Sherlock - BBC [4]

That's how I feel Figgy I think. That they are moving further away from the comfort I know & am used too. And I wont change my feelings about Mycroft ! He is Sherlocks kick up the arse brother. Sherlock goes to him to see things clearer & for help, even begrudgingly.

yep, Mycroft is always there and he probably never shows affection or does normal emotions because he is Mycroft, he is unique, a type, if you change him into to something else, something softer or emotional or vomits at the sight of blood, he stops being Mycroft and becomes a cuddly uncle or something similar. I could never imagine Mycrof being scared of circus tricks like blood on paintings or scary clowns, he isn't hysterical, he is supposed to be cleverer than Sherlock, and whats all this about Mycroft being an old romantic watching Mills and Boon and going on dates? yuck.

{{Mycroft is only in about four of the original stories- a big stout man, with such a striking countenance all you remember about him afterwards is his mind! He is pretty lazy and in fact his one outing in the field his physical blundering nearly gets the client killed. In the books in the main Holmes takes something to him, Mycroft works out the answer without usually getting out of his chair and thats about it for the books and Mycroft.
Ironically the description you give of Mycroft that you lament is absent is exactly what Moffat/Gatiss have created- from all the adapters that have come before, but not from Doyle.
The Mycroft we have in Sherlock is as much a product of later Holmes adaptations as it is the original, more so with a good dash of their own invention.
I dont think Moffat and Gatiss see themselves as just retelling the stories, they see themselves as adding to a long line of adapters who have put their own things into the mythology- maybe in the future folk will think the Holmes siblings always included a sister- just as folk now think he wore a deeerstalker all the time (he wore it twice, though neither time named as such- but the early illustrates went for deerstalker and it stuck.}}

dude don't be disingenuous. I am referring to Moffat's creation. he is going doing this to the character that he established from season one. Moffat established Mycroft as cool and aloof and always there as Sherlocks rock, and now he has decided to destroy that persona. Book Mycroft is not in dispute.

poor molly, why did they do that.

Straightest and fairest criticism of Sherlock I think I've read. (It's not good, pretty much as the last two seasons..)

http://thequietus.com/articles/21578-bbc-the-final-problem-sherlock-review

{{On the otherhand for balance some of the favourable press

examples- 5 out of 5- ''an exhilarating thrill-ride' - The Telegraph: "a fitting and sincere goodbye." - IGN

It certainly got mixed press reviews for a Sherlock episode, but by no means were all negative and few of the mainstream press reviews were all negative save for the Daily Mail- which hates everything BBC anyway!}}}

Bluebottle wrote:Straightest and fairest criticism of Sherlock I think I've read. (It's not good, pretty much as the last two seasons..)

http://thequietus.com/articles/21578-bbc-the-final-problem-sherlock-review

That was pretty ouchy and so true.

I know. I posted it but because it was too ouchy I deleted it.

What? It was classic.

Just read it & loved it  It was thoughtfully put into words by someone who wanted Sherlock to be just that... a crime detective. I don't think, I could be wrong ?, but, I think this person cared & studied the episodes not to be nasty, bitchy or nit-picking & to paint it as purile but, to not want it to be too clever & "hip", & how everything they want, ( Sherlock & Co ) seems to happen with no holds barred like, passports, security, dam it, petrol in the car !!

Yeah ? What is too become of Molly ? Not needed now, out grown her usefulness or, can she still work alongside Sherlock without a piece of her glass heart cracking ?

halfwise wrote:What?  It was classic.

I know but even as The Queen of Sarkness Underneath My Cold Exterior Beats A Sensitive Heart. so I couldn't.

{{{ Sherlock- an overview of what its about now its (maybe) done!

There is a problem when adapting the original stories- several in fact but one in particular any would-be adapter is bound to instantly spot. Most of the stories do not lend themselves to visual story telling.

At least 70% of the stories have exactly the same format- person turns up at Baker St, talks for a very long time, Holmes and Watson go to scene of crime and Holmes deduces stuff, exciting climatic denouncement of the crim possibly a chase or gun fight. The end. Repeat.

