Yeah, I have to agree with Chilli and Count Zero. I thought the first part of the episode was perfect (the mind palace scene being by far my favourite part of the episode) but after that things started getting problematic. I don't believe for a moment that John would have so totally forgiven Mary. I think they should have either fully commited to Mary being the antagonist (and had her kill Magnusson, that would have been a great twist after all the buildup) or just left that part out. I think A Scandal in Belgravia is still the best Sherlock episode. Also, I wish they toned down the whole "the villain is a national security threat" angle. Two out of three episodes this season were like that and now Moriarty is back as well (on every screen in the country no less!). It's starting to feel more like a spy thriller than a crime drama. Not everything has to be earth-shattering.
RevdKathy and me are at the point of stopping watching, and only continuing with Doctor Who because it is Doctor Who. It's a shame, we enjoyed the wedding episode as a bit of fluff and half this episode until it became stupid towards the end. At this point it seems it doesn't matter if things make sense as long as it's cool and twisty and if anyone has a problem with it they're just nerds, who cares what they think? Personally I think the Moriarty thing is going to turn out to be a red herring. I think Mycroft will have set it up to get Sherlock back.
^^^My thoughts exactly, after Mycroft not wanting him to take the suicide mission i think he used this ruse the get his brother back safe and out of danger.
I'm absolutely with Chilli and Count Zero. The episode had a few really great moments - the mindpalace, of course, but also the Mary-Sherlock-John-discussion. But the ending just didn't sit well with me... at all. * Even if it's the easiest way to get rid of Magnussen and his knowledge - shooting him isn't the only way to make him disappear. * Why even count on a physical vault of knowledge? Everyone should be able to break into that. And Sherlock tends to underestimate other people's intelligence. So he should have taken into account that Magnussen just might have such a memory as himself and planned accordingly. * By shooting Magnussen Sherlock crossed a line that I wish he hadn't. Because why did he do that? Was he so pissed off that Magnussen was taunting John? Was there no alternative (the roof scene had 13, not even counting Moriarty's shooting himself)? What and who did he actually protect? * And Mary... Granted, she wanted to protect her happily ever after... but as an assassin shouldn't she have been able to wait for another opportunity instead of shooting Sherlock? And opportunity that doesn't link back to either Sherlock or John? I thought in the end that was a very damsel in distress like moment which I didn't enjoy. Also, as CountZero already said so eloquently: Mary's past doesn't matter to John?!? Even and especially as it might lead to Sherlock's death (by exile or more directly)? WTF? * And yes, that fact that Sherlock is going to come out of this completely unscathed is bothering the hell out of me. He is a murderer - he didn't do it out of self-defense or to rescue John from certain death (like John did back in 1.01). And nothing's going to change that step over the line. Except of course, if Magnussen's not dead (and again, we didn't really get a good look on his corpse, did we?).
^^^I thought Sherlock killed Magnus because he was going to print everything about Mary, and when he did so Watson's and their unborn baby would also be in grave danger when her new identity was blown for all her enemys to find her in her new life.
There is some truth to this (I applied this same logic to 24 back in the day - it's only when real life politicians started using 24 to justify their pro-torture policies that I started despising the show for its politics) ... but, even in-universe, it's going to be pretty on the nose. Sherlock is quite an in-universe celebrity, and he was just unambiguously caught in the act of murdering another celebrity. This is going to be public knowledge in-universe. So if the Sherlock-universe British state decides to pardon him .. it'll be pardoning a guy that the public *knows* is a cold-blooded murderer, because his motives kinda resonate with the state. This would be beyond the pale IRL as well, and I can't help wonder if the BBC really wants to produce a series that shows the British legal system to be on par with the legal system of Azerbaijan. But at this point, they don't have much of a choice. Given Magnussen's talk of not being a villain, but a businessman out to make acquisitions, like the one he just made .. no. He was way too pragmatic to do this. He WAS going to make use of the power he now had over Watson.
