Sherlock - BBC [3]
+14
Tinuviel
chris63
azriel
malickfan
Ringdrotten
Forest Shepherd
Amarië
Mrs Figg
Bluebottle
halfwise
Yavanna
Pettytyrant101
Norc
Eldorion
18 posters
Page 17 of 40
Page 17 of 40 • 
1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 28 ... 40
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:18 pm
[quote="Pettytyrant101"]Also think when people say there was no cleverness in the episode they may have missed it.
you are almost as condescending as Moffat. Theres no cleverness in the episode to miss
The cleverness was not about solving the mystery, it was about letting John get over his justifiable anger and pain and be able to get beyond it.
[spoiler]
you are almost as condescending as Moffat. Theres no cleverness in the episode to miss
The cleverness was not about solving the mystery, it was about letting John get over his justifiable anger and pain and be able to get beyond it.
[spoiler]
- Spoiler:
- When Sherlock first turns up he really is conceited enough to believe John will simply be overjoyed and things will just go on as normal- when he realises he has in fact not only completely misjudged this but genuinely hurt and damaged John he sets about solving that problem.
His solution is the set up in the carriage- given Sherlock has already in fact called the police and therefore must have informed Mycroft of the situation, its also likely he already new how to disarm the bomb before they even went there.
The whole thing was a set up to help John get everything out instead of bottling it all up.
that is appallingly cruel and manipulative. Sherlock in the tv version knows perfectly well he has hurt John, he was at the graveside no doubt watching John and having a giggle. Its true he doesnt know human nature as well as Others, but not out of ignorance, but because he chooses not to take any notice. Saying the carriage scene is a way of helping John is the most despicable and callous manipulation. First he damages John then he tries to heal him. I dont buy it.
As John is so poor at dealing with his emotions out in the open, especially in front of someone, Sherlock knows the only time he will is if he genuinely believes its his last moments and he will never get another chance too.
And thats exactly what John does.
Thats not true, he has Mary and even a therapist, where he fully disclosed his grief. he is not incapable of dealing with emotions, he is just more reticent, and An ex soldier. Its not healing either as Sherlock makes him feel even more of a fool by laughing at him for showing genuine feelings. If someone had manipulated me in that way I would have hated them forever.
Sherlock isnt being cruel to John at the end, on the contrary, he has helped him and in doing so reset their friendship so it can move forward again without resentments. Absolutely not.[/spoiler][/
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:34 pm
Eldorion wrote:Pettytyrant101 wrote:Also think when people say there was no cleverness in the episode they may have missed it.
The cleverness was not about solving the mystery, it was about letting John get over his justifiable anger and pain and be able to get beyond it.
- Spoiler:
I agree Eldo. It makes Sherlock look like a puppet master making everyone dance to his tune. John genuinely loves him, and I dont care how much of a sociopath Sherlock is, he doesnt deserve a friend like that if he makes John suffer every time they meet. Its plain sadism. He does the same thing to Molly, runs hot and cold, draws her in then deals the death blow.
- Spoiler:
- The scene with them both in the hallway is a case in point. He thanks her for helping him, he looks into her desperate face and kisses her. He then casually tells her that not all the men she falls in love with will be sociopaths, and walks off leaving her stunned and frankly insulted to the core. How awful to be treated like that. He knows how she feels but yet kisses her a lot, hot and cold, just enough to reel her in them bam! gone again. Its turning Sherlock into a horrible sadistic twat, its amazing anyone likes him, let alone love him. Its funny everyone loves him desperately, Bretts Sherlock is a charismatic Genius too, but he isnt fawned over by all and sundry, he isnt a demi-god come to break hearts and give out scraps of affection to the adoring fans. Its deeply fucked up.
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:34 pm
you are almost as condescending as Moffat. Theres no cleverness in the episode to miss- Mrs Figg
Straight to name calling? Ah well.
I think there is cleverness in this episode, quite a lot of it in fact. That peoples posts complaining about the episode seem to me to be focusing and emphasising the wrong areas when speaking of the lack of cleverness does indeed suggest to me that people are missing it by looking in the wrong place for it.
If you feel that makes me sound condescending then tough titty.
Straight to name calling? Ah well.
I think there is cleverness in this episode, quite a lot of it in fact. That peoples posts complaining about the episode seem to me to be focusing and emphasising the wrong areas when speaking of the lack of cleverness does indeed suggest to me that people are missing it by looking in the wrong place for it.
If you feel that makes me sound condescending then tough titty.
- Spoiler:
- "that is appallingly cruel and manipulative"
Or clever and insightful. That Sherlock operates by manipulating people is well established.
