DISCLAIMER: I don’t really write meta and I haven’t read all meta and this may all be hogwash/old news, plus I tend to confuse things and misremember.
BUT.
Ever since I sort-of watched TFP,
I’ve been bothered by what I see as the similarity between Musgrave Hall and Skyfall
in the Bond movie of the same name: the ancestral home, out in the middle of
nowhere, the destruction, the fire…
(That’s the villain watching it burn, btw)
But even though this has been at the back of my mind since then, I haven’t bothered to look into it. Maybe
someone else has. That’s not what this post is about, even though I’m
sure it would be an interesting thread to pull (and someone probably
already did). But it does encourage associating Sherlock with Bond, which is the point of this post. And which, as we all know, Mark Gatiss went out of his way to drive home in that poetic response to a review that complained about Sherlock being too Bond-y.
So anyway, with all these Bond associations floating around in my brain pretty much CONSTANTLY, today as I was out
walking, something struck me. “What other final instalment in a rebooted movie series that I
loved made me grievously disappointed, had glaring plot holes, and introduced a
random super-duper villain from the hero’s childhood who no one had ever heard
of before?” And the answer (for me, personally) is Spectre.
There should always be a spectre at the feast, right?
Well, I know Spectre came out just a half year before Sherlock s4 started
filming, but they could have been “inspired” to cobble together the mess that
is TFP in that time. So what are the plot holes in Spectre? Many people loved the movie, but others saw it as a regression to earlier Bond incarnations with ridiculous gadgets being prioritised above plot. One relevant question comes from http://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/43844/why-didnt-the-machine-affect-bond-in-spectre:
“There is a scene where Bond is hooked up to a torture machine. He is told
that the first action will damage his eyesight and the the second action will
cause him to forget all the faces he knew. Both these actions occurred, but he
still remembers everyone’s face, and 5 minutes later he is making precision
shots from a large distance. So it seems like the torture device had literally
no effect on him. Is there a reason for this, or is it just poor movie making?”
Like introducing, say, a memory-altering drug for no reason at all
and not following up on it.
“Bond accidentally shoots a
suitcase filled with explosives, which blows
up half a building. Aaaaand nobody notices….
Seriously: an explosion goes off in a packed city during the busiest day of the
year, and there’s not a single acknowledgement from anybody anywhere. Bond
returns to the street to pursue his target and the festivities are still going
on as normal. Surely somebody would have seen a building collapsing right in
the middle of everything? Nope. It’s just ignored, which makes no sense given
that the explosion happened in plain sight. What gives?“
Yeah, what gives?
Continuing:
“As Bond enters MI6 in an attempt
to track down whatever waits for him inside (it’s Blofeld, by the way), he
realises that the building has been set
up as a kind of “James Bond Funhouse.” Firstly, he sees his name
sprayed onto a wall of deceased secret agents, and arrows have been placed
around the building to guide him towards his goal. Pictures of former Bond villains – Silva, LeChiffre – and former
love Vesper have been pinned to the
walls. And then Bond reaches Blofeld, who is (somehow) concealed behind a wall of bulletproof glass. The
question is, though: how did Blofeld know that Bond would kill those agents and
thus enter the building to see his name, the arrows and the photos of the
deceased? He had no reason to suspect that Bond would be able to free himself
and kill two agents whilst handcuffed, and yet he went to the trouble of drawing arrows and putting up pictures!”
A grey bunker filled with clues and rooms with pictures of the hero’s past – remind you of anything?
And finally:
“Okay, then: the worst contender.
Actually think about this for a second, because it’s quite insane when you try
to piece it together: a plot hole to end
all plot holes, if you will – and one that only succeeds in spoiling the Bond continuity for absolutely no reason at
all. In the film’s big and
unexpected “twist”, Bond discovers that Blofeld is his half-brother
and that the villain has set out to make his life hell due to some very
undeveloped and frankly ridiculous “daddy [friend] issues.” As a
result, audiences are told that all of
the villains in all of the Daniel Craig Bond movies were working for Spectre
the whole time, which – in itself – makes no sense. Blofeld has been in the shadows the whole time, apparently, watching.
How the hell could Blofeld have masterminded all of Bond’s pain when Bond was
randomly assigned to most of his cases, or stumbled upon them by accident?
Bond got involved with most of the villains as a result of other peoples’
actions. Le Chiffre didn’t plan to meet with Bond; Bond was sent after him.
Dominic Green had other things on his plate long before Bond got involved.