First and foremost, Sherlock Holmes is the last place to apply the appalling label of 'canon.' Doyle couldn't have given less of a toss about continuity and contradicted the ever-living-piss out of himself on every occasion possible. He didn't care, so long as the story he was writing at the moment was internally consistent. So getting in a twist about how a modern take on the Sherlock character deviates from what Doyle wrote a hundred and thirty-odd years ago is pretty rich. As for Sherlock shooting Magnusson rather than letting someone else kill him and cover it up, I don't think Sherlock had a choice. He valued the continued freedom of John Watson more than the life of Magnusson. It was that simple. Sherlock is possessed of his own concept of right and wrong and I've never been of the opinion that he was following some sort of Batman-like "I will not kill" code. Well that's reductive in the extreme. Both he and Watson were under extreme duress. Their freedom was in jeopardy as Magnusson was poised to sell them out and testify that they came to him to sell state secrets. Both were facing jail terms. Sherlock promised Watson that he would be there for him and Mary should any need arise. And it did. Killing Magnusson was the only way to ensure Watson didn't go to prison and lose his new (completely insane) wife and unborn daughter. This is the Sherlock that viciously beat the thug who attacked Mrs. Hudson and threw him out of a window. This is the Sherlock who very clearly killed whomever was going to behead Irene Adler. He's killed and maimed before to protect the people he cares about. I disagree entirely. John loves Mary, maybe even almost as much as he loves Sherlock. I'd have done the same thing were I in his position. Sherlock understood that Mary could have killed him, but much as Sherlock did, made the best of an impossible situation by doing what she could to preserve the life and freedom of John Watson. What Sherlock did was hardly irredeemable. The show's entire concept is about an intellectual superman who literally knows better than anyone. If you're prepared to buy into that concept, it's hardly a stretch to see him perform violent acts outside the law in preservation of his concept of right and wrong. And again, we've seen Sherlock do these things before, with nary a peep of protest. No, you're mad about Doctor Who and are furiously projecting onto Sherlock. Understandable, but hardly defensible.
You did see the "but whatever" after I mentioned it was a deviation from canon, yes? I *don't* give a toss about that. Like I said, I could very well have lived with the conclusion of the plot if this had been the final season. It's just that I see no way this series can continue from here in a way that's ethically defensible - and yet, they're already talking about 2+ more seasons. Again, my issue is not that Sherlock killing Magnussen is out of character for Sherlock. It's that letting him get away with it is out of character for the justice system of a functioning democracy. Magnussen was poised to report them for illegal activities that they did, in fact, commit. Of course, the plot was more complicated than that, but in no sane court of law would Sherlock's actions pass as "self-defence". This was even established in the series: He was not going to get away with it. Yet given the 2+ seasons that are coming, one can only assume that he is going to. The only way this can happen is if heroic deeds to come will in some way legally vindicate him. Which is not the way a functioning legal system works, and, ethically appalling. Yes, indeed. But again, a desire to protect criminals doesn't make it "self-defence", legally, by any stretch. Indeed. He's never made a secret about the fact that he is, in fact, a sociopath. (This is one thing I've liked about the series: the characterization is spot-on. Conan Doyle's Sherlock, while indeed somewhat shaky depending on C.D.'s mindset at the time, was not a nice person.) Yet none of these previous incidents happened in contexts where his guilt, in the eyes of the law, was indisputable. When it comes to Magnussen, it could not be any more indisputable. My problem is not with what Sherlock did. My problem is with the fact that he will get away with it. Holy shit dude. See above: the problem isn't that this was out of character. The problem was that these developments in a show that's not actually about to end puts the plot development somewhere where the BBC ethics board could seriously pull the plug on this show before it represents the British legal system in a way that's simply unacceptable on national TV. Semi. I'm disappointed about Doctor Who. I used to be a big fan of Moffat's, and still am of his earlier work (though some of the later weaknesses are obvious there too: Press Gang already did the whole escalating drama thing, where the threats the cast faces have to always outdo the previous threats they've faced, eventually leading to plotlines that are simply feel out of place in a show about a kiddie newspaper). I *loved* his DW eps in the first three seasons. I was moderately excited when he took over as the show runner (I'd disliked his season 4 episodes, and detested the River Song plotline from the start), but quickly cooled off his interpretation of Who: it felt like an obvious case of "absolute power corrupts absolutely". As soon as he was in charge and made the rules, there were no rules for him, which made for absolutely ghastly television. I've been moderately enjoying Sherlock, and seeing it as proof that Moffat can, in fact, still write. I've been wondering if it's the fact that he shares creative control with Mark Gatiss that's been keeping his Sherlock plots more grounded and enjoyable, or if it's simply the nature of the show (if you don't have a machine that can take you anywhere in time and space, there're bound to be more rules). I actually loved the wedding episode. This, however, had all the symptoms Moffat's worse DW work has had.
Well I have to agree with others that the last episode was a bit of an out of bounds of what seems to be logically acceptable on the show. I didn't expect the episode to get such high praise because to me there was no mystery to be solved here. It was just drama building upon itself with characters becoming less realistic. Coming back from the dead, being secret assassins etc... With that said I'm still watching and will continue to. It's a fantastic show and my criticism is based on it's own high standards. BTW. I loved the reference to 'M' from the Bond series at the end.
