Sherlock - BBC [4]

I'm with Norc here. (In conception, if not necessarily all the way in result.)

Let's do one thing immidiately, and separate the original and Sherlock.

Now, with Sherlock two things seem completely clear to me. One, I in no way dismiss the writers taking hteir characters in this direction based on the way they've written the show so far. The big hang up for me would be how much of the stated evidence would be the writers trolling their fanbase, as they have admitted to doing on occasion. And, two, I neither see it unnatural for these characters to go in that direction. (Yes, it would require some plot contrivance at this point. But, as to that, let's see..)

So, that's a possibility in-verse and from an outside perspective. I have to say I agree with Norc and that a lot of you guys seem a little too hung up on the original, characters and stories.

Yes, I buy the argument that close male friendship can, and should be allowed to be protrayed as, being just a friendship. But it should equally be allowed to go in that direction, if the writing makes it feel natural.

Or, that's my two cents, anyway.

Bluebottle wrote: I have to say I agree with Norc and that a lot of you guys seem a little too hung up on the original, characters and stories.

[...ehem!....]
I don't believe it's possible to be too hung up on the original characters and stories.

if it was just about a friendship there should've only been one season because at the end of season one they agree to die together, and a male friendship can't really go any further than that character-arc-development-wise. 

and for the love of god watch the unaired pilot, it has sherlock standing on a rooftop with wind in his hair in silhouette to a full moon with jazzy sutt-suttetiss-cymbals and john looking like a fucking 14 year old girl. seriously. and this was what they originally were going for until the BBC said "this is great, but we want more! 90 minutes and a bigger budget"

David H wrote:

Bluebottle wrote: I have to say I agree with Norc and that a lot of you guys seem a little too hung up on the original, characters and stories.

[...ehem!....]
I don't believe it's possible to be too hung up  on the original characters and stories.

but we have to agree that Moffat and Gatiss want to take their version of Sherlock Holmes further. they have said so themselves in interviews (sorry i don't have a source but i watch  a lot of interviews) and also Benedict Cumberbatch have said in a numbers of interviews that he was hesitant on taking on such an iconic and well known character until he read the script and talked to the writers and realised what they wanted to do and that this was something completely different.

Norc wrote:but we have to agree that Moffat and Gatiss want to take their version of Sherlock Holmes further.

I agree that they want to take it in a different direction, but to me it seems shallower and more conventional rather than "further". Which is a pity because the first season got my hopes up. There's no doubt they can write!

Bluebottle wrote: I have to say I agree with Norc and that a lot of you guys seem a little too hung up on the original, characters and stories.

Uhm, no offense, but I didn't think I'd see this sort of statement coming from you :p

As to Sherlock Holmes being gay - I always figured he was just asexual, though he did show some interest in Irene Adler if I remember correctly. Nothing wrong with a different interpretation, though. I just don't agree Can't speak of the BBC show as it interests me about as much as HBO's GoT interests Blue

Yeah, but this isn't an adaptation. It's a modern re-imagining. There's a big difference. It's more inspired, than a translation. And I think they've always been honest about that.

David H wrote:

Norc wrote:but we have to agree that Moffat and Gatiss want to take their version of Sherlock Holmes further.

I agree that they want to take it in a different direction, but to me it seems shallower and more conventional rather than "further".  Which is a pity because the first season got my hopes up. There's no doubt they can write!

i don't think shallow is the right word. i can agree that season three was a bit too fluff though.
 and by further i mean they wanna get to know and understand the detective more, not just the detective-stories.

Bluebottle wrote:Yeah, but this isn't an adaptation. It's a modern re-imagining. There's a big difference. It's more inspired, than a translation. And I think they've always been honest about that.

If that is the case I'd prefer it if they re-imagined the names as well

it's not a re-imagin though, it's an adaptation.

Thanks, Norc See, blue - it's an adaption

Well, this relies on the definitions of course. But to me, no. It's not an adaptation. It changes to many fundamental points f the original work. What it does is try to set a set of characters in a different setting. It does adapt certain story elements, (the beggining to Scandal, for instance) but there is a major difference to straight up adapting a work. Sherlock is more a re-imagining for me. Or if you will, a more derivative form of adaptation. A more derivative form of adaptation compared to for instance LotRs or GoTs. As such, I do not hold it to the same scrutiny, because a goal of the series was never to tell the original story in the same way. It is inspired by, not a copy or adaptation, in strictu sensu.

{{{I would say its a mix and match- they have taken the characters form Doyle and many of the story points but used them to tell their own stories. There has not been a single episode so far whose content or cases cannot be traced to a book source. So they are adaptive in that sense- but they dont necessarily play out in the same manner, or they serve a different purpose.

The final episode of series 3 is a good example- in the original Sherlock does not kill him, but someone else does and its a rare occasion where Holmes conceals a crime from the police, on the basis the guy was such scum and the women justified. In the tv version Sherlock does the killing and its Mycroft who presumably covers it up and protects Sherlock. But its demonstrative of how they adapt the material, and yet change it to suit their own ends.
But so far they have stayed true to the the spirit of the two main characters, whose relationship is ambiguous, and with Holmes his sexuality equally so.}}}

Norc wrote:
i don't think shallow is the right word. i can agree that season three was a bit too fluff though.
 and by further i mean they wanna get to know and understand the detective more, not just the detective-stories.

Yeah, I enjoyed season 2 too, but season 3..... I made it all the way through John's wedding just to give it a fair chance, but I've never been able to watch Sherlock again since.  

