Sherlock finale thread- WARNING SPOILERS

[Allthingsprettyreturns]

Starting the thread in antcipation!

Yes they did say that and I did think that a Mumsnetter was the one who had came up with that theory but she later admitted that she'd got it from the internet. I had no idea it'd been all over the internet.

They did say that they were a bit annoyed about being accused of taking the popular internet theories and just using them to write the script for them and I did light-heartedly suggest this in one of the SH threads so Moffat and Gatiss, if you are reading this, I didn't actually mean it!

But I still think they are focusing way too much on Sherlock's 'human' side and the complex relationships they've now built up with Watson, Mary, Mrs Hudson, Molly etc and they should bring it back to solving mysteries in a clever clever way.

Same with Doctor Who - we want to see him fighting alien baddies not getting in a tangle with his assistants and having a complex relationship with his wife, that's just dull and boring.

I still think you're not quite getting the distinction between this series and the original stories, Rhubarb.

Originally, they were all about the cases. This time it's all about Sherlock.

It's a bit daft to expect a series that's about a human being not to focus on his human side!

Also, listening to Moffat & Gatiss on that podcast, they do explain some of the issues you (and others) have with it.

Notably the sappy wedding speech. This was deliberate, not a misstep. They wanted us to think he'd gone soft and un-Sherlocky, when subsequent events showed that he hadn't.

It's also clear that they simply don't see Sherlock as the superhuman, unemotional thinking machine that you do - because he was never that in the books, no matter what John Watson said. He got choked with tears over something Lestrade said once & another time got angry enough to want to horsewhip someone. He has emotions, he just suppresses them - and the best way to show that is to let us see the few times when he fails to.

I think what they've achieved as writers is stupendous. Yeah, it's not perfect - I think Mary is a huge mistake - but it's still the best thing on TV by a country mile.

Bottom line - if they made the show the way you want it, it wouldn't be so good, because we've seen it all before with Jeremy Brett.

I do want someone to say to him one day, "No shit, Sherlock". That would please my little mind :)

• Sherlock and Doctor Who are popular today because of the approach Moffat/Gatiss/Davies have taken, I think.

Hettie in fairness to me (and I think you are being a tad unfair tbh ) when the Sherlock series started they never once said it was all about the man and not the crime, this is the first I've heard of it.

Obviously I don't like one of my fictional heroes depicted in a way I don't recognise and of course I have my own opinions on the series. Yes I get the distinction now they have sounded it out for everyone, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with the way they have portrayed him.

I think you misunderstand me. I never said they should stick religiously to the stories and I never said I wanted it to be just like Jeremy Brett. I have said all through the numerous threads on this that I LOVED the first series and I loved what they had done with the character and how cleverly they had woven the stories into the modern age.

I just don't like this recent series. I think it shows him making too many mistakes. They said that when he gets emotional he makes mistakes, yes well he's been doing a fair bit of that hasn't he? In the stories he got emotional yes, but he didn't make mistakes because of his emotions. He threatened to pistol-whip someone, he got very concerned when Watson was shot, he was very defensive of his clients as I've said and when uncovering the villan he sometimes got carried away, but he never made this amount of mistakes, he never tried to like someone.

I get and always have got what they are doing and now they've confirmed it. I just don't agree with it.

That doesn't mean I'm a purist or anything else. I don't like it when mini soap operas are weaved into other genres, it annoys me. I used to watch Moonlighting until it started to get too soppy and all about their relationship, same with X Files. Writers find they have these wonderful characters and get carried away with exploring those characters instead of making the series different and keeping the original focus.

I repeat, they didn't do this in the first series and that is why I expected more of the same and feel let down.

It's nothing I'm too stupid or traditional or purist to 'get'. I am voicing an opinion is all. Am I allowed to do this?

I'm with rhubarb, having not read the books so cannot call me a purist! I love what they've done overall, but they have gone a bit far for my taste in the series with some things and it just jars me as I watch, slightly ruins my enjoyment.

And as for what they say about mary in the interview - they are dreaming if they think the audience 'love' her. massive mistake. I can forgive if we get rid of her soon, even if she just retires from the action rather than killed off. I can NOT forgive if we get inept nappy changing.

