Re: Sherlock - BBC [4]

by Mrs Figg Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:17 pm

I was being cynical. In real life I wish them well and it sucks they broke up, but it seems to be a friendly split.

As for Sherlock, she got the job because she was married to Freeman, and they shoehorned her character into the show, much to its detriment in my opinion.

by Norc Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:51 pm

help. i need ur help. how do i watch sherlock????!

by Mrs Figg Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:38 pm

try this Norc, its live streaming.

http://www.filmon.com/tv/bbc-two

by Norc Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:49 pm

thank you <3 !

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:15 pm

{{Going on tonights episode title - 'The Six Thatchers'- looks like we are getting something using the original Holmes story 'The Six Napoleons' as its jumping off point. }}}

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:37 pm

{{Less than an hour to go bounce

Less than 2 hours probably till the fighting begins! Handbag

}}

by David H Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:45 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Less than 2 hours probably till the fighting begins! }}

Sherlock - BBC [4] - Page 31 Wolf-snarl-o

Huan wants to know if he can play too. bounce

by Mrs Figg Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:01 pm

well that was a clunker.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:12 pm

{{Well initially impressions- was a typical Gatiss script- in that I felt it went a little flat in the middle and picked up again for the finale. Felt more in keeping with series 1 and 2 than 3, for the better though, with a basis in some book stuff and I guess that's how they are going to deal with

Spoiler:

I think though it being more, at heart, a standard Sherlock case did mean it lacked modern Sherlock's shocking pull the rug out from under you, leave you gasping twist, especially regards

Spoiler:

Huan wants to know if he can play too- David

No!!! Evil or Very Mad

Definitely not never, unless I'm near trees! Mad

}}}}

by Mrs Figg Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:42 pm

I thought it was pretty dire.

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:49 pm

{{Well the press seem to have generally loved it-

'It "reached new heights of action and emotion", according to The Guardian's Mark Lawson, who saw parallels between Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes and James Bond.
He wrote: "The episode felt very Bond overall - Holmes has never done so much running towards or away from explosions."

The Telegraph's Ben Lawrence wrote that it was "a dizzying triumph of complex plotting (although the much-talked-about demolition of six busts of Margaret Thatcher was an unnecessary piece of iconoclasticism) and beautifully choreographed action scenes".
Martin Freeman has made Watson "a nuanced, compelling character", he said, but added: "It is, of course, Cumberbatch's show and here he looked tanned and lean, ready for action but heading, ultimately, for a fall.
"Cumberbatch is an actor who invests so much in every scene that watching him is an exhilarating experience and an almost psychological exercise."- BBC News

It also got 8.1 million on overnights, making it the most watched show on UK tv over the holiday period (The Queen was second again- 7.7 million watched Queenies xmas message, but she has the advantage of being broadcast simultaneously on all major channels at once so she is hard to avoid!) 8.1 is down a little, in line with everything else, from last years 8.4. Still a mighty showing in the overnights though}}}

by **Amarië** Mon Jan 02, 2017 2:37 pm

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:15 pm

I wont be watching any more of this rubbish that's for sure. Its turned into a pastiche of itself.

by Ringdrotten Mon Jan 02, 2017 3:30 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

'It "reached new heights of action and emotion", according to The Guardian's Mark Lawson, who saw parallels between Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes and James Bond.
He wrote: "The episode felt very Bond overall - Holmes has never done so much running towards or away from explosions."

Never been a fan of this show, but this sounds plain awful - I really don't like their "take" or "interpretation" of SH or the stories. Then again, I do like the grass and grey horses in LotR Nod

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:25 pm

Its turned into a pastiche of itself.'- Figg

{{I think you could level that at some parts of series 3- not at this however- this was very much take a book original as your basis and spin a story around it that's the modern element added to the tale based on the modern characters. Which is the approach they took to great effect series 1 and 2. }}

this sounds plain awful'- Ringdrotten

{{I actually think that review makes it sound more actiony than it was, there were some action set pieces, but nothing that was out of character for the Holmes of the book who could scrap with the best if them. As to their take on the original stories- there is a clearly a lot of love for them, every episode, this one included has a lot of book references and nods- this episode being based on the 6 Napoleons story- which is a good tale in the original but tricky to make fill 1 and a half hours of tv- its not the longest or most complex Holmes investigation.}}

by Mrs Figg Mon Jan 02, 2017 5:38 pm

[quote="Pettytyrant101"] Its turned into a pastiche of itself.'- Figg

{{I think you could level that at some parts of series 3- not at this however- this was very much take a book original as your basis and spin a story around it that's the modern element added to the tale based on the modern characters. Which is the approach they took to great effect series 1 and 2. }}
quote]

