Sherlock - BBC [4]

I think I know what you mean. The Friends community here (at least in Baltimore Yearly Meeting) seems to get more loosey-goosey with each year. Of course, there was never a formal creed or doctrine for Friends, but it's at the point where a lot of people at the Meeting I used to attend are barely even familiar with the basics of the faith. That's one of the reasons I drifted away, actually. They have remained true to the non-violence/anti-war testimony though, fortunately. I have noticed that there seem to be a lot less Friends out west. We used to visit Reno on a fairly regular basis and they had (at least at the time) the only Friends meeting in Nevada, held in a converted suburban house, with only like 15-20 regular attendees. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it was a bit of a culture shock.

Agreed about the virtues of discussing things with people even if you don't agree with their principles. I knew a JW guy in college and he was always very informative and polite in such discussions, even though not everyone else always was, and it wasn't something he really brought up on his own. I always really respected him for that. We didn't have the same sort of stigma necessarily but I still got awkward and probing questions about religion from other kids since my parents (and by extension myself) were so open about our Quakerism. Almost got kicked out of the Boy Scouts until they were able to verify that Quakers did in fact believe in God and thus didn't fall afoul of the BSA's membership rules. Both of us, but my brother in particular, faced a ton of harassment, including from adults, for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance (some people in our meeting disagreed about whether that was acceptable or not; we followed our mom's lead on it).

Edit: I've been non-religious for so long it's kind of weird to think back on all this. It was a major part of my life and identity up until my teens, though. Before that I was really involved, mainly cause the whole family was. My dad still is.

JW's are a funny lot. very earnest. very nice. quite clingy.

{{{Sorry, I'll try my best to stay positive... }}}

{{{Having watched all the episodes to date again fairly recently series 3 and 1 rate the same for me in terms of episodes I enjoyed more than didn't- 2 out of 3. Series 2 remains so far my definitive series of Sherlock though. Also noted on the clapper board the director is Rachel Talalay who directed Heaven Sent and Hell Bent of Who this year- two beautifully shot episodes}}}

Series 1: 2/3
Series 2: 3/3
Series 3: 0/3 (maybe 0.5)

Special was better than any of the series 3 episodes in my opinion, but I'm not totally sure how I feel about it.

Not familiar with Talalay's work but a good director can really elevate any episode so that's something to look forward to. Is there a reason Paul McGuigan didn't come back for series 3?

{{I found three was more enjoyable on a rewatch than it was initially, the final episode seems to me to be as good as anything they have done before save the Woman episode, which for me remains their best so far. No idea why McGuigan didn't come back, but clashing commitments is most likely- a miracle they get the cast back together these days, let alone getting all the same main crew too.
If you want to see Talalys work I strongly recommend watching Heaven Sent of Who- which can be viewed as a stand alone as the main story of it is self contained (Halfy watched it with no other knowledge and seemed to get on fine) 53 minutes of your time very well spent- also your thought son it would be very interesting to hear}}}}}}

I don't think I could bring myself to rewatch all of series 3, but I might give the final episode another try before series 4 begins. I did think it was the best by a long shot and it's the 0.5 in my earlier post.

Dunno if I'll get around to watching "Heaven Sent" but I'll try to keep that in mind.

{{Thats a shame Eldo, not just because I think you might find it interesting in and of itself, but as always I value our opinion on such matters and would dearly like to hear your thoughts either way on it.
It's also her latest directing work (well technically that was the following episode the finale, Hell Bent- but excellent as the direction is, its not much good being a finale as a stand story alone to recommend. And one of the interesting things about Heaven Sent is its a nightmare sort of script to get as a director (she described as the most difficult thing she has ever had to direct) so its interesting seeing how she not only overcame that but excelled at it.}}}

i really really hope i can have my sherlock thread back again to normal. on the meantime imma give you my new signature and ask you kindly to prepare your heteronormative minds to just accept the fact that BBC sherlock is a gay show and it'll happen. sooner or later. just watch the goddamn unaired pilot. that was what they were initially going for so hell idk.. maybe the BBC said "yes we love it, can you drag it out a bit more and make it more high-fashion?"



there are currently ten episodes in this series with various length, i recommend you watch them (at least the three above). some of them are more silly than others but hey we must have some humour in this BUT! that being said there are a lot of very good and valid points being made. 

go ahead please.

this one is also worth a look.


also i wanna point out that in the end of season 1 sherlock and john agree on dying together to stop Moriarty. If this was about a male friendship, if you look at similar story-arcs for male friendship, this is the highest point there is. agreeing to die together. now we have followed them for two more seasons and we will have even more, so if this was the story of the greatest friendship there is, we have already fulfilled that story arc. so where are we going with this then? i'll tell you. there gonna bring sherlock out of the his victorian closet and being the modern man he always was. the whole episode the Abominable Bride proves that, because who saves sherlock at the end? John. it's always John.