Magnus was a blackmailer, he was a criminal, he may not have pulled the trigger himself, but was quite happy to put people in harms way if his demands were not meet, as i see it Sherlock chose his friends lives over allowing Magnus to be in the position to put their lives in danger when he chose to do so. You could say it was elementary decision.
It's essential for his reputation as a blackmailer that he occasionally delivers on his threats, yes. Esp. in high-profile cases. But to me it did not seem like this was such a case - his words regarding "acquisitions" more sounded like he was going to milk the leverage he had over Mary --> Watson --> Sherlock --> Mycroft for all it was worth. Even if all this was sufficient to exonerate Sherlock legally: how is that supposed to happen if the whole point of killing Magnussen was to prevent all this stuff from coming to light?
So your problem isn't with the characters but rather that the world they're portraying doesn't fit into your rigid moral code? I can't help you with that. That's an incredibly naive thing to say and more than a little overwrought considering that the show has depicted the British government of being a considerable failure on the 'democratic' front. One of the big issues of Season 2 was the plane full of dead people concocted by Mycroft for some arcane reason that I've forgotten. The world of Sherlock is not a nice place. This is not new. Sherlock breaks the law all the live-long day. He assaults people, breaks-and-enters, steals and general does whatever he damn well pleases. No sane police force or court-of-law would let him continue to swan about as he does, regardless of the Magnusson shooting. Shock of shocks, Mycroft and the government are willing to cover up Magnusson's murder in order to 'protect the realm.' Your shrill protests are more than a little overwrought here. Crap. As I point out above, Sherlock is constantly breaking and flouting the law. If you're so concerned with an 'ethical justice system,' you'd have stopped watching the first episode. Jesus H. Christ. It's a drama set in a fictional universe populated by God-like intellects. Take your outrage level down a notch. No one is going to confuse Sherlock with reality. If Clarkson and the lads can be racist, homophobic, lying (yet, oddly entertaining) dillweeds every Sunday night in an ostensibly reality-based television show, I think the British public can survive a drama that dares to posit a reality where the justice system isn't absolute. Right, so you're mad about Doctor Who and completely irrational about Moffat. Thanks for that. What, you mean genuine emotional moments, fantastic character studies and sharply drawn tension? Yeah, what a terrible mess that was.
The rigid moral code where shooting people is generally considered bad? It was the purported Coventry phenomenon: the intelligence services had the ability to crack a hostile code, but did not want the nasties to know about this, lest they change it. So if they intercept a communication that a plane's about to be bombed, they cannot prevent the bombing, or they will not have access to this information any more in the future. Hence, fill the plane with dead people, and make it look like the terrorist attack actually worked. Pretty ingenious. And not in any way comparable with what happened in this episode. Intelligence services doing sneaky shit somewhere behind the curtain is hardly far-fetched. A real-life equivalent to this would be Bono shooting Rupert Murdoch in the head, but gets away with it, because Rupert Murdoch was a dick, and Bono has done a lot of good in the world. A fucking stupid scenario. And, yes, I do hold TV shows I watch up to a standard where the stuff that happens in them shouldn't be fucking stupid. That's all the principle of "what the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve", though - the police can pretend not to see all these things. Again, hardly implausible. Sleazy, but not implausible. But that's the thing - that didn't happen. Sherlock's guilt was not covered up in the end. Mycroft couldn't prevent it from coming out. His vindication is yet to come, and it'll come after his deeds have become known. And again, all the attempted justifications for what Sherlock did hinge on knowledge of the circumstances. The very knowledge Sherlock killed Magnussen to prevent from seeing the light. If the fact that Magnussen was blackmailing Mary justifies killing him, whoever ends up exonerating Sherlock would have to know about Mary. Which would completely defeat the purpose of killing him in the first place. I am biased against him right now - partly because I know that he can do so much better - but try to give fair judgements. My current judgement is that he's still a fantastic writer, but has a tendency to buy into his own hypes, and doesn't do his best work when he has complete creative control - something that applies to many creators (George Lucas, anyone?). I cannot myself judge if this is a fair judgement or not. I don't think you can either, though. Yep. When the dramatic moments in something I'm watching completely defy rhyme and reason, and simply seem to be there as cheap attempts to make me go "Woaw, shit!", it's the entertainment industry equivalent of a three-year-old kid throwing a temper tauntrum because it wants my attention. It's obnoxious, and not very interesting.
