By the way, I have seen some people feel that this was Sherlock's plan - get to Appledore, establish its a mind palace, kill Murdoch. Ooops I mean Magnusson.
But to me, the look on Sherlock's face when Magnussen revealed the truth was pretty bleak. He looked genuinely taken aback. He may have come up with eventualities but to me this one was either not on the list or at the very bottom.
Anyone?
Continuing the charade that CAM was top dog, to keep CAM overconfident and off his guard. If he had jumped in the air and shouted "yes!" when CAM said it was all in his head, then CAM might just have killed Sherlock before Sherlock could kill him.
Edit. ...and of course to keep us the viewer on edge before the final scenes outside with the helicopter.
Continuing the charade that CAM was top dog, to keep CAM overconfident and off his guard. If he had jumped in the air and shouted "yes!" when CAM said it was all in his head, then CAM might just have killed Sherlock before Sherlock could kill him.
Edit. ...and of course to keep us the viewer on edge before the final scenes outside with the helicopter.
Sorry - me again
But yes, to all of this!
Keeping the viewer fooled as well as (usually) Watson and the Villain is a device used a lot in Sherlock - IMO, it's not something that's always particularly well done, because often, instead of a collective "OH, OF COURSE!!"
at the reveal, there's a collective "Huh? But then how come X did Y?!":D
middle/upper class criminals pee all over the place all the time.
They call it "making money".
Others call it "making shit",urban slang.
It might look different but it isnt.
At least we see one of them doing it in this episode.
The only way out last season was for Moriarty to shoot himself.
The only way out this season is for sherlock to shoot Magnussen.
In each case nothing else will do...the criminal has to die.
Its physical and messy,cant THINK another way out.
Just spent the last hour catching up on all the posts that have been added since I last read the forum yesterday, and I can definitely say that my Mind Palace has a right royal headache now.
The only way out last season was for Moriarty to shoot himself.
The only way out this season is for sherlock to shoot Magnussen.
In each case nothing else will do...the criminal has to die.
Its physical and messy,cant THINK another way out.
Its brutal isnt it....
Perhaps, but here are smarter ways of doing it. As I said in my previous post - Compare it to how Walter White gets Gus Fring at the end of S4 of breaking bad. Walter used psychology, technology, forged an alliance with an enemy, analysed Fring's weak spots. Result: unexpected & satisfying, even though it ultimately came down to blowing Fring up.
Perhaps, but here are smarter ways of doing it. As I said in my previous post - Compare it to how Walter White gets Gus Fring at the end of S4 of breaking bad. Walter used psychology, technology, forged an alliance with an enemy, analysed Fring's weak spots. Result: unexpected & satisfying, even though it ultimately came down to blowing Fring up.
But that was also done and built up over a full (13 episode) season not a single 90 minute episode. In fact technically more than a single season really.
But that was also done and built up over a full (13 episode) season not a single 90 minute episode. In fact technically more than a single season really.
Him working out how to defeat Fring pretty much came in the last episode of the series. It didn't take up much screen time. Moffatt had 90 minutes - there are shorter films. And it's not like it was a lean 90 mins either - stuff could have been cut.
I thought it was a load of dragged out, badly acted poo.
Perhaps Moriarty may bring something back from the dead with him?
I realise that this series hasn't quite been to everybody's taste, but I do think that the acting has been outstanding.
I am just wondering what the final viewing figures will be for this series. All three episodes are still in the top 10 most watched on i-player, and I read somewhere that episode 1 has reached around 13 million.:)
Peeing in fireplace: the fireplace is a powerful image of original Holmes. It would be the same as not only someone peeing at your home but also in the central point of your intimicy.
Mary shooting Sherlock: i agree, she could have shot him in the leg and knocked him out. But then, we wouldn't have had the wonderful scene of him in his mand palace looking for infos to survive. Plotwise, not good but as a visual exercise, wonderful. Magnussen already knew the links between Sherlock and Mary, as was explained later, there was no link to protect.
Weapons search at Magnussen's: illogical. Of course, they would have been search, specially after the first time they searched, they found weapons on Watson.
