Obviously names can be one word, the
show is called Sherlock.
Jeff Hope yelling Moriarty!
Sherlock walks over and throws the gun in the Thames, a callback to John throwing his gun
in the Thames in ASIP/Pilot.
We see a gunshot and then the London
Aquarium. The aquarium where Mary died. Mary died by a gunshot in
front of sharks. Sherlock died in CAM’s tower; CAM is like a shark.
(Ever notice the plane flying over the
aquarium?)
Sherlock then appears to be floating in
the sky on a ledge near water. This is a metaphorical reference to Sherlock’s death. Which also matches Moriarty’s deaths: TRF, TAB waterfall scene.
Why show the aquarium? Why bring up Mary’s death?
Like Moriarty, Mary is a facade. The facade has many names.
Anyone is one word. One word for Facade
Molly: “He’d
rather have the facade.”
Faith/Love: “Your nicer than the
facade.”
Mary: “Don’t think the facade is
going to save him, because there isn’t a facade.” “I’m dead,
remember. It’s important you remember.”
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
Culverton: “I need to kill someone.”
Facade!
Culverton: “I don’t want to kill one
person, I want to kill the facade.” Sherlock is the serial
killer. Killing himself to kill the facade. “Taking your life.
Interesting expression. Taking it from who? It’s not you who will miss
it.”
Sherlock dies/John dies.
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
Facade!
John: “Have you spoken to Mycroft,
Molly, uh, the facade?”
Mary: “You don’t want the facade
knowing you’re in therapy.” (“Say it now”)
John: “The facade ever “opt” to
remember?”
Mrs. Hudson: “You want to know what’s
bothering Sherlock? Easiest thing in the world, even the facade can
do it.”
“If the facade stays here a minute
longer, they are admitting to me personally they don’t have a single
spark of human decency.”
Mary: John Watson never accepts help,
not from the facade. Not ever.
Mycroft: “It will certainly destroy
this flat and kill the facade in it.”
Mycroft: “The facade spent time with
her (Eurus/love) and was automatically compromised.”
Mycroft: “She (Eurus/love) won’t communicate with the facade in any way. She has
passed beyond our view. There are no words that can reach her now.” Translation: Love conquers all.
“You said your life turned on one word. That’s the impossible thing. Just that, right there.”
“This is a lie!”
Sherlock’s
life did change on one word. It wasn’t Jeff Hope yelling out Moriarty’s
name.
Sherlock’s facade married John in
TSOT. Traditionally it’s “The Adventures
of Sherlock Holmes.” Mary is Sherlock.
Redbeard was
introduced in TSOT.
Sherlock has a vision of him and
Redbeard during the same scene with Faith on the bridge. Redbeard is one
word.
Redbeard is John. John is one word.
“One word to let me know you were alive.” Alive inside. “Flesh and blood. You must have feelings.”
Faith is one word. Faith is Sherlock and John. She’s love.
“You seem so much better, John.” “Yeah, I…I am. I think I am. Not all day, not every day, but, you know.” “It is what it is?” “Yeah.” […] “And Sherlock Holmes?” “Back to normal.”
But, why is John so much better, and Sherlock “back to normal”? Well, they tell us: IT IS WHAT IT IS (says love). Love is the answer.
(An aside: of course that again confirms someone’s been spying on John and Sherlock’s private moments, and if the therapist is actually Mary (seeEurus is fake: MARY is the true EAST WIND)…then Yikes at her taunting John with “it is what it is.”)
The thing is, John doesn’t share everything with his therapist, he holds details back. I always thought it was weird that straight after The Hug scene we get this establishing exterior shot of 221B:
Why do we need this? We already know that we’re inside 221B for the hug, why do we need to fade out to this if we’re just going right back to the living room?
Because, it implies some distance. (Literally and metaphorically). Something’s being held back from us- temporarily. And here’s some proof: see this post by @waitedforgarridebs. We know that there was likely a scene in between that hug fadeout and John and Sherlock getting ready to go out to ‘the cake place.’
