I don't like Mary as I feel it was unnecessary for her to attempt to kill Sherlock. After all, as someone else pointed out, she didn't know he was going to survive because of John. She could have shot him in the leg and then knocked him unconscious like she did Janine.
I enjoy the interactions between John and Sherlock and Mary has spoiled this. For me anyhow. I feel the writers have expanded her part too much in order to give Amanda Abbington a larger role. She is a capable actress although rather plain to look at, not that that has anything to do with her acting of course, but I have now seen enough of Mary, too much in fact.
I may be totally wrong about everything but that is how I feel.
I don't like Mary as I feel it was unnecessary for her to attempt to kill Sherlock. After all, as someone else pointed out, she didn't know he was going to survive because of John. She could have shot him in the leg and then knocked him unconscious like she did Janine.
I enjoy the interactions between John and Sherlock and Mary has spoiled this. For me anyhow. I feel the writers have expanded her part too much in order to give Amanda Abbington a larger role. She is a capable actress although rather plain to look at, not that that has anything to do with her acting of course, but I have now seen enough of Mary, too much in fact.
I may be totally wrong about everything but that is how I feel.
Just the mere fact you thought it remotely relevant to mention her looks means I can easily disregard your entire contribution here.
Shame, you might have had some worthy points to discuss, had it not been for that.
Entertainment is subjective. No show is better than any other, you enjoy it in your own way. It doesn't make someone an 'imbecile' for having different preferences.
I love Sherlock. I can watch Celebrity Big Brother (but wouldn't go out of my way to). Would that make me a half imbecile?
Rest assured that thinking Sherlock is the worst show ever and thinking CBB is amazing does not in itself make you an imbecile in my opinion. Mr O Sullivan has provided me with *plenty* of other evidence for that conclusion though
Just the mere fact you thought it remotely relevant to mention her looks means I can easily disregard your entire contribution here.
Shame, you might have had some worthy points to discuss, had it not been for that.
I did say afterward it had nothing to do with her acting. I think Martin is somewhat plain too. Most of the cast, in fact look quite ordinary, which makes things more realistic to me. Except BC who definitely does not look ordinary, which suites the character.
I have now put you on my ignore list, so you can put me on your ignore list and everyone will be happy. OK? And if one statement puts you off a whole post you must have quite a difficult life. Sorry. Sorry. KYA.
Massive plot hole. The only one I have any real problem with. There's no way they'd be frisked at their own place, but not frisked when entering the villain's stronghold. None whatsoever.
As I see it, they were frisked at Baker Street, as part of CAM's way of showing he was boss, could come and go as he pleased and was able to pee in someone's fireplace if he so wished.
By the time they reached Appledore, CAM was so sure of himself that he let his guard down. Sherlock had taken on the role of being second best, ie by pretending that he thought the glasses were important, by basically begging to be able to visit Appledore, and by offering up Mycroft's laptop in the knowledge that CAM would know about the GPS. CAM felt perfectly safe. I agree that once he had admitted that it was all in his memory, he was at risk, but he was so caught up in his own invincibility that he didn't see that. Sherlock had in effect goaded CAM into showing off even more and opening himself up. He wasn't expecting to be shot, so why bother searching Holmes & Watson.
I don't like Mary as I feel it was unnecessary for her to attempt to kill Sherlock. After all, as someone else pointed out, she didn't know he was going to survive because of John. She could have shot him in the leg and then knocked him unconscious like she did Janine.
I enjoy the interactions between John and Sherlock and Mary has spoiled this. For me anyhow. I feel the writers have expanded her part too much in order to give Amanda Abbington a larger role. She is a capable actress although rather plain to look at, not that that has anything to do with her acting of course, but I have now seen enough of Mary, too much in fact.
I may be totally wrong about everything but that is how I feel.
As I understand it, he didn't survive because of John, he survived because she phoned for an ambulance. I thought Sherlock specifically said this, to explain that she in fact saved his life, in that she shot him in a way that he could survive, but only because there was a quick response by the ambulance, which she called. If she had intended to kill him, he would be dead. If she can hit a 50 pence piece thrown up in the air, she can shoot someone who is anly 2 or 3 metres away through the head.