I've been disappointed by this past season. In my honest opinion, the writing just hasn't been as strong as previous seasons. I enjoyed the premiere episode, "The Empty Hearse", but the plotting and writing of that episode was so uneven. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman made the episode worthwhile, but Sherlock has always been more than just a show to show off the chemistry between the two lead actors. There was honestly some writing that seemed very fan-fiction-y. With "The Sign of Three", while it was another highly enjoyable episode, again it felt like it was going through an identity crisis. It didn't even feel like a typical episode of Sherlock. Then again, I enjoyed Sherlock's best man speech and that alone was the best part of the episode and made it worth the watch. However, it felt like it wanted to be a couple of things (comedy about Sherlock's best man duties, mystery involving Watson's military friend, etc) and it didn't know how to properly interweave all of those moments. The best of Sherlock was able to successfully interweave the sparkling character interaction between Sherlock and Watson with the intricate, multi-layered mystery the show is usually so damn good at. Lastly, don't even get me started on "His Last Vow". I was honestly so disappointed by that episode. First of all, I could tell some of the twists from a mile away. Mary's background was not that surprising, at least to me, although I appreciated the clues that Moffat and Gatiss sprinkled through the earlier episodes (such as the letter from "CAM" that Sherlock reads during his best man speech). Sherlock even has a moment where he's basically telling Mary in the hallway that he pretty much knew all along. I did appreciate, however, that the ending to that storyline wasn't what I was expecting. In regards to "CAM", or Charles Augustus Magnussen, I just thought he wasn't a very threatening villain at all. With Moriarty, he was so well interwoven in the fabric of the show before his actual appearance. On top of that, he really shook up Sherlock's world. What did Magnussen do, besides piss in Sherlock's fireplace? Yes, he threatened Watson and Mary, but they never seemed to be in actual jeopardy. There was a whole lot of that in "His Last Vow". Even the ending, while a tad surprising, didn't have the impact on me that I'm sure Moffat and Gatiss intended. "Reichenbach Fall" had me nearly in tears and shook me to my core. At one point, I even thought Moriarty was actually right and that Sherlock was a fraud - that takes some seriously villainry. With "His Last Vow", though, I wasn't really emotionally moved or invested at all. Perhaps I'm being harsh. Two years of waiting created huge expectations that I'm sure was impossible to overcome. Even with that, I still think the writing could have been better. Regardless, I still love the show, and even a sub-par or mediocre Sherlock episode is still miles above most television. I'm glad it seems we're getting seasons four and five, even though the "Miss Me..." moment at the end of "His Last Vow" doesn't instill me with a lot of confidence or excitement. I will say, though, that I don't think the last season has been on the level of seasons 1 and 2 and that's mostly do to the writing and direction. Maybe Sherlock peaked with season 2, but we'll see. I am hopeful and excited for more Sherlock... I just hope Moffat and Gatiss can maintain the quality.
I don't think Magnus would ever be content simply holding what he had over them, and i think that Sherlock knew this, as long as Magnus had this info over Mary and the threat to use it, neither her, Watson or their child could ever live a normal life. Course that's just what i took from it.
I consider this to be strong possibility #1. My strong possibility #2 is that Magnussen (probably has retinal implants and was being fed info, rather than having a mind castle) and the "Moriarty" that we've met have both been tools of the real Moriarty, and that we will finally meet him next season. Weak possibility #1 and only that occurs to me is that when some raving lunatic manages to put his face all over London, he frequently has access to alien tech and the Doctor shows up. Next series: crossover?
I enjoyed all three episodes of this season. The Empty Hearse was only 'good' in my opinion, and the 2nd and 3rd eps were great. I personally didn't take any issue with Sherlock shooting Magnusson and contrary to what several posters have said, there is no proof yet that Sherlock will "get away with it". They were going to send him to his death ("Mycroft is never wrong") for it before they hit the emergency with Moriarty, and unless you know more about the 4th and 5th series than the rest of us, I think it highly likely that instead of being exonerated, Sherlock will pay a price for his action. What that price will be, I am not sure. But I can say that the writers didn't just have S&W jump right back into solving crimes when Sherlock came back from the dead and they won't just ignore this whole murder thing and its impact on the characters.
The shame is, the solving mysteries thing was why the first two seasons worked so well. Now the show has turned into a thriller which, based on the response here and elsewhere, isn't really what people want from this show. The fact that it is still a good thriller doesn't negate that it is a very different show.