Ultimately this 'Sherlock' is their invention and they can write whatever the heck they like.

The crux of the issue, as Rhubarb has patiently observed is that once you deviate past a certain point of the character you no longer have that character. You don't have Sherlock Holmes, whose name is a byword for logic and insight. I hardly recognise this new person even from the first two series, never mind from the long history of Holmes.

My ds has never read a ACD book, never seen any other TV Sherlock, he just knew from episode 1 of the first series that this Sherlock was completely class and he has watched and watched those first two series while waiting so long for the third. It speaks volumes to me that he isn't remotely interested in watching these new ones even one more time on iplayer. That's because they were tedious and disappointing and no amount of post-programme blah from the writers is going to change that.

amen winter. its their creation, but the whole point is to please the viewer. I may be alone (dont think so!) but they are currently straying into dangerous waters as far as keeping people's interest, loyalty etc. goes

I was beginning to think I was a lone voice here!

While I'm here, can anyone explain to me why Sherlock shot CAM? Once he knew there were no 'vaults' why couldn't he just take to twitter,facebook etc to put that message out to all CAM's victims?

.....for pissing in his fireplace?

I know I would....

Because CAM was in news - he could still publish anything he wanted. Then it's up to those suing him to prove it was untrue. Only by killing him could the vaults and the hold over the victims, which included Mary, Lady Whatsit and the Prime Minister, be destroyed.

CAM said to Watson that he didn't need proof - he was in media. CAM would still have been a threat as long as he was alive.

When Sherlock and Watson went into the offices before using Janine to get into the suite, there was a news program playing saying an MP had been disgraced - I assumed that was to highlight the threat. Lord Smallwood committed suicide too, even though there was no actual proof of anything.

I do also wonder whether Sherlock killed CAM to stop his brother having to order it done, but that may well just be in my mind!

VL, I thought mycroft was pro CAM.

I thought that it was implied that CAM had something on Mycroft as well which kept him at bay. And that Mycroft tried to defend his inactivity wrt CAM by saying 'he's never harmed anybody too important' or some such guff.

Wading in now with a silly theory (cos i obviously have nothing better to do!) - when Sherlock says: "William Sherlock Scott Holmes that's all of it" - I don't think he was saying his name for baby-naming purposes, I think he was saying a codeword (to set the Moriarty coming back scenario into action) - off to try and think of better uses of my time!

That's what I thought Pacific and Mycroft kept saying to step away from CAM although he had no idea Sherlock/Watson was armed

I preferred Bopeep's theory all in all...

Was anyone else mildly puzzled by the Holmes boys seeming to come from a higher social drawer than their parents? I know the actors are BC's real parents, but we saw Mycroft presumably at home over Christmas in another episode (have forgotten which - last season, I think?), and he's sitting at an enormous dining table in what looks like the rejigged hall of a possibly Tudor manor house, complete with suits of armour. One would have assumed at least minor aristocracy.

Whereas the house where all the Holmeses spend Christmas in the season three finale was a cosy cottage with ordinary middle-/upper-middle-class furniture, and the parents seem more middle-class/academic/mildly bohemian than anything...?

I am voicing an opinion is all. Am I allowed to do this?

Sorry, Rhubarb - of course you are. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I just think it's a little unfair of anyone to criticise the writers for writing the very show they said they were going to. His "humanisation" is a bit of a red herring because he is, of course, already a human being.

And, while it's true, winterval that if you deviate past the original enough you no longer have the same character - I don't think they've done this here. Not yet. To say that SH is entirely unemotional, never gets angry, is never wrong etc is, in fact, completely untrue.

With every single thing that modern Sherlock has done, the writers are able to trace back to an example in the original stories of where he has demonstrated that particular emotion or action - concern, distress, hatred, anger. The examples may be fleeting, or even just hints, but they are there.

I also wondered about Mycroft's stately home. I originally assumed it was the family seat which of course it isn't, so I think it must be a government residence like Chequers/Cheveney/Dorneywood.

Mycroft could have bought himself a nice crumbly pile: being the establishment means that sort of thing is expected and I'm sure he's somehow got the money to do so.

Peppersquint i think your theory could be correct.