In the original stories when Watson says why he thinks Holmes needs him he basically comes down on the view its just because it sparks his genius more. An audience to play to, and Watson is just intelligent and insightful enough that Holmes than play his greater knowledge off him, use him a s a sounding board for what the ordinary person might think or see- in other words from Holmes perspective John is just another bit of his equipment, another tool in his analytical kit, a key component yes, and its this ambiguity about how Holmes feels that makes the dynamic of their relationship so enduring.
"Sherlock in the tv version knows perfectly well he has hurt John"
Yes, which is exactly why he does what he does to sort the problem out once he realises the problem exists. And he goes about it the same way he goes about everything- with cold dedication to the task in hand.
"he was at the graveside no doubt watching John and having a giggle"
Completely unwarranted conjecture on your part meant to denigrate the character and suggest cruelty on the part of the writers- shame you made it up.
"Its true he doesn't know human nature as well as Others, but not out of ignorance, but because he chooses not to take any notice."
Not true. In the original stories he says of women for example that there is no way to fathom them and that building any hypothesis based on a womans words or actions is like building a house on quicksand. He is ignorant of lots of things from women to the fact the earth goes round the sun.
The books also state he has no interest in human nature beyond those parts which shed light upon motivations in cases. He has no understanding or interest in what humans do outside of his cases.
In this episode of Sherlock this is made clear in the conversation with Mycroft- where it is emphasised just how little they relate to other people. Note Sherlock doesnt refute Mycroft when he calls John a goldfish and indeed he uses the word himself.
"Saying the carriage scene is a way of helping John is the most despicable and callous manipulation."
I am not sure if you are accusing me or Sherlock of manipulation here. The scene at the end seemed self evident to me in what it was doing. Sherlock does manipulate John, thats how he always works. But its neither callous nor despicable, its with the noblest aim in mind, but its carried out with cold ruthlessness, as is Sherlocks wont.
"First he damages John then he tries to heal him. I dont buy it."
He doesnt realise he has damaged John at first- he genuinely believes John will just be pleased to see him and that there is nothing to forgive. His complete ignorance for how John will most likely feel, which anyone could guess would be the case, only goes to further emphasis at the start of the story just how little Sherlock really does relate to people.
"he has Mary and even a therapist, where he fully disclosed his grief"
The restaurant scene where John is going to propose, his difficulty in getting in the words out and even brokering the subject, I would say suggest he does not in fact fully disclose to her at all, and I see no evidence in the episode for you to ascertain he does. Nor does he disclose to his therapist in the first series, it is his very reticent to disclose which prompts her to try to get him to start a blog in order to be able to express something- which he utterly fails at doing until after he has met Sherlock- its was Sherlock originally who allowed him to move on, not his therapist, and its Sherlock again who allows him to move on in this episode.
"Its not healing either as Sherlock makes him feel even more of a fool by laughing at him for showing genuine feelings."
He deflates the situation. Allowing John to end up laughing at the situation and himself, its part of the release.
In the scenes afterwards in the hallway John tells him that he was at the graveside and asked for one miracle, that Sherlock not be dead. And Sherlock replies that he knows, he heard. But Sherlock still went through with what he had to do nevertheless, not out of spite or cruelty, but because it was the only way for John's wish to eventually come true. And to affirm the underlying reinstated friendship between them John then asks why him they kidnapped, and Sherlock tells him he doesn't know, but he promises him, he will find out.
The episode ends with Sherlock donning the public persona of himself with the deerstalker hat, and John taking his place and standing firmly by his side once more in the public eye as his Doctor Watson. That to me suggests that indeed Sherlock succeeded in what he set out to do, which was to heal the damage he had done to John.
_________________
Pure Publications, The Tower of Lore and the Former Admin's Office are Reasonably Proud to Present-
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
the crabbit will suffer neither sleight of hand nor half-truths. - Forest
Pettytyrant101- Crabbitmeister
- Posts : 46837
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 53
Location : Scotshobbitland
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by halfwise Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:36 pm
I kind of enjoyed the section where John keeps beating on Sherlock, but that was comedy writing, nothing to do with reality. Mixing that kind of comedy with the bomb didn't really work. It has to be unrealistic comedy throughout, or realistic comedy mixed with drama. The two types of writing style should not be mixed.
_________________
Halfwise, son of Halfwit. Brother of Nitwit, son of Halfwit. Half brother of Figwit.
Then it gets complicated...
halfwise- Quintessence of Burrahobbitry
- Posts : 20615
Join date : 2012-02-01
Location : rustic broom closet in farthing of Manhattan
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Bluebottle Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:25 pm
I think you have a real point about Sherlock helping John overcome his issues Petty.
- Spoiler:
Though I would say you give Sherlocks character too much credit. Because he certainly has his issues himself and is in no way perfect. As such I would say it slightly differently.