And, disregarding this missing scene, didn’t you get the impression that John was going to… say Something Else? He ‘seems so much better’- perhaps he had decided that the therapy sessions with a new face had run their course- time to go back to Ella?
And, of course, we have John smiling up there at the thought of his Sherlock doing well, too. I don’t know about you, but I was half holding my breath, expecting them to show us John and Sherlock, smiling and chatting while having cake or something.
The hug felt like a bridge on their road to proper communication: we almost had Sherlock finish this loaded sentence: “Forgive me, but you are doing yourself a disservice. I have known many people in this world but made few friends, and I can safely say…” (x); We had John admit he “still wanted more”, ranting about ‘missed chances’ and how ‘romantic entanglement would complete Sherlock as a human being.’; We had Sherlock get frustrated at John’s wrong assumption about him and Irene: “Oh, for God’s sake, I don’t text her back!”
We knew what all of this was signposting towards: a romance between John and Sherlock finally blossoming, and being recognised for what it is. And we still know. The Final Problem is the horror film temporarily hijacking and interrupting our beautiful love story. (x)
My prediction is that the next episode will open on John being shot in TLD, and we’ll get a ‘life flashing before his eyes’ moment: including these missing scenes, moments where they are much closer than normal- not a couple, not yet, but the audience will see their relationship is undeniably heading that way. And that will make the Garridebs moment even more gutwrenching, John lying there, thinking he will never be able to say the things he wanted to say and couldn’t…
And, of course, Sherlock will experience the same when he finds John. His “I love you” confession will save John Watson, and bring him back to life.
Yes, this, thank you very much @jenna221b! Honestly –and I’m sure I’m not the only one who felt like this– that bit in TLD before the hug, had me on the edge of my seat feeling exactly the same as when watching the tarmac scene in HLV. I thought that was it, that I was about to see a love confession; but again, it derailed into something else.
And adding to your analysis of John’s mood when talking to Eurus–actually the bit of dialogue that ellipsis refers to– he implies having spent quality time with Sherlock and Rosie. I wrote about it HERE, it’s clear John’s quoting Sherlock in the way he talks about Rosie, and he does it with the warmest smile on his face. Add to that what Sherlock told John about wanting to go to his house to see Rosie, and you can see it’s left implied that there’s quite a
meaningful time-jump in there which was very important for both of them, and given that this is “The Sherlock and John Show”, if it was ommited, it’s because showing it would give something away… seems to me it’s the same reason why they told us Sherlock taught John how to watlz, but chose not to show it.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Interesting. Not quite agree with everything, but interesting. I still think that only EMP stretching back to HLV (or preferably TRF) could redeem the show. But I’m starting to give up faith. “Sherlock” is dead and “Dracula” news pretty much confirmed it. It’s heartbreaking and I will never be over it.
lThe Man from UNCLE is an American spy fiction television series broadcast on NBC in 1964.
It follows secret agents, american Napoleon Solo, and Soviet Illya Kuryakin who work for a secret international counter-espionage and law enforcement agency called UNCLE, U.N.C.L.E. is an acronym for the fictional United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, a secret international intelligence agency, consisting of agents of all nationalities.
Ian Fleming contributed to the concepts after being approached by the show’s co-creator, Norman Felton .
U.N.C.L.E.’s primary adversary was THRUSH (WASP in the pilot movie). The original series never divulged who or what THRUSH represented, nor was it ever used as an acronym. However, in the UNCLE novels written by David McDaniel it is the T echnological H ierarchy for the R emoval of U ndesirables and the S ubjugation of H umanity, [6] described as having been founded by Col. Sebastian Moran after the death of Professor Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls in the Sherlock Holmes story, The Final Problem. THRUSH’s aim was to conquer the world.
In 2015 came out a film shot by Guy Ritchie who takes on plot and characters from the TV series.
In 1963, professional thief-turned CIA agent Napoleon Solo. He has to atone for committing crimes, going under cover as a secret agent. Do you remember someone?
HE extracts Gaby Teller, daughter of Dr. Udo Teller, an alleged Nazi scientist-turned United States collaborator at the end of World War II, from East Berlin , evading KGB operative Illya Kuryakin.
