Sherlock finale thread- WARNING SPOILERS

[Allthingsprettyreturns]

Starting the thread in antcipation!

Loved it.
Loved last weeks episode too!

whenever NO.

I am in two minds about this.

Yes I also got all the interwoven bits from the original stories like the Sussex Downs house with the beehives and the Opium Den from The Man with the Twisted Lip. Plus Holmes did get engaged to the housemaid I think it was, in the original Master Blackmailer story in order to find out about his habits and the layout of the house, much to Watson's horror so yes, he really was that calculating and emotionally cold.

BUT

I think they are making Holmes look foolish.

Holmes would never ever have shot a man in cold blood. He was not a criminal.

Also, whilst he was not infallible, he would have sussed Mary from the start. Same with Magnussen, he would have known there were no actual documents and that the guy had a photographic memory.

He would never have done a 'deal' with the Master Blackmailer or anyone else. He would never have put anyone in danger or compromised the government. Ever.

So I think they have done the character of Holmes a great injustice there and made him look extremely foolish, which has annoyed me. Holmes didn't always get it exactly right first time, but he never ever presumed, he only ever dealt with facts and evidence and if not one person had seen any documents this guy had, then he would never have risked what he did for them.

I actually found the 'How to be Sherlock Holmes' episode on afterwards to be far more interesting and I appreciate how Moffat and Gatiss have taken not just inspiration from the books but also from the films.

HOWEVER

Another bugbear is that they are taking great liberties with the other characters too. Mrs Hudson was always just a genial landlady with no sinister background whatsoever.

Mary Morstan died at some point, leaving Watson a childless widower who went on to marry again.

Moriarty remained dead. His network of criminals may have carried on their operations (The Red Headed League gang was one of them) but the master criminal was not resurrected.

As far as Doyle's belief in spiritualism is concerned, he never wove this into the stories. He believed in contact with the dead, but it didn't go as far as actually bringing the dead back to life.

If Moriarty is alive and Mary goes on to have a baby then this would be a huge depart from the original stories and characters.

I do appreciate them bringing Sherlock back from the confines of Victoriana and in resurrecting interest in Holmes and the books (which I think should be on the National Curriculum) but they have taken so many liberties with all the characters that I now feel they are far removed from Doyle's vision which leaves me bitterly disappointed.

I feel weird about the pregnancy storyline, I don't want loads of clumsy 'Look at Sherlock and Watson trying to change a nappy, lol, what morons!' scenes. I don't want scenes of domestic life taking over, the way Doctor Who became the Amy & Rory show for a while. But also if anything happens to them Watson will be scarred for life! I'm sure they know what they're doing, but at the moment I don't see them doing anything but giving Amanda Abbington a permanent gig so she can pay her debts off (sorry if that's harsh!)

But BC's parents were back again, and this time Stephen Moffat's son was there too, playing young Sherlock - and probably actual Young Sherlock eventually if SM has his way.

Selfishly I like that Moriarty may be coming back, because I thought he was an excellent villain, but it will be hard to explain another character coming back from the dead with any credibility! Perhaps they are going to use the twin story from the books. I also read that Moriarty could be the third Holmes brother, but I don't see it. Wouldn't they recognize him?!

Why should they stick to the books, an ongoing TV series has to go beyond the books because ACD grew to hate Holm's and didn't continue writing Holm's stories.

It's never claimed to be an adaptation, it only says based on.

They ruined Merlin by ending killing Arthur in a rather hurried we're backed into a corner by the legend.

I don't think Sherlock was being a cold blooded killer, almost the opposite. He killed CAM only to save John and Mary, he wouldn't have done it otherwise. And CAM was hardly an innocent!

Though one scene that made little sense to me was when Mary went to shoot CAM. Firstly I think an assassin would just get it done. not stand there pointing the gun long enough for Sherlock to peep round the corner. She also looked away from CAM more than once, an ideal opportunity for him to stop cringing and grab the gun. Plus the 'I didn't shoot Sherlock fatally' thing has no credibility when we see that he has to do several things to keep himself alive. As clever as she is, Mary couldn't have known that he wouldn't go into shock.

Way

Holmes never killed anyone, and he didn't carry a gun.

Magnussen did show a packet of documents to Sherlock in the TV show.

In the story, Holmes does have to break in to Milverton's house because his attempt to make a deal and buy the documents was unsuccessful. He and Watson watch as Milverton is shot and they don't interfere because there are some crimes that the law can't touch. Watson in the stories is almost caught as the suspected murderer, so that is a parallel to the TV show (Mary is worried that John might be a suspect).

I think they have gone too far away from the original character of Holmes in this series; they should stick with the subtle hints and not be so obvious, as it turns into too much of a joke. I am still really enjoying the show, though.

Star

Quite.

I was expressing my own personal opinion. I appreciate that I am a Sherlockian and my love for the Canon is absolute. I know that Doyle grew to hate the character of Holmes for the reason that it took his mind from what he thought were better things. He wanted to focus on his historical novels and felt bitter that they didn't receive the same attention as his creation which had merely served to give him an income when he was a penniless doctor.

I do fully support what Gatiss and Moffat have done in bringing Holmes to a new audience, but I feel that they have murdered the characters in their own way.

They were never going to be faithful to the Canon, as you say that has already been done and greater crimes have been committed in the world of film and TV. But my own opinion is that they have taken the genius away from the man. Holmes was a calculating machine, a man of science and deduction who never acted spontaneously. He gave things careful consideration and most of all, he was not a criminal.

Whatever the excuse of shooting Milverton/Magnussen. The Holmes in the books would a) never have been in that predicament in the first place and b) would never have shot a man. He had very strong views on crime and would never ever have killed anyone.

