Right then, I'll get straight to the point. There's a lot that needs to be ironed out after that insane fourth season of Sherlock! I've been sitting on all of this commentary for weeks, but I just have to say this because even now I keep seeing some really contentious posts regarding it.

Please, please--if you agree with what I'm about to say, share this on your social media! It's very important to me that this gets said to as many people as possible.

On to the grievances:

"Sherlock Season 4 was so bad!"

Well, no. Everyone loved some of it, even if there were parts that bothered you or you didn't like. It's totally unfair to expect that a show is made to please and fulfill every single one of your own expectations, when in reality it has to continue along the lines of the show as well as coordinate with what the writers have in mind. Not to mention everyone's different opinions, could you imagine having to include all of that?

There were some truly amazing scenes in the entire season. Just to name a few:

The Culverton Smith and Sherlock interactions, which were very well done.

"Hey, Bro!"

Mycroft has a sword in his umbrella! and watches black and white romances in his basement!

There was John talking to Mary in his mind.

There was Sherlock fiercely defending John as family!

Everything with Ms. Hudson, naturally.

There was the Sherlock-hugging-John scene (still everyone's favourite, I'm sure!).

And Sherlock remembered Lestrade's first name!

"My Baker Street Boys"

Sherlock and John raising Rosie together, presumably.

That's not nearly all of them--there were so many wonderful scenes scattered throughout the series, truly. It would be a disservice to focus only on the negative aspects of it and forget the value of the amazing cinematography and acting, as well as all the parts that made us laugh, cry, or simply stare at the screen in disbelief.

Which brings me to my next point: the pointing out of plot holes. Yes, there were several plot holes, but many of them are purposely left unsolved. Sherlock is a show for smart people, and smart people usually can put two and two together. For example:

"Why did Mary have to get killed?"

She died in the books, too, and it didn't specify how. It added an interesting twist to have her die for Sherlock in front of John, and although nobody likes when Sherlock and John are angry with each other, it truly accentuated how much they needed each other in the end to help them get through the pain.

"Nobody even cared that John got shot!"

Yes, that was glossed over. However, it made a great cliffhanger for the end of TLD, which is the point. We know that Euros didn't want to kill John them because she needed him later, to play "the game" in TFP. Remember, Euros is smarter than both Sherlock and Mycroft in the way of mental capacity, organisation, and planning. She's already had this planned out for years, and shooting John with a tranquiliser was the bait she needed to get Sherlock and John onto her trail.

Also, I'm sure Sherlock cared very much that Euros shot John, but wasn't there. Not even Sherlock Holmes could predict that John's therapist, secret crush, and "Faith" were the same person, or that any of them could turn out to be his psychopathic sister.

He's not psychic, Sherlock. In The Lying Detective, it rather sets him up to be, with him predicting what John, Ms. Hudson, and Molly would do, but that is because he's known them for so long that with his deducing skills he is able to estimate what they will do. This is not the case with Euros; he doesn't know her at this point. Thus, he would have no possible idea what had happened to John until he got a call/visit from him once he woke up. Of course, he'd be concerned then, but by that time, Euros had presumably fled the scene.

"Why is the first scene like a horror movie? Sherlock isn't about that!"

Well, of course it's not, that's why it isn't about that. The point of the opening scene of TFP is to show how elaborately John and Sherlock tried to scare Mycroft. I think its quite funny that both of them thought of what could possibly scare Mycroft, and came up with that.

The point of the scene is to trick the audience, and to show precisely what Sherlock meant by the "experiment".

It's quite cleverly done, I think, because we see Mycroft, who is usually so stoic and serious completely fall for it.

The one plot hole I see in this bit is how on earth Sherlock managed to deduce that he had a sister from the bit that John told him and a piece of paper with "Miss me?" scrawled on it, especially since he had no memory of her at that point.

"How did Euros keep on getting out of the prison whenever she wanted?"

Ah, this one. Although it's plausible if you think really hard, I do think this one should have been explained a tad more.

However, if we assume everything she has told us is true (that she has taken control of people at the facility, etc.) as well as the fact that the glass vanishes when someone touches it (more on that later), then we could see how she could easily either sneak onto a chopper, or convince someone to take her onto the mainland. From there, it's easy, it's child's play. We've already seen that Euros is a master of deception, disguise, trickery, not to mention she's brilliant.

