That would be an interesting question. The fact that it would be a realistic action for the character and would clearly have difficult consequences would make for interesting and compelling drama.
Instead, we got a villain resurrection reset button. Colour me thrilled.
There were lots of ways they could have done that. They chose a bad one.
I disagree. IMHO, they made perfectly clear in the very first episode that this is a different kind of show: Sherlock comes up with a solution that would immediately occur to – and be discarded by – the average viewer: agree to play that poison guessing-game with the cabbie.
(John Watson, you may remember, then comes up with the solution that would immediately occur to the average viewer: just shoot him.)
You’ll have to let them know. They will be devastated.
I didn’t bother to say that in response to The Other Waldo Pepper because I assumed he/she (sorry) realized that and was just being humorous. Apparently not, but it was still kind of amusing.
In the original story Holmes goes to meet Moriarty with no other plan than to kill him and probably die himself in the act. That’s closer to what happens in this confrontation with Magnussen.
In the new version, Sherlock and Mycroft have an elaborate plan to both lure Moriarty into a confrontation and to have Sherlock survive it.
They seem to be reserving the right to mess about with the canon, mix up elements from different stories and even reverse things.
Well, I was kidding, but I was also serious.
I mean, yes, we expect James Bond to find himself in situations where he can get the win by resorting to lethal force, which is why it’s silly to picture him declaring a loss upon doing so. And we expect Sherlock Holmes to be in situations where he can foil a criminal by just analyzing clues and relaying his conclusions.
But if Holmes ever does happen to find himself in a situation where (a) Bond could solve the problem by shooting the guy, and where (b) even Stanislaus, watching along at home, says “Well, just shoot him then. You’ve got a gun” – well, then yeah; I expect he would; if anything, it’d be humorous if Holmes stood there with a gun in his hand and announced that – he sure can’t figure out a way to solve the problem.
Has SH killed anyone before?
I don’t deny that Sherlock or the original Holmes would probably solve a problem with violence, if they had little choice. But by doing so here, Sherlock is effectively throwing the chess board across the room to avoid checkmate. For him, it is a defeat, even if it was the best move he had. What I question, though, is how it could possibly be the best move available to him (or the writers). Either there is more to find out in series four, or Sherlock was suffering from a prolonged period of stupidity in the last episode. Magnussen never made a move that wasn’t entirely predictable to anyone of even average intelligence, so I don’t understand how Sherlock’s best move could have been to just shoot Magnussen in front of so many witnesses. I mean, even killing Magnussen in such a way that Watson would obviously be innocent and Sherlock can’t be proved guilty would be better. He was only threatening to give Mary up if Sherlock and Watson didn’t comply, so there was no pressing need to do it right there and then.
the ridiculous coincidence that Sherlock would happen to meet the personal assistant of Magnussen during Watson’s wedding.
the fact that a big bad evil mastermind would have flighty person like Janine as his PA, who would let her BF sneak into her boss’ super secure, heavily-restricted “14 levels of security” office. ooh it’s because he’s proposing!
and apparently Magnussen was still in the office all the while? how else did he and his bodyguard get there? how did Mary get in?
Mary not “shooting to kill”. he was literally on death’s door. his heart had flatlined. if he hadn’t known to fall backwards, didn’t get the “will to live” through imaginary Moriarty, or had the ambulance just been a tiny bit late, or any number of other things, he would have died for sure.
Magnussen frisks Sherlock and John in Baker St, but not in his own? How did his security guys forget this?
Mycroft having a laptop containing top-secret information on him during a visit to his parents?
Magnussen revealing that there are no physical proof of any of his info, that it was all in his head. How stupid was this? What would stop the government from secretly having him killed now?
also, this doesn’t have anything to do with this episode, but it’s been bugging me: the apparent existence of perfect body doubles that are able to fool Sherlock and Mycroft into thinking certain people are dead. Do Moriarty/Irene have a clone-facility somewhere?
At the wedding, I presumed Janine was a guest of Mary’s, who she then allowed into Magnussen’s office: Isn’t the better question, how does Janine know Mary and who does Janine really work for?
Perhaps Magnussen miscalculates SH’s capacity for violence in the same way SH miscalculates Magnussen’s Mind Palace …
I realy don’t understand this issue with a laptop - how else do you escape the family at Christmas!
I think there’s more to come with the Janine thing. What was it that Magnussen had on her? (And she never intended to marry Sherlock, or so she said.)
I agree about the body double for Irene. Not sure how that was supposed to have worked at all.
However, I’m in the camp that says that Moriarty is deaded and someone is using his image. It could even be Mycroft–Moriarty certainly turned up at a convenient time.
Yes. One of the Americans who was threatening Irene, when he opened the safe, having figured out the gun was there, and knowing the guy was in its path.
He also beat the corpse’s boss to a bloody pulp and threw him out a window after he took Mrs Hudson hostage.
Why would she allow her friend to her boss’ highly-secured restricted-access office? What sort of bimbo does Magnussen employ?
And when could this have happened? She just let Sherlock and John into the elevator.
…the plot point that annoys you came straight from the original story. I thought it was a rather clever adaption really. I mean, in the original Holmes disguised himself as a plumber and romanced the maid to get closer to Magnussen. I’m sure the writers could have adapted this in a more “straight forward” manner that would have made you happy. But it also would have been very boring.
You started off in this thread by posting stuff like “garbage” “boring” and “full of plot holes”, someone asked you to make points, you did, I answered some, now you have more questions based on the previous answers.
At least you’re thinking. From here, it might be an idea to work from the possibility that Gatiss and Moffat have a reasonable idea of how to write a drama, and see if you can work out what it is you don’t understand before making a fool of yourself with silly talk.
Happy thinking.
What plot point that annoys me? I’m not annoyed at Sherlock romancing someone to get gain access somewhere. I’m annoyed they did it in such an unconvincing manner.
This wasn’t the original story (whose wiki page I just read to learn this) where it’s just some house where you’re the housemaid and you let Sherlock disguised as a plumber in. This is where you’re the PA to a man who keeps office in a ridiculously tighly-controlled, heavily guarded virtual fortress, and you let your BF in all willy nilly to his office just because he is proposing to you (and all the while he is apparently still in the office?)
I’m sorry but how did your explanation make any sense? You’re saying Mary was already in the office, let up by Janine, before Sherlock got there? Was Janine having a party in Magnussen’s office?
…really? They didn’t slavishly follow the original story word for word?
Of course it wasn’t exactly the same as the original story. This was an adaption. It deviated enough from the original to surprise, was sufficiently funny enough to make us laugh, and when we saw Janine lying on the floor shocking enough for us to see the stakes had been raised.
And this wasn’t just any man. This was Sherlock Holmes! I mean, I’m a straight male. But if Sherlock proposed to me I would let him into my secret squirrel workplace as well!!! Wouldn’t you?
I thought it was heavily implied that Mary was friends with Janine precisely because the latter was a way to Magnussen. Thus, it wasn’t a coincidence at all that Sherlock met her at the wedding.
I guess I’m being misunderstood. I don’t care it doesn’t follow the original story. I didn’t even know of the original story before that poster mentioned it and I looked it up, and after which I mentioned that the original scenario makes more sense and is more believable.
My problem was how it was done in Sherlock. It was stupid. “hmm I’m the PA of a cold, creepy boss who runs his building like a fortress and has a ridiculously restricted top floor office, but my BF just is proposing to me, so what the heck why not let him in” AND while Magnussen and his bodyguard were literally in the next room.
…we all understand you just fine.