Sherlock helped John overcome his issues in the only way his character made him able too. It was Sherlock inability to deal with it in another way that necessitated the actions in the tunnel.
You can take that from what happened earlier in the episode as well. Another person wouldn't have rushed into a resturant disguising himself as a waitor too reintroduce himself.
As such this was not the only way Sherlock and John could reconsile their diferences, but the only way that was possible for Sherlocks character with it's flaws.
Therefore I don't buy the criticism of this being a terrible thing to do to John by Sherlock. He is not a master of human interaction, he dealt with it the only way he could deal with it.
And I also find it hard to reconsile people criticising the writers for giving the character added depth in this way. Not making him appear as a "Superhero" must be a good thing surely?
_________________
“We're doomed,” he says, casually. “There's no question about that. But it's OK to be doomed because then you can just enjoy your life."
![Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 17 Tumblr_msgi12FPjq1s8au6qo2_500](https://33.media.tumblr.com/de58a4b1ea8094e414d274be9532e12d/tumblr_msgi12FPjq1s8au6qo2_500.gif)
Bluebottle- Concerned citizen
- Posts : 10100
Join date : 2013-11-09
Age : 38
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:39 pm
Pettytyrant101 wrote:you are almost as condescending as Moffat. Theres no cleverness in the episode to miss- Mrs Figg
Straight to name calling? Ah well.
I think there is cleverness in this episode, quite a lot of it in fact. That peoples posts complaining about the episode seem to me to be focusing and emphasising the wrong areas when speaking of the lack of cleverness does indeed suggest to me that people are missing it by looking in the wrong place for it.
If you feel that makes me sound condescending then tough titty.
- Spoiler:
Or clever and insightful. That Sherlock operates by manipulating people is well established.
In the original stories when Watson says why he thinks Holmes needs him he basically comes down on the view its just because it sparks his genius more. An audience to play to, and Watson is just intelligent and insightful enough that Holmes than play his greater knowledge off him, use him a s a sounding board for what the ordinary person might think or see- in other words from Holmes perspective John is just another bit of his equipment, another tool in his analytical kit, a key component yes, and its this ambiguity about how Holmes feels that makes the dynamic of their relationship so enduring.
Then you have just blown up your own argument. If Watson is just a tool and a foil to Sherlocks Genius, why bother with all the emotional sadism? why bother healing John, why is Sherlock even bothered by hurting him? he could just have stayed away for 2 years, do his own thing, and then return without all the pathetic cloak and daggers stuff. Meeting Gregg in the dark shadows and poor grieving John in the restaurant, its the behaviour of a self obsessed idiot. Why not send a letter or break the news humanely, but no, its theatricals all the way, because Sherlock needs Johns forgiveness because John is much more than a tool but an emotional punching bag In this version.
"Sherlock in the tv version knows perfectly well he has hurt John"
Yes, which is exactly why he does what he does to sort the problem out once he realises the problem exists. And he goes about it the same way he goes about everything- with cold dedication to the task in hand.
er cold dedication? painting a false French moustache on his face and making fun of Johns moustache, yeah very cold dedication. NOT.
"he was at the graveside no doubt watching John and having a giggle"
Completely unwarranted conjecture on your part meant to denigrate the character and suggest cruelty on the part of the writers- shame you made it up.
its as justified as any of your outlandish conjecture and based on observation. ie Sherlocks cruelty and disregard for anyones feelings but his own. shame you cant see it
"Its true he doesn't know human nature as well as Others, but not out of ignorance, but because he chooses not to take any notice."
Not true. In the original stories he says of women for example that there is no way to fathom them and that building any hypothesis based on a womans words or actions is like building a house on quicksand. He is ignorant of lots of things from women to the fact the earth goes round the sun.
The books also state he has no interest in human nature beyond those parts which shed light upon motivations in cases. He has no understanding or interest in what humans do outside of his cases.
In this episode of Sherlock this is made clear in the conversation with Mycroft- where it is emphasised just how little they relate to other people. Note Sherlock doesnt refute Mycroft when he calls John a goldfish and indeed he uses the word himself.
if he has no interest in human nature outside his cases why does he cultivate John as his friend, as Mycroft said, 'friends you go in for that now' meaning Sherlock sees Molly John and Mrs Hudson as friends, thats why Moriarty knew what buttons to press, and by threatening them he knew he had Sherlock by the short and curlies, because he cares about them
"Saying the carriage scene is a way of helping John is the most despicable and callous manipulation."
I am not sure if you are accusing me or Sherlock of manipulation here. The scene at the end seemed self evident to me in what it was doing. Sherlock does manipulate John, thats how he always works. But its neither callous nor despicable, its with the noblest aim in mind, but its carried out with cold ruthlessness, as is Sherlocks wont.
