Re: Sherlock - BBC [4]

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:01 pm

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:38 pm

Is the next season going to be based on the Conan Doyle books? because when they base it on the books its great and when its just made up stuff by the Writers its crap.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:42 pm

I sort of agree, although they can as it were riff rather well in the style too.

Scandal in Belgravia is still I think the best episode of Sherlock so far, but only the first half of it is based on the original story, the second act and the connecting mystery with the plane and Moriarty is a Moffat invention, but it dovetails seamlessly with the original story and characters and is a worthy mystery in its own right. Its only the final scene, which I disliked at the time and still dislike now, which lets its down in any way.

So I think I'd say they are at their best when they at least start off with the premise of an original Doyle story.

by Eldorion Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:11 pm

Norc wrote:
thoguhts on series 4 and in spoilers because i guess 90% of the time correctly:

RE: Mary

Spoiler:

RE: Sherlock's sexuality.

I'm not sure how much of the gay subtext is the writer's having fun at the fan's expense. There were a lot of callouts (and mockery) towards fans in the third series, more than I really appreciated, although I'm not active in the Sherlock fandom so it was only peripherally directed at me. Still, the writers keep on top of the biggest fan theories and like to tease, so they might not necessarily be building towards anything. And I don't think that Victorian-era manly love was necessarily homosexual in nature, and it bothers me a little bit that we as a culture tend to assume that any two guys who are close are gay. We don't make the same assumption about women. I would like to see more positive examples of emotionally healthy and open men in pop culture, regardless of their sexually. But portrayals of such always attract the "they're gay!" reaction, and Victorian literature seems especially susceptible to this with modern audiences. I'd actually lump LOTR in with this, since although Tolkien was born at the tail end of the Victorian era, he was fairly backwards-looking in many ways. Though he would probably have said that he was looking back much further. Razz

That said, based solely on the presentation of the characters in the show, you can certainly make the argument that the characters are gay and find plenty of evidence for the idea, so it's not like the writers would have to pull anything out of their ass to make the idea work if they decided to seriously go for it.

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:47 pm

again, all valid points and arguments and i did think along those lines before, but i have had reason now to believe otherwise.

also, they gave us sherlolly and sheriarty, two out of the three main ships, presented them as a fantasy, but they left out the biggest, johnlock.

but yeah, believe whatever you want, killing mary is a backstep, i agree, but i don't like the turn this is taking anyway. it feels like those american movies where the first one is good, the follow up is meeh, and in the third one they always have kids and the movie sucks (take shrek, first one great, second one also great, the next two we don't even talk about)

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:03 pm

The UK government organised a screening of BBC TV drama Sherlock in North Korea in the hope of "encouraging change" in the country, it has been revealed.- BBC

Shocked

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:04 pm

waitwhat?! that's awesome Very Happy

by Eldorion Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:13 pm

Norc wrote:it feels like those american movies where the first one is good, the follow up is meeh, and in the third one they always have kids and the movie sucks (take shrek, first one great, second one also great, the next two we don't even talk about)

Dear god I hope not. pale

I actually liked series two better than series one (and I think I'm one of maybe half a dozen people on the entire Internet who enjoyed "The Hounds of Baskerville"). That made series three particularly disappointing to me since I felt it was coming off such a high.

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:15 pm

i agree about baskerville, i loved that episode and i agree with most of u, season 3 was very mushy and cuddly, but i still feel it had that dark edge to it and the sherlock-feel to it. it's just sad there were only three episodes..

by Eldorion Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:15 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The UK government organised a screening of BBC TV drama Sherlock in North Korea in the hope of "encouraging change" in the country, it has been revealed.- BBC

From that same article:

Sherlock has been a big hit around the world. In China, it is among the most popular TV imports and Cumberbatch has been nicknamed Curly Fu.

We need to start using this nickname stat.

by **Amarië** Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:18 pm

Huh... Ok... Suppose it was a good choice; popular, not too politcal, intelligent. No annoying Amy Pond or Alan Carr(sp?), Not too loud like Top Gear Wink

Actually it makes a lot of sense! Fancy that, ey?

by Eldorion Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:18 pm

Norc wrote:i agree about baskerville, i loved that episode and i agree with most of u, season 3 was very mushy and cuddly, but i still feel it had that dark edge to it and the sherlock-feel to it. it's just sad there were only three episodes..