The thing for me is, and I want to be clear that this is a personal POV, I just don't enjoy any work of fiction where it feels that the author tries to "help me understand" his characters. I gag when they try to spoon-feed me motivations for the characters.  I just want the courtesy of getting to know them as they unfold naturally just as you'd want to get to know a real person.

 IRL I always excused myself as quickly as possible when somebody I've just met tries to tell me their life story.  Season three crossed that same line for me, but that's just my personal taste. Your results may vary.

i actually agree with you David, although i don't feel like they're spoon feeding it to us, but i do see your point of view though, and season three is the weakest of the series.

I think David put it best. I'm happy to have Sherlock analyze the psychology of minor characters (who usually walk off in a huff), but our two main characters need to be left alone. If the writers want to make them gay, bi, whatever...doesn't matter to me. But dance around it like in real life; don't shove my face in it. They've done that a few times and need to stop.

the humorous situations where other people assume they are gay is perfect dancing ... and it's now to the point where we just need to see our two main characters react in frustration, no more.

{{{{The talented Garostudios have turned their skills on Sherlock, here's the result}}}

First (AFAIK) teaser trailer for series four:

"Did you miss me?"

Oh my fucking god, no, go away Moriarty.

"Maybe it's Moriarty, maybe it's not."

PLEASE.

Looks like they're possibly going for more of a terrorism theme this series? That was briefly touched on in "A Scandal in Belgravia" which is my favorite episode so far. Will check this out but have very neutral expectations. The Christmas special was better than S3 but still a little too caught up in itself for my taste. Hoping (but not really expecting) that this series is less meta.

Interesting... Trying to keep expectations low, but perhaps they are getting back on track this time. As Doctor Who eventually did, years later.

Interesting... Trying to keep expectations low, but perhaps they are getting back on track this time. As Doctor Who eventually did, years later.

The Christmas special was better than S3 but still a little too caught up in itself for my taste.-Eldo

{{I still say on reflection series 3 is about the same level as series 1- its just series 1 had the benefit of freshness to it. Anyone remember the name of episode two of series 1 or what actually happens in it without looking it up? Thought not. Series 3 has a good finale episode, as tight as any other series and tied up very nicely a bunch of seeming loose ends or unrelated events from the first two episodes of the series and it has a .
Another issue for series 3 is that series 2 was so good it felt like it was not going further forward with the show, but I think it gets undue harsh criticisms at times for what is, in my view still as series of considerably higher standard than much else on TV

Oh my fucking god, no, go away Moriarty.- Eldo

He is a popular character they may regret killing off and due to public demand want to now bring back- which would be fitting given thats exactly what Doyle himself did after killing Holmes off at the falls, definitely, absolutely, no more Holmes stories dead. If Doyle is allowed to do it with the main character and we don't condemn him for it, I will wait till see how they do it here with Moriarty before I condemn them for it personally.

perhaps they are getting back on track this time. As Doctor Who eventually did, years later. - Amarie

Well we just have to put up and bear that grim time between classic ending and SirMoff taking over }}}
}}}}

Eldorion wrote:First (AFAIK) teaser trailer for series four:

Naw. This is just amping it up: everyone's in danger this time! Boo!

Just focus on telling a good story, not topping everything that came before...just good story-telling for crying out loud - it's all we asked of Doyle and all we ask of Sherlock.

halfwise wrote:Naw.  This is just amping it up: everyone's in danger this time!  Boo!  

Just focus on telling a good story, not topping everything that came before...just good story-telling for crying out loud - it's all we asked of Doyle and all we ask of Sherlock.

Yeah, I would love to see a regular ol' mystery again. I really liked the Baskerville episode in S2. More like that, please!

(I know that this puts me at odds with much of the Sherlock fandom though.)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{I still say on reflection series 3 is about the same level as series 1- its just series 1 had the benefit of freshness to it. Anyone remember the name of episode two of series 1 or what actually happens in it without looking it up? Thought not. Series 3 has a good finale episode, as tight as any other series and tied up very nicely a bunch of seeming loose ends or unrelated events from the first two episodes of the series and it has a .
Another issue for series 3 is that series 2 was so good it felt like it was not going further forward with the show, but I think it gets undue harsh criticisms at times for what is, in my view still as series of considerably higher standard than much else on TV

I remember "The Blind Banker" just fine, though I agree that it was not particularly good. It was bookended by two very strong episodes, though. On the other hand, I felt that about 2/3 of series three was wasted on in-jokes and fanservice with a couple of incredibly uninteresting mysteries mixed in. My problem with series three was not that it "was not going further forward"; my problem with it was that it was absolutely going forward in a direction I'm not at all interested in. Certainly plenty of people do like that direction and I don't begrudge them their enjoyment but I still hope that series four will be more like the first two in overall style (an anthology mystery series with interesting characters whose inner turmoil is nonetheless not the main driving force behind the plot).

He is a popular character they may regret killing off and due to public demand want to now bring back- which would be fitting given thats exactly what Doyle himself did after killing Holmes off at the falls, definitely, absolutely, no more Holmes stories dead. If Doyle is allowed to do it with the main character and we don't condemn him for it, I will wait till see how they do it here with Moriarty before I condemn them for it personally.

I think he was a fine villain but I think the show's reluctance to move past him is ridiculously limiting both in terms of plot possibilities and Sherlock's own character. I'm sure there are plenty of fans who would love to see nothing but Moriarty/Sherlock stories for the rest of the show but I am not one of them and I know I'm not alone in this (though I may well be in a minority).

Moriarty is so two seasons ago. It's done, let him go. Forever.