I did say afterward it had nothing to do with her acting. I think Martin is somewhat plain too. Most of the cast, in fact look quite ordinary, which makes things more realistic to me. Except BC who definitely does not look ordinary, which suites the character.
I have now put you on my ignore list, so you can put me on your ignore list and everyone will be happy. OK? And if one statement puts you off a whole post you must have quite a difficult life. Sorry. Sorry. KYA.
Not that you'll see this, but I think that bringing up the physical attractiveness of an actress is completely irrelevant and so yeah I'm happy to disregard you. You can qualify it all you like, the only real qualification is not to mention it.
As I see it, they were frisked at Baker Street, as part of CAM's way of showing he was boss, could come and go as he pleased and was able to pee in someone's fireplace if he so wished.
By the time they reached Appledore, CAM was so sure of himself that he let his guard down. Sherlock had taken on the role of being second best, ie by pretending that he thought the glasses were important, by basically begging to be able to visit Appledore, and by offering up Mycroft's laptop in the knowledge that CAM would know about the GPS. CAM felt perfectly safe. I agree that once he had admitted that it was all in his memory, he was at risk, but he was so caught up in his own invincibility that he didn't see that. Sherlock had in effect goaded CAM into showing off even more and opening himself up. He wasn't expecting to be shot, so why bother searching Holmes & Watson.
Yes but his goons won't have known all that. I'd have thought it was standard procedure for them to frisk people going with them to the boss's house, and didn't think he'd specify to them to not frisk them any more because he's too confident in his having won over Sherlock…
Ah it doesn't matter really, every show ever made relies on at least one convenient suspension of disbelief!
As I understand it, he didn't survive because of John, he survived because she phoned for an ambulance. I thought Sherlock specifically said this, to explain that she in fact saved his life, in that she shot him in a way that he could survive, but only because there was a quick response by the ambulance, which she called. If she had intended to kill him, he would be dead. If she can hit a 50 pence piece thrown up in the air, she can shoot someone who is anly 2 or 3 metres away through the head.
But it was still a bit of a gamble?
She wasn't to know that the ambulance would get there in time to save him - she could only hope they would.
Surely it would've been safer to shoot him in the leg?
I realise the severity of it was to misdirect the viewers into thinking she was evil, but because of the way she went about it, it's made it difficult for some viewers to accept the reveal that she's actually one of the good guys.
Personally, I'm not sure about her, but I won't be surprised if there's another twist to come - mainly because, as I said before - Sherlock's behaviour towards her doesn't sit right; he's too warm with her, imo.
Resolving the story by having Sherlock shoot Magnusson was lazy and unsatisfying to me.
For one, the whole point of Sherlock is he's supposed to be really clever. Any cop show or movie can end with the hero simply shooting the villain – Sherlock's supposed to outsmart people.
For two, as others have pointed out, Sherlock's victory relied purely on Magnusson's men failing to search the two of them for weapons. At the very least Moffat could have come up with a clever way for them to have smuggled a weapon in without being detected.
Why would they make an exception for Watson and Sherlock? When you have someone under your thumb, as Magnusson believed he did, is precisely when they become most desperate and therefore dangerous – that's the time he would have been extra on his guard against them resorting to desperate measures like simply shooting him, especially once he'd admitted the only information against them was in his head.
And the fact that Sherlock DID almost die shows that, yes, it was a HUGE gamble for Mary to shoot Sherlock. She could have kneecapped him and still left him incapacitated. She could have shot Magnusson and relied on Janine and the other guard to confirm that they were knocked out before Watson had entered the building.
But it was still a bit of a gamble?
She wasn't to know that the ambulance would get there in time to save him - she could only hope they would.
Surely it would've been safer to shoot him in the leg?
I realise the severity of it was to misdirect the viewers into thinking she was evil, but because of the way she went about it, it's made it difficult for some viewers to accept the reveal that she's actually one of the good guys.