He later reports to his superior, Sanders, who reveals that Gaby’s maternal uncle Rudi works in a shipping company owned by Alexander and Victoria Vinciguerra, a wealthy Nazi sympathizing couple who intend to use Teller to build their own private nuclear weapon and give it to lingering Nazi elements.
The trio travels to Rome , where Gaby and Kuryakin reluctantly pose as an engaged couple, and Solo pretends to be an antiquities dealer.
During the operation, Uncle Rudy turns out to be a sadistic ex nazi torturer, but when he ends up on the electrically powered chair he doesn’t stop confessing.
He in the end dies for a short-circuit (fire) of the chair (containment structure) that he himself had designed.
The mission ends on an island with a fortress.
The landing mission is shot with cuts on the screen that resemble the style of Tiblisi’s operation.
At the end of the mission, the three agents involved, American, Russian and English form a new team, code name U.N.C.L.E.
Amazing!!!! What is it like in Mofftiss’ funny old heads?? To have all of this intertext to weave into their own story, and keep track of it all at the same time???? I love that you took my U.N.C.L.E. comment and ran with it, @raggedyblue.
Well, that’s interesting – wild speculation ahead, does Sherlock consciously meditate/lower his heart rate in order to enter his mind palace? If he does, and if we accept the metas about multiple possible dream state layers in TAB, could he be using his phone to check whether he is in real time.or MP /under the influence of something?
I mean that 59 is there in the exact scene where he seems to consciously enter his mind palace. And turn down his drugs in order to do it. So this is a great idea. @longsnowsmoon5
this shot of Sherlock in TLD (in the morgue of Culvertons hospital, when he realises that Faith never was at 221B) is very prominent in choice of framing and lighting….
we saw this kind of lighting only twice before
Sherlock in HLV in his MP after being shot by Mary
CAM in HLV in the “Appledore vaults” which are in fact his MP
Both times related to mind palaces…
I know he is shattered in TLD
and devastated by drugs
…. but what he experiences in that scene is (on the surface level) actually NOT the realisation of having been in his MP! If anything fake!Faith has been an illusion!! And his MP has never been an illusion!!!
But couldn’t that moment of horror in TLD also be a crack in the surface… ?
Sherlock realising that this doesn’t make any sense if it is not in his MP, one of his mind experiments, the script of a mind play… Sherlock realising that he isn’t really living and experiencing all this, but that it takes place in his mind and why… because he’s actually still back here:
sidenote (and maybe he even then realises that he has to wake up…?)
sidenote 2 (is it possible that that’s the reason everything goes wild afterwards?? Sherlock “going wild” in his mind, exhaust the boundries to “break free”??? Just a thought…)
That’s exactly how I always took that moment of your first pic, @loveismyrevolution. On first viewing, I was just as gutted as everyone else by John’s actions in that morgue scene, until I re-watched and paid attention to that flash of Sherlock there. We don’t get a ‘deduction’ from Sherlock in that moment, so why are we shown it unless we are to make the same connection to the shot in HLV? Where that moment was a mp scene within a mp scene.
What further sold the unreality of that moment was that John tells Sherlock to wake up! It felt- if we were supposed to take that scene as real– it would have been a better choice to say “snap out of it!” Wake up is so very telling as a reality bleed-through moment, or even just a subtle clue to the audience to remember that Sherlock isn’t awake.
As to your sidenote, again, I have to agree. @the-7-percent-solution said TFP was the equivalent of a nervous breakdown and I think that is so close to what happens. Sherlock’s been out and suffering for a while (I imagine there really has been quite some time has elapsed) and the longer a patient remains in coma / unconscious the greater the risk to the brain and its recovery. I really feel like that is a bit of the why of Skull hell. I think it reflects Sherlock’s brain and the damage that may be occurring to it. I made a post months ago (which of course I can’t find at the mo but will try to link it late if I do) about just this idea and used this photo as an example:
I mean, are we not supposed to make the connection to this???
