Liberty wrote:

The problem with the marriage seems to be John going off with Sherlock, when Mary wants to come along too.   Mary does manage to insist on coming along with John on his adventure at the beginning of HLV (straight after the marriage), but generally doesn't get to join in with them - I suppose that could be setting up problems for S4, if Mary is dissatisfied with that role in modern times as well.   She's very keen to get involved on the plane (looking up info on the case Sherlock mentions). 

But, but, but.... we know that´s absolutely not true.
In TAB we are supposed to feels sorry for Mary who, apparently, is left behind by her husband, while he has exciting adventures elsewhere.... but the second later we get to know that she is in fact a spy, superagent, sleuth, whatever and that she has plenty of adventures of her own. Plus, while John is honest with her and tells her where he spends time, she keeps the truth about her true form from him. She does the same thing she reproaches to John + is dishonest about it on top of that.
The same goes for her modern form. She just outwardly pretends she is a nurse living a sedate life, but from HLV we know that she has "missions" of her own, that she continues to do her assassin´s job (as we can see from her outfit and her gun she kept during her marriage) and that she tells nothing about it to John.
Sympathy with Mary as a poor wilting flower left at home is misplaced because she is none of these things.

Liberty wrote:

I think a big part of it is about the role of women - the fact that it was perfectly unremarkable for Holmes and Watson to be going on adventures together, or even just spending a lot of time together after Watson was married - that after TSOT the "wife" is sidelined even more than Mrs Hudson. 

The story in which every side character had as much place to develop as a lead would be ultimately very boring + it would steal the time the authors could dedicate to fleshing out the relationship and characters of the main duo.
Do we know everything about John and Sherlock yet? Are they so boring now that we must add other charcters into the show to make it interesting again?

Plus, the idea that show about two males must have loads of female characters to make it ballanced, pollitically correct etc. is misguided.
The show "Sex in the city" is predominantly about females and their problems. What good would it add to the storyline if male characters would be added to the "team"? Would it be more funny or interesting if these females were suddenly forced to attend rugby matches or American football and spend time in stereotypically male activities to make the show "gender-ballanced"? That´s not what the audience loves in this show, why force it there?
And the reverse is true also - why force such "female agenda" into the story about Sherlock and John?

Liberty wrote:

Mind you, there is a female accomplice/double agent through the big story in TPLOSH, a film they say they love and often reference - maybe they want to try it out for an episode or two?

But they had already used this storyline in ASIB, where Irene Adler had taken the role of that female agent.
How long will they repeat that storyline? There are so many Sherlock´s tales they have not yet touched - why repeat the same thing over and over?

Now, since we know now the whole Victorian timeline is S. MP, I think it's only logical to expect it not completely logical. In fact, when watching TAB for the second time I took the discrepancies essentially  for clues about it being not real.
The first "arrival scene" is clearly a ruse:  Moftiss trick us into almost classic Granada Scene (but in fact all the introduction has the same function) to make us think they we will be offer a kind of canon remake of Sherlock. Also, this is clearly how Sherlock would LIKE the things to be: him and John staying together and solving crimes - he was reading John's blog in the plane, weren't he? So logically in his MP he went to the "good old days". But there is not coming back to them: there is no escaping from the "Mary factor" so she has to appear even in his MP reality.
Her black dress is opposite to how she appears to him in his MP in the HLV (dressed in white wedding dress) and his playing wedding composition is a reminder that he was parted from John.
Similarly, talking to the empty chair is the clue about he is coping with the situation and reflects, of course, the modern state of things.

On the whole, I am not really bothered about logic holes, because I see it all as merely a reflection of S. state of mind.

I was not talking about a lack of logic. For me it is all very logical if you consider that this is a mind palace logic. We start with what Sherlock wishes his life to be and then very soon see what it is really like. The "Mary factor" as you so aptly named it. And in the end we return to what his idea of a good life would be, going full circle. 

Nakahara, my point above was that Moftiss are writing in modern times, and so write women differently to Doyle (because women's place/role has changed) - and that they seem to playfully acknowledge that in TAB, with Mary.  They do with Mrs Hudson, as well, having her comment on her lack of lines, etc.  Mary complaining about not being taken with them highlights that, I think, but I was wondering if there might also be an element of Sherlock sensing Mary's dissatisfaction in "real life".

My point about TPLOSH was that the female companion travels with them, goes on the case/adventure, etc (unlike Irene in ASIB).  I'm pretty sure they don't want to do a threesome, but just pointing out that there's a precedent in a film they love. 

Edit: you posted again while I was typing!  I'm doing too many things at once here .  No, we don't see Sherlock thinking of himself pining to have Mary join them, but we do see him thinking that Mary is pining to join them.   To join John, obviously, but she doesn't ask for John to stay at home with her, only for her to go along with (both of) them.
 

Last edited by Liberty (January 25, 2016 9:39 am)

Liberty wrote:

Nakahara, my point above was that Moftiss are writing in modern times, and so write women differently to Doyle (because women's place/role has changed) - and that they seem to playfully acknowledge that in TAB, with Mary.  They do with Mrs Hudson, as well, having her comment on her lack of lines, etc.  Mary complaining about not being taken with them highlights that, I think, but I was wondering if there might also be an element of Sherlock sensing Mary's dissatisfaction in "real life".
 

What exactly was wrong with Doyle´s heroines?
Original Mary Morstan, Violet Hunter, Kitty Winter, that unknown lady who shot Milverton, Violet Smith.... what exactly was wrong with these characters? Tbh, they were more lively and relatable and brave that any of Moftiss conjurations. Why aren´t they featured in BBC Sherlock rather than female Ku Klux Clan and the like?

And sorry, but I never saw this logic - the spouse of the detective must automatically be taken along with him on his cases - being applied even in modern shows. Midsommers Murders for example are a contemporary show with two males as leads. Do they take their spouses and children to the crimes scenes and involve them in cases? No, they do not. And it´s never thought of as being misogynist. But Sherlock must neccessarily take a horde of women with himself on cases or the show is not contemporary enough?
No, I don´t understand.

Mattlocked wrote:

I've just read all of this quite quickly....
Did anyone mention Watson's maid so far? She said to John that he and Mary meet very seldom at home.
Now thinking of it the whole scene doesn't show a "happy freshly married couple." Him having breakfast all alone and such.

Yes and the maid implies they have this "silent household" for at least a month.
 

I'm not sure how to explain, Nakahara, but it's not a problem with Doyle.  It's the difference between the settings.  The team have talked about this in interviews.  No, they're not compelled to make Mary different, but I do think it might have felt odd to have (for instance) John marry somebody then never have her feature again.  It also wasn't necessary to invent Molly, or Sally, but I think it works well in the modern setting - and wouldn't have worked well in the Victorian one - that's highlighted too ("Molly" has to be a "man").  It's not just about Sherlock seeing how the different setting has meaning for the case, but also some playful references to the changes they made for a different (modern) setting.   I see that in TAB - but you don't have to! 

Oh yes, it's their choice.   They've made it part of the story.  I don't know about Hooper being a suffragette - the point is partly that she does a body switch, just as Molly did for Sherlock.  She's in a very similar to role to modern day Molly, but disguises herself as a man to do it.  And that's one of the things that leads Sherlock to his deduction. 

Mary actually has two successful careers, both in the modern day and in the mind palace!   Both of her careers "work" in the Victorian times.

I think she wants to go with John in particular, rather than that she wants to a detective.