WTF just WTF why on earth would I be talking about you? srsly. so sadistic disregard of a friends pain is noble? you have a warped view of nobility then
"First he damages John then he tries to heal him. I dont buy it."
He doesnt realise he has damaged John at first- he genuinely believes John will just be pleased to see him and that there is nothing to forgive. His complete ignorance for how John will most likely feel, which anyone could guess would be the case, only goes to further emphasis at the start of the story just how little Sherlock really does relate to people.
"he has Mary and even a therapist, where he fully disclosed his grief"
The restaurant scene where John is going to propose, his difficulty in getting in the words out and even brokering the subject, I would say suggest he does not in fact fully disclose to her at all, and I see no evidence in the episode for you to ascertain he does. Nor does he disclose to his therapist in the first series, it is his very reticent to disclose which prompts her to try to get him to start a blog in order to be able to express something- which he utterly fails at doing until after he has met Sherlock- its was Sherlock originally who allowed him to move on, not his therapist, and its Sherlock again who allows him to move on in this episode.
Sherlock has caused the grief, then compounds the hurt by ridicule and cavalier sniggering
"Its not healing either as Sherlock makes him feel even more of a fool by laughing at him for showing genuine feelings."
He deflates the situation. Allowing John to end up laughing at the situation and himself, its part of the release.
In the scenes afterwards in the hallway John tells him that he was at the graveside and asked for one miracle, that Sherlock not be dead. And Sherlock replies that he knows, he heard. But Sherlock still went through with what he had to do nevertheless, not out of spite or cruelty, but because it was the only way for John's wish to eventually come true. And to affirm the underlying reinstated friendship between them John then asks why him they kidnapped, and Sherlock tells him he doesn't know, but he promises him, he will find out.
The episode ends with Sherlock donning the public persona of himself with the deerstalker hat, and John taking his place and standing firmly by his side once more in the public eye as his Doctor Watson. That to me suggests that indeed Sherlock succeeded in what he set out to do, which was to heal the damage he had done to John.
listen to yourself, miracle? wish forfilling? you make Sherlock seem like a god, giving out treats as the whim takes him. THIS IS NOT SHERLOCK HOLMES, but a Moffat wankfest
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Bluebottle Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:02 pm
Does anyone know why Moffat and Gatiss are put as co writers on Stephen Thompsons episode this time around?
Seems a bit strange if they should have started to doubt his writing after they let him write "The Reichenbach Falls".
Seems a bit strange if they should have started to doubt his writing after they let him write "The Reichenbach Falls".
_________________
“We're doomed,” he says, casually. “There's no question about that. But it's OK to be doomed because then you can just enjoy your life."
Bluebottle- Concerned citizen
- Posts : 10100
Join date : 2013-11-09
Age : 38
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Norc Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:13 pm
maybe they just co-wrote the ep, blue
also, donovan is back in next ep
also, donovan is back in next ep
Norc- Khaleesi
- Posts : 19247
Join date : 2011-12-21
Age : 29 -
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by halfwise Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:19 pm
Why the interest in Donovan? she's a minor and somewhat unlikable character.
_________________
Halfwise, son of Halfwit. Brother of Nitwit, son of Halfwit. Half brother of Figwit.
Then it gets complicated...
halfwise- Quintessence of Burrahobbitry
- Posts : 20615
Join date : 2012-02-01
Location : rustic broom closet in farthing of Manhattan
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Kafria Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:51 pm
Just spent an age writing a response to some of the comments made in this thread and then the stupid machine deleted them. Will try summarise quickly.
- Spoiler:
First, I have now watched the ep three times, Squach was away and missed the broadcast so we watched it when she got back and I have this afternoon re watched it in light of the comments as I didn't see it the same way as some and wondered if I would with those ideas in mind. I have to say largely I didn't. I have enjoyed it all three times.
In good sense there are very few ways sherlock could have completed that fall and lived, it was always going to either be unrealistic or a little disappointing, hence the multiple solutions shown.
I think the usual sherlock deduction cleverness was there, but not the focus as in usual episodes, so seemed lacking, and less time was spent in it so the intricacies were necessarily less, I can understand this being a let down for some, I just didn't find it so.
I didn't interpret the treatment of Molly as running hot and cold, more a belated realisation, from reinbach, that Sherlock himself had taken her for granted and an attempt to thank her by taking a little notice of her.
I agree with Blue that Sherlock is emotional flawed, I don't believe he fully understands what he has done to John till he gets back, we all have a habit of assuming things standstill while we are gone and seeing things only from our own point of view. We are all by nature somewhat self absorbed. When he does it is noticeable that he does just try and pick up the pieces of his life without John, telling Mrs H that he did talk to John and telling Lestrade that John is out of the picture. John is the one who goes to see him and jumps back in, understandably, but is him, not Sherlock.
