Re: Sherlock - BBC [4]

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:52 am

Spoiler:

- Figg

{{

Spoiler:

}}

I am not keen on Gatiss penned stuff if this is the end result.- Figg

{{I find his Who penned episode to be equally murky. His first was solid enough stuff without being spectacular with Dickens and would be ghosts, and then he went a bit off the boil- that anti-aging one he also starred in, and think there was another nondescript one after that too, and the Dalek episode of series 5 was the poorest of an otherwise great opening series for 11, then there's stuff that doesn't always quite seem to gel as whole piece yet has some brilliant ideas, or characters, or imagery- like Crimson Horror or arguably the poorest episode of series 9 Sleep No More.
And Ive found I have a similar pattern when I look at his Sherlock penned episodes- ranging from solid ok but not brilliant, to not really hanging together for me somehow.
But I love him as Mycroft- he is brilliant in the role. }}

by halfwise Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:49 pm

I love Gatiss as Mycroft as well, and find his sherlock episodes to be the weaker ones. But Moffat truly blew it at the end of the last episode. Truly stupid idea as far as I'm concerned, makes me much less interested in anything that comes after.

And if they really have been hinting at it for years, then they had plenty of time to realize what a stupid idea it was. Nobody in the audience had caught on so why bother?

by Mrs Figg Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:03 pm

Gatiss should stick to what he is good at, acting. His range is pretty much one type, but he does that one type very well. The only thing of his in Who I really enjoyed was the Dickens episode.

If the sister thing has been hinted at and running through the other series it went totally over my head because this was the first I heard of it, and was set up badly, so I agree with Halfy on that one. and as hints about a possible brother/sister it was rubbish. If you want a running hint he should have done a Badwolf, that was the most brilliant running theme ever. it was mysterious, eerie and fascinating with a great punch-line at the end that didn't disappoint.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:45 pm

Nobody in the audience had caught on so why bother?- Halfy

{{speak for yourself! Mad

But Norc would be the expert on such speculation I'd think and how long its been going on in the Sherlock fandom

Spoiler:

}}}

by Mrs Figg Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:44 pm

well its ok if you are a supernerd, but the average viewer wouldn't get it.

by azriel Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:17 pm

I'm not interested in a Holmes sister. Its cheap & clutching at straws. I must be as thick as shit also as I didn't pick up on any hints either. Id except the idea that this young girl has deluded ideas of wishing to be a Holmes family member, maybe she has a mental health issue ? but, nah. Sherlock didn't bat an eye & he could off. He could have taken a 2nd look, a cock of the head, something could have rang a bell in his brain bucket but, I don't think it did. We have enough with Molly. she seems a good balance & is on the same sorta wave length. Mrs Hudson is good as Sherlocks landlady & doesn't pretend or try to be anymore. Mary had her time, but now that's gone, & lo & behold suddenly up pops another woman, a long lost & practically unrecognisable younger sibling ! Oh give me strength !

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:41 pm

{{The original idea is neither Moffats or Gatiis'

Spoiler:

}}

by **Amarië** Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:45 am

Spoiler:

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:23 pm

Moff's clues often come with neonlights and arrows pointing to it.- Amarie

{{I tend to find he only does that when there is at least 1 other major clue in the scene he doesn't want you to notice until later. }}}

by **Amarië** Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:23 pm

He/they could tone it down a little bit I think. But then again I think it's a trick that belongs here in a fairly typical crime/detective series, rather than in the more fairytale Who.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:39 pm

{{I dont think anything does or doesn't belong in Who- that's the beauty of its format. Arguably Who has already done the Sherlock genre thing in the time of the 4th Doctor where he actually dresses as Sherlock complete with deerstalker. Certainly murder/mystery has been a stable of Who since the start. Its genre jumping, its why it endures. When it comes to Moffats plotting its perfectly suited to episodes like Heaven Sent, but I personally much prefer plotting where the clues really are there if you are careful and attentive enough to work it out before the characters do, and Moffat does give you the clues, its why so many watch Moffat episodes with moments of 'my god how did I not see that?!' its because he is very good at hiding stuff in plain sight- give me that to random clues that have no means of the viewer connecting them to anything before you get to the explanation of them at the end any day- that's a plotting cop out for me. Yeah looking at you RTD and your 'Bad Wolf'! }}}

by **Amarië** Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:47 pm

I was referring to the neonlight and arrows, as they brings you (or me at least) out of the flow and thus only make me annoyed.

by Mrs Figg Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:16 pm

...only Bad Wolf was brilliant, interesting and effective, so brilliant Moffat copied it, but didn't do it as well as RTD.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:28 pm

interesting and effective, so brilliant Moffat copied it,- Figg

{{Where and when? scratch

And it wasn't interesting- had only only one interesting question attached to it- what do the words Bad Wolf mean? The answer to which could not even be hazarded at by the viewer as all they got throughout was those two words repeated in different locations or by different people. Yes that's a good hook- but its totally one note and allows no viewer participation in the mystery. There is no way to guess the mystery because there is only 1 clue repeated. You sure as hell cant build a detective story, let alone a Holmes based one on that sort of one note plotting. }}}

by Mrs Figg Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:18 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: interesting and effective, so brilliant Moffat copied it,- Figg

