Sherlock Holmes discussion
The TV Shows
>
BBC: Sherlock
date
newest »
newest »
message 301:
by
Khalif
(new)
Jan 23, 2014 01:01PM
I'm not too sure about the first episode. It made Sherlock look too cool. Sherlock is NOT cool.
reply
|
flag
I was totally like "where's my shock blanket?" after watching The Empty Hearse. The episode wasn't what I was expecting and I uh, stayed up till 2:30am processing and turning it over it my mind before I could quite decide exactly what I thought of it. I knew fan-fiction played in but I didn't realize going into it that like half the scenes in the film didn't actually happen. But after I caught on and recognized in retrospect the various theories and who thought of which ones, I thought it was all brilliant and tremendously funny.The tone is different--it just feels different and took a little while to adjust to. The case takes a back-stage seat and it's harder to see a clear direction to the episode. At the end of the episode we really are in almost as much in the dark as we were before as to what really happened at St. Bart's. But it was so fun and so hilarious and so great to have Sherlock back that I didn't care and besides that I'm beginning to think that I'd rather not know for sure "how he did it" because as Sherlock himself has said, "it's always simple once it is explained to you"nor as Anderson said "It's a little disappointing. Not how I would have done it." Unless of course it was something like this theory: http://eva-christine.tumblr.com/post/... (which I think is VERY plausible).
It's super cool that the real-life fandom has crossed over into the fictional world of the tv series. It has a completely "in-universe" feel to it. And the slash fiction gets made fun of and officially booted out of the canon. Shall I raise a toast?
The reunion scene between John and Sherlock really couldn't get more perfect. I adored Mary. I relished every scene with Molly. I shocked myself by loving Anderson who is as they say, now "one of us". I could have wrung Sherlock's neck when he tricked John--and us!--about the bomb. It was just so unbelievably cruel and unfeeling--even for him--but then when he smiled up at John I couldn't help but forgive him too. He was obviously just so happy to be back with John he didn't even care if John was mad at him. Sherlock was actually lonely. That was the biggest take-away for me. One of my favorite scenes was when Mycroft and Sherlock played Operation then analyzed the bobble-hat. The exchange was witty, hysterical and insightful.
(Sherlock to Mycroft) "We both thought you were an idiot, we had nothing else to go on."
And:
Mycroft: Maybe he [the owner of the bobble-hat] just doesn't mind being different. He doesn't necessarily have to be isolated.
Sherlock: Exactly.
Mycroft: I'm sorry?
Sherlock: He's different, so what? Why would he mind. You're quite right. Why would anyone mind?
"I'm not lonely, Sherlock", Mycroft said with his usual ice.
"How would you know" was Sherlock's cutting reply.
Just as a fish doesn't know it's wet, a person who never knew what it's like to have friends doesn't know they're lonely. Sherlock now knows what it's like to have real friends and doesn't want life any other way.
What part of the episode portrayed Sherlock as "too cool" in your opinion, Khalif?
Really, REALLY, hoping to watch The Sign of Three with my brother tonight.
And once again, I delivered a long answer to a short question. :P
Signing off,
The Long Winded One
Ok, wow, that post was really, REALLY long. Sorry guys.
Emily wrote: "The Sign of Three was hysterical!!!!"Is that at good thing?
Uh-YEAH! Pretty much, definitely, yes. Most certainly--a very, good thing. :) :)
Well don't y'all talk all at once, now.
Im not sure about this new season, so far. Sign of the three was sooooooooo much different than the book. A little difference is okay, but this was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off ( sorry about the ridiculous text, but it proves a point)
My memory of the book is unfortunately dim. I think they pretty much just kept the villain and victim's names, am I correct? But the wedding wasn't in the book at all either and I love that they fleshed it out for us.
But there were too many differences. Sholto originally died in the book, plus, Watson wasn't even seeing anyone during the time of that mystery, let alone marrying anyone.
They changed just as much in The Hound of the Baskervilles--did you mind then?
Did you not enjoy Sign of Three at all?
In The Hound, Sherlock wasn't even "in the picture" for most of the story. That was a significant change. And they switched the villains around too. Not to mention it was a real hound in the book.
