Sherlock - BBC [4]

Yeah, I think Sherlock is a bit of an odd one. As, while certain parts of it will probably age rather quickly, the quick cutting, breakneck pacing, "innovations" like the writing on the screen etc., others, like the acting, will be admired for years to come.

I think its the greatness of the acting which make it so watchable. give lesser actors the same dialogue and I doubt it would have cult following.- Blue

certain parts of it will probably age rather quickly, the quick cutting, breakneck pacing, "innovations" like the writing on the screen etc., others, like the acting, will be admired for years to come. - Blue

All actors say the same thing when asked- its the script- always the script- the words are the key thing.
And in the case of Moffat and Gatiss they are also responsible for the casting of Benedict (a relative unknown) and Martin Freeman, a respected jobbing actor after The Office but not what you'd call a star yet.
And they cast to suit the style and writing.
The actors of course bring their own take and add to the creativity, buts its the words first and foremost.
This sort of brushing aside of the absolute essential nature of the writer is all too common- and screen writers have been fighting this prejudice for decades in an attempt to get fair recognition and pay, this disillusionment that creating the characters, the plot, the setting and giving all the characters words to say is the easy bit and all the real creativity starts when the actors and director turn up is a lot of pish. Its the writers stupid!

As to stuff ageing- I doubt the style will be any more a burden on it than watching 70's tv now or 80's or any other decades- if the story and characters are good enough it will stand the test.
The quick cutting ect I think will never be a big issue, eventually of its time of course, but the directional choices in Sherlock, whilst often innovative always serve to highlight the plot or characters or mood- take the very innovative scene where the drugged Sherlock is telling Irene how the hiker died and it ends with his bed rising up to meet him- it serves the purpose of reinforcing the narrative and the state of mind of the main character as well as connection three scenes together in one smooth series of interlinked events and imagery.
The sort of direction that dies is flashiness for its own sake.

I doubt the snappy dialogue will go out of fashion either, snappy dialogue, especially humorous, rarely goes out of fashion and tends to survive rather a long time-

To be fair, Kenneth and Emma really do the words justice. Michael Keaton's Dogberry however....

Yeah interesting choice that was, there's a few interesting choices in there- Keanu sort of works- in that the character is deliberately one-tone and as he says himself 'a man of few words'. So it suits his 'acting' style.
Denzil does a good job in the part but I am somewhat torn in the fact that narratively the character is supposed to be the brother of Keanu's character.
I'm all for equality but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Irene Adler was a terrible adaptation. she was a dime a dozen damsel in distress tarted up as a dominatrix. bit like River.

Don't care for River's character at all. Is she in this new season?

I hope not.

Pettytyrant101 wrote: I think its the greatness of the acting which make it so watchable. give lesser actors the same dialogue and I doubt it would have cult following.- Blue

certain parts of it will probably age rather quickly, the quick cutting, breakneck pacing, "innovations" like the writing on the screen etc., others, like the acting, will be admired for years to come. - Blue

All actors say the same thing when asked- its the script- always the script- the words are the key thing.
And in the case of Moffat and Gatiss they are also responsible for the casting of Benedict (a relative unknown) and Martin Freeman, a respected jobbing actor after The Office but not what you'd call a star yet.
And they cast to suit the style and writing.
The actors of course bring their own take and add to the creativity, buts its the words first and foremost.
This sort of brushing aside of the absolute essential nature of the writer is all too common- and screen writers have been fighting this prejudice for decades in an attempt to get fair recognition and pay, this disillusionment that creating the characters, the plot, the setting and giving all the characters words to say is the easy bit and all the real creativity starts when the actors and director turn up is a lot of pish. Its the writers stupid!

As to stuff ageing- I doubt the style will be any more a burden on it than watching 70's tv now or 80's or any other decades- if the story and characters are good enough it will stand the test.
The quick cutting ect I think will never be a big issue, eventually of its time of course, but the directional choices in Sherlock, whilst often innovative always serve to highlight the plot or characters or mood- take the very innovative scene where the drugged Sherlock is telling Irene how the hiker died and it ends with his bed rising up to meet him- it serves the purpose of reinforcing the narrative and the state of mind of the main character as well as connection three scenes together in one smooth series of interlinked events and imagery.
The sort of direction that dies is flashiness for its own sake.

I doubt the snappy dialogue will go out of fashion either, snappy dialogue, especially humorous, rarely goes out of fashion and tends to survive rather a long time-

The writing is too caught up in what I think will age about the show for that to count against the show aging in my mind. I don't dismiss it, it's just a little too much a part of what made the show such a fabric of it's time. The actors, who's performances I've praised and said will stand ut in any era, making their name with that acting I just praised, I can't really count that against it either.