Watson's gun: Sherlock asks him to bring it and then confirms not only if he brought it but also exactly where it is. Not sure anymore if Sherlock shot Magnussen as a last resort. I think that was is back-up plan (as shown by his reaction; god, i'm going to have to shoot him) At the cantine, he seemed to me to be playing the game to lure Magnussen into a false sens of security (not enough to not search them later though ). And then Sherlock needed to make sure about the vault, hence the visit to Appledore. But also, Mycroft's arrival in choppers, where he asks him again and Magnussen answers, feeling secure that Sherlock is seconds away to being removed by the authorities he thinks he controls, that the vault never existed and it really is all in his head. When he gets that last confirmation, that's when he shoots him.
But it's all based on what a specific person would do, therfore subjective even if based on facts and probabilities. I enjoy the more characters driven series 3 but it makes it more difficult to clockwork a story.
For exemple, i would have said to Magnussen 'show the proof or piss off'. Would have done that even if in a position of power, but that's me. Then again, with my independant character, i wouldn't go too high in the governement ladder, they don't like people who stands up for principle and honor !
Mary as an ex-CIA assassin felt about as believable as her winning a Luther Vandross look-alike competition. Was really hoping she died as she upsets the dynamic. Is there as big a buzz online about how Moriarty survived his head being blown off as there was about Sherlock and the roof jump?
By the way, I have seen some people feel that this was Sherlock's plan - get to Appledore, establish its a mind palace, kill Murdoch. Ooops I mean Magnusson.
But to me, the look on Sherlock's face when Magnussen revealed the truth was pretty bleak. He looked genuinely taken aback. He may have come up with eventualities but to me this one was either not on the list or at the very bottom.
Anyone?
Maybe like myself Sherlock saw the flaw in CAMs whole logic straight away and wondered if he was really telling the truth. this surprised me more than Sherlock shooting him as he left himself very vulnerable. seemed a stupid thing to admit. Sherlock spends a lot of time in thought, first and foremost is CAM telling the truth then his options, what are the consequences? Sherlock decides what he will do but asks CAM one more time to clarify before shooting him.
Sherlock has a very powerful brother, CAM had many powerful enemies. that's enough for me, that's how it works in real life never mind fiction.
Hope am wrong but why would Moriarty suddenly appear now.
Shouldn't he have arranged other hit men to kill Sherlock's friends as soon as it became known Sherlock was still alive.
I hope Morriarty is still alive and never intended to kill Watson etc, he just wanted to beat Sherlock and knows the threat of killing Sherlocks friends is still more important than actually killing them.
Mary as an ex-CIA assassin felt about as believable as her winning a Luther Vandross look-alike competition. Was really hoping she died as she upsets the dynamic. Is there as big a buzz online about how Moriarty survived his head being blown off as there was about Sherlock and the roof jump?
I think everyone is just gobsmacked by the audacity of the writers to try to bring off two ressurections in consecutive series.
Mind you we never really did resolve exactly what happened on the roof at St Barts - arguably Moriarty had to make Sherlock believe he was dead to get him to jump. If he wasn't dead then Sherlock could have proven his innocence/ bargained for his life against Moriarty's as per end of series one.
Of course actually being dead is the best way to do this but Moriarty is as clever as Sherlock and had more resources. So maybe .........
Mary shooting Sherlock: i agree, she could have shot him in the leg and knocked him out. But then, we wouldn't have had the wonderful scene of him in his mand palace looking for infos to survive. Plotwise, not good but as a visual exercise, wonderful. Magnussen already knew the links between Sherlock and Mary, as was explained later, there was no link to protect.
I thought she shot him where she did because just knocking him out wouldn't have given her the time to get out, get home and then get Sherlock alone for the "don't tell John" conversation.
If she had just knocked him out then he would have come round pretty soon afterwards and told John what had happened straight away.
She had to shoot him where she did to buy herself enough time.
Him working out how to defeat Fring pretty much came in the last episode of the series...