Silva was going after M and wanted revenge on her, Bond aside. Trying to shoehorn all four Bond movies
into one continuity was a huge mistake on the writers’ part because it suggests
that Blofeld somehow manipulated all the events that led Bond to each villain,
which clearly wasn’t the case. But how could he have known that Bond would
be assigned to each and every villain? How could he have even predicted that
Bond would become a secret agent, thus drawing the pair into the scenario that
Blofeld wanted? It’s all very, very tenuous and you could probably spend days
and days combing through the movies, spotting all the moments at which “I
am the author of all your pain” induces another plot hole. It’s retconning
of the worst kind, and it’s crazy that the writers decided to go down a route
that opened them up to relentless plot-based scrutinies.”
There’s nothing to add at this point, because we can all see the parallels with Eurus.
________________________________________________
Alright, just a few bonus details that aren’t plot holes, just… you know, too much:
–
Receiving a posthumous message from the previous M, Bond carries out an unauthorised
mission in Mexico City.
–
Bond asks Moneypenny to
investigate Oberhauser, who was presumed
dead years earlier.
–
At the end, Bond throws his gun into the Thames
and leaves the bridge with Swann.
Ho hum.
_______________________________________________
Oh, bonus fun fact: look, it’s Andrew Scott! Playing E… I mean C! Being all up in arms about surveillance technology, incidentally.
Bonus fun fact 2: main characters apparently not wanting to film anymore
Bonus fun fact 3: “If I risk it all, could you break my fall?” (Spectre song)
Omg did mofftiss and the people of James Bond made a deal or what ?? This is extremely suspicious !
Well…that rung a bell with me so I just looked back and found this– a theory that the writer John Logan and Mark have talked about Bond before…telling timing re: where Bond and Sherlock’s at! @pawsoffmykitty
what the fuck
Holy shit, that last photo explains why mofftiss had such a cow over the alleged early release of their own chess photos! Brilliant theory! After all this I still ask myself: “What did any of this have to do with Sherlock Holmes?” What a Charlie Foxtrot S4 turned out to be.
There are several threads that I’ve been pulling recently, but they all seem to want to snag on the same knot. I’m not certain that once they’ve unravelled we won’t just find more gaping holes instead of a finely woven tapestry, but since, we’ve nothing but time on our hands for the forseeable future, I thought, what the hell? So let’s see where this all goes and if any of it makes sense- or even matters once it’s all said and done. 🙂
*Full disclosure (though I don’t know how anyone in fandom can’t know this at this point because I’m pretty vocal about it): I’m an EMPer. I believe Mary shot Sherlock and that he hasn’t regained consciousness since and that S4 is merely the continuation of TAB- the Victorian personas in the modern age, since Sherlock clearly isn’t awake yet at the end of TAB.
Not sure how much of this will be EMP-based, but just wanted to give a head’s up, in case that isn’t your jam and you can just skip this post altogether.
Okay. Here we go!
Lady Carmichael
Did not kill Sir Edwin.
This is my first bone of contention that I see in fandom a lot. I see so many posts that take it as gospel that Lady Carmichael did, in fact, kill her husband. But, that just can’t be the case, because as Moriarty says-
The argument can be made that Sir Eustace and Lady Carmichael are the stand-ins for a whole list of different people within the show. At any given moment they can represent:
John and Sherlock
John and Mary
Lord and Lady Smallwood
Mrs Hudson and Frank Hudson
Talk about confusing, I know. It makes my head hurt, tbh.
There is one fact that is a certainty- Sir Eustace was killed. But, that it was at the hands of a group of women- which we are wrongly lead to believe was headed by Lady Carmichael- treated badly by the men in their lives, is more than I can accept. Yeah. there’s a few dudes I wouldn’t mind getting rid of, but I’m not going to join some group of conspirators in order to do it.
Sherlock had it right when he spoke to Lestrade-
Of course I solved it. It’s perfectly simple. The incident of the mysterious Mrs Ricoletti, the killer from beyond the grave has been widely reported int he popular press. Now people are disguising their own dull little murders as the work of a ghost to confuse the impossibly imbecilic Scotland Yard.
First instincts are usually correct, and Sherlock knows that.
The murder of Sir Eustace did not follow the usual MO of the ‘bride’, (the league of furies)–
Murdered in their own homes, rice on the floor, like at a wedding, and the word YOU written in blood on the wall
There was none of that when they found Sir Eustace-
Sir Eustace’s stab wound was a mirror image of Sherlock’s gun shot wound. Imagine that.
And, it wasn’t Lady Carmichael. Not only because Moriarty told us it wasn’t her, that it was ridiculous that it would be her (this is Sherlock’s mind telling him, so he knows he got it wrong) but also because, why would she go to Sherlock to prevent a murder she was going to commit?