The power of them is in the how Holmes unravels stuff- that's what folk wanted to read- the actual cases are basically all Mcguffins to this end.

Most adapters when faced with this do the obvious- when client starts telling their tale cut away to show it unfold- thats fine, works ok for that sort of straight-telling of the Holmes stories- works perfectly with the Brett series for example.

And of course there is a reaosn the same stories keep getting adapted over and over- they are the few best suited to cinema or tv, to the visual medium- hence the popularity in film of Hounds- misty moors, giant glow in the dark phantom dog, grizzly end for the villain- despite it being a rather weak tale in which Holmes is largely absent.

But, imagine for a moment Sherlock done this way- 12 episodes in a row of basically that- client, case, puzzle, success- end repeat.

Watch 12 episodes of the Brett version (do anyway they are in their own way brilliant and the best authentic adaptions) they are all pretty much that.

And you cant expect character development- for all the Brett version is great their is no real character development between Holmes and Watson, just as there is very little in the book and Mrs Hudson is largely as she is in the book- someone who lets people in, lets them out and rarely has a line to say beyond the perfunctory.

Its clear that in fact Sherlock is not this.
So what is it?

Well typical of Moffat the biggest clue is hidden in plain sight- just as the answer to the 'oldest question that must never be answered hidden in plain sight' of Doctor Who was in fact the shows title Doctor Who? So to the title here is the heart of the matter- Sherlock.

Its the story of Sherlock- who he is, and why he is.
What Sherlock is, is all the stuff in-between the stuff Doyle wrote about that must have gone on but Doyle failed to write about.
So for example Holmes of the book can be quite the charmer, polite, gracious at need and calls and considers Watson his best friend- and he would certainly have attended Watsons wedding- at least one of them! It doesn't happen on the page, but it does in Sherlock.

And this is true from large to small in Sherlock- its nearly all the stuff between the lines- Mrs Hudson is a classic example of this- in the books we only see her let folk in and out and complain occasionally. In the tv series we find out about her life, her relationship with Sherlock and with Watson and even Mycroft.
It is her home, she is the landlady and housekeeper- she must at some point have had interactions more than door opening and tea delivering- but Doyle was just interested in giving us the tricky case and the puzzle for Holmes to solve and amaze us with- so thats all he wrote about.

Contrary since the very first series of Sherlock we have seen more book cases go by in montage format than we have seen solved as episodes.

How often do we see some montage of Sherlock going through clients, dismissing the unworthy cases and taking on the interesting? Or how often do we hear of a case John has blogged we never saw? It happens all the time.

We are deliberately not getting what people actually expect from a Holmes story- Holmes and Watson solving crimes- what we have is an origins and character piece- its an exploration of what these character might have been like if Doyle had thought to write about their lives rather than just the cases.

And when an episode is based on solving a case it rarely a single case- only the first two episodes really fit this description and Hound- from the 3rd episode of series 1 we largely have a series of cases either overlapping or intertwined. And even form the start the emphasis is not on the case but how the character interact dealing with it. The opposite approach to that which Doyle takes.

The first episode focuses much more on John mental state than the book ever does- hes just skint and living outside his means in the book- he doesn't have war hangups or a desire to get back in the fight that Doyle bothers to mention and his limp is not psychosomatic- Doyle just forgot he had given him it (the bullet wound moves about a fair bit too story to story!).
But arguably the character who has undergone the largest change is Sherlock- book Sherlock can be sharp, cutting and rude with people who are needlessly stupid, breaking his concentration ect but he is much more people friendly than his tv counterpart.