Spoiler:

by Mrs Figg Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:33 am

spoilers. this is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. its past its sell by date, which is a pity because it used to be so great.

http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/sherlock-season-4-six-thatchers-review/

by Norc Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:47 pm

it feels off because it is supposed to. it's all the heterosexual nonsense and wifey stuff.. we are presented what we "want" only to realize we don't want that at all

by Norc Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:50 pm

i have to watch it again if i wanna write up what i think xD... had two pee-breaks, was prett hyped, and sat way too many people in the sofa.

by Bluebottle Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:48 pm

I'm with Figg, Sherlock has turned into an arch-example of a show buying into its own hype. After his work on Doctor Who one could say that it was always in Moffats nature as a writer to turn his hero into the ultimate hero/celbrity/acerbic wit. Maybe it was so from the get go, but in the first few seasons everything was low scale, even the celebrity. Now in Sherlock everything is maxed out, the celbrity, the heroicism, the scale of the story, and somehow it feels all the less interesting for it. To take into the bargain, the first scene of the season is among the clunkiest pieces of writing, acting, directing I've seen in a while. Can they turn it around? No, I don't think so, because they, the showrunners, don't realize what the problem is. They are directly amalgamating the shows issues, be seeking them out, consciously repeating htem. Because they think that is what the show is, while it was only a small component in the past.

Looking back, I feel it's pertinent to ask, what did this show ever have, beyond Benedict Cumberbatch in his prime? An unfair question perhaps, but it's not necessarily just looking to be answered. Razz

by Eldorion Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:27 am

Bluebottle wrote:Looking back, I feel it's pertinent to ask, what did this show ever have, beyond Benedict Cumberbatch in his prime? An unfair question perhaps, but it's not necessarily just looking to be answered.

Hey now, Martin Freeman was really good too.

by Norc Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:17 pm

u forget the show is basically a slasher fiction, the writer have said so.. they don't care anymore about casual viewers, they're writing their own sherlock now. focusing on what they think the general public have gotten wrong all these year, the fact that it is a love story between two men, camouflaged as the greatest detective adventures of all time.

by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:55 pm

Bluebottle wrote:I'm with Figg, Sherlock has turned into an arch-example of a show buying into its own hype. After his work on Doctor Who one could say that it was always in Moffats nature as a writer to turn his hero into the ultimate hero/celbrity/acerbic wit. Maybe it was so from the get go, but in the first few seasons everything was low scale, even the celebrity. Now in Sherlock everything is maxed out, the celbrity, the heroicism, the scale of the story, and somehow it feels all the less interesting for it. To take into the bargain, the first scene of the season is among the clunkiest pieces of writing, acting, directing I've seen in a while. Can they turn it around? No, I don't think so, because they, the showrunners, don't realize what the problem is. They are directly amalgamating the shows issues, be seeking them out, consciously repeating htem. Because they think that is what the show is, while it was only a small component in the past.

Looking back, I feel it's pertinent to ask, what did this show ever have, beyond Benedict Cumberbatch in his prime? An unfair question perhaps, but it's not necessarily just looking to be answered.

While I totally agree with you, I do think the first two seasons were fantastic and I really enjoyed them. At the time they were fresh and novel and sparkling. Martin Freeman and Cumberbutch bounced off each other and their friendship seemed real and I was excited to watch each episode. Personally I thought season 3 was everything you mentioned, it became shallow fanservice of the most boring kind. As for the latest episode it was truly appalling. I don't think they can turn it round after that. Lost interest anyway. I do agree it was based on Cumberbunds personal charisma rather than you know..actually solving crimes..which is what was missing in Six Thatchers. They had a winning formula and it got stale when they over used it.