And now to the tunnels, my biggest problem with this scene is the cut in the middle to the explanation, broke the flow and annoys me. In terms of the manipulation, I haven't decided.... It is manipulative if you take into account that Sherlock has called the police, but from the way sherlock speaks in the scene - I'm sorry, I'm no good at, forgive me, - it's is as much about sherlock doing what he is no good at, communicating emotions as it is about allowing John to release his own.
My final thought is in response to the idea that Sherlock doesn't deserved John if this is he way he behaves. To a certain extent that depends on your impressions of John form the series, is the character as written really so weak and disparate that he will willingly put up with being played like a puppet, or does he see and understand it as the only way Sherlock can communicate and choose to move last it int he way he, John Watson, wants.
Well that's not what I wrote the first time, but it is no shorter.
A final thought, we only ever see or understand things through the lens of our own experiences and the way we think and respond to things, I wonder if one person can ever know or truly understand another person. As such I think we need to be wary of thinking we can make another person think the way we do, or assuming things about the individual based on those thoughts, even the writers intentions. While I enjoy hearing differing ideas I don't particularly enjoy those that vere into near personal attacks and blind determination to prove oneself right no matter what. Let's just agree to disagree.
_________________
Never laugh at dragons, Bilbo you fool! - TH
'A novel is a long piece of prose with ,in the eyes of the author at least, something wrong with it - Neil Gaiman, intro to American gods
Kafria- Lady of Dale
- Posts : 1270
Join date : 2011-02-13
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:51 pm
"If Watson is just a tool and a foil to Sherlocks Genius, why bother with all the emotional sadism? why bother healing John"- Mrs Figg
Simu post Kafria- but good points (with long posts I always select all and copy every so often so I have a back up- learnt that the hard way!)
- Spoiler:
Because he still requires John to provide the function he did before.
"Meeting Gregg in the dark shadows and poor grieving John in the restaurant, its the behaviour of a self obsessed idiot. Why not send a letter or break the news humanely, but no, its theatricals all the way, because Sherlock needs Johns forgiveness because John is much more than a tool but an emotional punching bag In this version."
Your problem seems to be you dislike Sherlock Holmes, the original. In the Empty House story Homes fools Watson disguised as an elderly book seller. When John has his back turned Holmes whips off the disguise so when John turns back round Sherlock is just there grinning at him- all but giving Watson a heart attack. Your complaint is equally applicable to Doyles original character. Trying desperately to crucify the modern version and its writers for accurately portraying the original character seems stupid to me.
" painting a false French moustache on his face and making fun of Johns moustache, yeah very cold dedication. NOT."
I fail to see the difference between that and pretending to be an old book seller complete with wig, beard and false nose- either way he is unfeeling, completely misjudges John's likely reaction and is self centred as a gyroscope.
"thats why Moriarty knew what buttons to press, and by threatening them he knew he had Sherlock by the short and curlies, because he cares about the"
Moriarty didnt know what buttons to press and at no point ever had Sherlock by the short and curlies- as this episode reveals Shelrock and Mycroft set Moriarty up, all the way back since Moriarty was first arrested and questioned by Mycroft.
"so sadistic disregard of a friends pain is noble? "
If it was sadistic it would not have worked, and if it was disregard he would not have bothered with creating the set up in the first place.
"Sherlock has caused the grief, then compounds the hurt by ridicule and cavalier sniggering"
He caused the giref yes, but he also releases it for John by the actions he performs in the episode.
"HIS IS NOT SHERLOCK HOLMES, but a Moffat wankfest"
He is the Sherlock character ive always known. I'm not sure which Sherlock Holmes stories you've been reading though. And you seem obsessed with both Moffat and wanking!
Simu post Kafria- but good points (with long posts I always select all and copy every so often so I have a back up- learnt that the hard way!)
_________________
Pure Publications, The Tower of Lore and the Former Admin's Office are Reasonably Proud to Present-
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
the crabbit will suffer neither sleight of hand nor half-truths. - Forest
Pettytyrant101- Crabbitmeister
- Posts : 46837
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 53
Location : Scotshobbitland
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:59 pm
Pettytyrant101 wrote:"If Watson is just a tool and a foil to Sherlocks Genius, why bother with all the emotional sadism? why bother healing John"- Mrs Figg
- Spoiler:
Because he still requires John to provide the function he did before.
"Meeting Gregg in the dark shadows and poor grieving John in the restaurant, its the behaviour of a self obsessed idiot. Why not send a letter or break the news humanely, but no, its theatricals all the way, because Sherlock needs Johns forgiveness because John is much more than a tool but an emotional punching bag In this version."
