. Maybe Mary and the baby don't die but they have to leave or something. I have the feeling that they won't go for the most obvious tropes; they tend to be rather creative in general and they brought it in very deliberately so I'm gonna assume that they have a plan.

**Posted by lil** October 8, 2014 2:26 pm

I don't think they can kill the baby - it's there for important plot and thematic reasons- so they have a plan.
The Mary plotline is a bit like a titanic film...maybe she will sink and the baby stays around in the background...or they have some other way to write them both out.
I don't mind either way....but likely time s1 started the baby name pool.....save Hope or Gloria Scott for me .

Last edited by lil (October 8, 2014 2:29 pm)

**Posted by silverblaze** October 8, 2014 5:52 pm

Do people seriously call their children Hope? it's not a name it's a word. Fine then, I'll call my children coliflour, couch and television.

**Posted by Liberty** October 8, 2014 6:16 pm

I think it was popular in Victorian times, calling children after virtues or qualities, and old-fashioned names are ... in fashion (particularly flower names). But I like your suggestions .

@Zatoichi, I've come to terms with TSOT by seeing some of it as fanfiction by the writers, and yes, I think Archie represents the writers as children. So it's not something that bothers me (but it would if it was real life! And I'm sure I'd turn absolutely monstrous if somebody exposed my child to that sort of thing!).

@Nakahara, I agree that children are exposed to a lot and don't recognise the seriousness of it. But I think the kind of things Sherlock is talking about are extreme to show a child. These things are so much worse in real life than they're portrayed on screen, I think.

Last edited by Liberty (October 8, 2014 6:17 pm)

**Posted by nakahara** October 8, 2014 7:14 pm

Well, Sherlock does many things that are absolutely outrageous and inherently wrong if they were a part of a real life, but are absolutely hilarious on screen. We all love Sherlock because he is a bit mad, don´t we?

So I wouldn´t look at Sherlock-Archie interaction in such a gloomy light - obviously, it was just a joke from the authors.

**Posted by Liberty** October 8, 2014 8:04 pm

Oh, I worded that badly and I wasn't comparing the show, Sherlock, to real life - what I meant was that seeing a real life grisly scene involving real people, is often much worse than what children would be exposed to in films or TV. Even the violent stuff is censored or stylised. It's not even just the grisliness, it's the fact that it's real people, who have lived and suffered, who have parents and children, etc. Archie would need Sherlock to be desensitised to that sort of thing, because most parents wouldn't allow him to be exposed to it.

But I'm not being gloomy - the scenes with Archie don't bother me, but I see them as a sort of wish fulfillment. I posted something earlier about Steven Moffat maybe writing about himself as a child, actually being allowed to see the best man's speech he wanted to see, being treated as an equal by Sherlock, being allowed to hug him and help him solve cases.

**Posted by nakahara** October 10, 2014 7:44 am

Liberty wrote:
Oh, I worded that badly and I wasn't comparing the show, Sherlock, to real life - what I meant was that seeing a real life grisly scene involving real people, is often much worse than what children would be exposed to in films or TV. Even the violent stuff is censored or stylised. It's not even just the grisliness, it's the fact that it's real people, who have lived and suffered, who have parents and children, etc. Archie would need Sherlock to be desensitised to that sort of thing, because most parents wouldn't allow him to be exposed to it.

Oh, I wouldn´t be so sure about that. Various CSI show that are happily being broadcasted during the day have many detailed scenes of a mutilated dead bodies so gory that I could never watch a minute of that programmes and almost puked when I accidentaly switched to this TV series and glimpsed some of the stuff there. Tabloids also weren´t very tactful when they published photos of a dead Kadaffi and his son or dead and horribly mutilated Udai and Kusai Hussein and similar awful things happening around the world - and they sold this stuff everywhere so you couldn´t avoid it even when you never read such rubbish. Many children nowadays frequently watch videos on the internet where a similar gory stuff appears.

The adults cannot control the child all the time nor can they lead him through the life blinfolded, so Archie could actually glimpse some gory stuff even before he met Sherlock. However, I don´t think he´s morbid - he´s a child still and he cannot comprehend the seriousness and the tragedy of the things he had seen. I believe that if he wasn´t a fictive person, with the approaching maturity he would start to realise those things and would stop seeing them as the source of his amusement.

**Posted by Liberty** October 10, 2014 4:44 pm

Yes, I know I'm being a bit naive about what some parents let their children see, but lets just say hopefully, a child wouldn't be routinely exposed to that stuff (my child wasn't). I don't think it's being too controlling to monitor what children are viewing at that age. (I'm sure CSI is shown after the watershed here, but it's not something I'd let a child watch on demand either). I don't think we're meant to believe that Archie sees similar stuff all the time. I think part of the excitement for him is that it's only through Sherlock that he has had access to it.

Another thing, if it was real life (which it isn't, it's just a fantasy, so that's OK), is that Sherlock is a very charismatic, glamorous character and inadvertently he would be glamorising these scenes. He could probably have got Archie to be fascinated by tobacco ash if he'd wanted to, just through force of personality. (I think that often if children are exposed to a charismatic, enthusiastic and skilled teacher, they can be fascinated by just about anything!).

I have no idea if the writers were exposed to this stuff themselves as children, but I suspect that they just like the idea of it .

**Posted by nakahara** October 10, 2014 5:10 pm

I hope they had the very normal ordinary childhoods and that they were never exposed to such stuff.

I , of course, agree with you that children should never be allowed to see similar brutalities normally. (If it was up to me, I would definitely tone down the depictions of violence in the media – those things are not at all neccessary for the storytelling and are there just to shock, or disgust the viewers, usually because the authors of the scenario are unable to write a story which would be engaging in itself).

So, let´s hope that Archie too was not harmed by Sherlock´s irresponsibility. (He is fictional, but still…)