Not even to save someone's reputation.

It's not just Holmes they have changed but other characters too.

It doesn't do it for me.

Not saying they can't or shouldn't or whatever. Just expressing my disappointment that Holmes should be turned into a blundering, emotional murderer.

clara Didn't Lestrade describe Watson as one of the murderers of Milverton? He described one of the intruders and Holmes remarked something like "why, that might be a description of Watson!"

Lovely bit of humour and teasing of Watson who was probably shitting himself

THERubarb I understand. Sherlock Holms at 12 (first adult books I read), because they were some what dated I've always seen Holms and Watson slightly as cartoon characters, just as I see James Bond. They couldn't quite be real people.

Other books I feel exactly as you do, I could cheerfully kill, who ever cast Donald Sutherland as Liam Devlin in "The Eagle Has Landed" wrong, wrong, Wrong.

I first read SH at 12.
Don't post and talk to DH about towel rails at the same time

I think they are going to make Mary and Moriarty brother and sister. I think their stories have to be connected in some way.

Loving it. Manages to be tightly plotted and fairly fluffy all at the same time. Hasn't Mary died in the books though and Watson is a widower?

Rhubarb
This "I appreciate that I am a Sherlockian and my love for the Canon is absolute." made me smile
But I loved it anyway.
I think you are spot on.

I thought maybe Janine was connected to Moriarty, I'm only going by the Irish accents though!

THERhubarb It wasn't just about reputations though. CAM threatened to send Mary's enemies after her, and he probably would have had her killed, she did try to kill him after all. It's very unlikely he would have left her alone, she and John would have been in danger if he'd lived. (Though considering the direction of the show, he may pop back up from the grave next series...)

I am a self-confessed nerd magicberry but even I would look like an absolute beginner next to some die-hard Sherlockians I'm sure!

I read SH roundabout the same time Star and loved them. For me they provided an escape and the appeal of being a mere thinking machine made sense to me at the time as having emotions meant that I was hurting and so getting rid of all emotions provided an answer to some of the pain I was feeling

I don't mind people taking liberties with Holmes to some extent. I loved Clueless and other obvious parodies. I guess my beef with this series is that they are Holmes fans and are presenting Holmes to some people for the very first time. Watchers of the series might think that Holmes really did shoot and kill someone or he really was that stupid as to make the huge mistake of not seeing Mary for who she really was and putting his brother and official state secrets at risk for the reputation of a woman whose husband had already forgiven her.

Holmes has been made out to be mentally unstable, not as clever as he makes out, scarred by his childhood and a bit of a cold-bloodied murderer.

That is not the Holmes I grew to love.

I mean, what the hell is all this about his parents? Holmes never spoke of his childhood! Mycroft was present in 2 stories (from memory). Mrs Hudson was always just a patient old dear, Mary Morstan we only met once, Moriarty was dead, dead and dead again (not killed by Holmes, he tumbled off the edge whilst he was trying to throw Holmes off) and Holmes was very rarely wrong in his deductions. Mary wouldn't have stood a chance against his brilliant mind.

I wouldn't mind so much if they hadn't made him look so damned foolish.

Oh, back to the books Rhubs. Stop being so stuffy!

Gatorade that would fail to have moved Holmes. Once he had solved their problem, his clients no longer held any interest for him. If Mary had people after her, that would be her affair. He wouldn't have shot someone merely on the threat that someone else may be killed.

The Holmes of the books really is quite unemotional. He would go as far as to allow criminals to escape if he thought justice had been done, but he would do nothing to help them. He only ever threatened to kill someone once, when Watson was shot in The Three Garridebs he told the shooter that if he had killed Watson he would not have got out of the room alive.

Bit different to just shooting a man in the back.

And I repeat - Holmes would never ever have let himself get in that situation in the first place. It is a mistake he would never have made. He would have smelled a rat long ago and since no-one would ever have seen these vaults, he would know that there was something up.

Am I missing something, but just cos Moriarty appeared on all the tellies, doesn't mean he's still alive though.

Couldn't it have been filmed before he died (or photothingied) and is being used by another baddie?

Loved most of it but couldn't work out how Mary got up to Cam's office. SH said she left the way she came in but didn't elaborate did he?

Didn't you see him after the credits rolled wineoclocktimeyet

Moriarty was the biggest villan Holmes faced.

They haven't yet done the most famous Holmes story of all yet; The Speckled Band. I can't see them not touching on this story.

But none of the villans present Holmes with much difficulty. It was only ever Moriarty who nearly outwitted him. So you can see the lure to bring him back.

Moriarty remained dead. His network of criminals may have carried on their operations (The Red Headed League gang was one of them) but the master criminal was not resurrected.

Might not this be the case? We don't know he is still alive just because he is on screens.

Bit from Telegraph about the 'Evil Mansion'

Sherlock Mansion

Yes I see what you mean, THERhubarb. Maybe it's a back-from-the-dead Sherlock thing? I don't think he'd have shot him in the first/second series, or have been interested in John's personal life.

So, at the end - is Moriarty speaking to us as viewers? I like the idea of his identical twin wanting revenge for the death of his brother (and maybe then he'd tone down the performance slightly.)

I hope so Hester but they have taken such liberties with the characters now that I wouldn't put it past them.

Giving Watson a child, Mrs Hudson a criminal past, introducing his parents, Mycroft in every scene, etc. They are already going way off track so yes, they probably will resurrect Moriarty.

THERhubarb, I think here's a good clip from Elementary keeping to the original Sherlock Holmes' personality.