kazza474 wrote:

Moriarty says he wants to watch Sherlock dance – is it just for amusement or does he also want to find out more about Sherlock’s character and motivation?

He wants to control Sherlock. Pure & simple it is all for control, as that (he believes) is the ultimate power.

I agree with this too. It's just a question of what he is trying to control Sherlock to do. Does he just want to drive him to his death or to manipulate and twist him so much that he deserts the "side of the angels" and is recreated in his own image? Which would be the more thrilling challenge?

kazza474 wrote:

I don't think you will find cameras placed in the morgue/lab etc because Sherlock took the calls in very random places. It would be hit & miss as to where he would be when he reacted to anything. It would also be too risky if they were discovered; too many ways that those items could lead an investigation back to Moriarty before his 5 games were up.

Of course he wouldn't get to see everything from a camera in the lab. I also don't think he only wanted to see Sherlock's response to the calls. He wanted to watch Sherlock dance to his tune. The lab is one of the main places where Sherlock does his research and also a place where Jim has easy access. An easy way to at least get to see and hear some of it. In terms of risk, I don't think so. Just put it in the smoke detector (always going to be one of those in a lab) noone will look there until the next time the battery has to be changed. Only chance of it being found is if someone chooses to sweep for bugs. Unlikely. He could even do it officially, claiming it's necessary to put in CCTV to stop chemicals/equipment being nicked for drug manufacture.

kazza474 wrote:

I don't think he had taken away 'all that Sherlock lives for' at all.

Oh no, I don't either. I'm just saying that that's what he was trying to do. He's identified the things that would be important for him and assumed that Sherlock is the same.

kazza474 wrote:

Interesting that you have used the 'apple tempting' reference from the Bible, seems to be a common theme of late. I'm not convinced either men could give a hoot about biblical things.

Again, agree. It's nothing to do with the bible, just a cultural reference in the same way the breadcrumbs are. (There's actually no apple in the bible anyway.) The symbolism is deliberate, though - the writers intend for you to make the connection. The question is whether it's a plot point or just a red herring.

kazza474 wrote:

As far as the police are concerned, Sherlock is not concerned with what they think. Nor what anyone else thinks. Yes, he would have to build his reputation up again, but that would be a delicious puzzle for him & one that would occupy him for some time to come.

Yes, Sherlock could well enjoy the challenge of rebuilding his reputation. But what I am talking about is not how we see Sherlock or how Sherlock sees himself but how Moriarty sees Sherlock. This could well be a very long way from the truth, particularly if he really is insane.

kazza474 wrote:

Now what would the point be to offer Sherlock a chance to be on the same side as Moriarty & then tell him he had to kill himself to get there?  I know in my mind Moriarty is insane, but you're not & yet you are saying this is his plan? It makes no sense at all.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my sanity. 
I don't think Moriarty is really wanting Sherlock to kill himself. Actually, what he says first is that he wants to "finish the game" - it's Sherlock who says this means his suicide. He does say "just kill yourself" but I think this is because he's annoyed that Sherlock keeps on insisting he can turn back the clock. He knows that when faced with the possibility of death Sherlock will try to find a way out - isn't it what almost everyone would do? Then he can put forward the alternative - then let your friends die instead. I think Moriarty thinks he's set up a situation where he can't lose. Either Sherlock kills himself or Sherlock turns into a villain. My opinion is that Moriarty would prefer the latter but if he gets the former that'll do too and he'll just have to go back to "playing with the ordinary people". 

kazza474 wrote:

Moriarty just systematically tried to control every part of Sherlock's life to the stage that he wanted to control his death. Now THAT would be the best advertising he could get.

I like this idea. Hadn't thought of it that way. Very nice. I still think there's even more to it, though.

kazza474 wrote:

When Moriarty had no other moves left, he made one final 'hail Mary' move; one that he believed Sherlock would not be able to  counter attack.

But they why say: I see. You’re not ordinary. No. You’re me. You’re me! Thank you! Sherlock Holmes. Thank you. Bless you.
Is it simply the meaningless rantings of a madman?

kazza474 wrote:

Finally, once again do not take my posts as attacks. You have thought through many things & have opened up many possibilities which I welcome as I am tired of reading the same old theories re-hashed!

Thanks for giving me a new aspect with which to view the shows, which I sahll do very soon.

Glad to oblige. 

m0r1arty wrote:

To my mind trying to ascertain insanity in either Moriarty or Sherlock is akin to faith in a creator or atheism - there is no way to be sure.

I suppose that boils down to my semantic pedantry; what is insane?

For Moriarty to pull the trigger on a gun he'd purposefully brought with him and for the bullet to not hit Sherlock...well, it seems very Catholic to me.

-m0r

Hi m0r1arty, sorry, I'm probably being blind but I'm missing the connection. What do you mean by "Catholic"?

kazza474 wrote:

You have some interesting ideas, I just see some as too intricate. They'd be better suited to a spy/sci fi  movie. How in the world would Moftiss explain all these things AND bring a new story to light in 90 minutes?

