I decided to rewatch the series from the beginning, and even though I've seen the Pilot at least 3 times before, it took me until just now to realize that the bar where Holmes meets Gregson has Ring of Honor Wrestling playing on one of the televisions and that a clip from the promotion is what tips Holmes off to Peter Saldua's rage issues, and so now I really want to know what the source of said clip was.
Well Michael's return was quite the whimper. When they determined that the homicide of the week was a copycat, I was thinking that maybe Michael's murders were copycats that would lead to someone bigger, but nope, another random person with no clues whatsoever given to the audience. I forget, are Sherlock and Joan still under Moriarty's protection? Because that would explain what happened to Michael since it obviously won't be any of the main four who did it.
Yeah, they've been planting seeds for a Moriarty return for some time -- establishing that she slipped her leash and is missing, having Joan talk to Sherlock about his feelings for her and moving on, etc. I've suspected for some time that Moriarty was behind Michael, that she maneuvered him toward Sherlock to help him stay sober and focused. Maybe he got out of hand by attacking Joan and she punished him for it -- although making Joan look like the prime suspect doesn't seem to fit that.
I'll be quite interested to learn why the FBI considers Joan the prime suspect in Michael's murder. She has two cracked ribs, which would make it quite difficult for her to beat Michael to death and chuck his body in dumpster. I was disappointed that Michael and Sherlock didn't have one final, explosive confrontation, which is what I was expecting.
I could see her being the first person they'd want to talk to as a matter of routine, if only to eliminate her, given that she did have a violent confrontation with the victim hours before his death and inflicted a substantial wound upon him by her own admission. But I'd think she could easily counter, in addition to your point, that if she had killed him, she'd have no reason to hide the body, because it would've been self-defense. So if it does go beyond an initial, pro forma interview (as the promo implies it will, though those can be misleading), it is hard to see why that would happen. It's not unheard of for mystery stories to subvert expectations. I've been figuring for a while now that Michael was a red herring, an agent or pawn of Moriarty, so I'd guess (or rather, hope) that this is clearing the board for her re-emergence. Anyway, I found Michael quite a bland antagonist, so I don't regret his sudden removal.
Kind of a frustrating finale. It didn't give us a straight mystery -- there was no way to deduce in advance who the real killer would turn out to be. It was just sprung on us out of the blue. This show these days is overly fond of having big developments happen off-camera and be revealed in dialogue after the fact. I was really hoping the Michael plot was building up to the reveal of Moriarty as the mastermind behind him. When it turned out the killer was a woman, I was hoping that's where it was going, maybe to set up a Moriarty arc for next season. But the way things ended, it feels very much like the producers expected this to be the series finale. I wouldn't be surprised if they always wanted to end the series with that scene, but it felt like they rushed and forced the situation to get it to that point within the last couple of acts. Of course, CBS has already renewed the show for another season, so they're going to have to figure out how to get out of that situation and somehow restore the status quo. Although I wonder if they'll actually dare to change something permanently, like actually replacing Marcus -- or maybe replacing the captain, if the truth of what happened came out. Heck, I think it'd be cool if they just stayed in London.
I'm hoping for this. I agree with Joan's closing sentiment that London is where Holmes and Watson belong. Not to say I didn't like them in New York. I've loved the show from the beginning and NYC is a great setting for Holmes-ian mysteries, but come on; you have to love having Sherlock Holmes back on Baker Street.
The writers talked about this on Twitter last night. The finale was written before CBS renewed the series for a seventh season, and they had written the finale assuming it was the final episode altogether.
Thought this season was a step up to season 5 - Shimwell's arc didn't work for me at all, Michael's on the other hand was intriguing (at least until he was found out). But I really liked the friendship/family-angle of this season. What I didn't quite understand in the final episode: There's a recording of Michael's phone call to William Bazemore where Michael calls out Joan's name... but why should he call William who he knows ODed? (which he told Joan while trying to kill her) Didn't anyone check whether that phone call was doctored (might be that it got sent later than he actually made the call etc)? Why didn't Joan or Sherlock bring that up? The FBI... her grudge would have been more relatable if she had appeared earlier (not just off-screen during Sherlock's Vermont hiatus). Because quite honestly, a serial killer's murder warrants a few more suspects than someone who just cracked 2 ribs. And: Who made that previously on? Showing the murder of Gregson's daughter's friend screamed of who the actual murderer would turn out to be. And Gregson himself? Understandable, but would he really be able to live with himself? I'm looking forward to the next season and how (and if) they're going to write themselves out of the London-angle.
