GingerYeez

In this TST scene there is (an image file of) a blog post about changing Rosie’s nappies that wasn’t supposed to be there at the time because Mary is in this same scene, still pregnant.

Just like Sherlock deduced in the Great Game (Fourth Pip/Fourth Season) that the painting’s a fake because the Van Buren Supernova wasn’t supposed to be there at the time it was said to be painted.

*Edit: Also the Russian Model was nicknamed “Russian Rapunzel”

Another “Rose of the World” was a1918 film - here’s the synopsis (emphasis mine):

Hi, guys! :)

So this took absolutely ages, but I’ve managed to compile a pretty much exhaustive cut of all the evidence that indicates that Season Four takes places within Sherlock’s mind + that TJLC remains crucial to understanding the show.

Part of the reason I wanted to make this was because there seems to be a large group of people who think that everyone in TJLC is crazy effectively rendering us Chris Melas 2.0 as opposed to just listening to what we have to say and realising there’s a logical explanation for why at a surface level HLV and S4 just don’t make sense at all.

For now I’m keeping this unlisted on Youtube because I don’t want it to be flagged Big Brother is always watching smh but also because I’m really not sure we’re supposed to be spreading ‘spoilers’ to people who aren’t necessarily playing what’s pretty much BBC’s version of the ‘Sherlockian Game’? So … For now this is just available through link + Tumblr sharing. Better safe than sorry!

Okay peeps, so I’m ready to tackle the weird little discrepancies of s4. I need your help however. Please reblog this adding discrepancies you’ve noticed in s4 and want my opinion on it from a filmmaker’s perspective. I want to sift through all this shit and talk about what is likely just a mistake and what is probably on purpose. If you’re interested in that topic, please share and stay tuned for a new ep of The Sherlock Experiment :)

[x]

Hello.

See the listing of the titles – a total of 7 Ms.

Now Amanda’s not going to be there. Which leave us – yes, a total of 4 Ms.

In TRF the line is, “Every fairytale needs a good old fashion villain.”

Here it was changed to, “Every good fairytale needs a villain.”

Maybe this was intentional. If a fairytale doesn’t have a villain, the story is no good.

Was there really a villain in Series 4?

TST - Mary = not a villain by the end, died ‘heroically’

TLD - Culverton Smith = confessed at the end

TFP - Eurus = turned good after a hug

Moriarty wasn’t really alive this season.

There wasn’t a true villain like CAM or Moriarty or Jonathan Small or Dr. Franklin in the past. Without a proper villain, the fairytale wasn’t good. Without a good villain, the ending, no matter how happily ever after it appeared, was not satisfying.

That really was how the ending of TFP seemed to have been written: a happily ever after, but not a satisfying one.

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 

“But hasn’t this all been done before? There’s nothing new under the sun.”

Here again I’m going to say that The Final Problem largely takes place within a character’s head– technically for some of this, that person could be Sherlock or John (as both being our leads tend to overhear things at the same time), but I’m edging more and more towards John, particularly in:

John hears Moriarty’s voice & “You’ve been reading John’s blog…” The Final Problem Nightmare

^Both these metas argue that events in The Final Problem are repeating what has already happened– John hearing Moriarty’s voice in his ear in The Great Game as does the girl on the plane & elements of past cases written up on John’s blog bleeding into the episode. But, there’s more than just those examples being echoed. In:

Eurus’s prison & the morgue

^There’s a few visual parallels to Culverton’s morgue in The Lying Detective and Eurus’s prison. I say that John’s mind might be re-imagining that location, because it was the last place where he and Sherlock had a dangerous/frightening/ confrontational moment. But there’s more parallels from other locations:

The Hounds of Baskerville:

Here, Sherlock pretends to be Mycroft to get into Baskerville. In The Final Problem, the boys rely on the governor making the assumption that Mycroft is Sherlock, while Sherlock slips off. Mycroft’s line: “That’s the trouble with uniforms and name badges, people stop looking at faces,” is exactly how Sherlock gets into Baskerville- the security card has Mycroft’s name (AND FACE!), but the workers mistakenly just assume Sherlock is Mycroft; they don’t look at his face to see if it matches.