(Just as Mary didn’t go to Sherlock for a murder she did plan to commit, hm.)
The Bride killed Sir Edwin (and Sherlock), it’s true. But she was not a member of a ‘league of furies’. There was nothing ‘honorable’ about what she did. Each time we see the Bride that isn’t Emilia Ricoletti, two very peculiar things happen-
We get the villain head tilt a la Mary, and their voice is disguised.
In the case of the Bride that warns Sir Eustace in the maze, if that were Janine or Molly, why disguise the voice? At this point, it’s almost certain that Emilia was dead and we are supposed to believe this is one of the women conspirator’s come to threaten (which was never mentioned as part of the other Bride murders, fyi) So, the voice didn’t matter because Sir Eustace wouldn’t have recognised it, but- we would have? And then, in the hallway, as Watson waits and is scared by the ghost bride*, the voice is once more disguised. Again, why? Watson certainly wouldn’t have recognised Molly or Janine’s voice. But, guess who’s voice he would have. Mary.
(*coming back to Watson here, later)
The bride stabbed Sir Eustace, just as Mary shot Sherlock.
Sherlock got it wrong. Moriarty told him, it’s his downfall, always. He wants everything to be clever. And that’s what he tried to do with this scenario. When he ‘found’ the “Miss me?” note attached to Sir Eustace’s dead body, that’s when his mind made the connection between Mary and Moriarty. What do we say about coincidence? But, his mind revolts and is tearing itself apart because he cannot accept this truth-
Thank you for this @monikakrasnorada – I was just thinking about Magnussen yesterday again, too… which always give me the creeps. Ewwww.
Anyway.
There’s some yucky mirroring happening between Magnussen/Janine and Sherlock/John – both Magnussen and Sherlock are in the business of knowing things that others don’t (probably the reason for the duel-mp), while Janine and John are both the P.A. and likely provided “cover stories” at some point. But Janine, in a way, replaced John in HLV, as her “cover stories” in the papers for Sherlock would seem to imply a call-back to those of TRF.
Magnussen to Sherlock, I believe, is similar to Culverton-Smith-Jeff-Hope to John. “A deal with the devil,” Sherlock said of Magnussen in HLV. I’m still wondering what he meant precisely because canon-Holmes said this in The Six Napoleons:
“The Press, Watson, is a most valuable institution, if you only know how to use it.”
A story where Holmes smashed the Napoleon bust to retrieve the Black Pearl of the Borgias, while Sherlock shot Magnussen in the head to prevent Mary Watson’s secrets becoming public. John, Mycroft, and a SWAT team watched while Sherlock’s crime was caught on surveillance cameras; but when John shot Jeff Hope, no one saw it saved for Sherlock’s deduction (while Sherlock sort of helped with speeding up the process with a foot on Hope’s wound). In a twisted way, Hope and Magnussen are both… metaphorical suicides, and Mycroft Holmes happened to be present at both scenes of the crime as well. Which makes Culverton Smith a very interesting villain – his own confession killed his role as the “serial killer”; the more he talked to people, the more he killed “himself.” H. H. Holmes – I don’t think the name-drop and parallel is a coincidence – Sherlock Holmes, Mycroft Holmes, and John H. Watson somehow make one serial killer from the America? Is it simply paying homage to ACD’s pre-Sherlock Holmes story: The American’s Tale? Or, are we back to the original story of Jefferson Hope in A Study in Scarlet – a missing wedding ring and love forever lost?
Regardless, Mary sticks out like a sore thumb in the middle of it all; her identity seemed to solely dependant upon who she’s being associated with – we know plenty about the different roles she played, but we still have no idea who she is exactly. However, the fact that “the myth of Mary Watson” was killed by a bullet from Norbury’s gun is canon compliant, based on the subtext of The Adventure of the Yellow Face. But that’s only two facades down (Morstan and Watson)… I hate to say it, but we probably haven’t seen the last of the woman we know as Mary Watson just yet. Her Gabrielle Ashdown identity… I wonder if it’s to do with the Archangel Gabriel statue at the cemetery in TAB, because, Lady Carmichael.
Lady Carmichael, I think, is partially based on Lady Brackenstall in ACD’s The Adventure of the Abbey Grange (Lady Brackenstall, Lady Bracknell… I mean……), and in Sherlock, she’s being connected with Irene Adler, Moriarty, a modern day (gay) pilot, and later in TLD, as Sherlock himself in the morgue (Lady Brakenstall bears marks of physical abuse from her husband Sir Eustace Brakenstall). Carmichael – friend of Saint Michael the Archangel – depends on the role religion plays in one’s life, it could mean salvation or prosecution, which has been an underlying theme in Sherlock (many stories in ACD canon did as well, even though not overtly). Could that be the reason Mary narrates the end of TFP? As Archangel Gabriel, a messenger of God?