I didn't mind as much for that episode, I thought that the story was really good despite them. As for Sign of the Three, I give it a 2.5 out of 5. But I'm just a harsh critic
Emily wrote: "In The Hound, Sherlock wasn't even "in the picture" for most of the story. That was a significant change. And they switched the villains around too. Not to mention it was a real hound in the book."And it was a real hound in the show. Or, rather, it was towards the end
The plot in Sign of Three was pretty easy to figure out (before Sherlock does!) but the fact is, the episode wasn't really about the case. It's about Sherlock coming to terms with John's marriage and for that, the episode did a terrific job in my opinion.
I figure that in His Last Vow they'll return to much more case-driven episodes. The first couple after the hiatus had to be special.
I get that. But they could have done it differently. They could have chosen other cases. Ones that they knew would be simple, yet challenging, and would fit in the episode.
So did you think it didn't fit with the episode or should have been saved for a purer adaptation, or both?
Both. If they had used another story, then maybe the episode would have been better.
can we please talk about His Last Vow? I need to know if anyone else hated it as much as I did
Is saw it too and was--uh less than delighted by it. :( I loved some aspects of it (i.e. John and Mary) but hated others. Sherlock a murderer???!!!! NOOoooo!!!!!!!So why did you hate it, Khalif? Do you think the series will be able to recover?
1: Mary turns out to be a spy. *really, people, really? is the last person one would expect of being a spy. (and I know what your thinking, "but if you don't expect it, that's good, because you aren't supposed to suspect a spy" but I do not mean it like that).2: Wiggins was an adult. *I could accept Wiggins being a teenager, but not a full-grown adult*
3: Sherlock using that woman, and pretending to be her boy friend *Sherlock is cold and manipulative, but he isn't that cold and manipulative*
4: The fact that Sherlock couldn't outsmart the villain *Sherlock should have been able to recognize that he had a mind palace. He should have waited for the man to expose himself and then reveal a recording device*
5: Moriarty's return *Mycroft's people themselves investigated the body. It makes no sense that Moriarty is back. this is clearly a copycat, or Rich Brook (as I shall choose to call the man that we saw as Moriarty) was never the real Moriarty, but was an actor*
and that, dear Emily is why I did not like the episode. I believe that Season 3 did not live up to my expectations, and that it will be difficult for the series to regain my faith in it. Clearly, whomever is writing for the show now has lost the element which previously made the series great.
I agree, Khalif. The did mess up the episode. What I didn't like most do all was that the made Watson with a 'need' for dangerous people. I don't think it follows the books at all.
Like you Khalif I was very disappointed with Series 3. The writers didn't seem to care about the original stories this time round (His Last Vow being the only story anywhere close to the original). The only point of yours I disagree with is Holmes manipulating Janine to get closer to Magnussen. He did the same thing in the original story (becoming engaged to Milverton's housemaid) so it's not out of character.At the moment I'd rather have another series of Ripper Street than to have Sherlock come back.
Khalif wrote: 1: Mary turns out to be a spy. *really, people, really? is the last person one would expect of being a spy. (and I know what your thinking, "but if you don't expect it, that's good, because you aren't supposed to suspect a spy" but I do not mean it like that). This didn't bother me as much because I actually saw it coming (though in a more nebulous form) as early as The Empty Hearse for several reasons. (1 when Sherlock made a series of deductions about Mary one of them was "liar" (2 Mary instantly recognized skip code (3 the skip code was sent to Mary not Sherlock, implying some kind of threat intended for her as well (4 in in The Sign of Three Mary demonstrated a peculiar retention for numbers when she was able to instantly recall Major Sholto's room number, the incident perhaps even suggesting an obsessive concern for knowing the whereabouts of her wedding guests as though she expected trouble of some kind and (5 Mary visibly squirmed at the reading of a telegram from CAM which Sherlock pronounced as a name but which I guessed (rightly it appears!) was actually the initials of Charles Augustus Magnessum. It didn't take much leap of the imagination from there to deduce some kind of criminal/spy background for Mary. I think it makes for a more interesting character but--actually shooting Sherlock? That is almost too much, I agree. But then Sherlock explained how it was her only option and that she did it in such a way as to save his life. She really was sorry about it and it made for some beautiful scenes between her and John. I don't think the blame was laid on John, I think what Sherlock was saying is "she's a natural fit for you. You love danger and adventure and so does she, that's part of what drew you together, why are you surprised?"