There’s also a similar visual in how Sherlock gets into Sherrinford at the end of the episode resembling Sherlock going into Baskerville with his pass- another hint at (John’s) mind re-using locations:

And then we have overheard past conversations creeping in:

His Last Vow

This is why we have the weirdly specific mention of Moriarty being Eurus’s “Christmas present”- it’s John remembering and corrupting the memory of Mycroft being Magnussen’s “Christmas present” in His Last Vow. Magnussen even explicitly addresses John while explaining this:

MAGNUSSEN: Let me explain how leverage works, Doctor Watson. For those who understand these things, Mycroft Holmes is the most powerful man in the country. Well … apart from me. (John tilts his head at him questioningly. The side of Sherlock’s mouth lifts in a small smile.) MAGNUSSEN: Mycroft’s pressure point is his junkie detective brother, Sherlock. And Sherlock’s pressure point is his best friend, John Watson. John Watson’s pressure point is his wife. I own John Watson’s wife … (he looks round to Sherlock) … I own Mycroft. He’s what I’m getting for Christmas. (x)

And, to finish, one last repeated phrase that John has heard before in:

The Abominable Bride

Hey Nonny!

I think it was *supposed* to be the big Eurus reveal, you know, the dumb thing.

This isn’t a real meta, I’m not pretty (at all) good at numbers, and I can’t quite play with the words of a language that isn’t mine. But S4 is the series of consequences and premonitions together. There are thumbs that itch, premonitions, is also quoted an horror movie that has a title that is a prediction: OMEN. And it’s also a series of upside-down letters, and mirrored images. When I saw this stone I read NEMO HOLMES, but also OMEN HOLMES.

Mark, very sincerely and personably (make of that what you will), agreed with me about the moment’s emotional importance, and expressed that he had really hoped to include the scene. He said that they (I can’t remember his wording exactly) either tried it or he ran through some possible scenarios and it wouldn’t have fit anywhere (this depends on the different opinions of “was Johnlock intended to be fulfilled or not”). He mentioned the writing phenomenon of “kill your babies” when saying how much he wanted to do the scene. He even called it “throttle the nursery” because it was such a big blow to him.

Steven said that there have been plenty of scenes where Sherlock and John’s care for each other has been shown (his exact emphatic words were “yes yes they would just say wow this is my favorite person!”) and so the Garridebs scene would not be a revelation of that care, as it was in the novels in Victorian times. He said the moment itself is “a retelling of The Red Headed League, but not as good”. I could tell that this is a question he’s been asked before or has thought on a lot, because he delivered the answer very straightforward and with an air of, he’s tired of explaining this and finds it very obvious.

But even though, wouldn’t have it been better to not insert the Garribeds even after promising us time and time again it will come and it will be glorious? Why teasing a moment they thought wasn’t important anymore as vital and do that?

Random stuff while I remember it.

Sue said that season five won’t get planned or written until Ben and Martin commit, and made an offhand comment like “when they’re less busy.” It sounded distant. Steven similarly said that he had no idea at all where the next season would go, and hadn’t thought about it yet. He’s busy with Dr. who now and might take a year off when that’s done.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(x) 

So basically, altogether what we’ve gotten from them so far is: “I wanted it to glow” despite the fact that “it had to be done inexpensively” because of the “low budget”, while in the end it didn’t make any difference at all, because it had to be “edited in post-production” anyway, but that there’s “absolutely no meaning behind it”, because in this show “they don’t aim for subtle meta meanings”.

YEAH 

And you know why Sherlock gets all the credit?! John’s blog. That they keep on mentioning. 

LET’S JUST DROP THIS BIG LOOSE END FOR NO REASON HERE:

And also let’s just name the opening episode THE SIX THATCHERS which, even besides it “just” being a post to find on the blog, IS ALSO SHOWN ON JOHN’S LAPTOP IN A SCANDAL BELGRAVIA A.K.A THE PAST.

As I’ve said before, this is not just a simple continuity error. It’s blatantly deliberate, in my opinion. Unless Joe Lidster forgot to remind them ‘oh hey guys I also wrote this blog post?? it’s the same title?? remember we put it in the show?? oh well they didn’t hear me, too late…’ lmao

this is why I haven’t stopped analysing, or reading others’ analysis. Because the show itself–if you can stomach watching it–is full of bizarre and potentially interesting contradictions. That includes the fact that it’s garbage on a textual level, and chock full of rich subtext.

I know that a lot of parallel has been written between Bond and Sherlock, but yesterday I saw MR.NO, the first of all, and there was already a lot. There is a mysterious island where a dragon is believed to be hiding.

You get in on small fishing boats.

It is ruled by a super villan who has stolen some money, many, at Tong, but the one he aspires to, is the control.

He has in the living room an (little ;-P) aquarium, easy  link, but is framed in the rock and also remembers Sherrinford’s windows.

But above all, it speaks to the visitors / prisoners through a microphone while in this cell.