by Mrs Figg Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:02 pm

Norc wrote:u forget the show is basically a slasher fiction, the writer have said so.. they don't care anymore about casual viewers, they're writing their own sherlock now. focusing on what they think the general public have gotten wrong all these year, the fact that it is a love story between two men, camouflaged as the greatest detective adventures of all time.

well to be fair it probably always was a love story between two men, even in Brett's version in the 80s, but it was platonic love. In Moffats version its more that the fans want it to be slash fiction, than what actually happens onscreen. I cant think of one scene where I think ey-up! are they gay or what, specially as Watson marries a woman. Very Happy

On the other hand if you want a really gay adaptation just watch 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' film 1970c. That's pretty overt.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:02 pm

{{Just got round to reading that review you posted Figg- thought it was terrible heres why to pick a few points-

', fast-paced storytelling was fully replaced by Sherlock's trademark flashy editing and love of montages.'

Except it wasn't, the editing and montages as they say are a trademark and there was still a fast paced story being told- if you consider what the narrative covers in 1 and a 1/2 hours its not short on story. Not liking the story is another matter but to claim its not there is stupid.

'a world where almost everyone in London is white, and Sherlock Holmes can blithely shoot people without consequence.'

Can't answer to the white thing,. I have never noticed or done a skin count! As to getting away with it- yes he does but only at a cover up. I suspect many folk who have had run ins with the MET dont find anything odd about people in power getting away with shit normal folk would be jailed for!

'Why keep a memory stick full of top-secret information about you and your colleagues'

Explained in the episode- was the reviewer paying attention?

'Mary's death is a classic example of fridging, arranged to create as much conflict as possible for the male leads.'

And this is a classic case of woman talking shite! Mary is an original character- one if written as Doyle had would be a background doormat who the writers sometimes forget exits at all, or cant even remember what name they gave her. Obviously thats not an option these days. Having written her up as more they still have to get rid of her, because thats what happens in the stories they are basing it on- so they do. That this then has an effect on her husband and a knock on effect on her husbands relationship with his friend is not fridging- its reacting- its human emotion.
What does the reviewer think had John just went "Ah well thats her dead then. Whats the next case Sherlock? How about some humourous banter?" that would be the right way to treat the death of a major female character?

'it's time to talk about the inexplicable subplot where John Watson sexts a random woman he met on the bus...John's wildly out-of-character flirtation with the Bus Lady. .. as an addition to John Watson's characterization in Sherlock, it's catastrophically inappropriate.'

Maybe its time to talk about the completely explicable adaptation of Watsons off the page (occasionally on it) roving eye for the ladies and multiple marriages into the modern adaptation. John Watson is no saint when it comes to women. Its part of his character. Is the reviewer even familiar with the material being adapted? It seems not.

'it doesn't make sense in the context of Watson's previous characterization'

His previous characterisation re women prior to his marriage in Sherlock is that he could not settle with any one and got through a few.

'Fans of Sherlock's silly yet imaginative crime-solving will probably be disappointed, since the main crime is lifted directly from The Six Napoleons'

The reviewer was complaining at the start there was no narrative! Now they are complaining its based on the original story!! Never mind reading the originals I dont think this reviewer reads back their own reviews!

'Why, for example, did the anonymous Eastern European terrorists keep Mary's former colleague Ajay in captivity for six years, when they could've just killed him?'

Again this is explained in the episode why are they even needing to ask- were they not paying attention?

' why did the evil mastermind Vivian Norbury collapse beneath Sherlock's unimaginative and sexist jabs about her status as an elderly cat lady'

She didn't collapse- she stood there absolutely defiantly and shot him! What was this reviewer watching? Was it just in their head?

'Mary's death means we're unlikely to see the comedic atmosphere that drove episodes like "The Sign Of Three,"'

No comedic would not be at all appropriate for the tone they have set here and seemingly for this series- and there is still plenty of humour in the dialogue and characters, particularly around Greg. But the tone is darker out and out comedy and banter would not be appropriate.

I thought this was episode was ok- I am not a huge fan of Mary, and I find it hard to buy her past existence, and seeing her in action in the flashbacks did nothing to convince me, but overall it was still a solid dose of Sherlock. And more importantly its only the first act in a three act story we have yet to see the rest of. We haven't even met the main villain of this series yet.}}}}