Sherlock of the tv series begins a much more distant character- his self imposed separation from the rest of the human race is also played entirely differently.
In the books Holmes explains that he needs all his faculties for what he does- anything else is a waste of brain matter- thats pretty much it- Watson occasionally remarks on it but thats about it.
Tv Sherlock however although giving the same explanation its more as an excuse- hence the Johnlock stuff it comes form that deliberate sense that Sherlock is as he is because he is repressing some part of himself, mistakenly assumed by the shippers to be sexual repression- this Sherlock is more outwardly emotionally and seemingly more fighting to cap that side of him out of the light, contrary to the book version. Sherlocks explanation of why he is like he is we are encouraged to doubt and question because John does- whereas in the book he finds it hard to believe that any man could live that way, he accepts it seems to be the case with Holmes and rarely mentions it again.
TV Watson never accepts it and so keeps the viewer interested in the question.

This is quite deliberate because the mystery of the show is why is Sherlock like he is? That's what the show has ultimately been all about.

Even from the start its visual style, its way of representing Sherlock's thought processes on screen is more than a gimmick- it serves a hugely important function- it switches the emphasis away from that of the reader of the book- amazed observer to Holmes deductions- and instead puts us right inside Sherlock's head seeing him in real time making those deductions. The Mind Palace is another huge example of where they seek to take the viewer into Sherlock's head as opposed to just observing him at work.

Everything we have seen since it started has been an exploration of what makes Sherlock tick- and to show that the writers opted not to show using the traditional narrative style of a Holmes story- solving cases and being brilliant- but instead to give us all the inbetween- the relationships with his brother, with Watons, Mrs Hudson, Molly, Lestrade, and ultimately the childhood trauma that initially led him to withdraw emotionally and embrace the idea that only pure reasoning was good enough.

It is by the writers an explanation behind some of Holmes most famous book lines-  "love is a deficit most often found on the losing side'- where does that come from? Is it pure observation or is borne of some experience?

These are the sort of character lines which seems to have fascinated the writers into exploring what is behind them.


They are not the first to take the approach of trying to tell an 'origin' story for Sherlock that explains why he is as he is (See Young Sherlock Holmes- its surprisingly good fun actually!)- but they are the first to do so in this manner- by focusing whats not on the page and skimming (quite literally visually often) over the actual cases.

Much of the annoyance expressed by those who think the show has lost its way from its origins I feel perhaps now we have the whole thing, have not considered the entire tale being told- it was never what those people thought it was- the traditional episode on episode of Holmes and Watson solving a case. The writers did not want to just retell those stories with a couple of new twists.

The trick, as is often the case with Moffat, is not to judge the work based on what you thought you were getting, but to judge it based on its own merits of what it actually was and on what it delivered.

We have a rather nice tale in fact, fitting into the Holmes legendarium, a new look at the character of Sherlock and of why he is as he is.  And in the end thats what four series of Sherlock has all been about- answering the question of the name in the title- who is Sherlock and why is he as he is.

In terms of answering those questions in a compelling fashion that has been largely a lot of fun and entertainment value to watch they succeeded I would say.
The Euros Holmes addition, her psycho desire to 'play with Sherlock' and her brilliance coupled with her collaboration with Moriarty ties all the Doyle pieces back into the why? of who Sherlock is.

Was it all brilliant? No. Was a lot of it? Yes. Visually, direction, cinematography, characters, writing- not faultless but damn near sometimes and as good as TV gets. And it did in the end tell its own unique story- harder than it might seem with well loved, well known characters and stories. Did it mess with peoples expectations of what it was? Yes, it has since it began, and now at this end point we know why.

And they at the very least made something fresh and new with it. }}}

I just want to see a decent adaptation of The Valley of Fear - one of my favourites, and should definitely lend itself to some good visuals. Gief me that!

Petty wrote:Everything we have seen since it started has been an exploration of what makes Sherlock tick- and to show that the writers opted not to show using the traditional narrative style of a Holmes story- solving cases and being brilliant- but instead to give us all the inbetween- the relationships with his brother, with Watons, Mrs Hudson, Molly, Lestrade, and ultimately the childhood trauma that initially led him to withdraw emotionally and embrace the idea that only pure reasoning was good enough.