Personally, I'm not sure about her, but I won't be surprised if there's another twist to come - mainly because, as I said before - Sherlock's behaviour towards her doesn't sit right; he's too warm with her, imo.
Mmm I was very hazy on the whole "how on earth did she know the ambulance would get there *just* in time?" thing, and even then if he hadn't done his Mind Palace stuff to determine the best way to fall she might have got it wrong.
Whenever a film or drama employs a villainous plan that relies on numerous elements that the villain simply cannot count on going their way I start getting a bit fidgety. Pretty much the entirety of the Joker's villainous schemes in that second Dark Knight film relies on a whole bunch of things he couldn't possibly predict with certainty happening in a very specific order to a very particular schedule, all very silly indeed.
Resolving the story by having Sherlock shoot Magnusson was lazy and unsatisfying to me.
For one, the whole point of Sherlock is he's supposed to be really clever. Any cop show or movie can end with the hero simply shooting the villain – Sherlock's supposed to outsmart people.
For two, as others have pointed out, Sherlock's victory relied purely on Magnusson's men failing to search the two of them for weapons. At the very least Moffat could have come up with a clever way for them to have smuggled a weapon in without being detected.
Why would they make an exception for Watson and Sherlock? When you have someone under your thumb, as Magnusson believed he did, is precisely when they become most desperate and therefore dangerous – that's the time he would have been extra on his guard against them resorting to desperate measures like simply shooting him, especially once he'd admitted the only information against them was in his head.
I think we have to let the lack of gun-frisk go. Same as we have to let the "how did she know the ambulance would get there just in time?" thing go. It's a shame that we have to let stuff like that go, but it's just one of those things really. Never mind.
I do think the discussion of whether Sherlock killing CAM was 'right' is an interesting one. I don't think from a writers point of view it was that lazy: by that point I don't think there was any other alternative at all. I can't think of a clever way they could absolutely stop him. Maybe slow him down, but as Sherlock said, with no hard copies and everything in his head, killing him is the *only* way to guarantee the end of the blackmailing. He did it for John first, and Mary second.
And yes it was shocking and not very Sherlock - that I think is part of the appeal in having it end that way: even Sherlock is trumped sometimes. I'd expect/hope for there to be a fair bit in the way of repercussions for him in the next series - both psychological (killing someone takes its toll, even on so-called-sociopathic genius detectives) and Mycroft-related.
peeing is male territorial behaviour.
He is just marking his territory like any other animal, and no one stopped him, so it proved his dominance.
He might look like a business man but in reality hes just an animal.
I think we have to let the lack of gun-frisk go. Same as we have to let the "how did she know the ambulance would get there just in time?" thing go. It's a shame that we have to let stuff like that go, but it's just one of those things really. Never mind.
I do think the discussion of whether Sherlock killing CAM was 'right' is an interesting one. I don't think from a writers point of view it was that lazy: by that point I don't think there was any other alternative at all. I can't think of a clever way they could absolutely stop him. Maybe slow him down, but as Sherlock said, with no hard copies and everything in his head, killing him is the *only* way to guarantee the end of the blackmailing. He did it for John first, and Mary second.
And yes it was shocking and not very Sherlock - that I think is part of the appeal in having it end that way: even Sherlock is trumped sometimes. I'd expect/hope for there to be a fair bit in the way of repercussions for him in the next series - both psychological (killing someone takes its toll, even on so-called-sociopathic genius detectives) and Mycroft-related.
We'll have to see!
I liked the concept - Sherlock is so sure that he is superior to almost everyone that he could not conceive of Magnussen actually being his intellectual equal. So the solution - brute force - was the only one available to him. And that will have consequences as you say.
I agree on the two big plot holes - unsatisfying but I'll let them go for the sheer joy of the deeper investigation into what makes Sherlock tick in series three.
One thing that bothered me was why Sherlock had to announce to Mycroft that the only copy of Appledore was in Magnussen's head. What difference would it make to Mycroft? Unless Sherlock genuinely believed Mycroft would take Magnussen down.
peeing is male territorial behaviour.
