Yes, totally ludicrous and, looking back, the moment when I started to go off Moffat's crappy writing for 'Doctor Who'. He simply cannot write real characters. His creations are stripped of all humanity and exist solely as pieces he can move around in the service of 'snappy' dialogue or outlandish plot developments. Nothing is real and there are never any consequences.

As that blogger noted, we never SEE that Magnusson is bad. We're only TOLD that he's bad because it serves the needs of the narrative. What possible reason is there for Sherlock to hate Magnusson more than anyone on the planet? None that we're shown. Sherlock just tells us so and it's therefore 'true'. Moffat is a jumped-up writer of sitcoms who happened to get lucky.

All good points...except
-I didn't feel she was threatening him but i can see why people would see it that way.
-And perhaps point 2. What's the expression again 'there's no fury like a woman scorned' or something.
Not only is it character psychology but also a man trying to understand a woman's reaction.
So happy they're sometimes unpredictable or life would be dull

I think that there was a radio announcement during the episode that said a blackmail victim had committed suicide.

He was bad but imagine yourself in court saying that your defence for cold blooded murder was that somebody was blackmailing your friends...bet that would go down well.

But of course a bit of Moff fairy dust and all such worries disappear for our hero.

What happened in the bathroom. He was in full character at that point

No need for fairy dust. Big brother was able to sort it.

Attempted murder on Watson in the fire !
Threats to disclose information that would result in the victim being murdered!
I call that bad and from Magnussen's own account too.
Oh i almost forgot, blackmailling people. That's not bad?
The worst, the worst: peeing in Sherlock's fireplace ! Grrrrrr!

Ok, not as bad as Moriarty or Jason but, imo, taking him as just a businessman is weird

It really makes me worry about the future of this show that most posters here don't seem to have recognized that season 3 was a total turkey.

Yes, that was it, and even then we were told that Magnusson had people standing by.

Moffat seems to revel is promoting strangely immoral characters as being likeable.

I guess I just don't like the characters he creates. They often seem to be borderline obnoxious e.g. Sherlock, Amy Pond, River Song, Lestrade, that awful black policewoman, etc. Even Molly. A small thing but in that Underground bomb episode Molly and Sherlock went to visit the trainspotter/driver and Molly was shown literally rolling her eyes and pulling faces at the geekiness of the man's lifestyle. Molly of all people, the geekiest person on the show. I just thought 'what a bitch'. Moffat hasn't written a single character that I've ever cared about.

Not quit sure if you agree or not. If not..

Even with people standing by, any number of things could have gone wrong in such a public place. You can't say in court: ' i had people standing by but they were not able to save him'.
And we have to take Magnussen's word that there were people there. Sherlock barely got there in time. Where were these people standing by? Waiting till Watson started to burn?
Magnussen got what he deserved! In fact, he should have suffered more, his death was too quick. If he's dead of course
As you may have noticed, i hated him, which is the main ingredient in a vilain for me!

I hadn't seen it that way till you put it like that.
I was more surprised by Sherlock's attitude. I thought Molly's reaction was more to mimick Sherlock's, who was way out of character (imo). Sherlock should have deduced right away the underground guy had a girlfriend, not laugh at him.
Apparently, he was lost without Watson.

I felt sorry for him!! Probably not Moffat's intention but true all the same.

I think that Magnusson was portrayed as extraordinarily vile, and seriously nasty.

His contempt for the Baroness at the beginning, licking her face, and she couldn't do anything about it. His pissing in Sherlock's fireplace and then wiping his hands and dropping it on the floor, the way he defiled Sherlock's meal and dipped his fingers in his water, and of course, the flicking of John's face which was utterly contemptuous and horrible.

I don't think it's true, that these things signify little, they signify his utter contempt for others, his casual defiling of people, and that's what he DOES through his blackmailing.

The person he was blackmailing killed himself, he threatened John with getting Mary killed, bad enough, but then also used this power to humiliate and denigrate John.

These are the actions of someone who is seriously, frighteningly dangerous and empty of decency and humanity. I find it confusing that others see it in any other way.

A similar character, smaller scale of course, was killed by Poirot, the only time I know of that that ever happened, he preyed on peoples emotions, their weaknesses, enjoyed the power over them that gave him.

I understand completely why Sherlock saw CAM as horrible and disgusting, everything about him was.

Why do you think that was out of character? He sees a train (or rather Tube) geek, and instantly dismisses the possible notion of this person having a girlfriend. He doesn't even want to engage his brain trying to deduce anything at all.
That's very much in line with the original Holmes, don't know if you've ever seen Jeremy Brett's interpretation of the role but he was even more dismissive/disdainful towards characters that held no interest to him. Sherlock Holmes is not supposed to be a very nice person.
And Molly is simply trying to impress him/not let him down, as you say.