Yes, you can watch 70s and 80s television today, but it's era tends to really stand out. With the rare exception of some shows that essentially are timeless, other things are really caught in the moment of time they are created. While on the whole they might be the as good on merit alone. When you watch it later though, the thing that was most cutting edge, most a fad, will almost always seem dated. Sherlock was very much that, cutting edge, part of a fad, in a very fashionable style, although I'll readily admit it's a style it all but created. Think back to all those cooking programs in the 90s, they were good, but it's impossible to view them now without being completely dragged back to the time that created them. And, to use a quite relevant example, RTDs Doctor Who now looks so much a product of early noughties television, that it's hard to take it seriously at times. That's what Sherlock might be in danger of. In hindsight looking very much a product of it's time. While the quality will still be there.

the thing that was most cutting edge, most a fad, will almost always seem dated. Sherlock was very much that, cutting edge, part of a fad, in a very fashionable style- Blue

You could say exactly the same of Shakespeare- he was producing bums on seats theatre using cutting edge techniques in writing and playing very much to the fashion of the day (a lot of Shakespeare nuances will bypass entirely the modern ear unless you happen to have knowledge of the politics and public figures of the time) but we have lost all the freshness of that, the experience of it being in its time and place, where all the words were new, all the references satirical and cutting, and all capturing the contemporary mood of the day.
But the writing still stands- the characters still stand, and the human aspects still appeal. Despite the loss of all this it still speaks to us.
Jeremy Bretts Sherlock Holmes is as much a product of its times TV as anything else of that period, from direction to studio set up and style- but its still eminently watchable because the combination of writers, characters and performance still work.

Well, you mention two examples which have proved timeless. Probably for their timeless quality. I guess the natural conclusion would be that I see Sherlock potentially being somehow different.

My point really is that Shakespeare is timeless because of what it says about us, despite the fact Shakespeare is stuffed with contemporary references, jokes, commentary and jibes (some of it at the time dangerously so) and most of which is lost to time and we will never quite know what a particular reference meant to contemporary audiences of the day.
And Shakespeare pandered to the masses often, look how many gory deaths he puts in his stories. Why? Because audiences loved a good death. Titus Andromeda is completely psychotic as a piece of work, its violence is measured, studied and very, very sadistic (including the rape and mutilation of a woman by two young men whilst their mother stands on encouraging them and laughing at the girls begging pleas as a woman not to let this happen- its horrific, one of the most horrific things I've ever seen in its coldness and brutality- but boy did it get bums on seats and kick-started his career, its was Shakespeare's Reservoir Dogs, stylish, contemporary and deliberately brutal in its depiction of violence).
And the writing in Shakespeare is also of its time, in that it was pioneering, on the edge of the new frontiers of writing; one liners, snappy dialogue (for its day), a multitude of new phrases and ways of playing with words and we have no idea what stage effects they pioneered for their productions, but they did build the entire Globe Theatre just for his plays to be put on in and its reasonable to assume they were as forward looking in their sets and effects as they were in writing and setting.
Shakespeare was very much of his time, the most popular playwright in the UK.

Now whilst not comparing merits here, Moffat is arguably in that same position- he heads and writes the UK's two biggest dramas in terms of global reach and the all important bums on seats at this moment in time. Just as Shakespeare was top dog for draw and audiences in his day.

But I don't think its possible in its time to judge the long term merits of a piece of television. If there is enough in the writing, in the stories and the characters then it can survive even the loss of all its contemporary references and in its day cutting edge techniques. If its about something greater than the sum of its parts that reflects aspects of nature that don't easily change.
We can sympathise with Hamlets driving underlying motivation in the mourning at the death of his father and at his mother's quick subsequent marriage to his mother because we still recognise and feel those things in ourselves.

Moffat keep the core in Sherlock of the original stories, and of its characters, and its that aspect that means it will probably survive the test of time, just as Bretts version seems to and just as the original novels clearly do- they say something more about us than the surface adventures imply and which all the contemporary techniques never disguise.
Everything ages, but not everything changes.

Maybe I was a bit absolutist in my statement. Aging obviously isn't a result, but a process. Who knows how Sherlock will be seen in 600 years time, or that anyone will be seeing it at all. It might have qualities like Shakespeare that'll make it survive despite loosing touch with it's here and now nature. I don't really think it's all that helpful to speculate about that.

I think Sherlock will age in the short term, because of it's very here and now, in fashion, style and it's gadgety nature. Whether it'll survive long term, I think it is best to let history decide.

Is Moffat the Shakespeare of today? *stops to contain giggle* In no way. Moffat is a mediocre TV-writer. Why? Because he can't do the basics. He can't write simple straight forward television to save his life. He is on the other hand one of the great innovators in television writing of his time, he is a great ideas man. And that is the reason for his success. But to be great you have to be able to do both, sorry. All the brilliant ideas in the world does no good without basic good television writing to back it up. You have to be able to do simple to have the innovative stand out. And there Moffat fails. Or flatters to deceive, perhaps.