so yeah i am eating norwegian milkchocolate (the best there is) and watching this

Sounds like a good way to spend a tuesday afternoon.

it is

also, i dare Petty to be a little open minded and watch one of the episode analysis (preferably all obviously, but we can start with one or two  recommending the one's i've posted here)

{{I already watched the first one Norc- its not that I am not open minded- I think its been deliberately written to be interpreted either way according to viewer- I have no expectations they will 'out' Sherlock or that the two will kiss and settle down together- it will remain, I suspect, as it always has; unspoken, and depending on your viewpoint either present or not}}}

well, yes maybe with the first three seasons, but the christmas special is a turning point. they will take sherlock out of 1895 and bring him to the modern era (the 1894 blog count is siginificant). wait and see wait and see.

{{I dont think I want a sexually aware and active Sherlock Its as always his oddness his aloofness, his distance from the everyday mortal that set him apart, pure intellect shorn of emotional baggage and deficiencies- not sure he needs, or the character benefits from grubby animal sexual urges}}}}

well, i think he will continue to be all that. pluss gay. our sexuality doesn't define who we are, it's just another character trait. and the writers have been pretty clear from the start that they want to investigate the detective even further, unravel the mystery of sherlock holmes.

{{Its a matter of the character- book Holmes has devoted his life and his brain to what he does- he has deliberately suppressed, ignored or got rid of the rest- including sexual urges of any persuasion. Its what makes him so unique- think of nearly every other detective since- they all are alcoholics, marriage problems, sexual issues ect in other words they are all the same, humans struggling to get by and do their job in spite of their human baggage. Holmes has never been one of those, he is pure investigation, pure detective. His only real vices are cocaine, tobacco and music (and even those serve a purpose- cocaine to keep his mind stimulated when he doesn't have a case, tobacco and music to help him think when he does)- everything else he has got rid off to focus solely on the intellect. Its what makes him unique and lasting.}}}

Id like Sherlock to be just as mysterious as the stories he solves. Ive got to agree with what Petty said. I never thought of Sherlock as gay, I thought of him being amazing, wonderful. I almost envied his aloof character, the way he prefers to keep himself to himself & out of the limelight. Hes controlled. He can handle his emotions & he needs to if he's to solve the crime. He can see a trustworthy comfort in Watson, hes relaxed to have Watson as his sounding board, something in the room, like a mini audience that Sherlock can unravel his ideas to. Bit like talking to yourself only in this case someone is there, albeit in the back ground allowing Sherlock to get to the crux of things.Watson is not far from being a guardian angel.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{Its a matter of the character- book Holmes has devoted his life and his brain to what he does- he has deliberately suppressed, ignored or got rid of the rest- including sexual urges of any persuasion. Its what makes him so unique- think of nearly every other detective since- they all are alcoholics, marriage problems, sexual issues ect in other words they are all the same, humans struggling to get by and do their job in spite of their human baggage. Holmes has never been one of those, he is pure investigation, pure detective. His only real vices are cocaine, tobacco and music (and even those serve a purpose- cocaine to keep his mind stimulated when he doesn't have a case, tobacco and music to help him think when he does)- everything else he has got rid off to focus solely on the intellect. Its what makes him unique and lasting.}}}

but.. it's watson's view on holmes and also, what if he suppresses these things because it is, at the time, illegal?

Sometimes there's something lost by knowing too much. Doyle manages Holmes superbly: you know there must be things there to explain his personality tics, but he subsumes it all in pursuit of the Game. You want that mystery there to tickle your mind. I think the worst parts of the Sherlock Holmes show were when Holmes and Watson are sort of analyzing each other's psyche. Ruins it. The only thing allowed was Holmes realizing Watson's bum leg was psychosomatic.

no, they shouldn't analyze,  we shuold.

what if he suppresses these things because it is, at the time, illegal?- Norc

{{I don't think the legality of it at the time comes into Holmes thinking- he is just wanting to be pure intellect, unclouded by lesser emotions- he describes love as an emotion on the losing side, that's straight out the books. He sees all that stuff as a weakness, interesting to him only as motivations in people actions in committing crimes, not something he would ever personally indulge in, if he is even capable of it. Sex, feelings of love, expressions of love would just get in the way of his detective work and the workings of his finely tuned brain which he works so tirelessly to maintain and leave uncluttered with information he considers useless- I put sex and expressions of love in that category}}}

no, but it comes into Doyle's thinking.