Only to add this bit of WTFery on top:
WHY is there a monitor with “someone’s” brain activity being broadcast to the dudes that are in charge of maintaining the security of Sherrinford??
TFP has always felt (and looked) like the last throes of Sherlock’s ability. It’s all he can do to keep it together, the deterioration of his brain function at critical levels. It’s why the ending of the ep felt and looked so final and dreamlike- Sherlock’s version of heaven and going towards the light.
Okay, I just made myself really sad there. I don’t believe Sherlock is dead but very very close to it by the end of TFP.
I recently went back and watched the 2009 Guy Ritchie
Sherlock Holmes movie again. Pairing that with “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes”
by Billy Wilder released in 1970, I can REALLY see the modern influences that
brought the BBC Sherlock series about.
Moftiss themselves have said TPLOSH was a big impetus behind
their modern reboot series. Wilder’s movie has a comedic silliness too it, but
a deep sadness under it as well. Sherlock is coded queer and deeply in love with
Watson, who seems purposefully oblivious. The film has to keep up a tap dance
of laughs to stay above the tears.
There are whole scenes that are lifted into BBC Sherlock.
After Holmes intimates that he and Watson are queer together to get out of fathering
a child for a pushy ballerina, Watson is furious. He blusters at Holmes that
they need to be more careful with their public image– much like John after
reading the Boffin and the Bachelor article in the paper.
Just as John keeps bugging Sherlock in the Moftiss version
about his sexual history (surely you must have had experiences) this Watson prods
at Holmes “I hope I don’t presume too much, but surely there were women?” To which Holmes archly replies, “Yes … you do presume too much.” (To quote sloppily.)
TPLOSH’s Sherlock is a tall and foppish dandy, doing drugs to keep his
feelings under control. The Watson is an angry, shouty little man who grows jealous
at the pretty femme fatale fawning over the detective – without even seeming to
know WHY he is jealous. He has an attachment to Holmes, but is so
deeply in denial it just comes out as smoke and bluster that doesn’t make a lot
sense. Sound familiar?
Funny moments are played with Holmes and Watson handing each other
things and saying “yes, dear” absent-mindedly, and it
seems sweet and domestic, but it’s just a BIG JOKE. Ultimately their attraction can never be named aloud, and they can never be together. Har, har har.
Fast forward a few decades to the Guy Ritchie’s movies with Jude Law and
Robert Downey Jr., and the WHOLE movie is about pining and pain. Watson is moving out of 221b to join
his new fiancé, Mary, with Holmes desperately trying to keep him in his life. As
Drinkingcocoa from Three Patch Podcast said once, the whole film is a “tone
poem” of loss and longing. RDJ’s Sherlock is wasting away like any jilted
regency heroine, while Watson, though fond of Holmes, seems utterly unconcerned
with the rift forming between them. It’s a sad imbalance, and the puppy dog
looks Holmes sends his friend’s way are heartbreaking.
The movie adds a modern sensibility to the Holmes universe with
a kind of steam-punk aesthetic that Ritchie enjoys. There’s quirky, fast camera
angles, snappy dialogue, anachronistic hats and coats that look more cool than
period, and a fast-paced comic-book violence set to rousing music that has
people swinging from bridges high in the air, and jumping away from deadly
explosions with only a scratch or two. It’s more flash and dash than substance, but modern audiences loved it and ate it up, clamoring for more.
Enter, BBC Sherlock just a year later, stage left. It boasts a tall, stylish
man, and his angry shouty side kick. It brings fantastic camera work and
cinematic tricks, fun banter, and gratuitous violence that plays out so
beautifully in a visual medium. Fight the bad guys, throw some slow mo punches,
and the hero saves the day – wheee! Like its predecessors, the show played with
fast-paced danger, queer coding and pining looks, fancy clothes and femme
fatales, but that didn’t seem to be ALL the show was about.
BBC Sherlock felt thinky, aware of its audience, and savvy
in a way that earlier shows had not. Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock was a
complex character with needs and foibles, and finally the Watson didn’t feel like
just a side character or a bumbling helper. Martin Freeman’s John Watson lived
and breathed, had quirks and personality, and looked at his Sherlock with both
conflict and devotion in his eyes. Far from playing out just another cheap gay
joke, these men seemed to be developing something touching and real as a
heart-felt romance unspooled between them.