Not true. There was well over a seasons worth of set up and planning that went into the season four finale of Breaking Bad (which is what made it such a satisfying piece of television). To say that the plan to kill Gus all boiled down to one episode is beyond simplistic and does the degree of plotting on Breaking Bad a massive disservice. I don't disagree with your general point that there were other (and perhaps smarter) ways of Sherlock dealing with the threat Magnusson but I just think you picked a bad example given that Breaking Bad was such a densely plotted series that its impossible to try and replicate in one or even three 90 minute episodes.
Having said that I think a 'smarter' ending to the central story of His Last Vow would have maybe missed the point of what they were trying to go for. That it was Sherlock's last desperate move. Really I think the issue isn't so much that Sherlock shot and killed the villain its that the set up to get to that point wasn't quite strong enough. If we'd more explicitly seen Sherlock's clever plan to bring him down fall apart you get a clearer picture of him being backed into a corner with no other way out. He'll just keep flicking John because Sherlock doesn't have clever plan to get them out of it.
Mary as an ex-CIA assassin felt about as believable as her winning a Luther Vandross look-alike competition. Was really hoping she died as she upsets the dynamic. Is there as big a buzz online about how Moriarty survived his head being blown off as there was about Sherlock and the roof jump?
I see what you did there.:D
Compared to the literally hundreds of posts which were made on here, speculating about how Sherlock survived the 'fall' at the end of series 2, sweet FA. People won't be fooled again.;-) I think most are convinced that it's just Moriarty's brother - again a bit of a weak cliffhanger, if true.
I still feel disappointed about the feeble 'resolution' that we've so far been offered for Sherlock surviving the fall. Perhaps the writers will return to it in series 4? If so, then they're referring back to something that happpened at least a full series ago - surely they wouldn't attempt that?
Series 3 has been good telly, no doubt but it simply hasn't hit the heights of the first 2 series. Too self-referential, feeble 'comedy' moments (Christ, that elephant in the room 'gag' - what was the editor thinking?), the laboured humanisation of Holmes, the sentimentality...
Episode 3 did go some way towards redressing the balance by having more of what made the previous series good but it always had a long way to go.
Whoops, better add 'IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE' just in case it sets the fanboys off again.:D
I thought she shot him where she did because just knocking him out wouldn't have given her the time to get out, get home and then get Sherlock alone for the "don't tell John" conversation.
If she had just knocked him out then he would have come round pretty soon afterwards and told John what had happened straight away.
She had to shoot him where she did to buy herself enough time.
By shooting him, she ran the risk of Sherlock staying conscious long enough to tell Watson.
But i agree it's a difficult one; either way is very risky.
By shooting him, she ran the risk of Sherlock staying conscious long enough to tell Watson.
But i agree it's a difficult one; either way is very risky.
I think it's just one of the unrealistic tropes that you always get when firearms are portrayed on TV and in films. There's no reason whatsoever why someone shot in the abdomen would become immediately incapable of speech or unconscious but we've become accustomed to seeing it.
Then again, someone like Sherlock (who knows a thing or two about firearms) would know that a bullet from a small calibre pistol like that, especially through a silencer (which slows the bullet to a subsonic speed) would never pass through his body at that range so he wouldn't have to mentally check whether it had or not.
As I say, there are acceptable TV tropes for these things so I'm OK with it.
In the scene where Magnusson went to see Sherlock and John, Magnusson said to Sherlock he would give him a head start, then proceeded to wee into the fireplace. Could Magnusson have left the tissue he wiped his hands with and his wee as some kind of evidence for Sherlock to test.
I deduce Magnusson could have been seriously ill and possibly dying,maybe Magnusson persuaded Sherlock to visit him because Magnusson wanted Sherlock to be Magnusson's hero.
[QUOTE=DerekPAgain;70812810Mind you we never really did resolve exactly what happened on the roof at St Barts - arguably Moriarty had to make Sherlock believe he was dead to get him to jump.[/QUOTE]
I thought it odd at the time that Holmes did not examine Moriarty's body just to make sure. To do so would, after all, have been elementary...
Compared to the literally hundreds of posts which were made on here, speculating about how Sherlock survived the 'fall' at the end of series 2, sweet FA. People won't be fooled again.;-) I think most are convinced that it's just Moriarty's brother - again a bit of a weak cliffhanger, if true.