I think that's a very good analysis Petty. My trouble is that this kind of deep-diving into people's personal backstories just isn't interesting to me at all. Whether it's politicians, celebrities, reality TV stars, or my own neighbors, it's what I turn to fiction to escape from. If I really wanted to hear about people's childhood trauma maybe I'd try volunteer social work. No, that type of deep-diving into fictional characters' psychoses is only for the hardcore fans. And I'm OK with that.

I think they would have done better to have left the deep diving to tempting hints and snatches. It would have kept me much more interested if I have to piece it together rather than have it slammed in our faces.

The X-files is a good comparison: every now and then you'd get more bits and pieces of the legendarium; but near the end as they began to sew things up it became much less interesting. Sure, have the writer's room flesh out a whole backstory, but never let the viewers completely in on it. Tantalize them - don't disappoint them with a full view.

I just want to see a decent adaptation of The Valley of Fear- Ringo


{{An odd one that its rarely done- Im struggling to think when it has been done I know of 3 versions- 2 loose adaptations one from the 1930's the other the 1950's and an early 80's animated cartoon version- perhaps its considered to be too grisly, it was originally when published. I would say, as its one of the longer tales its length was prohibitive but thats never stopped them adapting Hound over and over despite its weaknesses, particularly for modern audiences likely to be less superstitious, fearful of ghosts and legends and to be disappointed when it turns out its just a mastiff in some glow in the dark paint.
And with Valley having ties to Moriarty it would be no huge stretch for a screenwriter to have brought him in from the background to the main story as they did in many other adaptations, making it even more of a puzzler as to why its never adapted}}.


have the writer's room flesh out a whole backstory, but never let the viewers completely in on it.- Halfy


{{Thats tricky if your narrative aim is to create an explanation and backstory for the character. If your actual overall story is 'this is what happened' then you kind of have to tell the viewers eventually what happened.

I think that can work for somethings Halfy - in Twin Peaks the mystery of who murdered Laura should never have been solved- it killed the show. But it was never what it was about- her death was just the stone in the pool- the interesting bit was watching all the ripples go out from it and interplay.

Sherlock on the otherhand is basically an origins story that ties those origins to major instances we all think we know from Sherlock Holmes- like Moriairty, Mycroft ect- so we see those in a new light. It kind of requires a final explanation or the narrative just doesn't work. }}}

But the point is the Sherlock should NOT be an origin story; it can give us more origin than Doyle ever did, but making that the point of the series is a mistake. Sure, let characters develop but that should be the backdrop. Sherlock would have been perfect if they kept all the backstory they developed without shining a spotlight on it. Though I mainly like Moffat's writing, his biggest failing both in Sherlock and Who is the hero worship fan service. That's not what I'm there for.

Also, you'll never see an American adaptation of Valley of Fear due to the Mormon bashing. Someone else will have to do it, but they may get some backlash.

Its clear that in fact Sherlock is not this.
So what is it?

Well typical of Moffat the biggest clue is hidden in plain sight- just as the answer to the 'oldest question that must never be answered hidden in plain sight' of Doctor Who was in fact the shows title Doctor Who? So to the title here is the heart of the matter- Sherlock.

Its the story of Sherlock- who he is, and why he is.
What Sherlock is, is all the stuff in-between the stuff Doyle wrote about that must have gone on but Doyle failed to write about.

He failed to write about it because its totally unnecessary to know those things, in the 19th there wasnt the fascination with the intimate sex lives of Sherlock and Watson, there wasn't the 20th century obsession with psyco- trauma from childhood, there wasn't the pressure from fans apart from the pressure to tell ripping yarns, there wasn't the pressure to add female characters just for the sake of pc pressures, it wasn't a vain selfie society, Sherlock was not a superhero or the arrogant and rude person he is in Sherlock. The original was charming, but Cumberbatch Sherlock is bad mannered and childish, the original wouldn't be texting at a baptism.

So for example Holmes of the book can be quite the charmer, polite, gracious at need and calls and considers Watson his best friend- and he would certainly have attended Watsons wedding- at least one of them! It doesn't happen on the page, but it does in Sherlock.