Sadly, as the show continued, and the writers boxed
themselves into corners, they fell back on the
tried and true for what makes “fun television.” They amped up the violence, and instead of
defeating the bad guys with cool moves, Sherlock’s friends lined up to slap, head butt and beat
him into the hospital. An homage to horror films thundered in while the nascent queer
romance between the leads shrank back to “cheap gay jokes.” Sherlock devolved into some kind of martyr, while the complex
character of John Watson withered into an angry, shouty puppet with no motivation or explanation for his actions.
It’s sad, very sad to me that Moffat and Gatiss looked to have
learned and improved over what had come before in the Holmes and Watson
universe only to change course midstream. In some bid for bigger and better,
they tossed their characters and plot onto a raging bonfire, ultimately arriving
at something flashy and thrilling, but empty and meaningless for their last season. Pass me
the Kleenex. I’m still not over series 4.
a couple of months ago i was reading this book for my lgbt+ american history and literature class called The Beautiful Room is Empty by Edmund White, which is a semi-autobiographical book about a gay man growing up in the 50s and 60s (and it’s also really really good). but as i was trying to read it in peace i stumbled upon this line that just stopped me because i knew it, and i just sat there like ‘what the fuck’ before realizing why i recognized it:
“But for me, the tuxedos (which depersonalize waiters and lend distinction to friends)…”
here’s the paragraph in full
and i realized that it’s almost identical to one of sherlock’s lines in the empty hearse
and i was like oh my god MARK and it was bothering me for months because i researched it to see if maybe both sources were referencing something else altogether but i couldn’t find anything. and so finally this past sunday at the sherlocked con, i was like ‘shit i never asked mark about that book’ and i looked over and there was no one in line for an autograph from him so i went over and asked the woman next to him if i could take a few minutes to ask him a question
and she said yes and so i started telling him this whole story and it was really sweet because when i asked him if he’d read the book he was like “of course i have :)” like genuinely happy to be talking about this book and possibly to realize what i was bringing up
and i told him about how i’d recognized it and realized what it was and i was about to say ‘because it’s in the empty hearse!’ and he cut me off and said ‘it’s the line about the waiter’ and i was like ‘!!! yeah!’ and he started reciting the line with me like. saying it right behind him and i got so excited to have that finally answered, because i mean he just straight up told me that he referenced THAT quote in THAT SCENE
so um. he Did That thanks for coming to my talk
@fleurdebee: Very interesting choice of quote indeed (and I am glad you got the chance to ask Mark in person).
“… permitted me for two minutes on a stretch to imagine we were a club of lovers…”
MARK DID THAT!!!
And… that’s here though…. (why aren’t they just fucking tell the truth about their intentions … its annoying by times 😣)
But it was all a joke, right? They never intended to go there, obviously. Smh. I hate them.
I absolutely feel you, @totally-sherwholocked!!! A (silly) part of me is still like “something must have gone wrong and they must have been unable to do it so they said fuck it all to hell we’ll just mess it up” (because things like this reference aren’t just…. obvious gay jokes? You have to KNOW this book to get it and that’d be a really… obscure gay joke?) but when I see their hostility to Johnlockers and fans generally and basically all the things they messed up with s4 blah blah blah, I totally feel you. I wish it’s be the former case but it absolutely isn’t… fucking sigh. I hate this.
As far as I’m concerned, I still go with the former, because there’s too much evidence pointing to canon Johnlock being their goal. (I mean… not just the writing and references to other books/romance movies, but again, the acting, the editing, the lighting, the music… EVERYTHING from A to Z!)
But if they really didn’t intend to go there as they claim, it means two things: 1) MASSIVE, high-level (and OBSCURE, as you said!) queerbaiting; 2) they know they fucked up and did bad, so they’re trying to cover their arses and gaslight the fuck out of their audience, because they’re cowards and horrible people.