He is just marking his territory like any other animal, and no one stopped him, so it proved his dominance.
He might look like a business man but in reality hes just an animal.
I liked the concept - Sherlock is so sure that he is superior to almost everyone that he could not conceive of Magnussen actually being his intellectual equal. So the solution - brute force - was the only one available to him. And that will have consequences as you say.
I agree on the two big plot holes - unsatisfying but I'll let them go for the sheer joy of the deeper investigation into what makes Sherlock tick in series three.
One thing that bothered me was why Sherlock had to announce to Mycroft that the only copy of Appledore was in Magnussen's head. What difference would it make to Mycroft? Unless Sherlock genuinely believed Mycroft would take Magnussen down.
do you mean when the helicopter was hovering at the end ? because that seemed odd to me , it was as if Sherlock knew Mycroft could hear their conversation , but could he ? was Sherlock wearing a mic ?
Actually there is a dearth of peeing scenes by powerful villains in the history of drama. It really is more associated with a certain working class behaviour than anything else.
And I throw the gauntlet down to anyone wishing to explain why Sherlock (or anyone) should not have shot Magnusson dead after the reveal.
I feel like the only way to stop CAM was to kill him. He was dangerous because of all the information he knew and the only way to stop him was to destroy that information. Other criminals you can lock up and take away their power and network, but his power was always inside him.
I got the impression that while Sherlock stood back and allowed CAM to flick Watson as much as he liked, that Sherlock was assessing the situation and his options. And yeah, I do think that shooting and killing CAM was the only option left to Sherlock to protect Mary and stop CAM in the long run (well killing him or some sort of serious brain damage with long term memory loss but that's a very difficult thing to induce in someone).
Sherlock and Watson went to see CAM in order to retrieve the information he had on Mary and ensure he never used it against her. It might have been blunt but mission accomplished.
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.
But it was still a bit of a gamble?
She wasn't to know that the ambulance would get there in time to save him - she could only hope they would.
Surely it would've been safer to shoot him in the leg?
I realise the severity of it was to misdirect the viewers into thinking she was evil, but because of the way she went about it, it's made it difficult for some viewers to accept the reveal that she's actually one of the good guys.
Personally, I'm not sure about her, but I won't be surprised if there's another twist to come - mainly because, as I said before - Sherlock's behaviour towards her doesn't sit right; he's too warm with her, imo.
Yes it was to fool the viewers, but the story was that it was also to fool CAM. As I remember it, once she knew that Watson was in the building (remember, she specifically asked), she had to get away so that he wouldn't find out about her past. If she was in league with Sherlock, CAM would know this if all she did was wound him. So she had to kill him, or at least look like she really tried to. But she couldn't kill CAM because she assumed that killing him would result in the secret being out. (When Sherlock arrived, I think she was trying to find out where CAM's files on her were kept).
Well the whole plot depended on it. It depended on CAM making a really stupid mistake. It's not that Sherlock did anything clever, just that CAM did something really stupid. Anyone could have killed him at any time, after he failed to check they weren't armed. And it's not even like Sherlock did it in any kind of clever way such that he'd be protected from the consequences.
Compare it to how Walter White gets Gus Fring at the end of Breaking Bad Season Four – that took planning, psychology and smarts, seeking out Gus's weakness, in a believable way that surprised.
I liked the concept - Sherlock is so sure that he is superior to almost everyone that he could not conceive of Magnussen actually being his intellectual equal. So the solution - brute force - was the only one available to him. And that will have consequences as you say.
I agree on the two big plot holes - unsatisfying but I'll let them go for the sheer joy of the deeper investigation into what makes Sherlock tick in series three.
One thing that bothered me was why Sherlock had to announce to Mycroft that the only copy of Appledore was in Magnussen's head. What difference would it make to Mycroft? Unless Sherlock genuinely believed Mycroft would take Magnussen down.
I think we have to let the lack of gun-frisk go. Same as we have to let the "how did she know the ambulance would get there just in time?" thing go. It's a shame that we have to let stuff like that go, but it's just one of those things really. Never mind.