Only that modern Sherlock is rude and aggressive, and has his rudeness forgiven because he is the hero worshipped 'great man' hero worshipped to the point of sycophancy, worshipped to the point that nothing he does has lasting consequences.

And this is true from large to small in Sherlock- its nearly all the stuff between the lines- Mrs Hudson is a classic example of this- in the books we only see her let folk in and out and complain occasionally. In the tv series we find out about her life, her relationship with Sherlock and with Watson and even Mycroft.
It is her home, she is the landlady and housekeeper- she must at some point have had interactions more than door opening and tea delivering- but Doyle was just interested in giving us the tricky case and the puzzle for Holmes to solve and amaze us with- so thats all he wrote about.

Mrs Hudson does not need to be fleshed out, its done to give Una Stubbs something to do because she is such a characterful actress and importantly a 'fan favourite' and if someone is a fan favourite they get more face time whether it serves the plot or not.

Contrary since the very first series of Sherlock we have seen more book cases go by in montage format than we have seen solved as episodes.

How often do we see some montage of Sherlock going through clients, dismissing the unworthy cases and taking on the interesting? Or how often do we hear of a case John has blogged we never saw? It happens all the time.

We are deliberately not getting what people actually expect from a Holmes story- Holmes and Watson solving crimes- what we have is an origins and character piece- its an exploration of what these character might have been like if Doyle had thought to write about their lives rather than just the cases.

yes but most people want a Holmes story to solve crimes otherwise it ceases to be Sherlock and becomes Batman or James Bond. It is at its weakest and most boring when it wanders off into Skyfall pastiche. or family drama. I don't give a monkeys about the family problems. if you reveal all it loses mystery.

And when an episode is based on solving a case it rarely a single case- only the first two episodes really fit this description and Hound- from the 3rd episode of series 1 we largely have a series of cases either overlapping or intertwined. And even form the start the emphasis is not on the case but how the character interact dealing with it. The opposite approach to that which Doyle takes.

yeah and season one and two were the best because they followed cases. seson 3 and 4 were kitchen sink drama complete with kids, marriage and bits on the side betrayal.

The first episode focuses much more on John mental state than the book ever does- hes just skint and living outside his means in the book- he doesn't have war hangups or a desire to get back in the fight that Doyle bothers to mention and his limp is not psychosomatic- Doyle just forgot he had given him it (the bullet wound moves about a fair bit too story to story!).

But arguably the character who has undergone the largest change is Sherlock- book Sherlock can be sharp, cutting and rude with people who are needlessly stupid, breaking his concentration ect but he is much more people friendly than his tv counterpart.

Sherlock of the tv series begins a much more distant character- his self imposed separation from the rest of the human race is also played entirely differently.
In the books Holmes explains that he needs all his faculties for what he does- anything else is a waste of brain matter- thats pretty much it- Watson occasionally remarks on it but thats about it.
Tv Sherlock however although giving the same explanation its more as an excuse- hence the Johnlock stuff it comes form that deliberate sense that Sherlock is as he is because he is repressing some part of himself, mistakenly assumed by the shippers to be sexual repression- this Sherlock is more outwardly emotionally and seemingly more fighting to cap that side of him out of the light, contrary to the book version. Sherlocks explanation of why he is like he is we are encouraged to doubt and question because John does- whereas in the book he finds it hard to believe that any man could live that way, he accepts it seems to be the case with Holmes and rarely mentions it again.
TV Watson never accepts it and so keeps the viewer interested in the question.

no it doesnt

This is quite deliberate because the mystery of the show is why is Sherlock like he is? That's what the show has ultimately been all about.

we don't need to know all that stuff. its the emperors new clothes, once we see whats underneath the reality is far more banal that we could imagine. blaming it all on childhood trauma is so so overdone its ridiculous. every single detective on tv these days has childhood trauma. or psychological flaws, why cant Holmes just be allowed to be an odd genius? without all the sex and psychobabble

Even from the start its visual style, its way of representing Sherlock's thought processes on screen is more than a gimmick- it serves a hugely important function- it switches the emphasis away from that of the reader of the book- amazed observer to Holmes deductions- and instead puts us right inside Sherlock's head seeing him in real time making those deductions. The Mind Palace is another huge example of where they seek to take the viewer into Sherlock's head as opposed to just observing him at work.

yeah in the first two episodes this was new and interesting if hard to take in because it flashes onscreen too fast and distracts from the acting, but yes that was interesting if its not overdone.