But! Since “Big G” is not limited to the organized religion variety…… how does that affect Janine/Mary combination? Janine was literally dancing with the elephant in the room during TSoT 👀 👀 👀
Sorry I rambled on and on (again)!! And as you know, I don’t usually dwell on the topic of mind palace/bungalow much (or brain-attic, as canon-Holmes calls it); because cinema is such a different medium from literature and with its omniscient camera pov, you can get away with a lot of ambiguity – hence, anything is possible. But whatever the differences I don’t think they prevent us from trying to unravel the same puzzle together? I hope you don’t mind that my comments usually fall outside of the emp framework!! 😉
theyre keeping him in frame……… for a Reason……… theyre showing all the other men in the room doing that…… For A Reason……. he doesnt care………… Fo r a Re aso n
Back in late February, one of the first meta-ish posts I wrote after series 4 was about this scene and the exchange that followed between Soo-Lin, Sherlock, and John in The Blind Banker. The realization sort of suddenly hit me: the common perception of “TBB is so racist” is far from accurate, and that I, a person of Chinese descent born and raised in Taiwan, did not recognize the significance of the narrative until seven years after the episode first aired.
Most often than not, our challenge lies in our blind spots; luckily, we can usually count on history to provide another perspective.
My proposition: When Soo-Lin said, “when I was a girl, we met in China.” it was alluding to the very first military conflict between the United Kingdom and China in 1839, i.e. The First Opium War; the signature, Treaty of Nanking. By tracing the history of modern China from this single point of entry, we will be able to uncover what Soo-Lin, General Shan, and Yellow Dragon Circus represent. By recognizing the historical context concerning these characters and their perceived status in the 21st century, we then will be able to decipher the role race, opium, crime, and the rule of law played in ACD’s Sherlock Holmes stories, and how these various elements are being interpreted by Sherlock.
Oh, absolutely! In essence, you are saying that secondary characters in the story were actually reflecting the true story of their lives together. That would be brilliant. It is what they have been doing in BBC Sherlock. The mirrors have been everywhere. Here are some links for reference (you know me).
Always-helpful write-up from @weeesi about the homoerotic coding.
@tendergingergirl thank you for the link!! Yes I also think ACD was being very methodical about his characters names, all the “Mor” likely came from “Morphine” and shared a similar connotation. There are many names began with “Mc” which is likely referring back to the question of “Morphine or Cocaine.” I did read the posts you mentioned – in fact, I’m reading Graham Robb’s Strangers right now, it’s been incredibly informative and revealing, highly recommend it!
@gahsofluffy@kateis-cakeis@not-a-bit-good@ebaeschnbliah@sarahthecoat@hotshoeagain thank you for your comments!! For me, using Sherlock as a meta resource to decipher ACD canon, then turning around to find where the pieces might fit within Sherlockand how/if this process changes my own reading – it’s been very rewarding as I love the story of Holmes and Watson since I was very young. It makes me super happy that we are sharing all our findings (and frustrations sometimes haha) – so thank you!!!
There were a few scenes that have now become ‘the missing scenes’ of s4. Some people think they are evidence of a LS. Just want to address some of the speculation from a setlock viewpoint:
All of us on Ruther2′s setlock team can attest, the research and investigation on every scene we knew was being filmed was intense. Often we had set lockers on location at the time a scene was being filmed. We also had connections with the crew to see if any info could be obtained via that source. Some of us took time off work to cover the setlock period to just work on incoming information. Certain set lockers worked tirelessly for hours deciphering scripts, notes, partial written documents, you guys were awesome. It was indeed a well run organised operation. Kudos always to Ruther, he was excellent at running the entire thing, and the rest of the team that gave input, time, finances, hours, countless boring vigil at locations that were less than enjoyable, artworks, photographs, videos and of course dedication and energy.
It must be noted that filming of several unused scenes is normal for BBC Sherlock. S4 was not an anomaly. So lets’s look at some of those now fabled lost scenes from s4:
Martin on a camel
Niagara Falls
MI6/Vauxhall Cross
Mint and Mustard
Taking these scenes one by one:
Martin on a camel; Ruther himself debunked this one as being Martin. He discovered the project that was using the camel footage and it had nothing to do with BBC Sherlock. Yes, the profile of the person on the camel looked a little like Martin, but it wasn’t him.