I always knew we had a special connection. :hug:

I dunno if I'd say that series three was bad by my normal, trying-to-be-objective standards, but it's sort of in the same boat as The Hobbit films. It's following up on one of my favorite things, and so I have higher standards/expectations for it than I would normally. Large portions of series three just felt like mediocre fanfic on the writing side, even if they had good acting (given the material) and impressive production values. The final episode was a step back in the right direction, though, so I'm trying to maintain a little hope. My mom wouldn't even watch the final episode though, she was so put off by the first two episodes. Razz

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:32 pm

no it is not in the same boat as the hobbit movies don't ever suggest that ever again! series 1 is like a 10 and two is like 10 1/2 and three is like 9 but the hobbit is like 2.

Curly Fu yeah Nod

i've heard about that, i think Benedict commented on that. Martin's chinese nickname is simply "fashion"...

by Eldorion Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:38 pm

Norc wrote:no it is not in the same boat as the hobbit movies don't ever suggest that ever again! series 1 is like a 10 and two is like 10 1/2 and three is like 9 but the hobbit is like 2.

I wasn't trying to imply that Sherlock S3 is on the same level as The Hobbit, just explaining why I'm more critical of it than I might normally be.

{{{It is pretty ass though. Moon

}}}

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:56 pm

{{{

}}}

by Bluebottle Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:33 pm

Gah. I read Christmas special and for one glorious moment I thought "2014. cheers

" But I guess i can only blame myself for that one. Razz

Other than that, great news. Nod

They must have some big plans going with a Christmas Special and a new series. (Not sure if that includes Johnlock or not, but still. Razz

)

by Bluebottle Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:40 pm

As for the third series discussion. I think the thing people react to with the third series is the lack of standalone episodes. The first episode uses a good bit of time to deal with the aftermath of the Reichenbach Fall and the next one on the wedding. And more than anything, I think, that they put two such epsiodes in a row.

So while there are great parts in both of them, they'rw not consistently up to the previous series. Also everyone seems to judge the third episode, which is the more standalone of the three, as the strongest which also hints at this kind of being the case.

It could also be an effect of the writing more being directed at the fans, as Eldo implied. And parts of the series are therefore more readily accepted by them than casual viewers.

That's how it seems to me anyway. Shrugging

by Norc Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:41 pm

also the hype was huge after reichebach..

by Bluebottle Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:51 pm

Yeah, though it seems to me when they decided first having the "wrap up Reichenbach" episode and then the wedding episode after eachother they were always going to suffer as standalones compared to the other series.

Though there are great parts in both. Some more fan directed than others, I guess.

I remember liking them on first viewing anyway. Though, yeah, I have thought what I've said above about the series.

Still, and I've said this before, the only real whodunnit in the series is actually in the wedding episode. People seem not to notice.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:02 am

I dont like the introduction of Mary much. I like her as a character but I dont agree that just Sherlock, John and Mrs Hudson in their flat needs to be changed. I found it went downhill from the start of all the wedding stuff. The Brett tv series didnt need Mary to keep it fresh so why on earth would they need her in Sherlock to make it fresh. It just introduces unecessary boring Eastenders relationship stuff into what should be a crime whodunnit pure and simple. I kind of got a sinking feeling when I knew John was going to have a boring family thing, it just doesnt sit well with the way the show works ie fast paced one liners and fast editing. Sherlock is about Sherlock and John, its not a threesome with Sherlock getting pushed out of the happy couples life, its about Sherlock and john two bachelors fighting crime, its the original buddie story and I like it as it is in the books and every single Sherlock Holmes film I have ever watched..I cant imagine what they thought to gain, its not as if Mary goes on crime fighting trips with them, please say she doesnt, that would be rubbish.

by Norc Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:16 am

and that dear figgy is why they'll probably kill of mary or something.. i am just a tinsy bit concerned with that child.. and John's mental health.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:21 am

John marries Mary in the book too, in fact I think he has three wives all in by the end.
But in the books he is not only married but runs his own practice.
The stories he recounts with Holmes from the later parts are occasions when he bumps into him, or Holmes comes looking for him to help with something.
But you are given the distinct impression Sherlock solves most of his cases alone, and only sometimes with Watson, and that Watson can go long periods without ever hearing about Holmes outside of reading about him in the press.

I agree it should be like the books ideally, she doesn't get involved and the stories we see just happen to be the times the lads get together to solve something, but I am not sure if a certain demographic that shriek sexism at Moffat would let him away with having John's wife become a stay at home take care of the house type.
Although I dont see a problem with it myself, I dont see why a women who chooses to stay at home should be any less a complex interesting individual than one who doesn't. But having made her an ex assassin that might be a bit tricky anyway now.

by Norc Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:25 am

oh but wait an ex assassin that happily stays home with her three children making pies, waiting for her husband to come home from his semi-gay adventures with a sort-of-bonkers detective Very Happy

by Bluebottle Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:33 am

Sounds like she should have her own show, really. Razz

by Norc Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:34 am

a molly and mary spin off.