Well as for possibility 1), why the fuck would you go for obscure queerbaiting??? I mean, I don’t know why anyone’d go for queerbaiting at all, but let’s assume you’re that piece of shit who just… wants to, for whatever reason. Is that pettiness? Is that arrogance? Is that trolling on every conceivable level? So even if the hardcore fans who, despite being hurt, still want a bit of a puzzle, they’ll get burnt even on such a microscopic level? Because let’s face it, no one else ever would have caught that particular reference; we’re just lucky our group of people are mostly LGBT+ nerds of the highest order; we come in all varieties and of different backgrounds, so nerd a can write about the cinematography queering Sherlock, the other catches the music choices etc… and the lit nerds catch gems like this one up there. So, like… why? Why????
As for 2)—I’ve wondered about that before, too. I mostly try not to care anymore what they did or didn’t plan to do… yet the fact remains that there are too many things to dismiss it as coincidence (confirming #1), but when coupled with their hostily at the con towards fans or Johnlockers (… or whomever that isn’t themselves lmao) or their general arrogance… that doesn’t make sense either? I mean, if something went wrong and they couldn’t do it anymore the way they wanted to, wouldn’t I be sympathetic towards my audience who’d wanted the same? Why turn spiteful and hateful? And if they realised that their particular brand of queer Sherlock was a mistake–a careless mistake? a subconscious mistake? (I’m still behind the idea they’re subconsciously shipping ACD’s Holmes/Watson as couple and just… are too anti queer readings they don’t even realise it)–if they realised this, still, why, again, turn spiteful and hateful and resentful and negative towards your fans instead of a sincere apology??? Why the distaste? Why “I don’t need fans; I’m a fan myself”? What the hell?
I don’t believe that the queer subtext and even TEXT in BBC Sherlock was an accident. I think they knew they were putting it in, but it was
meant to stay at the subsonic, wink and a nudge level that these gentlemen from
the 20th century were used to. People who grew up under Thatcher
where it was illegal to discuss homosexuality in schools knew the benefit of
coding, shared lingo – the secret hand shake that queer people passed around to
survive under the radar of mainstream culture.
To face a 21st century audience that suddenly is
not only free to admit their queerness but start demanding representation in
media must have BLOWN THESE MEN’S MIND. What? WOT? You aren’t supposed to talk
about these things OUT LOUD.
It would be disingenuous of us to say that homophobia is
dead, in fact much of the queer persecution that seems to be ramping up as
neo-conservatives step up to power around the globe nearly BEGS for more
positive representation as push back. I can’t say if Mark Gatiss would be harassed
for being the man who turned Holmes and Watson gay, but I can’t believe he
wouldn’t hear something from angry dude bro Holmesians. You know he would, and
this is Mark’s home, his life. Being gay in a hetero world is a corner he’s
carved out for himself through some very rocky growing-up years. People might
be angry at Moffat for making Homes and Watson kiss, but I’m sure the backlash
to Moffat, the gay man in the writing duo could be INTENSE.
As it is, they made a jumbled, dream-like fourth series, and
many viewers are disgruntled, and a small segment of angry invested fans are
furious sending ugly twitter messages and haranguing the BBC, but NO ONE has
attacked him or his lovely husband, Ian Hallard on the street. No one has
camped outside their house or damaged their cars. They might have gotten bad
press and lackluster ratings, but he’s not afraid for his safety.
I can’t profess to know the motivations or the pressures
that Moffat and Gatiss face in making Sherlock, but I’m sure they are layered
and complex. I try to have some compassion for them even if I am not happy with
where they took my favorite show.
“Every choice you ever made; every path you’ve
ever taken – the man you are today … is your memory of Eurus.”
Sorry, but no, Mycroft. This is not true. Sherlock may have been influenced by a lot of things but he cannot have become the man he is today just because of a non-existent memory. If he did not remember Eurus for decades, it is not possible that she has completely shaped his life.
However, there are indeed things that may have shaped him:
a manipulative brother who told him that caring was not advantage, that all hearts are broken. Who used “trigger words” to “monitor” his mental state.
the absence of the parents in Sherlock’s life.