I did say I made it clear that the comparison was made on situation not on merits.
Shakespeare is the better writer, but you greatly underestimate the craft and skill with which Moffat composes his work.
To call him a mediocre writer seems very ignorant of writing technique to me, or innovation with structure and word use, themes and style. I am not just talking Who here but his other works as well.
To say that someone who has had not 1 but 4 hit series, critically and publicly well recieved, under his belt, all  acclaimed for their writing 'cant write simple straight forward television to save his life' is a farcical statement in the face of all the evidence.
Coupling for example is nothing but straight forwards story telling as the sitcom device works best in those styles, yet Coupling was still innovative, fresh, and strong in its writing and hugely popular.
Likewise whilst Scandal in Bohemia has all the twists turns and doubles you expect of a good detective mystery, its a straight forward story in which all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.

I don't mind critical analysis of Moffats work, but this is just stooping to making ludicrous blanket claims without reference to his actual work.

Wait wait wait, i come in here expecting some tidbits about how the new Sherlock Christmas thing is coming along... And I see Petty equating Moffat with Shakespeare!!!

Yup But only in position as current UK top play(tv)wright in terms of bums on seats and having the top shows in town.

Oh, I'd say there has been plenty of blanket statements in both directions concerning Moffat.

And if you think mediocre is a ludicrous slur on someones character.. you might want to consider that you might be in danger of putting them on a pedestal.

Just my.. bowl of oranges.

Oh, and please don't confuse popularity with quality.

Thanks.

Im ducking for cover
As they say.. ( who is "they" anyway ? ) Never mind the quality, feel the width.....

'And if you think mediocre is a ludicrous slur on someones character.. you might want to consider that you might be in danger of putting them on a pedestal.' - Blue

I didn't say ludicrous, I said farcical. And in reference to your claim that Moffat ''cant write simple straight forward television to save his life" which even a cursory study of his work over the years shows to be farcical.

'and please don't confuse popularity with quality.'- Blue

If I was prone to doing that I would think the LotR's films were good adaptations.
I dont.
But I do rate Moffats skills as a writer, just as I rate Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Tolkien for their writing skills, though not all are the best in their field. I rate Moffat as I do all writers according to their peers and competition and my own experiences of other writing, better and worse to judge against. And whilst I don't claim my own personal rankings as anything other than that, some statements are true on the evidence - such as Moffat being able to write straight forward television has he has done on countless occasions and throughout two of his four hit shows and arguably three (I would say Sherlock was also straight forward television- clever but straight forward).

Sherlock is full to bursting with gimmicks which will age pretty quickly, a lot of the writing is far to self referential to be classic tv. A lot of it is fan service which will date immediately. The only thing which will remain are the performances of the two main actors, its their chemistry which will last, not the snappy one liners or gimmicky editing. On the other hand Brett's Sherlock Holmes will not date, as its a faithful representation of the Victorian world and his character. moffats Sherlock is superficial bubblegum tv for youth pop culture. it cant be taken too seriously, that's why season 3 bombed, it took itself far too seriously.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'And if you think mediocre is a ludicrous slur on someones character.. you might want to consider that you might be in danger of putting them on a pedestal.' - Blue

I didn't say ludicrous, I said farcical. And in reference to your claim that Moffat ''cant write simple straight forward television to save his life" which even a cursory study of his work over the years shows to be farcical.

You said both.

Well, that's obviously something we disagree on. Disagreement I find is often a sign your position is not as self evident as you think. (That is a general statement, by the way.) I'm not going to trudge up evidence for my claim. Others have done that ad absurdum.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'and please don't confuse popularity with quality.'- Blue

If I was prone to doing that I would think the LotR's films were good adaptations.
I dont.
But I do rate Moffats skills as a writer, just as I rate Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Tolkien for their writing skills, though not all are the best in their field.  I rate Moffat as I do all writers according to their peers and competition and my own experiences of other writing, better and worse to judge against. And whilst I don't claim my own personal rankings as anything other than that, some statements are true on the evidence - such as Moffat being able to write straight forward television has he has done on countless occasions and throughout two of his four hit shows and arguably three (I would say Sherlock was also straight forward television- clever but straight forward).

And still one could be excused for seeing your views on Moffat mirroring those others have of the LotRs movies.  To me you seem to have a blind spot. Which is perfectly excusable. The problem is you are mixing I think taste and objective considerations. You like Moffat, because you like Moffat. Don't get me wrong, part of you liking his writing is obviously down to what you perceive as quality, but only part. And taste makes up a large portion too. So, while there is some merit to Moffats skill as a writer, as I have admitted, your view of him is clouded by taste.