Your problem seems to be you dislike Sherlock Holmes, the original. and your problem seems to be a very nasty streak
[/color]In the Empty House story Homes fools Watson disguised as an elderly book seller. When John has his back turned Holmes whips off the disguise so when John turns back round Sherlock is just there grinning at him- all but giving Watson a heart attack. Your complaint is equally applicable to Doyles original character. Trying desperately to crucify the modern version and its writers for accurately portraying the original character seems stupid to me.
" painting a false French moustache on his face and making fun of Johns moustache, yeah very cold dedication. NOT."
I fail to see the difference between that and pretending to be an old book seller complete with wig, beard and false nose- either way he is unfeeling, completely misjudges John's likely reaction and is self centred as a gyroscope.
"thats why Moriarty knew what buttons to press, and by threatening them he knew he had Sherlock by the short and curlies, because he cares about the"
Moriarty didnt know what buttons to press and at no point ever had Sherlock by the short and curlies- as this episode reveals Shelrock and Mycroft set Moriarty up, all the way back since Moriarty was first arrested and questioned by Mycroft.
"so sadistic disregard of a friends pain is noble? "
If it was sadistic it would not have worked, and if it was disregard he would not have bothered with creating the set up in the first place.
"Sherlock has caused the grief, then compounds the hurt by ridicule and cavalier sniggering"
He caused the giref yes, but he also releases it for John by the actions he performs in the episode.
"HIS IS NOT SHERLOCK HOLMES, but a Moffat wankfest"
He is the Sherlock character ive always known. I'm not sure which Sherlock Holmes stories you've been reading though. And you seem obsessed with both Moffat and wanking!
Simu post Kafria- but good points (with long posts I always select all and copy every so often so I have a back up- learnt that the hard way!)
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:00 pm
Kafria wrote:Just spent an age writing a response to some of the comments made in this thread and then the stupid machine deleted them. Will try summarise quickly.
- Spoiler:
First, I have now watched the ep three times, Squach was away and missed the broadcast so we watched it when she got back and I have this afternoon re watched it in light of the comments as I didn't see it the same way as some and wondered if I would with those ideas in mind. I have to say largely I didn't. I have enjoyed it all three times.
In good sense there are very few ways sherlock could have completed that fall and lived, it was always going to either be unrealistic or a little disappointing, hence the multiple solutions shown.
I think the usual sherlock deduction cleverness was there, but not the focus as in usual episodes, so seemed lacking, and less time was spent in it so the intricacies were necessarily less, I can understand this being a let down for some, I just didn't find it so.
I didn't interpret the treatment of Molly as running hot and cold, more a belated realisation, from reinbach, that Sherlock himself had taken her for granted and an attempt to thank her by taking a little notice of her.
I agree with Blue that Sherlock is emotional flawed, I don't believe he fully understands what he has done to John till he gets back, we all have a habit of assuming things standstill while we are gone and seeing things only from our own point of view. We are all by nature somewhat self absorbed. When he does it is noticeable that he does just try and pick up the pieces of his life without John, telling Mrs H that he did talk to John and telling Lestrade that John is out of the picture. John is the one who goes to see him and jumps back in, understandably, but is him, not Sherlock.
And now to the tunnels, my biggest problem with this scene is the cut in the middle to the explanation, broke the flow and annoys me. In terms of the manipulation, I haven't decided.... It is manipulative if you take into account that Sherlock has called the police, but from the way sherlock speaks in the scene - I'm sorry, I'm no good at, forgive me, - it's is as much about sherlock doing what he is no good at, communicating emotions as it is about allowing John to release his own.
My final thought is in response to the idea that Sherlock doesn't deserved John if this is he way he behaves. To a certain extent that depends on your impressions of John form the series, is the character as written really so weak and disparate that he will willingly put up with being played like a puppet, or does he see and understand it as the only way Sherlock can communicate and choose to move last it int he way he, John Watson, wants.
Well that's not what I wrote the first time, but it is no shorter.
A final thought, we only ever see or understand things through the lens of our own experiences and the way we think and respond to things, I wonder if one person can ever know or truly understand another person. As such I think we need to be wary of thinking we can make another person think the way we do, or assuming things about the individual based on those thoughts, even the writers intentions. While I enjoy hearing differing ideas I don't particularly enjoy those that vere into near personal attacks and blind determination to prove oneself right no matter what. Let's just agree to disagree.
why dont you ever just spit out what you really think? veiled accusations really piss me off.