Today I would like to concentrate on the second aspect although it cannot be wholly separated from the first.
Until TEH we had no idea the Holmes parents were still alive. Mrs Holmes had been mentioned exactly once in ASiP:
M: We have more in common than you like to believe. This petty feud between us is simply
childish. People will suffer … and you know how it always upset Mummy. SHERLOCK: I upset her? Me? SHERLOCK: It wasn’t me that upset her, Mycroft.
Past tense, both times. So she could have been dead. The father was not mentioned at all. In ASIB, however, we got this:
MYCROFT: I’ll be mother.
SHERLOCK: And there is a whole childhood in a nutshell.
This is not about serving tea. This is about a dominant older brother who for some reason assumed the role of a parent. But why?, we asked ourselves. Did they lose their parents when they were young? (There are virtually hundreds of fanfics where at least one parent is dead).
And then, in TEH, we learned that they were alive and happy, doing sightseeing, line dancing, and attending musicals. We also learned that – other than their sons – the parents were completely ordinary. Nice, but not brilliant.
In HLV we learned that Mycroft used to call Sherlock stupid when they were children, an opinion the parents obviously shared:
MYCROFT: Such a disappointment.
YOUNG SHERLOCK: I’m not stupid.
MYCROFT: You’re a very stupid little boy. MYCROFT: Mummy and Daddy are very cross …
Later in the episode, however, we get a family idyll, a lovely bumbling father and mother who threatens to take revenge on whoever shot her boy. Moreover, the mother suddenly has become a brilliant ex-scientist.
And do not get me started on TFP. Here we get a family ruled by a mysterious uncle who had so far been characterised by cross-dressing and by Mycroft who was thirteen when disaster struck. They took away Eurus, they created the fake death scenario, they locked her up in a cold grey high-tech fortress, they convinced the parents never to mention their daughter again …
What the hell is it with those parents? They obviously accepted that their daughter was locked up as a five-year-old, they did not insist on finding a missing little boy, they accepted that their younger son invented a new past for himself, they let their other son control and supervise him for decades …
And finally some questions:
Why did Mycroft assume the role of a parent for Sherlock?
Why did the parents not insist on a police investigation of Victor’s disappearance (if they had done so, he surely would have been found)
Why did Sherlock take drugs?
Was Eurus medically treated in any reasonable and compassionate way? If not, why? She had parents. Their permission would have been needed, not the orders of an uncle and a teenage brother.
Why did Mrs Holmes, a mathematician, write a book with a title taken from physics and a content from medicine?
Why do we not get any information about Mr Holmes except that he is nice, slightly forgetful, and still keen on his wife?
The wheel turns and there’s really nothing new under the sun… It struck me that just about everything we see in Series 4 of BBC Sherlock, seems to have happened before, in one form or another. Which I believe is strong evidence for EMP theory (or at least something similar). I’m sure several people have already commented on this, but I’ll try to write down a whole list of what I’ve found this far – feel free to add to it!
Events in The Six Thatchers
1. Sherlock (in a Secret Service meeting about how to cover up him shooting Magnussen): “I am taking it seriously; what makes you think I’m not taking it seriously?”
Earlier event: In TEH, the Gothic fan in Anderson’s Holmes fan club, theorizing that Sherlock and Moriarty are attracted to each other: “I do take it seriously. I don’t think we should wear hats.”
2. Sherlock is brought back to London to figure out how Moriarty can be transmitting his “Miss me?” message on every screen in the country. Sherlock’s plan is to sit and wait for Jim’s “spider web” to quiver, rather than trying to find Moriarty himself.
Earlier event: In TEH Sherlock was brought back to London to foil a terrorist attack on the city. At first, he was just waiting for one of his markers (“rats”) to make a move.
3. In one case, Sherlock is in 221B, holding a plastic bag with ice and a human thumb in it.
Earlier event: In ASiB Mrs Hudson discovers a plastic bag in the fridge of 221B, containing human thumbs.
Sherlock Fandom Archive 