Everything we have seen since it started has been an exploration of what makes Sherlock tick- and to show that the writers opted not to show using the traditional narrative style of a Holmes story- solving cases and being brilliant- but instead to give us all the inbetween- the relationships with his brother, with Watons, Mrs Hudson, Molly, Lestrade, and ultimately the childhood trauma that initially led him to withdraw emotionally and embrace the idea that only pure reasoning was good enough.

All of these things make it less interesting and more domestic drama, with feelings and sex involved. Molly is just used and left hanging when it suits, Lestrade is just there to make Holmes look more heroic and be comic relief, Mycroft was made ridiculous and cowardly, and the emotional contortions are just boring to watch.

It is by the writers an explanation behind some of Holmes most famous book lines-  "love is a deficit most often found on the losing side'- where does that come from? Is it pure observation or is borne of some experience?

don't need to know, mystery is far more interesting. the current obsession with spelling it all out and explaining everything shows the lack of sophistication and ability to use imagination of current audiences.

These are the sort of character lines which seems to have fascinated the writers into exploring what is behind them.

Or they just ran out of ideas and threw in stuff from Coupling.


They are not the first to take the approach of trying to tell an 'origin' story for Sherlock that explains why he is as he is (See Young Sherlock Holmes- its surprisingly good fun actually!)- but they are the first to do so in this manner- by focusing whats not on the page and skimming (quite literally visually often) over the actual cases.

that's where they went badly wrong. people want clever tricky cases, they like suduko puzzles to unravel, they like impossible crimes, what they don't like is contorted and convoluted and ultimately empty teases and red herrings with no payoff. Why tease stuff then not deliver, its frustrating.

Much of the annoyance expressed by those who think the show has lost its way from its origins I feel perhaps now we have the whole thing, have not considered the entire tale being told- it was never what those people thought it was- the traditional episode on episode of Holmes and Watson solving a case. The writers did not want to just retell those stories with a couple of new twists.

actually people are annoyed because its boring drivel.

The trick, as is often the case with Moffat, is not to judge the work based on what you thought you were getting, but to judge it based on its own merits of what it actually was and on what it delivered.

We have a rather nice tale in fact, fitting into the Holmes legendarium, a new look at the character of Sherlock and of why he is as he is.  And in the end thats what four series of Sherlock has all been about- answering the question of the name in the title- who is Sherlock and why is he as he is.

that's changing the goalposts to suit the critics. this is not Doctor Who. the audience is adult and adults can see through shoddy writing.

In terms of answering those questions in a compelling fashion that has been largely a lot of fun and entertainment value to watch they succeeded I would say.
The Euros Holmes addition, her psycho desire to 'play with Sherlock' and her brilliance coupled with her collaboration with Moriarty ties all the Doyle pieces back into the why? of who Sherlock is.

Was it all brilliant? No. Was a lot of it? Yes. Visually, direction, cinematography, characters, writing- not faultless but damn near sometimes and as good as TV gets. And it did in the end tell its own unique story- harder than it might seem with well loved, well known characters and stories. Did it mess with peoples expectations of what it was? Yes, it has since it began, and now at this end point we know why.

And they at the very least made something fresh and new with it. }}}
.

Have I mentioned how much I hate the focus on mind palaces?