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:07 pm
this episode is basically a Sherlock Holmes that bases its premise on the cult of personality. Its based purely on the personal charisma of Cumberbatch and Freeman. In this episode Sherlock Holmes does NO deducing at all. He relies on the trainspotter to inform him of the missing man, and any cabby in London could have found a shortcut to the churchyard where John was trapped. The only really 'clever' deducing Sherlock does is to find the off switch. The skeleton is so amateurish that before long it would have unravelled by itself. Molly sussed it was not old. This is what I dislike even more than the treatment of John, it wasnt actually a Sherlock Holmes episode. I have read the originals since I was a kid and have loved the various portrayals through the years, in particular Bretts perfect characterization. So for some idiot to say I dont like the original is an insult to my intelligence and taste, but of course it was meant to be a pathetic barb.
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Kafria Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:10 pm
Mrs Figg wrote:
why dont you ever just spit out what you really think? veiled accusations really piss me off.
Was trying to suggest you both try and actually discuss this without it turning personal, sorry if that offends.
_________________
Never laugh at dragons, Bilbo you fool! - TH
'A novel is a long piece of prose with ,in the eyes of the author at least, something wrong with it - Neil Gaiman, intro to American gods
Kafria- Lady of Dale
- Posts : 1270
Join date : 2011-02-13
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:12 pm
If you are so aware of the original stories Mrs Figg why then do you make a big deal out of Homes theatrical reappearance when it is in fact more literally theatrical- it a complete disguise- in the original story? Why are you not railing against Doyle for creating such a theatrical unsympathetic character? As beyond the change of disguise I dont see the difference.
It seems to me at times you are more concerned at getting digs in against moffat (desipite his only credit in this episode being cocreator) and myself than addressing the actual subject of the episode.
It seems to me at times you are more concerned at getting digs in against moffat (desipite his only credit in this episode being cocreator) and myself than addressing the actual subject of the episode.
_________________
Pure Publications, The Tower of Lore and the Former Admin's Office are Reasonably Proud to Present-
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
the crabbit will suffer neither sleight of hand nor half-truths. - Forest
Pettytyrant101- Crabbitmeister
- Posts : 46837
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 53
Location : Scotshobbitland
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:15 pm
I have been addressing the subject of the episode for the last 3 pages, keep up.
Mrs Figg- Eel Wrangler from Bree
- Posts : 25954
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 94
Location : Holding The Door
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by David H Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:25 pm
Kafria wrote:Mrs Figg wrote:
why dont you ever just spit out what you really think? veiled accusations really piss me off.
Was trying to suggest you both try and actually discuss this without it turning personal, sorry if that offends.
I'm with Kafia here. The Petty/Figg discussions can be very insightful, coming from two very different perspectives, like the old Siskel and Ebert movie reviews.
But it's a bit disappointing how often you both turn to discussing each other rather than the subject at hand. Not that a little dust-up can't fun from time to time, but clearly it's not always in fun. And when you two stop having fun writing, I stop having fun reading.
David H- Horsemaster, Fighting Bears in the Pacific Northwest
- Posts : 7194
Join date : 2011-11-18
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Bluebottle Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:31 pm
One could say it comes close to overcompensating at times. 
_________________
“We're doomed,” he says, casually. “There's no question about that. But it's OK to be doomed because then you can just enjoy your life."
Bluebottle- Concerned citizen
- Posts : 10100
Join date : 2013-11-09
Age : 38
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:43 pm
I try not to be personal but once it starts it tends to escalate, heckles go up-such is human nature. Figgs and I rub each other up the wrong way on a lot of subjects, thats just how it is. I am big enough and certainly old and drunk enough to take it and Im sure Figg can handle a bit of rough and tumble. Yeah she can drive me crazy at times as I do her, even make me genuinely cross so I respond in like, but then you cant ever get genuinely cross at someone you dont also genuinely care about and respect.
_________________
Pure Publications, The Tower of Lore and the Former Admin's Office are Reasonably Proud to Present-
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
the crabbit will suffer neither sleight of hand nor half-truths. - Forest
Pettytyrant101- Crabbitmeister
- Posts : 46837
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 53
Location : Scotshobbitland
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Eldorion Sat Jan 04, 2014 4:49 pm
Pettytyrant101 wrote:I try not to be personal but once it starts it tends to escalate, heckles go up-such is human nature. Figgs and I rub each other up the wrong way on a lot of subjects, thats just how it is. I am big enough and certainly old and drunk enough to take it and Im sure Figg can handle a bit of rough and tumble. Yeah she can drive me crazy at times as I do her, even make me genuinely cross so I respond in like, but then you cant ever get genuinely cross at someone you dont also genuinely care about and respect.
You two's antics poisons the well for anyone else to try to jump in and participate in the discussion, though, and makes the whole thread unpleasant to read through much less post in. IMO, of course.
Eldorion- You're Gonna Carry That Weight
- Posts : 23311
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 30
Location : Maryland, United States -
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:04 pm
Well my initial post that sparked this particular round of debate/argument was in fact responding to a post you made and trying to answer some of your questions and points raised.