Twisted, sadistic, but brilliant.

They did mention (in the conversation between the governor, John, and Mycroft in the control room) that she had convinced one of the workers to kill his family, which he did, before taking his own life. It's well established that she has a way of messing with peoples minds, much like many characters we've seen throughout the series, namely Charles Augustus Magnussen and Moriarty. It's not as far fetched if we recall all of that.

"How did John, Sherlock, and Mycroft escape the explosion unscathed?"

Do you know in books, when they switch to the next day, or the next few days, or even a week from then, and you have to assume what happened in between? That was this.

I don't think that there needs to be a scene for after every single close call, because after getting to know Sherlock, John, etc. so well over the past few episodes, we know what would happen.

Sherlock and John would have landed on the pavement, covered in ash, with glass surrounding them. John would be bruised, Sherlock would be as well, both would wince in pain before immediately checking to see if the other was fine. They would both look at each other and run inside to find Mycroft and Ms. Hudson, only for Mycroft to hurtle out with Ms. Hudson, knowing how much she meant to Sherlock and John.

Mycroft would dryly comment, "I'm fine," while Ms. Hudson would likely comment something along the lines of "Was that a client?", and Sherlock would reply "You could say that." There would be a pan-out so we could see the firemen, etc. working to put out the flames, and so on.

The point is that we know them so well that we all instinctively know this, at least, if we think about it.

"Why was there no glass around Euros' cell?"

There was glass, Sherlock could see his reflection in it. As quoted by the former, people see but they do not observe. His reflection was there, and there was text on the glass warning those present not to touch it accidentally (hence the "three feet away"). As a high-tech prison, it can be expected that they have all the fancy equipment, such as cells with vanishing walls.

One might say, "Well, that's idiotic, why would you have vanishing cell walls in a prison?"

Well, it's obvious why--the prisoners kept there are beyond insane, immoral, and brilliant. These are the masterminds of the criminal universe (criminal rather seems too mild of a word). They would know how to break through a door, how to pick a lock, how to pry off hinges, how to do any similar thing to escape. The only solution is to build cells with no doors, and hence, no way out. But of course, there has to be some way to enter, which is why the walls have to vanish--so that the guards and nurses have a way to get in. Unfortunately, that also happens to be very fallible when you're capable of being totally brainwashed by a madwoman.

"How did five minutes with Moriarty somehow allow both of them to plan such an intense and elaborate series of events?"

This is a good question, and requires more out of the box thinking. Moriarty and Euros are very, very similar. Both are absolutely bonkers, and both are yet so undeniably brilliant it's a shame they didn't take a shine to curing cancer or proving the string theory. So, we can come to the conclusion they thought up a way they would stay in contact, either by hacking into the system of the prison itself (we already know there are cameras there, and with two people that bright, it's hardly implausible) and presumably the entire system, judging by her control over the lights and the screens in the rooms. We don't know what they said in those five minutes, but it most likely was something along those lines, because based on common sense even Moriarty and Euros combined can't slow down time. They would be able to stay in constant contact, and it's likely that Moriarty found out ways to drop by for a visit whenever he wanted.

(Although, I think it would be amusing if Moriarty and Euros had spent the entire time recording train noises.)

"Why was the heartbreaking scene with Molly never resolved?"

This, I think, is another one of the major plot holes. It's definitely not satisfactory to have her just brush it off.

That scene with Molly was excellently done and acted, but the resolution of it was anticlimactic at best.

Using some imagination, we can imagine that Sherlock would have approached her and explained what happened, as well as made some attempt at addressing her confession. We see Sherlock become truly raw and exposed as he tries to figure out how to connect with people, and we can imagine that this was one of those scenes.

Take the bomb detonation, for example, everyone can come up with pretty much the same scenario as to what happened, because it's implied. However, this is not a time like the explosion scene or the well scene (more on that later), where a scenario could be assumed quite easily. Both of those scenes (and scenes like it) are based on things we know already and can bring in to the story.

Molly's scene, however, is totally foreign material. Both character's emotions are things we have never seen before, and therefore can make no assumptions on.

Because of this, I do think this was one of the major plot holes that was present, and I do wish we got a bit more of how Sherlock and Molly resolved this stressful encounter.

"How did John get out of the well with only a rope if his feet were chained to the floor?"

I'm honestly not sure why this is such a big question. This is nearly easier than the bomb scene to predict.

Let us say, theoretically, that you are a mountain climber being rescued. Your leg is stuck under a rock and you can't climb up the steep walls, much like John in a well. And yet, when the scene shows a rope dropping down, we immediately come to the conclusion that someone is coming down to rescue you, presumably freeing your leg and then being pulled up. This has happened in so many movies in some way or another that I'm surprised this question has come up.

Obviously, someone came down the rope to save John.

Perhaps it was Sherlock, having found the key to the manacles. Perhaps it was the police (we do see them a short moment after). Perhaps, it was Euros herself, although I doubt it.

Either way, one thing is undisputed. Someone climbed down the rope with either the key or some chain cutters and freed John.

Of course John can't climb up the rope. Use your imagination, people!

"How did Euros manage to teleport everyone to their old childhood home?"

That is another scene that required explaining, although I believe it's left up to interpretation for a reason. It's implied (again!) that Euros has command over everyone in the prison, and thus is able to do certain things, like commandeer helicopters. With a few nurses to help who probably are convinced they have to go commit murder now, it is in no way strange to assume that Euros got everyone there, just as she got herself there and back again numerous times.

As for the elaborate set on the property (the fake room Sherlock is in), it's probable that she set all that up beforehand. Obviously, she didn't have time to take them there and hide dog bowls and flat screen TVs around the whole house, that would have to be done at an earlier date. However, since we already know she's no stranger to planning and scheming (Exhibit A: the four alter egos), it is very possible.

"What is with the girl on the plane, and how did a simple hug change Euros' mind?"

I also found it strange that so little attention was spared to actually explain how this elaborate ruse was so fixated in Euros' mind. However, again, going back to the fact that we know she's too brilliant to handle her mental capacity for things, it's possible. The odd thing is how Sherlock basically said "Here, have a hug," and everything was fine. I do think that's a strange plot hole, and a major one at that.

After so much effort, planning, and personal investment in seeing her brother suffer, if I were Euros, I would not be so easily defeated. That, I do agree, was quite bizarre.

Oh, and as for Moriarty on the phone call, it was probably a replay of a recording. Apparently Euros has a collection.

"Why did Sherlock seem to not care about John in the well?"

He did care! He cared immensely, he was scared to death that John would die. But Sherlock, being Sherlock, knows how to put logic and creative thinking ahead of emotional distress, he's always done that. When he was shot by Mary in Season 3, he also thought logically about what he should do, which saved his life. He did the same thing with John, he remained calm and methodic while he solved the case in record time so he could save his best friend.

"But John said 'Vatican Cameos'!"

Indeed he did. However, that is their code for-- as John explains to Mary in The Sign of Three--"Battle stations. Someone's going to die."
John says it because he thinks he will die, so there's a strong chance Sherlock will also.

However, by now, Sherlock has sorted out who is going to die-- John, of course, so he has to push aside his complete terror to solve the case, solve the great game that Euros has laid out.

When Euros made Sherlock realise that Redbeard was Victor Trevor (his childhood best friend) and not a dog, Sherlock was crying as he said "You killed my best friend." Obviously, it's extremely sad that a sadistic six year old (or whatever age she was) killed a little boy her own age to get back at her brother. It's even sadder how Sherlock had to learn to cope with that. But, since he has very few extensive memories of his childhood friend, except for the few he recalls with Euros' help, he's recalling his feelings for John, and how much he can't stand to loose him, and what a wreck he would be if she took away the most important thing in his life yet again. He is saying "You killed my best friend" in the past and present tense--and then we see the frames shift between child Sherlock and adult Sherlock, and both the best friends of child and adult Sherlock are dead because of Euros. And in that moment, it becomes too much, and he cries.

If that doesn't show how much he cares, I don't know what does. Sherlock panicking and running around in circles screaming for John just isn't something he would do, he knows the value of logical thinking and a cool demeanour in extreme times such as that. He commanded his emotions in a way that ensured he would be in the best frame of mind to save John, which shows great devotion in itself.

This one is more relevant-- "Why didn't John care about Sherlock with the gun?"