I still feel disappointed about the feeble 'resolution' that we've so far been offered for Sherlock surviving the fall. Perhaps the writers will return to it in series 4? If so, then they're referring back to something that happpened at least a full series ago - surely they wouldn't attempt that?
Series 3 has been good telly, no doubt but it simply hasn't hit the heights of the first 2 series. Too self-referential, feeble 'comedy' moments (Christ, that elephant in the room 'gag' - what was the editor thinking?), the laboured humanisation of Holmes, the sentimentality...
Episode 3 did go some way towards redressing the balance by having more of what made the previous series good but it always had a long way to go.
Whoops, better add 'IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE' just in case it sets the fanboys off again.:D
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the explanation for how Sherlock survived the fall.
It is really just a trick, how would any magician or stunt man set this trick up.
I cant think of a safer way to jump off a large building.lol.
If we are too believe Moriarty is dead then the only people too worry about are the hit men.
take them out of the equation then the explanation is fine, we all wanted something a bit more spectacular i agree but i imagine if it had been then people would be arguing why didn't Sherlock just have a big bag to break his fall.
We still wont know the full explanation till Sherlock tells Watson.
Cant help thinking of Johnathan Creek and how he tells us you don't want to know how he did it, it is always banal. it's not spectacular just a simple little trick that will be a let down once you know how it's done.
I think it's just one of the unrealistic tropes that you always get when firearms are portrayed on TV and in films. There's no reason whatsoever why someone shot in the abdomen would become immediately incapable of speech or unconscious but we've become accustomed to seeing it.
Then again, someone like Sherlock (who knows a thing or two about firearms) would know that a bullet from a small calibre pistol like that, especially through a silencer (which slows the bullet to a subsonic speed) would never pass through his body at that range so he wouldn't have to mentally check whether it had or not.
As I say, there are acceptable TV tropes for these things so I'm OK with it.
it wouldn't slow the bullet, but you would use subsonic ammo in the first place together with the silencer (or moderator to be exact) to reduce the noise.
The thing I'm struggling to understand is why Mycroft had to send Sherlock into exile. Surely, with all his contacts and power he could have found a way to hush up who killed Magnussun or pin the blame on another criminal? He was quick enough to threaten Anderson and that other policewoman when they were at 221b.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the explanation for how Sherlock survived the fall.
It is really just a trick, how would any magician or stunt man set this trick up.
I cant think of a safer way to jump off a large building.lol.
If we are too believe Moriarty is dead then the only people too worry about are the hit men.
take them out of the equation then the explanation is fine, we all wanted something a bit more spectacular i agree but i imagine if it had been then people would be arguing why didn't Sherlock just have a big bag to break his fall.
We still wont know the full explanation till Sherlock tells Watson.
Cant help thinking of Johnathan Creek and how he tells us you don't want to know how he did it, it is always banal. it's not spectacular just a simple little trick that will be a let down once you know how it's done.
That's exactly the problem I have with it. Why on earth does Sherlock have to jump at all if Mycroft has the men and resources to cover every potential sniping point (including those vantage points with a view of the airbag) and thus has already prevented Watson getting shot?
Is it because Sherlock thought he might have to also fool Moriarty because he didn't know that Moriarty would kill himself? But that doesn't work either because what would have stopped Moriarty from seeing the airbag if he had remained alive?
If the over-arching requirement was simply for Holmes to be believed dead (so that he could destroy Moriarty's network) there were a load of other ways to achieve it.
Sorry if it's been covered before but it is bugging me...
That's exactly the problem I have with it. Why on earth does Sherlock have to jump at all if Mycroft has the men and resources to cover every potential sniping point (including those vantage points with a view of the airbag) and thus has already prevented Watson getting shot?
Is it because Sherlock thought he might have to also fool Moriarty because he didn't know that Moriarty would kill himself? But that doesn't work either because what would have stopped Moriarty from seeing the airbag if he had remained alive?
If the over-arching requirement was simply for Holmes to be believed dead (so that he could destroy Moriarty's network) there were a load of other ways to achieve it.
Sorry if it's been covered before it is bugging me...
No it's a good point, no argument with the logic either.