I do think the discussion of whether Sherlock killing CAM was 'right' is an interesting one. I don't think from a writers point of view it was that lazy: by that point I don't think there was any other alternative at all. I can't think of a clever way they could absolutely stop him. Maybe slow him down, but as Sherlock said, with no hard copies and everything in his head, killing him is the *only* way to guarantee the end of the blackmailing. He did it for John first, and Mary second.
And yes it was shocking and not very Sherlock - that I think is part of the appeal in having it end that way: even Sherlock is trumped sometimes. I'd expect/hope for there to be a fair bit in the way of repercussions for him in the next series - both psychological (killing someone takes its toll, even on so-called-sociopathic genius detectives) and Mycroft-related.
We'll have to see!
I agree with most of what you say there.
I think if you've watched and enjoyed something then you have to see it as good TV and let certain things go.
I did watch and enjoy this episode - not so much the previous one - and so, for me, it still rates as a great episode.
In fact the very fact that I'm still thinking - and posting - about it, also makes it, for me, a great episode.
It's just that since watching it and after reading the some of the comments on here, I'm realising that there were a great number of plot holes and inconsistencies that have me thinking the whole season was a simply a scene setter for a big reveal next season?
I completely understand those who hated the episode or don't like what the show has become.
For me though, there are so many positives.
I love the relationship between Sherlock and John and Sherlock's apparent bewilderment/gratitude at John considering him a friend.
I'm intrigued by Mycroft and Sherlock's relationship and want to find out more about how far Mycroft has gone to protect his Brother.
I thought Mary was a great addition but I'm now hoping her story has yet to be resolved because otherwise, admittedly, that plot line is now looking a little bungled.
I'd like to see more of Lestrade next time, and possibly at least one fairly straight forward crime to solve (like Study in Pink)
And I hope there's a very good reason for Moriarty's return, as I'm not too keen on resurrections - even of characters I like, and I don't particularly like Jim!
Sorry - long, waffly post and I should probably make it my last, for fear of becoming obsessive
Like I said - very unlike me to be dwelling on an episode of a show 2 days later!
A) - Mycroft probably couldn't hear him - Why would Sherlock believe he had to justify himself, he's right
C) - Sherlock already knows Mycroft won't execute him outright.
If anything it was a redundant line to the viewer - unless Sherlock and Mycroft had an "understanding"
Comments
I enjoy the interactions between John and Sherlock and Mary has spoiled this. For me anyhow. I feel the writers have expanded her part too much in order to give Amanda Abbington a larger role. She is a capable actress although rather plain to look at, not that that has anything to do with her acting of course, but I have now seen enough of Mary, too much in fact.
I may be totally wrong about everything but that is how I feel.
Yes, I totally agree. I hope we've seen her for the last time!
Just the mere fact you thought it remotely relevant to mention her looks means I can easily disregard your entire contribution here.
Shame, you might have had some worthy points to discuss, had it not been for that.
Rest assured that thinking Sherlock is the worst show ever and thinking CBB is amazing does not in itself make you an imbecile in my opinion. Mr O Sullivan has provided me with *plenty* of other evidence for that conclusion though
I did say afterward it had nothing to do with her acting. I think Martin is somewhat plain too. Most of the cast, in fact look quite ordinary, which makes things more realistic to me. Except BC who definitely does not look ordinary, which suites the character.
I have now put you on my ignore list, so you can put me on your ignore list and everyone will be happy. OK? And if one statement puts you off a whole post you must have quite a difficult life. Sorry. Sorry. KYA.
As I see it, they were frisked at Baker Street, as part of CAM's way of showing he was boss, could come and go as he pleased and was able to pee in someone's fireplace if he so wished.
By the time they reached Appledore, CAM was so sure of himself that he let his guard down. Sherlock had taken on the role of being second best, ie by pretending that he thought the glasses were important, by basically begging to be able to visit Appledore, and by offering up Mycroft's laptop in the knowledge that CAM would know about the GPS. CAM felt perfectly safe. I agree that once he had admitted that it was all in his memory, he was at risk, but he was so caught up in his own invincibility that he didn't see that. Sherlock had in effect goaded CAM into showing off even more and opening himself up. He wasn't expecting to be shot, so why bother searching Holmes & Watson.