I've seen Brett's episodes many times, read the originals and don't agree with you.
He was dismissive after he had deduced and heard the facts. If the the case was boring, then he was dismissive.
Every new case started with a deducing of the new client.
If he had already decided that the underground guy's infos was not worth it, why go there.
And why a gross stereotype like that (that geeks can't have girlfriends)!
Also, matters of the heart was not a big interest for him, so why turn the fact he said he had a girlfriend into a joke.
For me, that was Moffat speaking through Sherlock. I didn't recognise Holmes at all during those few seconds before he began to be interested in the footage he was shown.
Don't understand why you think he was not out of character but respect that we don't all have the same experience with Holmes.

Magnussen himself was there maybe. He was just in his mind palace.

I got the impression sherlock particularly hated him because he preyed on people who were different and that was a particular sore point for him. I got the impression he was bullied for being different when he was growing up.

I agree with you because I too found it very hard on the eyes to read.
Not a criticism of the content, just the visual design of the page.

No, because in the third episode Magnussen literally states that he wouldn't have allowed John to die and that he had men on standby ready to pull John out of the fire.

Which contradicts the writing which 'tells' us that Magnussen is such a bad villain, but doesn't 'show' us.
'Show not tell'.

When it comes to Magnussen's blackmail victims how do we know whether they were bad people who deserved to die or not? How do we know that Mary doesn't deserve to die due to these terrible acts she has apparently perpetrated?
It might depend on from what moral vantage point one might view a situation, as perhaps Magnussen's decisions could be defended by the same moral criteria which apparently supports Sherlock's moral justification to murder him.
We don't know. There's little to say that Magnussen was as bad as was made out other than what we were only told to think. Someone being shown licking and flicking faces isn't enough.
Didn't we actually see Sherlock commit an act which was morally worse than anything we'd seen Magnussen do?

Licking somebody's face is very unpleasant, I agree, but then again I suppose so is blowing somebody's brains out with a gun.
I think that you need more than saying that an action is somehow morally virtuous just because Sherlock carried it out.

At least we have you here to keep us right

It's all a matter of taste.

My favourite episode was the Reichenbach Fall but my parents who are late 60s preferred the Sign of Three. I think it is good they are evolving the show. It would get very boring otherwise.

I don't think season 3 was a turkey. There was lots to love about it. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is - an opinion, not fact.

Just saw this: Microsoft Research built a smart elevator that uses AI to figure out what floor you’re going to

I wonder if it is Sherlock Holmes operated

I watched episode three last night for the second time and it really does bear watching at least twice.....I can't understand how people think that Magnusson is an ok guy - I found him completely repellent and a very believable villain - just my opinion, but it worked for me, and on second viewing it all hung together much better.

Yes, what was that whole thing about anyway. It does not take a genius to figure out that if you had a chance to save your best friend from being killed you'd do it. As for evil/ok, such an experience could traumatise a person for life, for Moff it was just a plot device.

Magnusson isn't INTERESTED in killing people, he's interested in OWNING them, having them under his control.

He uses this language all the time. Once there he can DESTROY them morally, this is a terrible thing - he can destroy their integrity, make them betray people, push his interests against their will etc.

We are not only told this we are SHOWN it.

It doesn't matter if these people deserve it or not, Magnusson isn't excused from his blackmail from this at all.

And it is SHOWN that he uses people's love and care for others to control them, complete innocence is used - people's feelings of love are a tool for him - leverage.

Power, control, and the willingness to destroy people's lives - by using them, by getting a loved one killed etc. are what motivates Magnusson. We are shown that he does this, and we are told that he always has.

So there is a massive element of 'protection' in Sherlock's act - not vengeance, just the cessation of this state of affairs, and preventing it from continuing.


It was shown very clearly that there was NOTHING else that Sherlock could have done to protect John - and Mary particularly, and anyone else either, this was a last ditch solution, and not presented as 'moral' exactly, but as the only way to deal with a man who 'owns' people, and who is prepared to destroy or kill them if he has to, and who has enormous power.

To me it seems ludicrous to compare Sherlock's act with Magnusson's, it's far more like a 'war' killing, or an assassination of a terrifying despot - not morally good, but morally understandable.

Saying that 'licking the face is unpleasant' is completely missing the point of these scenes. They SHOW Magnusson is prepared to defile/destroy people, because he can.