Sherlock killed Magnusson to prevent him from carrying out his threat to expose Mary's whereabouts to people who want to kill her. That, along with Sherlock's obvious knowledge of how many lives Magnusson has ruined, and can continue to ruin with impunity is a good enough reason for me.

Mary doing it would be a better fit in my opinion.
She's a trained assassin, it's what she does, it would act as a kind of redemption, and fulfills what she was trying to do at the start of the episode.
Narratively I think it's just a much better fit.

"I'll just look the other way and pretend it didn't happen. Just like all the others dear."

David Cameron can be voted out, people who hack phones can be brought to justice the normal way, (and several already have been).

There was no other option to deal with Magnusson, and its not like Sherlock didn't try to look for one. He tried the glasses, he tried to get M to reveal the whereabouts of evidence when he knew the authorities were tracking him. When he was certain that there was nothing that Magnusson could be prosecuted for, and that he was a threat to the life of Watson's pregnant wife, only then did he shoot him.

Its not that much different to Watson's decision to shoot the taxi driver in A Study in Pink. And its no different to Poirot's decision in Curtains.

Mary is a 'nice' assassin.
Meaning that when she kills people they aren't dead, they're just 'mostly dead'.

Yes, I thought Martin Freeman was acting out of his skin in this episode.
I think it was his best episode out of the three.

Not so much nice as competent so if she means to kill you, she does. Ergo, she did not attempt to murder Janine. QED. As for the White Supremacist...who cares!

I didn't say that he was squeamish, it's just that throughout these series Watson tries to do the morally right thing.
But it's not just about assassins, it's about being honest with himself and what he has to live with.

Somebody mentioned an idea from one of the books on the previous page, which sounded good.
It might have been better at the end of this episode that Sherlock is perhaps going to shoot Magnussen, or tells Watson he could finish this now, but Watson stops him. Because he knows that he has to face up to the truth of whatever Mary has done at some point, and to allow a man to die in order to protect him from the truth would be the morally wrong thing to do and a selfish decision he could never agree to.

However all we got was Sherlock just resolving everything by going *Bang*.
There was no moral dilemma at the end. And I think that's maybe what doesn't sit well with me.
It all felt just a little too easy for all involved.

Don't get me wrong. I loved the episode. Fantastic piece of entertainment. Lots of good things about it. Just that there were one or two things at the end which I felt let it down a bit.

So I feel like the odd girl out…

I absolutely adored the first two episodes, and didn’t care too much for this last one. And sadly, this last one somewhat impacts the first two for me (rewatch factor) - just a little. I think that’s the opposite of what they were hoping for, but it isn’t the first time I haven’t fallen in line (nor will it be the last I dare say).

Sherlock didn’t seem like himself in the first two episodes…going all verbal and touchy-feely with his man crush when his affection was previously shown through actions (or inactions/restraint) rather than actual words. He was rather effusive in words and manner regarding his love and admiration for John, which is too far out of character for him in this version.

It all felt so off to me, which I know contradicts my earlier sentiments of loving the first two - but it was the “off” feeling that kept me wholly interested and thinking that the third episode would explain why it was all so darn strange. That it would all make sense, and that it had a purpose. And the first two episodes were very funny - I laughed out loud so many times my stomach hurt.

But I felt underneath the humor there was something deliciously sinister, and I suspected Mary would be either a victim or perpetrator (or a little of both) from the imagery of the horns and the thumbs up/down shirt. It seemed like Sherlock was just playing along…playing his part of the doting best man with his paper opera houses and never-ending speech, which I loved by the way. Ate it up with a spoon!

But anyway, I had faith. Faith that the final episode would show that Sherlock knew all along that something was afoot and had a plan. Some mastermind plan suitable for a man of his talents, and as the viewer, I’d feel rather silly having not seen it all along. I’d get it explained to me like I was a five-year old, and love every minute of it. Schooled by Sherlock Holmes, wrapped up in the eye-candy that is Benedict Cumberbatch.

But this last episode? He didn’t know about Mary, despite having grilled every acquaintance of hers prior to the wedding like John’s protective big brother. Mary’s word cloud had “Liar” in it, but it seems he was willing to let that go despite the fact that this liar would be marrying his best friend he’s so protective of. He appears not to have known that his blackmailing nemesis kept all the information in his own “mind palace” rather than his wifi glasses (oops Sherlock!) or the house vaults; then shoots him when he sees no way to beat him with his mind - outwit him.

I have no problem with Sherlock showing his sociopathic side - in fact I encourage it because it’s what makes it interesting. But he has always done so with his mind as his weapon, and he’s always a million steps ahead of everyone else…but not this time. It felt cheap to just shoot him, despite him trying to protect John and his lying wife Mary who had previously put a bullet in him.

I get that he’s fallible, but the great Sherlock Holmes missed all that? This is the same guy who had it all worked out about Moriarty…got Moriarty to shoot himself in the name of the “game”, then went all elaborate with a fake death? But surprise! Moriarty may be alive, and therefore, Sherlock has been out-smarted twice in one episode?

Sigh.

So yeah, I loved the first two episodes when I felt like it was all going somewhere - that the over-the-top mushy stuff was simply a step to the next chapter of the over-arching case. This last one? Not so much.

