No, not another rant.
So, first episode of third season's out - and I have some mixed feelings. Loved a lot, especially the fan service. Thanks, Gatiss! That really came as a surprise. I didn't see that coming.
Appearance of "Mommy Holmes"
Mycroft joking openly with Sherlock
Sherlock shown on his mission, half-naked and beaten
Anderson's shout "I believe in Sherlock Holmes!"
The different theories acted out
Did I miss something? Anyway, I consider most of those fan service, and I love it.
Now, in terms of Mary...
I've been opposed to her character from the beginning. That doesn't come as a surprise. She just seems like a disruptive presence.
I am still a bit uncertain about Mary. She's just like I imagined her. Nice and so on, but a bit plain. To me, still feels somewhat unlikely that the relationship would ever be "enough" for John.
Is it wrong to hope for Sherlock/Mary moments? Just to break through this perfectly boring relationship John/Mary portrays? I really like the thought of Mary telling John no in the very last second because she notices that this is not right for both of them. She's so... sensible. And I can't imagine her not realizing that she might be the one John comes home to in the end, but that they won't be happy in their old age. Because she won't be enough for him, then, when there are no more riddles to be solved, no more criminals to be caught.
Now, here's one thing I consider fishy: Sherlock deduces about Mary that she is a liar. It is important enough to mention:
Mary is a liar.
This deduction happens after he tells John that she in truth dislikes his moustache. It's not about that. So what's she lying about? Something he cannot deduce, apparently. Otherwise Sherlock would spill it.
What if Mary is a placed agent? One of Magnussen's?
There are two major problems I have with the Guy Fawkes incident:
Mary harrassed John into visiting Baker Street - where he was ambushed. On open street. This was no covert action, it was deliberate. They intended to take him then and there. If he had been under observation, why would they not grab John somewhere else? There must be a place, an alley, less open than Baker Street. Taking him in front of Baker Street is a symbol, it is by no means practical. The specific date also leads me to the conclusion that his attackers knew he'd be headed there.
The encoded message was sent to Mary's phone; why would Magnussen do that? In the message, there's no mention of Sherlock Holmes. Would he truly rely on a part-time nurse to by off-chance that it means something to go to Sherlock? He didn't include any hint in the message that she was to show it to him. And how did he get Mary's phone number? Let's assume Magnussen is almighty; why not contact Sherlock directly? Or do it via Mrs Hudson, who at least was in physical proximity to his actual target? - > I assume Sherlock was his target because Magnussen stopped the video when Sherlock alone was shown.
The Guy Fawkes incident gets even fouler; Mary runs to Sherlock, and she doesn't even mention whether she called John or noticed that he wasn't at home. She also didn't ask whether he was at Baker Street. She rushed into the house, right to Sherlock.
Next thing: when they ride the bike, suddenly the messages address Sherlock. This is proof that they are somehow under surveillance, yet the messages all talk about "here" being at the Chapel. To me, it seems like Mary was told to bring the message to Sherlock. That's why the next message is directed at him. Even though Magnussen apprently only has footage of Sherlock at the Chapel. Magnussen is not using CCTV; the angles are wrong. There are at least two cameras involved, one's from a person, it's not from an above perspective. Magnussen works with manpower.
The biggest problem I have, though, is: Why did Mary go to Sherlock? She knows the message. She tells Sherlock how to read it - so why would she, if she truly believed John to be in danger, run to Sherlock? It's a waste of precious time. She had to drive to Baker Street. When she gets the message, she's walking. So I assume there's a time gap. Why not phone Sherlock? She also isn't truly panicking. Imagine your partner seems to have disappeared, and someone tells you to go to a specific place; it seems urgent. Would you truly react the way Mary did?
I didn't notice all these details on the first go; it happened when I reviewed the episode and noticed the "liar" part. It just seems fishy.
On the other hand: If Mary was involved, why bother putting this message in code? It's not like it's a challenge for Sherlock, Mary's the one who solves it. Why admit to solving it when that's a far better cover to ask Sherlock for help?
Even so, I think the theory is justified for now. And it makes Mary much more interesting. I've read some fanfictions where John's girlfriend (Mary, sometimes Tina) turns out to be Moran or one of Moran's accomplices. If Mary ends up being like that, I'll probably be as happy as larry. Would be in Gatiss' new spirit of fan service.
There's one thing for sure; Magnussen is not interested in a powerplay with Sherlock. Guy Fawkes Incident is about seeing Sherlock perform. Making him perform. Magnussen doesn't truly care about John. The murder attempt is not motivated by hatred or jealousy, or whatever. It's just a manner to make Sherlock "dance", to put him under pressure. I doubt Magnussen cared whether John would die or survive. He wanted to have Sherlock on screen, and he wanted to observe him. The hints are well-timed, e.g. the one including the word "Guy" when they drive by the fire. It wasn't about a riddle, either. Maybe the riddle was only a safeguard; to make sure Sherlock would take it serious.
One last crack fact why Mary must be Magnussen's:
have a look at his flat. Magnussen is a magician; or obsessed with magic tricks. And every magician needs a girl or two to cover up his game.