Khalif wrote: 2: Wiggins was an adult. *I could accept Wiggins being a teenager, but not a full-grown adult*
I was just thrilled they put him at all! :) though I do agree it would have better if he'd been a teenager. Especially since he apparently is a composite of Wiggins and Billy the page-boy.
Khalif wrote: 3: Sherlock using that woman, and pretending to be her boy friend *Sherlock is cold and manipulative, but he isn't that cold and manipulative*
Ugh. That was the single most thing I hated in the episode. So glad you agree, Khalif. Yes, Sherlock got engaged in the original story of CAM, but somehow it was different then, it was purely comical. Sherlock didn't know her prior, she wasn't a live-in and Sherlock never revealed his true identity to her. She wasn't in love with him AS Sherlock Holmes. He was just a charming British Gent off the street who happened to stop by her window. The woman was a poor house servant who probably would have been thrilled by ANYone wanting to marry her.
Perhaps it felt less harsh in the book because you never meet Sherlock's fiancé, you never see him propose or pretend any affection, etc. maybe the screenwriters merely fleshed out what was hidden to us. But...it wasn't just any woman, it was Janine, the woman who was kind to Sherlock at the wedding. He seemed to be grateful for her kindness, finding her a suitable partner, confiding in her his love for dancing and gracing her with a pirouette he allowed no else to see. For him to then turn around and use her, knowingly toying with her emotions--and don't anyone try and tell me he really didn't know what he was doing--is beyond inconsiderate, it's downright cruel. It's not that he was merely oblivious to a client's pain as we've come to expect him to be--this time he deliberately caused someone pain, someone who had been kind to him. Would he do that to Molly or Lestrade after all they've done for him? He did initially in his friendships with them but he wouldn't now, right?? Or has he become even more distant and less human than he was before he met John?
I understand than Sherlock is going through a time of depression after John's marriage. He's moved John's chair to avoid looking at its empty seat. He's using a case as an excuse to isolate and return to drugs. --But deliberately lying and wringing the heart of a woman who was kind to him? That was too much. How is he any better than The Mayfly Man--I mean, really? Is 221B Baker Street now to become a revolving door for the secretaries, accountants and desk clerks of villains for Sherlock to use then discard at it suits him?
The only way I feel I can recover from it is to pretend it didn't happen. Maybe Janine will seek further revenge in the next season and Sherlock will regret what he did to her. That might make it better but I'd still rather pretend it didn't happen at all.
Khalif wrote: 4: The fact that Sherlock couldn't outsmart the villain *Sherlock should have been able to recognize that he had a mind palace. He should have waited for the man to expose himself and then reveal a recording device*
Yeah, it seems Sherlock is slipping in other ways too. The audience solved his murder game before he did in The Sign of Three. That was the first case that I solved ahead of time and had to wait for Sherlock to catch up. That seemed fun at the time but coupled with His Last Vow it's alarming. But maybe that's the whole point of this season. Without John at Baker Street Sherlock becomes the helpless child Mycroft always pictures him as.
Khalif wrote: 5: Moriarty's return *Mycroft's people themselves investigated the body. It makes no sense that Moriarty is back. this is clearly a copycat, or Rich Brook (as I shall choose to call the man that we saw as Moriarty) was never the real Moriarty, but was an actor*
Well, it's not inconceivable that Moriarty would be at least as skilled at faking a dead body as Sherlock is. But...I can't help but feel the show is going to lose some of its realism if they really do bring Moriarty back. It's beginning to feel like one of those old, cheesy superhero films where the villain never actually dies. I dunno. I can see why they'd WANT to bring him back--he's an incredible villain and Andrew Scott is an incredible actor, the fans adore him. But are you really going to let the fans drive EVERY episode? I mean, we love that you appreciate us and all but there's a reason we're not out there making movies ourselves.
and that, dear Emily is why I did not like the episode. I believe that Season 3 did not live up to my expectations, and that it will be difficult for the series to regain my faith in it. Clearly, whomever is writing for the show now has lost the element which previously made the series great.