And therein lies the most important objection to all of these wonderful convoluted theories - boring old practicality.  I'm afraid I suffer from the same weakness as Sherlock: That’s your weakness – you always want everything to be clever. Perhaps this is a warning to the viewers too...  I've got to admit, though, I'd feel quite let down if everything really is just what it seems to be on the surface. It's just so much more fun if it really is clever.

In my dream series 3 I'd have:
Episode 1: The Empty House - Sherlock appears, John knocks him out, and then they both set out on an action-packed race to catch Moran and destroy the final pieces of Moriarty's empire. Only at the end would they finally be sitting back in Baker Street, John would say "So what really did happen on the roof?", Sherlock would steeple his fingers "Ahhh...". Blackout.
Episode 2: Sherlock continues: "I'd actually been pursuing Moriarty for some time..." Flashback episode showing Sherlock cracking really complicated cases which truly damage Moriarty. Possibly even have him infiltrating Moriarty's network as "Mocklock" and really being the one responsible for the kidnapping after all. (If only the kids hadn't been poisoned...) Ending back in Baker Street: John: But how did you survive the fall? Blackout.
Episode 3: Sherlock continues: "You probably saw that Moriarty was weaving his web around me, what he didn't realise was that he wasn't the only one with a plan..." Another flashback describing the plots of Moriarty and Sherlock/Mycroft with each thrusting and parrying against each other. Then finally, only at the end of the series, does he finally explain his brilliant escape.

What I expect we will really have, though, is a quick 10 min wrap up of how he survived the jump and then it will be on to a new case. Most of the interesting conundrums will probably not be addressed but I suppose that will leave us free to believe whatever theory floats our boat.    It's still fun to theorise...

Oh. I thought his name sounded familiar. Then I looked him up and now I know why.

Hi Sherlock Holmes, thanks for your comments.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Hi Aurora, I'm pretty sure the explanation of the fall will only take up around ten minutes or less of actual screen time told through snappy flashbacks with Sherlock's classic quick talking voice over making everything seem utterly simple (which it probably actually is).

Oh yes, I think so too. I was just fantasizing.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

On holiday at the moment so haven't really had chance to read every single post in detail but I just thought I'd add that Moriarty is definitely insane in my opinion. Only an insane person would blow his own brains out just to force someone else to commit suicide. Not sure anyone of a sane mind would ever go quite that far.

I agree - I think you'd have to be very insane to do that. I just don't think Moriarty is that far gone, particularly not when he sounds perfectly rational in the conversation leading up to it. Up to and including his sentence "Nah, you talk big..." everything seems logical and consistent with him trying to destroy Sherlock. Then Sherlock say "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second that I am one of them." and all of a sudden he starts raving then tops himself?! Too dramatic a change to my mind. Why not shoot Sherlock? That's why I think he had to have some other motive for killing himself.

Of course, my theory is far too complicated for them to deal with under they format they are working with. Maybe in a book or a series with 8-12 episodes / year it could be tried, but not with only 3 episodes in 18 months.

To me the solution that he's just stark raving mad would be disappointing, though. It makes him more an object of pity than a worthy opponent of Holmes. Someone suffering a serious mental illness who was too sick to realize he needed help and had noone who cared for him enough to intervene. 

Yeah and he didn't exactly seem that bothered in the pool scene when Sherlock threatened to shoot him or when he pointed the gun at the bomb prepared to blow them all to high heaven. He was more bothered about the fact that it would be disappointing, ordinary, predictable etc than the actual dying part.

Yay! A discussion about Moriarty.

Has anyone posited that Moriarty faked his own death? It would have been easy, especially compared with the wild theories of how Sherlock faked his.

And speaking of Sherlock's faked death, that also implies Sherlock's several moments of seeming surprise and distress during the rooftop confrontation were cleverly acted out. We know he's a brilliant actor. He acted the old friend with the wife of the car suicide in TGG, and he acted the mugged priest at Irene's door in SiB. He and Moriarty are both consummate actors.

As for Moriarty's faked background as Rich Brook, with all the "clients" at Jim's fingertips it would be simple to fabricate a following of fans for Rich Brook's long and varied career. Even the testimonials on Rich's website could so easily be faked... lol look at me acting like this is all real and it wasn't "faked" by Moftiss & Co.

Another thing: (I'm slowly reading through the entire thread ) I have been wondering how Moriarty could maintain the integrity of his business reputation when he gave away so many of his clients in TGG. (I had gotten the impression that each of the crimes Sherlock solved in the episode were consulted and at least partially orchestrated by Moriarty Inc.) But then I got thinking, maybe these were clients that double-crossed him - such as not coming through with payment - and Jim is outing them as payback. Maybe, as found out by the Chinese Circus Lady, you mess up and Moriarty is not forgiving. That's the risk when you enter into a contract with Jim; If you have what you say you have, I'll make you rich; If you don't, I'll make you into shoes.

Last edited by Jammeez (October 13, 2012 3:58 am)

Oh, thanks for making me aware. I'm just beginning to read the complete works of ACDoyle. Was not aware that Moriarty dies. Man, I really thought I was on to something!

Last edited by Jammeez (October 16, 2012 5:09 am)