Niagara Falls: Nick Hurran was working in Canada before he came home to direct TLD. The timing was tight, Nick could not do recees with Arwel and the team. Tom Guy, from the locations dept went over to Canada to get Nick’s approval on locations for TLD. This would usually be done by Nick in person but due to the work project in Canada he couldn’t be there. Nick as director has to sign off on the locations. During the time Tom was in Canada he sent this tweet.
Now we all ran with this. It was a romantic location. Niagara is also a waterfall, and thus has a link to Sherlock via the idea of falling over a waterfall. It was great fun playing with this idea that John and Sherlock would end up in Niagara Falls for an adventure and finally kiss. It didn’t help that lurker Arwel joined in the fun, as a couple of weeks later in soggy London, now working on TLD, Arwel tweeted this:
It is a ‘stock’ photo of the falls, not one personally taken by the Sherlock crew. Arwel was very in tune to the fandom and despite his protestations later on, he very obviously and deliberately did ‘play’ with fandom theories.
Following the first tweet from Tom Guy the setlock crew kept a close eye on anything coming out of the Niagara area; scanning tweets, looking at local Niagara filming agencies, looking at any hint that cast and crew left the UK for Canada and were seen at airports, checking acting agencies recruiting for support actors in NF, or any support actor tweeting that they had been in a secret project there. None of the above came to light. There were a couple of fans who live in the area monitoring it too, and they didn’t see anything indicating a filming crew was at work at the Falls during the period. It’s not impossible that a scene was secretly filmed at a major tourist attraction with hundreds of people present on a daily basis but it is unlikely. Tom Guy appears to have taken a day trip to the Falls during a work assignment to get the locations OK’d by Nick Hurran. It was the boring conclusion most likely to have occurred.
MI6/Vauxhall Cross John and Sherlock scene: Two of the setlockers on location the day Benedict filmed the scenes on Vauxhall Bridge for the end of T6T were told by the security guys on site that a scene had been filmed inside the MI6/Vauxhall Cross building. They said that there was a scene with Martin that was filmed in an unused part of the building. This was never verified.
Mint and Mustard: Filmed, we had evidence.
Recently Mark and Steven mentioned they had filmed a ‘date night’ with John and Mary, but didn’t use it in the final cut for TST.
So in conclusion maybe some scenes were filmed to use in future projects, such as games/apps or in the Sherlock attraction if the BBC get their theme park. There are also copious unaired scenes from s1-TAB that they have stored away. It’s all additional footage chosen to be unaired by the show runner. It’s an industry practice. Maybe at Sherlocked in October Arwel will show some new stuff, as he does that, maybe Claire will discuss Amanda in various wigs that never made it to screen, and Loo dressed up in the Sherlock wig. There may be a new book or photos on sale of unaired images. They could put out a DVD one day of the unaired scenes. We just need to be careful that we don’t think certain scenes are fact when in truth they were only ever speculation. I advise that everyone checks out Ruther2′s Storify if ever in doubt.
Ever since Sherlock series 4 came out, collectively we were like “what the HELL is this?!?! This doesn’t make any sense!” BUT after many months of tossing ideas around the fandom, we have made theories that could explain the weirdness, but nothing we can all agree on. Now, this meta here may be absolute garbage to you, but I believe, in my heart of hearts, I’ve solved it. Please read it in its entirety with an open mind before you reblog it just to tell me I suck.
Thanks in advance, you da best
Paige
Here’s the short version: Sherlock actually jumped at the end of The Reichenbach Fall, just as Doyle intended him to die. Gatiss and Moffat said they are correcting something in this adaptation that no one else has gotten right before. Many of us assumed the homosexual romance was the one thing they were changing, but we were punched in the face right after The Final Problem came out. Gatiss and Moffat are changing the sacrifice. Holmes was intended to die for his friends but Doyle needed more money and rewrote the series after “The Final Problem”. That turned Holmes’ sacrifice into a cruel joke against Watson. This is what BBC Sherlock is fixing, and we’re about to see it come to fruition.
I know many theorists despise the homosexual reading of Holmes and Watson, while many people in general despise theorists on this site. That’s fine, I don’t care how people feel about gay theories and/or TJLC and its followers. But I’m here to tell you TJLC, at its core as a concept, was right. You may hate Moffat and Gatiss, you may think Sherlock is a piece of shit show, and that’s fine, you do you. But hear this one meta out, please. I think even the hardest skeptic can at least apprectiate the thought and logic behind this.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 