Mary still being in the picture has the potential to bug, particularly since John decided to forgive the unforgivable (sob story didn’t carry weight for me).

But I don’t want to end up on a down note, so there were a few things I liked about this last episode:

John taking down the druggie and Molly getting all slappy with Sherlock was so satisfying. Squee!

Janine - LOL that Sherlock didn’t sleep with her. “I was waiting for marriage” cracked me up, and John’s reaction to their “relationship” was priceless.

Drugged out Sherlock was very interesting. Heh.

LOVED the view into his mind when he was dying. That was pure brilliance, and almost makes the whole episode worth it.

I loved the exchange between Sherlock and Mycroft at their parents house - they are so dysfunctional, but endearing!

Redbeard being a dog made me laugh. Little Sherlock and his pup were cute!

I look forward to series 4, despite my misgivings about this last episode. The worst of Sherlock is still better than everything else on television right now. And I really did enjoy the first two episodes when I watched them - still will, but just a little less now.

And for the record, I think Elementary sucks by comparison to this duo. Not even close. Sherlock is the best telling of Holmes that I’ve seen, hands down.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Magnusson died in order to protect Watson from the truth. Magnusson died to protect Mary's life. Magnusson wasn't threatening to expose the truth about Mary's past, he was threatening to expose her present whereabouts to people who wanted her dead.

As for Watson, he'd already freely chosen not to know the truth when he threw the memory stick in the fire without reading it. That was his choice alone, Sherlock took no part in it.

I'm absolutely shocked that somebody called Inigo Montoya of all people couldn't see the joke there.

I saw it, pet. But I've been chatting with The Gatherer all night and s/he needs things explained ever so carefully!

Well I confess that I missed the bit where he threw the memory stick in the fire. I must have gone into the kitchen.
But I stand by the fact that Sherlock just shooting Magnussen didn't sit well for me.
I know that some didn't mind, but I guess it's a matter of taste in the end.

They write these things, they shouldn't find themselves writing Sherlock into a corner where the only way out is to shoot somebody in the had.

Anyway, I'll definitely be watching it again.

Not wise to make tea or feed the cat during an episode of Sherlock.

LOL. No it isn't. I was actually aware of that at the time and was trying to catch dialogue whilst half in the kitchen and half looking around the door.
One turn of the head though and you can miss something vital.

Still seems like a copout though, that John simply isn't bothered.

Not sure about that one, but here is the transcript to the live Q&A session which took place after the episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pzpgy/live?lb_page=2

Not sure if it has been asked or answered before.
The texts Magnussen saw (his thoughts) when he looked at people.
For Sherlock, it looked like a lot of text in the pressure point category but it was the following in a loop:
Irene Adler (see file)
Jim Moriarty (see file)
Redbeard (see file)
Hounds of the Baskerville
Opium
John Watson

The one i don't understand is Baskerville. How is that a pressure point?

John stewed over it for four or five months before he took the decision not to read it, and leave the past in the past. So I wouldn't really say he "simply isn't bothered." Plus, she's carrying his child, so you have factor that into his decision making too.

In light of the controversy in this thread about Sherlock shooting someone, there's an interesting comment from Moffat on that link...

Plus he had that lovely line: "Your past is your business. Your future is my privilege."

Hold me.

Also from the live Q&A:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pzpgy/live?lb_page=2

Not sure who asked this question but:

Was the theory Sherlock told Anderson actually how Sherlock survived the fall? John may not care how he did it, but I do...

Mark Gatiss: In 'The Empty Hearse', Sherlock presents a perfectly acceptable and rational theory as to how he faked his death. Anderson, quite rightly, has some questions about the method but there's no reason why it didn't happen like that. You may believe what you want!

And at the very beginning:

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss:

Thank you for watching. We are honestly most excited about what we're planning next! The game will never be the same again.

Says it all. *rolleyes*

I love the show,but this series has been too clever for its own good. Constant flashbacks,the totally over the top Sherlock being shot mind dream (can't think of any other way to describe it). I think anyone starting to watch the show without seeing series 1 + 2 would have been thinking "Is this it".
Adding Amanda Abbington as Watsons fiancee then wife has been a little too distracting in my view,I spent three weeks making jokes about her "bankruptcy" while watching the show !
The show needs to get back to being a quirky intelligent English crime drama,rather than "look how successful and clever this programme is,and we can be as confusing as we want to be".

Some people liked 'Vow' and some people didn't.
Here's a suggestion then.

All the people who did not like Series 3 or its narrative trajectory might like to consider watching something else when the next series is shown.

Anybody out there really think the absence of this group will make any difference to BBC commissioning policy ?

sherlock with his assistant/side-kick/companion/friend Watson has now become a team

http://imgur.com/KcJ8xVE

You are suggesting that people who have liked (or loved) two Series out of three, consider watching something else when Series 4 airs?

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the logic in that at all.

And the absence of which group? I don't see any groups here but rather people with different opinions, like yourself, and myself, of course. But Surely, it is each person's prerogative and decision to watch what they want to watch etc., and to be allowed to discuss their views along with everybody else's afterwards.