Perhaps I'm overly negative of him, but then we both are.. overly negative and positive.

And, if it's necessary to say, I don't consider those examples examples of what I found lacking in his writing.

Disagreement I find is often a sign your position is not as self evident as you think. - Bluie

Or its just a sign someone is wrong.
I challenge you to go watch a series of Coupling, or Press gang, or even Moffats reinvention of Jekyll and Hyde- and then come back and tell me with a straight face he cant write straight forward television.

Scandal in Bohemia is an example of a straight forward television- the proof is in the pudding, millions of people watched it and had no problem either following it or being drawn into the narrative and characters.
Now ease of following is not always any indication of quality, it could just be simplicity of story, but that is clearly not the case in Scandal, it has a complex plot full of twists and bluffs and is innovative with its visuals. Yet it keeps its audience till the end.
That is the epitome of good straight forward television.

'one could be excused for seeing your views on Moffat mirroring those others have of the LotRs movies.'

You could be excused for it but it would still be wrong.

'you are mixing I think taste and objective considerations'

I dont think I am, my brain doesn't tend to work that way when it comes to writing. I can watch and enjoy something fine but a bit of my brain will also be doing a critical analysis of it at the same time- Robin of Sherwood is a good example- I love that,. it has some great writing in it and some terrible writing in it, same goes for performances. There is plenty of critical stuff there to notice and not like, but I overall still love the show.
One does not necessary effect the other either way- I really appreciated the writing of The Road but I found it boring as fuck- same goes for Foster's Room With  A View- its writing I love, hugely appreciate and will happily argue for the merits of, but the plot and how its told, I think they suck- great writer, poor storyteller.
My enjoyment or not and my looking at a piece as workmanship and craft are not really related.

I rate Moffat highly as a writer based on the evidence primarily- he is the most well known writer in the UK and has the two top drama shows in the UK. He has a massive output of work which going on the only measure we have for judging Audience Appreciation scores tend to range from 'well received' to 'exceptionally well received'. His work also has a wide appeal as evidenced by the  global reach of his work, and despite what some say about his work his shows attract as many, if not more female fans than male.

Secondly I rate him based on as I already said how I see him against his contemporariness and others writing in his field.
When he wrote a children's drama- Press Gang- he changed how children's drama was written, and won a host of critical awards and plaudits to go with it. It ran for six years and made UK stars out of its leads.
When he wrote a sitcom he subverted the traditional format in a way which later BBC sitcoms mimicked or incorporated. It too one a hat-full of awards.
When he wrote Doctor Who he won awards, plaudits, and ended up overseeing the shows biggest ever global viewer expansion. Its former leads in his run now work in Hollywood.
When he wrote Sherlock- same thing.

And lastly I judge him on how good I think he is a writer- as a craftsman. At how he structured, how he plots, how uses format and styles to play with his audiences expectations or lead them off down the wrong road, or pulls the rug out form under them. And its like if you know anything about carpentry and you see a really well made table, you know its well made from the quality of the workmanship. When I look at Moffat's writing as purely craft I can see the quality of the work that's gone into it. Its not always that way, its not always at the top of his game, he is only human, but overall the techniques and devices he deploys are down so with great writing skill.

On the evidence he is a writer with wide ranging appeal across several cultures and in both sexes, with characters people like and casts actors which are perfect for the roles, whilst innovating with new writing techniques which others later adopt. And he has a massive work output not just writing material but overseeing everyone else's writing on two different shows.

Now all of this analysis of the evidence indicates to me, with no recourse whatsoever to my own personal feelings about his work, that he is a good writer who knows what he is doing and is studied in his craft.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Disagreement I find is often a sign your position is not as self evident as you think. - Bluie

Or its just a sign someone is wrong.

I'm sure you'll excuse me for not letting the person on the one side of the argument make that judgement.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'one could be excused for seeing your views on Moffat mirroring those others have of the LotRs movies.'

You could be excused for it but it would still be wrong.

Which again is opinion.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:'you are mixing I think taste and objective considerations'

I dont think I am, my brain doesn't tend to work that way when it comes to writing.

Again, you should not be making that judgement.

We disagree on the merit too, just so you don't think I'm ignoring you on that or something.

We disagree on the merit too- Blue

Perhaps you do. Hard to tell when you fail to address directly a single point I raised that seems to me to be objective evidence of Moffats appeal as a writer.

Well, I guess that's the heart of the matter. What seems to you to be objective evidence isn't necessarily that. You are a little to quick to trust your own judgement on what objectively supports your subjective opinion. That subjective opinion will influence your judgment on the objective facts. And no, I don't agree these are objective facts.