Sherlock cant be sure if all the hit men have been covered though, Mycroft cant inform him of this as he is unaware of Moriarties suicide and is concerned what Moriarties reaction would be to this news.
Comments
Continuing the charade that CAM was top dog, to keep CAM overconfident and off his guard. If he had jumped in the air and shouted "yes!" when CAM said it was all in his head, then CAM might just have killed Sherlock before Sherlock could kill him.
Edit. ...and of course to keep us the viewer on edge before the final scenes outside with the helicopter.
Sorry - me again
But yes, to all of this!
Keeping the viewer fooled as well as (usually) Watson and the Villain is a device used a lot in Sherlock - IMO, it's not something that's always particularly well done, because often, instead of a collective "OH, OF COURSE!!"
at the reveal, there's a collective "Huh? But then how come X did Y?!":D
They call it "making money".
Others call it "making shit",urban slang.
It might look different but it isnt.
At least we see one of them doing it in this episode.
The only way out this season is for sherlock to shoot Magnussen.
In each case nothing else will do...the criminal has to die.
Its physical and messy,cant THINK another way out.
Its brutal isnt it....
Perhaps, but here are smarter ways of doing it. As I said in my previous post - Compare it to how Walter White gets Gus Fring at the end of S4 of breaking bad. Walter used psychology, technology, forged an alliance with an enemy, analysed Fring's weak spots. Result: unexpected & satisfying, even though it ultimately came down to blowing Fring up.
Him working out how to defeat Fring pretty much came in the last episode of the series. It didn't take up much screen time. Moffatt had 90 minutes - there are shorter films. And it's not like it was a lean 90 mins either - stuff could have been cut.
I realise that this series hasn't quite been to everybody's taste, but I do think that the acting has been outstanding.
I am just wondering what the final viewing figures will be for this series. All three episodes are still in the top 10 most watched on i-player, and I read somewhere that episode 1 has reached around 13 million.:)
Mary shooting Sherlock: i agree, she could have shot him in the leg and knocked him out. But then, we wouldn't have had the wonderful scene of him in his mand palace looking for infos to survive. Plotwise, not good but as a visual exercise, wonderful. Magnussen already knew the links between Sherlock and Mary, as was explained later, there was no link to protect.
Weapons search at Magnussen's: illogical. Of course, they would have been search, specially after the first time they searched, they found weapons on Watson.
Watson's gun: Sherlock asks him to bring it and then confirms not only if he brought it but also exactly where it is. Not sure anymore if Sherlock shot Magnussen as a last resort. I think that was is back-up plan (as shown by his reaction; god, i'm going to have to shoot him) At the cantine, he seemed to me to be playing the game to lure Magnussen into a false sens of security (not enough to not search them later though
But it's all based on what a specific person would do, therfore subjective even if based on facts and probabilities. I enjoy the more characters driven series 3 but it makes it more difficult to clockwork a story.
For exemple, i would have said to Magnussen 'show the proof or piss off'. Would have done that even if in a position of power, but that's me. Then again, with my independant character, i wouldn't go too high in the governement ladder, they don't like people who stands up for principle and honor !
Sherlock has a very powerful brother, CAM had many powerful enemies. that's enough for me, that's how it works in real life never mind fiction.
Hope am wrong but why would Moriarty suddenly appear now.
Shouldn't he have arranged other hit men to kill Sherlock's friends as soon as it became known Sherlock was still alive.
I hope Morriarty is still alive and never intended to kill Watson etc, he just wanted to beat Sherlock and knows the threat of killing Sherlocks friends is still more important than actually killing them.
I think everyone is just gobsmacked by the audacity of the writers to try to bring off two ressurections in consecutive series.
Mind you we never really did resolve exactly what happened on the roof at St Barts - arguably Moriarty had to make Sherlock believe he was dead to get him to jump. If he wasn't dead then Sherlock could have proven his innocence/ bargained for his life against Moriarty's as per end of series one.
Of course actually being dead is the best way to do this but Moriarty is as clever as Sherlock and had more resources. So maybe .........
I thought she shot him where she did because just knocking him out wouldn't have given her the time to get out, get home and then get Sherlock alone for the "don't tell John" conversation.