I still dont know what you thought of the points I raised as you never responding to it, presumably for the reason given above.
Maybe however if you had the debate would have been different.
Perhaps sitting on fences occasionally throwing stones is no better place to be.
I still dont know what you thought of the points I raised as you never responding to it, presumably for the reason given above.
Maybe however if you had the debate would have been different.
Perhaps sitting on fences occasionally throwing stones is no better place to be.
_________________
Pure Publications, The Tower of Lore and the Former Admin's Office are Reasonably Proud to Present-
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
A Green And Pleasant Land
Compiled and annotated by Eldy.
- get your copy here for a limited period- free*
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yjYiz8nuL3LqJ-yP9crpDKu_BH-1LwJU/view
*Pure Publications reserves the right to track your usage of this publication, snoop on your home address, go through your bins and sell personal information on to the highest bidder.
Warning may contain Wholesome Tales[/b]
the crabbit will suffer neither sleight of hand nor half-truths. - Forest
Pettytyrant101- Crabbitmeister
- Posts : 46837
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 53
Location : Scotshobbitland
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Bluebottle Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:05 pm
Classic overcompensating Eldo. 
{{{They're obviously madly in...}}}
Not that that is any big secret.
{{{They're obviously madly in...}}}
Not that that is any big secret.
_________________
“We're doomed,” he says, casually. “There's no question about that. But it's OK to be doomed because then you can just enjoy your life."
Bluebottle- Concerned citizen
- Posts : 10100
Join date : 2013-11-09
Age : 38
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Eldorion Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:08 pm
Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well my initial post that sparked this particular round of debate/argument was in fact responding to a post you made and trying to answer some of your questions and points raised.
I still dont know what you thought of the points I raised as you never responding to it, presumably for the reason given above.
Maybe however if you had the debate would have been different.
Perhaps sitting on fences occasionally throwing stones is no better place to be.
Oh wow.
So it's my fault the thread got derailed when I went to bed after making a post at nearly midnight my time and had to go to work in the morning? Nice one, Petty.And I've made a number of substantial posts; I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by not responding to yours. There was quite a bit to catch up on when I was able to read the thread again.
Last edited by Eldorion on Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Eldorion- You're Gonna Carry That Weight
- Posts : 23311
Join date : 2011-02-13
Age : 30
Location : Maryland, United States -
Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]
by Bluebottle Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:09 pm
As for you're points Figg, I agree with some of them. And I do have some issues with Moffats writing from time to time too.
Though as this episode was written by Mark Gatiss I'm not sure I see the great relevance here. This is not Doctor Who where Moffat as script editor can replace about half of what someones written for an episode. (RTD was a lot worse at that by the way.)
As for the criticism I agree it lacked the deductions and mystery of other episodes, but I put that for a large part down to the fact that they had to use so much of the episodes running time on Sherlocks return and the open threads left by the last episode.
As I said it will be fairer to judge the series on that basis after the next episode.
I also thought it was a bit self referential with the actual "Sherlock fans" in the episode.
I think I've already adressed the Sherlock Watson relationship. To my mind Sherlock coming across as unapreciative and all that can be put down to faults in his own characters, not just Watsons, and it gives his character added depth.
So was it flawed? Probably. Was it enjoyable? I thought so.
And I do have some issues with Moffats writing from time to time too.Though as this episode was written by Mark Gatiss I'm not sure I see the great relevance here. This is not Doctor Who where Moffat as script editor can replace about half of what someones written for an episode. (RTD was a lot worse at that by the way.)
As for the criticism I agree it lacked the deductions and mystery of other episodes, but I put that for a large part down to the fact that they had to use so much of the episodes running time on Sherlocks return and the open threads left by the last episode.
As I said it will be fairer to judge the series on that basis after the next episode.
I also thought it was a bit self referential with the actual "Sherlock fans" in the episode.
I think I've already adressed the Sherlock Watson relationship. To my mind Sherlock coming across as unapreciative and all that can be put down to faults in his own characters, not just Watsons, and it gives his character added depth.
So was it flawed? Probably. Was it enjoyable? I thought so.
_________________
“We're doomed,” he says, casually. “There's no question about that. But it's OK to be doomed because then you can just enjoy your life."
Bluebottle- Concerned citizen
- Posts : 10100
Join date : 2013-11-09
Age : 38
Page 17 of 40 • 1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 28 ... 40
Similar topics» Seen any good films lately?
» The New American versions of Sherlock: Perception and Elementary
» Sherlock - BBC
» Sherlock - BBC [4]
» Sherlock - BBC [2]
» The New American versions of Sherlock: Perception and Elementary
» Sherlock - BBC
» Sherlock - BBC [4]
» Sherlock - BBC [2]
Page 17 of 40
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum