The year is 2025, and here I am, still very troubled about BBC Sherlock.
Now, it's been a while since I wrote any Sherlock meta, but there's something that's been bugging me, and Iβd love to get peopleβs input and thoughts.
I'm a screenwriterβnot a professional one, but an autodidact. I havenβt had anything produced, but I have written several original screenplays. One of the most basic things you learn as a writer in general, and especially in screenwriting, is the concept of the character arc. Itβs the art of starting a character off as one thing, taking them through a process of deconstruction or challenge, and letting them emerge as something different.
An exercise I enjoy is watching films or TV shows and analysing a characterβs arc. I try to spot hints of how a character will change by the end of an episode, a season, or the entire series. Thatβs part of why I particularly love Michael Schurβs showsβParks and Recreation, The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine. In the Michael Schur universe, character arcs are blatantly laid out for you in the pilot episode. Thereβs absolutely no need to philosophize or guess: the characters often state it themselves, or itβs clearly expressed through others.
Take, for example, Michael Scott.
In the Office pilot, heβs genuinely a terrible boss and a trashcan of a person. But weβre immediately shown his arc via one simple prop: a coffee mug. βWorldβs Best Boss.β Thatβs his journeyβto become that boss, if not in the world, then at least in Dunder Mifflin.
Or take Jake Peralta. In B99βs pilot, Terry introduces the squad to Captain Holt with:
βJacob Peralta is my best detective β he likes putting away bad guys, and he loves solving puzzles. The only puzzle he hasnβt solvedβ¦ is how to grow up.β
From that alone, you know where Jake is headed. By the end of the show, heβll still be the squadβs best detective, but heβll also be a grown-up: a dad, a partner, someone who takes his job seriously and earns the respect of his captain.
In the Parks and Rec original pilot script, Leslie outright declares that sheβll be Americaβs first female president. In the aired pilot, the message is softened a bit when Leslie says:
βYou know, government isnβt just a boyβs club anymore. Women are everywhere. Itβs a great time to be a woman in politics. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, me.β
There it is: Leslieβs arc will involve her rising through the boysβ club of American politics and becoming a truly great public servant (and maybeβeven if itβs never clearly statedβthe first female president).
So now that Iβve set the scene a bitβunderstanding how a character arc is seeded in a pilotβletβs talk about Sherlock.
What are we told about John and Sherlock in the pilot that sets up their character arcs?
Letβs start with Sherlock, because that one is spoon-fed to the audienceβby none other than Lestrade. In response to Johnβs question, βWhy do you put up with him?β, Lestrade says:
βBecause Sherlock Holmes is a great man. And I think, one day, if weβre very, very lucky, he might even be a good one.β
Thatβs it. Thatβs Sherlockβs arc. The writers are telling us outright: hereβs a brilliant but emotionally disconnected man. And the journey ahead of him isnβt about intellect, but about goodness. About connection, humanity, compassion. Becoming not just great, but good. And, if I might add a bit of Johnlock, not just to anyoneβbut through John, with John, and ultimately because of John.
Now, Johnβs arc is a little less obvious in my opinion, though just as importantβand itβs given to us by Mycroft, who says:
βYouβre not haunted by the war, Dr. Watsonβyou miss it.β
To me, this says: here is a traumatized soldier who never fully came back from war. Heβs unmoored, disconnected, half-alive. "Nothing ever happens to me." And the arc we should expect? A man who, over time, things happen to him and he finds peace. Who finds meaning in his civilian lifeβback in London, in friendship, in purpose, in (perhaps) love. Who, by the end of the series, no longer misses the war.
Thatβs the setup. Thatβs what we were promised.
Or at the very least, that's what I feel I was promised.
Only⦠whatever I feel was promised never actually happened.
In fact, Sherlock ends up delivering the complete opposite.
In Seasons 3 and 4, the show leans into Sherlock as a mythic, near-supernatural figureβthe βadult who never was a child.β This directly contradicts the idea of humanising him. The sudden introduction of Eurus shifts the focus from internal growth to external spectacle. His evolution becomes a reaction to trauma, not a conscious transformation toward goodness.
By the end of The Lying Detective, Sherlock is still fundamentally isolated and emotionally unavailable. Despite supposedly learning to βconnect,β he doesnβt share emotionally in any meaningful wayβnot with John, not with Eurus, not with Molly. The βI love youβ scene is a puzzle to be solved, not a moment of genuine vulnerability. John and Sherlockβs confrontation at the end of TLD achieves absolutely nothing in terms of their openness or intimacy.
Sherlock's arcβof becoming a good manβis never achieved.
Now, we can argue about that, because Sherlock is a softie at times. He is kind. And donβt get me wrongβwhen Michael Scott leaves Dunder Mifflin, heβs by no means a perfect boss. But heβs loved by Pam, heβs missed by Jim, and the Dunder Mifflin team has learned to respect him in their own way.
I know some of you are itching to shout that Sherlock's arc won't be complete without S5 and in theory, I agree! But! Lest we forget, Lestradeβs βprophecyβ (supposedly) comes full circle in The Final Problem:
"No, heβs better than that. Heβs a good one."
This, supposedly, is the great moment of The Payoff. Here stands Sherlock, A Good Manβ’.
Which⦠always makes me scratch my head.
Is he, Lestrade? Really?
What is it, exactly, in those last few days that convinces you of that? What moment between The Six Thatchers and The Final Problem gives you that impression?
Nothing.
Reallyβnothing.
This, for me, is absolutely zero character arc payoff.
Now, what about Johnβwho was supposed to come back from the war, or at most, get his adrenaline kicks chasing criminals with Sherlock through the streets of London?
Maryβs death completely hijacks John's growth as a character. Rather than showing John finding stability in his marriage and family (or with Sherlock, in whatever shape that takes), the show strips it all away. And worse, it distances him from Sherlock once moreβthrowing him into another spiral of guilt and rage, effectively rebooting his trauma rather than resolving it.
The finale gives John no closure. We donβt know where John is emotionally by the end of The Final Problem.
Is he at peace?
Are we supposed to believe that a happy montage fixes everything?
Does he still crave danger?
Does he still feel violent impulses toward Sherlock?
I canβt even begin to think when or how Mycroftβs seed of Johnβs arcββyou miss the warββcomes full circle in The Final Problem. Unlike Lestradeβs line about Sherlock, thereβs nothing that brings that theme to any kind of resolution. Itβs as though Moftiss forgot to give John a conclusion altogether.
Iβve sometimes wondered if Sherlockβs words to John in TLDββWe might all just be humanββwere meant to gesture at Johnβs arc. Butβ¦ why would it?
John never struggled to understand that he was human. That wasnβt his arc. That wasnβt his flaw. He knew he was human and he always craved for that humanity from Sherlock. So what, then, was that line supposed to resolve?
I can play devil's advocate here. Character arcs can be negative. A character doesn't always have to have a happy ending, and had Moftiss boldly done that, I would have appreciated it. But they hadn't- they give us a weird ass montage with John and Sherlock happily giggling at Rosie. It's just feels like there's absolutely no conclusion for John, whether negative or positive.
Adding insult to injury, Maryβs 'speech' during the final montage is actually dismissive of their "growth":
βThere are two men sitting arguing in a scruffy flat. Like theyβve always been there, and always will.β
Which completely negates the idea that theyβve changed. At that point, theyβre not like theyβve always been. John's quite possibly worse than when we met him.
βThe best and wisest men I have ever known.β
Againβwhatβs with the John erasure? Letβs say, for the sake of argument, Sherlock is better nowβwhat makes him wise? And Johnβs arc was never about becoming wise, so what does that even mean?
βMy Baker Street boys.β
Are they? Are they still the Baker Street boys (I hate that nickname)? Weβre never told if John and Rosie move back in. In fact, in a Q&A Moftiss declare John does not return to Baker Street.
And thatβs just it, isnβt it?
The Final Problem finale doesnβt fail because it was mysterious or ambiguous or hilariously bad or tragic. It fails because it abandons the emotional contract it made with its viewers in the very first episode. It forgets the arcs it promised, the healing it hinted at, the people these characters were meant to become.
We didn't need a happy ending.
But we did need a real one.