As I understand it, he didn't survive because of John, he survived because she phoned for an ambulance. I thought Sherlock specifically said this, to explain that she in fact saved his life, in that she shot him in a way that he could survive, but only because there was a quick response by the ambulance, which she called. If she had intended to kill him, he would be dead. If she can hit a 50 pence piece thrown up in the air, she can shoot someone who is anly 2 or 3 metres away through the head.
Not that you'll see this, but I think that bringing up the physical attractiveness of an actress is completely irrelevant and so yeah I'm happy to disregard you. You can qualify it all you like, the only real qualification is not to mention it.
Yes but his goons won't have known all that. I'd have thought it was standard procedure for them to frisk people going with them to the boss's house, and didn't think he'd specify to them to not frisk them any more because he's too confident in his having won over Sherlock…
Ah it doesn't matter really, every show ever made relies on at least one convenient suspension of disbelief!
She wasn't to know that the ambulance would get there in time to save him - she could only hope they would.
Surely it would've been safer to shoot him in the leg?
I realise the severity of it was to misdirect the viewers into thinking she was evil, but because of the way she went about it, it's made it difficult for some viewers to accept the reveal that she's actually one of the good guys.
Personally, I'm not sure about her, but I won't be surprised if there's another twist to come - mainly because, as I said before - Sherlock's behaviour towards her doesn't sit right; he's too warm with her, imo.
For one, the whole point of Sherlock is he's supposed to be really clever. Any cop show or movie can end with the hero simply shooting the villain – Sherlock's supposed to outsmart people.
For two, as others have pointed out, Sherlock's victory relied purely on Magnusson's men failing to search the two of them for weapons. At the very least Moffat could have come up with a clever way for them to have smuggled a weapon in without being detected.
Why would they make an exception for Watson and Sherlock? When you have someone under your thumb, as Magnusson believed he did, is precisely when they become most desperate and therefore dangerous – that's the time he would have been extra on his guard against them resorting to desperate measures like simply shooting him, especially once he'd admitted the only information against them was in his head.
And the fact that Sherlock DID almost die shows that, yes, it was a HUGE gamble for Mary to shoot Sherlock. She could have kneecapped him and still left him incapacitated. She could have shot Magnusson and relied on Janine and the other guard to confirm that they were knocked out before Watson had entered the building.
Mmm I was very hazy on the whole "how on earth did she know the ambulance would get there *just* in time?" thing, and even then if he hadn't done his Mind Palace stuff to determine the best way to fall she might have got it wrong.
Whenever a film or drama employs a villainous plan that relies on numerous elements that the villain simply cannot count on going their way I start getting a bit fidgety. Pretty much the entirety of the Joker's villainous schemes in that second Dark Knight film relies on a whole bunch of things he couldn't possibly predict with certainty happening in a very specific order to a very particular schedule, all very silly indeed.
This was kind of like that. Ah well.
I think we have to let the lack of gun-frisk go. Same as we have to let the "how did she know the ambulance would get there just in time?" thing go. It's a shame that we have to let stuff like that go, but it's just one of those things really. Never mind.
I do think the discussion of whether Sherlock killing CAM was 'right' is an interesting one. I don't think from a writers point of view it was that lazy: by that point I don't think there was any other alternative at all. I can't think of a clever way they could absolutely stop him. Maybe slow him down, but as Sherlock said, with no hard copies and everything in his head, killing him is the *only* way to guarantee the end of the blackmailing. He did it for John first, and Mary second.
And yes it was shocking and not very Sherlock - that I think is part of the appeal in having it end that way: even Sherlock is trumped sometimes. I'd expect/hope for there to be a fair bit in the way of repercussions for him in the next series - both psychological (killing someone takes its toll, even on so-called-sociopathic genius detectives) and Mycroft-related.
We'll have to see!