I really loved the finale, especially the ending. It would have made a good series finale, but it'll be interesting to see how the show continues now. I too would love to see them continue on in London. I thought about this too while watching. It didn't make sense why Michael would be calling someone that he knew had just ODed. I may have missed it, did they actually say that Bazemore died from the overdose? I assumed so from the way Michael was talking about it, but I guess it's possible that Bazemore lived and was in the hospital, and Michael was leaving him a message for whenever he got out. Otherwise I think it's just a writing mistake.
Hm, being that this phone call is the most incriminating evidence the FBI has against Joan, it's a pretty big mistake not to at least follow up on it.
I was wondering about that one myself. I don't recall them adequately explaining any reason why Michael would have said "Joan", when the real person who was proved to have killed him didn't have that name. It seemed to be written off as one big sloppy shrug. Uncharacteristic of this show, IMO.
They said he probably just saw a female figure coming for him and jumped to the conclusion that it was the same woman who'd attacked him hours earlier. As for why he called someone he knew had died of an overdose, I think it was to establish an alibi, to make it seem like he hadn't known of the OD until well after the fact, in order to discredit Joan's account of his attack on her. So he was already doing it with Joan in mind, hence imagining she was the woman who attacked him -- or else deliberately calling Joan's name over the phone in one last effort to further discredit/frame her.
Agree with everything you're saying about Michael trying to establish an alibi - that's my theory as well for the "Joan" in the phone-call... would it have stood up to closer examination, though? But about the female figure... hm... since Joan was inarguably attacked in her own home, it's a question of who attacked whom first. So even if that were the FBI-lady's argument she'd have difficulty prooving that Joan sort of just waited for Michael to show up in her home to attack him there, get a couple of cracked ribs and then seek him out again. But okay, I'll leave that as in the wider realm of possibility... or the rather more probable option of mere sloppy writing. But honestly, if that had been the final episode of the series, I'd have enjoyed the ending in London, no doubt, but even more scratched my head at the number of question marks left by this case.
Well, to be fair, mystery cases that don't really hold up to scrutiny were a recurring feature of the Doyle canon.
Well I really enjoyed the series finale that, as it turns out, isn’t a series finale! The final scene of them at 221B and 221A Baker Street was lovely and that really would have been a great place for them to end the show (not that I’m not chuffed it’s coming back because I love Sherlock and Joan). Will be interesting to see how they do season 7. I’m guessing filming in London would be expensive on all levels and if they try to film it in NYC pretending to be London that’ll be annoying (at least for most Brits). It would be interesting though. With Marcus joining the US Marshals and with what Gregson did at the end of the 6th season it’s hard to see how we can get back to business as usual, especially given Sherlock can’t return to the states and the FBI still believe Joan actually did kill Michael. I can see two ways forward: 1/Sherlock and Joan are bought back to the US because of some major international incident, with the CIA or the government pardoning Sherlock because they need him. This way you could still have Gregson and Marcus involved, although there’d be obvious tensions. The obvious catalyst for this would be the return of Moriarty. 2/Hannah or Capt. Gregson reveal the truth. Sherlock and Joan will be exonerated (although surely Sherlock will then be charged with wasting police time or something!) In this instance there’s no way Gregson can still be involved, no reason we can’t see Marcus from time to time in his capacity as a marshal though. Anyone have any other ideas?
Hannah confessing would be interesting -- there would be questions about Gregson's credibility that would have repercussions on his job with the NYPD, and trying to prosecute Hannah would be difficult since there's Sherlock's confession out there. I suspect it will be more like number 1 -- something happens and Sherlock is needed in New York. I don't really like number 1 as an option, though; it's what Sherlock did to resolve the cliffhanger to series 3. It wasn't satisfying there. Probably wouldn't be satisfying here. Or, they could handle it like the start to season 3 -- it's six months later, and Sherlock and Joan are back in the brownstone as though nothing had happened, and eventually they would get around to telling the story of how and why. I'd like a couple of episodes set in London. And if we don't see Kitty at least once, I'll be annoyed. As for the annoyance one might feel for "raking London," Taken (the television series) "faked" Washington, DC every week. Badly. And it annoyed me to no end. They couldn't make Toronto look like Washington.
Ugh. I'm with Allyn -- that would be a clone of Sherlock's worst copout, so please no. Although at least it wouldn't be as badly done as Sherlock's version, where they set up a cliffhanger where Sherlock was exiled for murder... and then reversed it 5 minutes later at the end of the same episode, so why even bother???????
Heh... credibility would be the least of Gregson's problems. He would easily be looking at Federal charges on obstruction, conspiracy, collusion and aiding & abetting. Not to mention the bouillabaisse of state and local charges in a similar vein. If either of them came forward, both their lives as they knew it would be over.