I have two theories:

The first is that he was in such shock that he couldn't comprehend it, that it was just too much. He reverted to the "soldier" state of mind to the extent that he didn't even flinch at death. Of course, he would have been absolutely broken later, but at the moment, that was what he was feeling. I'm sure that this is what Mofftiss would say, something along those lines.

Personally, however, I think it could have been done a bit better. We already saw John's "soldier mentality" quite clearly in the previous scenes, especially how he was Sherlock's rock, keeping him calm and tethered to reality when it really seemed too much. I think it was important to show how John absolutely can't live without Sherlock by having a bit more of a reaction from him rather than just stoically staring.

Also, if you're wondering , "Why did Sherlock immediately decide to point the gun at himself?"

Well, he wasn't going to shoot John, and although he seemed like Mycroft would be the one, of course he can't shoot him, either. As much as he denies it, Mycroft is his brother, and has been there for him. The two people he loved most were there, and he would rather not kill either of them, of course.

In his clever mind, of course he knew that his sister was trying to get to him, to use him, so she needed him alive for the game. I'm positive he came to that conclusion and therefore figured she wouldn't let him kill himself, which is why he made it seem like he was going to and dragged it out by counting down.

There is a possibility that John realised this too, but I think it's rather unlikely.

Which brings me to my final point:

I keep hearing over and over again that this season had some scary, weird, disturbing images. It did, it truly did. However, all of it reminded me very much of Moriarty. This is exactly the kind of thing that Moriarty did throughout an entire season of Sherlock, the fear instilled in the audience that he was going to leap out of the shadows, the feeling that he was watching everything, the disturbing games he played, the freaky hacking messages, etc. etc.

Moriarty, despite his psychopathic tendencies, is quite popular, even so. Yes, he's had some fabulous entrances, and Andrew Scott's acting is great, but that is no reason to forget everything that Moriarty did throughout the entire time he was on the show. It was the exact same sort of thing, and I can't help feeling like people overlook that because they love Andrew Scott and/or think he's hot or whatever.

Euros is a nutcase. We know that. She's like a female version of Moriarty. Brilliant, but totally off her rocker. She is, as a character, perfectly portrayed as chillingly as she would be if she were real.

That's the point. Sherlock Holmes' final problem isn't going to be a repetition of another case that he solved, it's going to be something so insane and disturbing that he can hardly cope, something that echoes his arch nemesis Moriarty. That was definitely accomplished by the TFP, and even if it made everyone extremely uncomfortable (I had to switch the channel at some bits!) it accurately portrayed how scary it was to have the character of Euros in the show.

Things I didn't like, some of which I already mentioned:

Sherlock deduced that he had a sister from very limited clues.

The issue with Molly was never put to rest with dignity.

John was too stoic when faced with the potential death of his friend.

I truly hate watching suicides on screen. I was actually a bit traumatised by the Reichenbach Fall scene with Moriarty, and from then on, every time I saw a gun in the hand of someone unstable, I immediately was alarmed. I honestly couldn't watch the scene with the Governor, and although I know what happened I don't intend to watch it. Once was enough (with Moriarty); I don't think it's in anyone's best interests to keep putting scenes like that in. There are ways to get the point across without such frightening cinematography.

Also, the fact that everyone was so brainwashed by Euros was kind of unbelievable. If you believe it, and assume that it is fact, it makes everything much easier to infer, but looking at at critically, it seemed that Sherrinford only hired people who clearly were weak minded, which is unwise.

The vagueness of how Euros got control of everything was a bit strange too, again, if we assume that she did, everything makes sense, but how she did it probably could be explained just a tad bit so we don't have to infer so much.

Also, I'm not sure how a hug solved everything, I still think that was anticlimactic.

The bit with John and Sherlock and the suicide scare, as discussed.

Although the end scene was great, I disliked how Mary said that "who you are doesn't matter". Of course it matters. It's always mattered.

So, I bring this commentary to an end and hope that this helped bring to light some things about Season 4, mostly the confusion that was TFP.

Again, please share this on whatever social media you have if you are into this insane show! If you want the version you can copy and paste, PM me and I'll send it to you. Just credit me @dreamescape07 or whatever.

I think everyone needs to take a step back after recovering from the indisputable whirlwind shock that was Season 4 and just reevaluate things.

Hope this was helpful.