{{Where and when? And it wasn't interesting- had only only one interesting question attached to it- what do the words Bad Wolf mean? The answer to which could not even be hazarded at by the viewer as all they got throughout was those two words repeated in different locations or by different people. Yes that's a good hook- but its totally one note and allows no viewer participation in the mystery. There is no way to guess the mystery because there is only 1 clue repeated. You sure as hell cant build a detective story, let alone a Holmes based one on that sort of one note plotting. }}}

To demonstrate your hypocrisy over the RTD Moffat debate. They both use running themes, RTD invented it, Moffat re-used it. end of.

http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/doctorwho/themes/bad-wolf/

Bad Wolf also has its own music theme running through.

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:42 pm

They both use running themes, RTD invented it- Figg

{{{RTD did not invent running themes in a television series!!!! You can trace those back to the very first serials ever made and cinema before it! In Who arguably the first full on version would be the 2nd Doctors final series which was one huge story. By your logic RTD is plagiarizing classic Who writers!
And its not if you do a running theme, its how you do them. And Moffats, whether you think they are successful or not, all have ways in which the viewer can take part and work out the clues. Bad Wolf does not. That sort of mystery plot just would not work as a series arc in something like Sherlock- its way too simple and you cant play along so its no fun. In my opinion RTD is great at characters, they are his ace in the hole, but he has consistently produced plots with hand wave resolutions that only appear in the final act.}}

by Mrs Figg Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:02 am

"hand wave resolutions that only appear in the final act" Petty

you just described every episode of every show Moffat has written. and characters are the most important aspect of any show, they are certainly more important than tortuous plots.

But I am nipping the Moffat thing in the bud before it goes down the usual road. So that's my last comment on it.

by Norc Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:28 am

am i the only one who picked up on Mycroft having sex aka getting himself a goldfish? (well maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but it doesn’t matter because the scene is such a cliché).. that scene is them (Mycroft and that lady) putting their coats on and being very casual after a very intimate act... and what does Sherlock and John do after the very intimate and emotional hug? they put their frigging coats on!! and it cuts away, as if something happened in between. so it cuts back to a scene that is exaclty like the one with mycroft! IT FUCKINGS MIRRORS THE SCENE with mycroft having sex! we are meant to catch up on this. we are subtly being told to look at this as a love story. ok. bye.

by Norc Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:51 am

this is the greatest lovestory never told, quoute the writers.

they're gonna kiss on sunday. i am right. just. face it.

by halfwise Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:26 am

I must be really thick. What does getting a goldfish have to do with having sex? Come to think of it, what does Mycroft have to do with having sex?

by **Amarië** Thu Jan 12, 2017 7:43 am

I was avoiding commenting on the things like the you-need-a-woman-to-be-complete weirdness (John nearly broke out in a musical song and dance number) and Lady Love 'cause I was trying to focus on good things about the episode, and hope after the next episode it would all seem less like too many plot bunnies had been hastily stuffed together in a too small box.

Sherlock - BBC [4] - Page 34 00001pyy

by **Amarië** Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:27 am

halfwise wrote:I must be really thick. What does getting a goldfish have to do with having sex? Come to think of it, what does Mycroft have to do with having sex?

The Holmes brothers "live in a world of goldfish" ie other people are stupid. Getting a goldfish = relationship.

Edit:
Mycroft and sex is not my favorite thing to think about, but he is the more likely brother to be doing... such things. Wink

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:31 pm

Eldorion wrote:
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.

Mmmmmmm, I never really rated Freeman Sofa

Ironic distance is wonderful and all that, but it is a bit one note to me..

by Bluebottle Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:36 pm

Amarië wrote:I was avoiding commenting on the things like the you-need-a-woman-to-be-complete weirdness (John nearly broke out in a musical song and dance number) and Lady Love 'cause I was trying to focus on good things about the episode, and hope after the next episode it would all seem less like too many plot bunnies had been hastily stuffed together in a too small box.

Plot bunnies Laughing

And the scottish accent's got Moffat pegged. Sofa

Yet to see the second episode, to busy watching the Expanse. Will try to get round to it though.

by Norc Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:09 pm

halfwise wrote:I must be really thick. What does getting a goldfish have to do with having sex? Come to think of it, what does Mycroft have to do with having sex?

in the empty hearse, sherlock asked if mycroft didn't feel lonely? since sherlock now knew what that felt like, as john was now with mary. he referred to it as a goldifsh, getting yourself a goldfish (since mycroft said he lived in a world of goldish)