He is just marking his territory like any other animal, and no one stopped him, so it proved his dominance.
He might look like a business man but in reality hes just an animal.
I liked the concept - Sherlock is so sure that he is superior to almost everyone that he could not conceive of Magnussen actually being his intellectual equal. So the solution - brute force - was the only one available to him. And that will have consequences as you say.
I agree on the two big plot holes - unsatisfying but I'll let them go for the sheer joy of the deeper investigation into what makes Sherlock tick in series three.
One thing that bothered me was why Sherlock had to announce to Mycroft that the only copy of Appledore was in Magnussen's head. What difference would it make to Mycroft? Unless Sherlock genuinely believed Mycroft would take Magnussen down.
Nailed it.
do you mean when the helicopter was hovering at the end ? because that seemed odd to me , it was as if Sherlock knew Mycroft could hear their conversation , but could he ? was Sherlock wearing a mic ?
.
And I throw the gauntlet down to anyone wishing to explain why Sherlock (or anyone) should not have shot Magnusson dead after the reveal.
I got the impression that while Sherlock stood back and allowed CAM to flick Watson as much as he liked, that Sherlock was assessing the situation and his options. And yeah, I do think that shooting and killing CAM was the only option left to Sherlock to protect Mary and stop CAM in the long run (well killing him or some sort of serious brain damage with long term memory loss but that's a very difficult thing to induce in someone).
Sherlock and Watson went to see CAM in order to retrieve the information he had on Mary and ensure he never used it against her. It might have been blunt but mission accomplished.
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?
Yes it was to fool the viewers, but the story was that it was also to fool CAM. As I remember it, once she knew that Watson was in the building (remember, she specifically asked), she had to get away so that he wouldn't find out about her past. If she was in league with Sherlock, CAM would know this if all she did was wound him. So she had to kill him, or at least look like she really tried to. But she couldn't kill CAM because she assumed that killing him would result in the secret being out. (When Sherlock arrived, I think she was trying to find out where CAM's files on her were kept).
Well the whole plot depended on it. It depended on CAM making a really stupid mistake. It's not that Sherlock did anything clever, just that CAM did something really stupid. Anyone could have killed him at any time, after he failed to check they weren't armed. And it's not even like Sherlock did it in any kind of clever way such that he'd be protected from the consequences.
Compare it to how Walter White gets Gus Fring at the end of Breaking Bad Season Four – that took planning, psychology and smarts, seeking out Gus's weakness, in a believable way that surprised.
It explains and justifies why Sherlock shot him
I agree with most of what you say there.
I think if you've watched and enjoyed something then you have to see it as good TV and let certain things go.
I did watch and enjoy this episode - not so much the previous one - and so, for me, it still rates as a great episode.
In fact the very fact that I'm still thinking - and posting - about it, also makes it, for me, a great episode.
It's just that since watching it and after reading the some of the comments on here, I'm realising that there were a great number of plot holes and inconsistencies that have me thinking the whole season was a simply a scene setter for a big reveal next season?
I completely understand those who hated the episode or don't like what the show has become.
For me though, there are so many positives.
I love the relationship between Sherlock and John and Sherlock's apparent bewilderment/gratitude at John considering him a friend.
I'm intrigued by Mycroft and Sherlock's relationship and want to find out more about how far Mycroft has gone to protect his Brother.
I thought Mary was a great addition but I'm now hoping her story has yet to be resolved because otherwise, admittedly, that plot line is now looking a little bungled.
I'd like to see more of Lestrade next time, and possibly at least one fairly straight forward crime to solve (like Study in Pink)
And I hope there's a very good reason for Moriarty's return, as I'm not too keen on resurrections - even of characters I like, and I don't particularly like Jim!
Sorry - long, waffly post and I should probably make it my last, for fear of becoming obsessive
Like I said - very unlike me to be dwelling on an episode of a show 2 days later!
So what?
A) - Mycroft probably couldn't hear him
C) - Sherlock already knows Mycroft won't execute him outright.
If anything it was a redundant line to the viewer - unless Sherlock and Mycroft had an "understanding"