As much as I enjoyed the season, I can't escape the feeling that something is missing. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's the absence of John at Baker Street, I dunno. But whatever it is, they'd better hurry up and find it again.
The BBC 'Sherlock' is not "my" Sherlock Holmes (but neither is Elementary, The Guy Ritchie franchise nor Jeremy Brett's- nor Basil Rathbone's interpretations, for that matter). 'Sherlock'is a wonderful take on the caracther, and an interesting play on the stories. For me, Sherlock Holmes resides in the Canon, still I welcome all new attempts to portray Holmes on the little or big screen, because when the attempt fails, it always fails interestingly, and if it succeeds, if only partially, it manages to convey a bit of the essence of Sherlock Holmes. Also in this aspect 'Sherlock' delivers. So, no, I was not disappointed by series 3.
"I may be on the side of the angels but don't think for one second that I am one of them"-Sherlock
Firstly, I do not get why you guys are so upset about the fact that Sherlock 'used' Janine the way he did. Of course, it was a mean thing to do against her, and I am not saying that it was a good thing to do, but i cannot deny that i was the only way for him to get into CAM's office.
Besides we must not forget the fact that Sherlock is a sociopath (or whatever it is), which means that he does not feel the same way as normal people do. AND he said by himself in 'the Reichenbach fall', that he is ready to do everything normal people won't do, if that includes using a woman’s feelings (the human error) to break into a top protected office, that is what he will do.
And in my opinion it was Janine who was being mean to Sherlock in the first way. Do you remember how she used Sherlock's 'deducting skills' at the wedding? She made him believe that they should dance later, and what happened? She lied to him and danced with the other man, witch made Sherlock leave early from the wedding.
(And remember: i am not saying she deserved to get her heart broken, i am just saying that Sherlock had his reasons.)
Secondly, I would not call Sherlock a murderer for shooting CAM. Yes, he killed a defenceless man, but it was the only solution at that moment, otherwise CAM would have lived on, as a danger to the world (and especially to John and Mary), and Sherlock knew that. By killing CAM he removed the threat (deleting the files so to speak), and i think it was the best way to do it. Again, Sherlock will do what normal people won't do.
Therefore, i would not call him a murderer for shooting CAM, not more than i would call him a murderer for making Moriarty shoot himself.
Oh, and i agree with you Emily, something is definitely mising, but beside that i think it was a gereat season.
"I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high functioning sociopath. Do your research."
I'm not upset by the fact that Sherlock used Janine, I'm upset by the way that he did it. He became too intimate, too quickly. I'm sure that if Sherlock tried, he could have used the same trick, but cushioned the blow somehow. I also agree that killing CAM was the right thing to do at the moment, what disappoints me was the crude way he did so. The second that he saw the blank room, he should have pulled out John's gun, killed him, and then disguised the crime scene.
What I like about this series is that they have maintained the central characteristic of Sherlock Holmes which made him such a groundbreaking character. His powers of observation and focus on the forensics was what made the original stories so different. I see the presentation of the character of Holmes as much more complex and nuanced. I also like the portrayal of Watson as a three-dimensional person. The producers managed to take an interesting perspective on each story and introduce a wider range of characters. That ensemble approach reminds me of the Nero Wolfe series that Timothy Hutton produced.
Mel wrote: "I figured it needed it's own thread thingy. Whadda you guys think of it? Cast likes? Cast dislikes?"Moriarty. Moriarty. Moriarty. Moriarty. Moriarty.
I'm not kidding, BBC Sherlock's Moriarty was--is--the best one anyone has ever cast. Yeah, the RDJunior movie one was good, but ...there is no beating Andrew Scott. The first time I saw "The Great Game" I got the shivers like I've never had them before. He is amazing. Way more interesting than the Moriarty in the books, too, in my humble opinion! :D
I only dislike one thing about this show (well, two things): Irene Adler's role; and the first two episodes of season 3. It seemed like they just sewed together the plots from various bits of fanfiction and "head-canons" that the people came up with. Also there wasn't really an interesting mystery in either of them. But the villain in the last episode was freaky!! *shudder* Moriarty is a lovable villain, but still evil--but that guy made me wish that Moriarty would come back and set everything right :P
Oh yeah, and Martin Freeman is brilliant.
-Ruin Holmes