If she had just knocked him out then he would have come round pretty soon afterwards and told John what had happened straight away.
She had to shoot him where she did to buy herself enough time.
Having said that I think a 'smarter' ending to the central story of His Last Vow would have maybe missed the point of what they were trying to go for. That it was Sherlock's last desperate move. Really I think the issue isn't so much that Sherlock shot and killed the villain its that the set up to get to that point wasn't quite strong enough. If we'd more explicitly seen Sherlock's clever plan to bring him down fall apart you get a clearer picture of him being backed into a corner with no other way out. He'll just keep flicking John because Sherlock doesn't have clever plan to get them out of it.
I see what you did there.:D
Compared to the literally hundreds of posts which were made on here, speculating about how Sherlock survived the 'fall' at the end of series 2, sweet FA. People won't be fooled again.;-) I think most are convinced that it's just Moriarty's brother - again a bit of a weak cliffhanger, if true.
I still feel disappointed about the feeble 'resolution' that we've so far been offered for Sherlock surviving the fall. Perhaps the writers will return to it in series 4? If so, then they're referring back to something that happpened at least a full series ago - surely they wouldn't attempt that?
Series 3 has been good telly, no doubt but it simply hasn't hit the heights of the first 2 series. Too self-referential, feeble 'comedy' moments (Christ, that elephant in the room 'gag' - what was the editor thinking?), the laboured humanisation of Holmes, the sentimentality...
Episode 3 did go some way towards redressing the balance by having more of what made the previous series good but it always had a long way to go.
Whoops, better add 'IN MY OPINION, OF COURSE' just in case it sets the fanboys off again.:D
By shooting him, she ran the risk of Sherlock staying conscious long enough to tell Watson.
But i agree it's a difficult one; either way is very risky.
I think it's just one of the unrealistic tropes that you always get when firearms are portrayed on TV and in films. There's no reason whatsoever why someone shot in the abdomen would become immediately incapable of speech or unconscious but we've become accustomed to seeing it.
Then again, someone like Sherlock (who knows a thing or two about firearms) would know that a bullet from a small calibre pistol like that, especially through a silencer (which slows the bullet to a subsonic speed) would never pass through his body at that range so he wouldn't have to mentally check whether it had or not.
As I say, there are acceptable TV tropes for these things so I'm OK with it.
I deduce Magnusson could have been seriously ill and possibly dying,maybe Magnusson persuaded Sherlock to visit him because Magnusson wanted Sherlock to be Magnusson's hero.
I thought it odd at the time that Holmes did not examine Moriarty's body just to make sure. To do so would, after all, have been elementary...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the explanation for how Sherlock survived the fall.
It is really just a trick, how would any magician or stunt man set this trick up.
I cant think of a safer way to jump off a large building.lol.
If we are too believe Moriarty is dead then the only people too worry about are the hit men.
take them out of the equation then the explanation is fine, we all wanted something a bit more spectacular i agree but i imagine if it had been then people would be arguing why didn't Sherlock just have a big bag to break his fall.
We still wont know the full explanation till Sherlock tells Watson.
Cant help thinking of Johnathan Creek and how he tells us you don't want to know how he did it, it is always banal. it's not spectacular just a simple little trick that will be a let down once you know how it's done.
it wouldn't slow the bullet, but you would use subsonic ammo in the first place together with the silencer (or moderator to be exact) to reduce the noise.
That's exactly the problem I have with it. Why on earth does Sherlock have to jump at all if Mycroft has the men and resources to cover every potential sniping point (including those vantage points with a view of the airbag) and thus has already prevented Watson getting shot?
Is it because Sherlock thought he might have to also fool Moriarty because he didn't know that Moriarty would kill himself? But that doesn't work either because what would have stopped Moriarty from seeing the airbag if he had remained alive?
If the over-arching requirement was simply for Holmes to be believed dead (so that he could destroy Moriarty's network) there were a load of other ways to achieve it.
Sorry if it's been covered before but it is bugging me...
No it's a good point, no argument with the logic either.
Sherlock cant be sure if all the hit men have been covered though, Mycroft cant inform him of this as he is unaware of Moriarties suicide and is concerned what Moriarties reaction would be to this news.