And it's portrayed incorrectly anyway. It can be used to keep sequences in order, and for pairing keywords/symbols - one to one. It can't be used for search and retrieve, or for collation of separate facts.

the point is the Sherlock should NOT be an origin story- Halfwise


{{Thats a rather definitive statement Halfy- are you saying in all the years since Doyle wrote the originals there is no artistic merit whatsoever in the tons of adaptations which have either tried to create an origin or added in more than was on the page? It sounds rather that you are proscribing what a Holnes story can and cannot be- I feel the writers would contend that the Holmes we have in our head is already an amalgam of the books and a hundred years of adaptions of them- to act as if they had not happened would be odd. To simply retell the same stroies with different actors largely pointless- and I doubt anywhere near as successful}}

'in the 19th there wasnt the fascination with the intimate sex lives of Sherlock and Watson, there wasn't the 20th century obsession with psyco- trauma from childhood, there wasn't the pressure from fans apart from the pressure to tell ripping yarns, there wasn't the pressure to add female characters just for the sake of pc pressures, it wasn't a vain selfie society'- Figg


{{you seem to have failed to notice they didn't write Sherlock in the 19th century! Its a modern piece, its got a modern slant and modern preoccupations- love them or hate them thats the times we live in.}}

' his rudeness forgiven because he is the hero worshipped'

{{no. His rudeness is there to push him further away from normal folk and to create a question around why he is that way which is the driving force behind the overall narrative. His rudeness, heightened from the books, has noting to do with hero worship and everything to do with the narrative about Sherlock.}}

we don't need to know all that stuff.- Figg

{{Frankly thats not your decision to make. Its entirely up to any writer what subject they choose to write about and what angle they choose to come at it from and what commentary if any they wish to make through it. You dont have to like it, or watch it- all writers write what interests them and hope others find it interesting too to make it successful- but no writer is going  to decide what they want to write about based on whether or not they think you think we need to know about those things. Thats up to the writer to decide what they think the viewer/reader needs to know. And if you set out to write an origin for Sherlock story it kind of has to include that.}}}

All of these things make it less interesting and more domestic drama, with feelings and sex involved.- Figg

{{Again you judge the show on not what it was about but what you wanted it to be about- if the aim is to show all the inbetween stuff, how Sherlock dealt with all the other stuff- the domestic, the feelings ect then you can hardly criticise it for having those in it- thats the tale they have chosen to tell not the traditional Holmes being clever solving puzzles though obviously we get that too. }}}

Why tease stuff then not deliver, its frustrating.- Figg

{{They did deliver- they have been teasing since the start what made Sherlock who he is- now we know exactly why. How is that not delivering? }}

actually people are annoyed because its boring drivel.- Figg


{{{11 million overnights- highest rated drama on any UK tv all year by a good chunk. If people were bored they head an odd way of showing it.}}

that's changing the goalposts to suit the critics- Figg

{{How exactly?}}

adults can see through shoddy writing- Figg

{{That must be why so many adults praise the writing in Sherlock (and Who for that matter) then?! They can see its certainly not shoddy- frankly you have to be an idiot to think that any writer who can actually make a successful critically acclaimed living writing is shoddy- taste you can dislike, style you can dislike, characters you can dislike ect- but the quality of the actually work and level of craftsmanship here from a technical standpoint could only be questioned by a clown or someone who knows noting about written English. Sherlock is supremely well written from a technical level and supremely well visualised too.}}}}}}




it's portrayed incorrectly anyway. ..... It can't be used for search and retrieve, or for collation of separate facts.- Halfy

{{Indeed- something Mycroft quite clearly points out in one of the episodes- its not the traditional version Sherlock uses. }}}

the point is the Sherlock should NOT be an origin story- Halfwise


{{Thats a rather definitive statement Halfy- are you saying in all the years since Doyle wrote the originals there is no artistic merit whatsoever in the tons of adaptations which have either tried to create an origin or added in more than was on the page? It sounds rather that you are proscribing what a Holnes story can and cannot be- I feel the writers would contend that the Holmes we have in our head is already an amalgam of the books and a hundred years of adaptions of them- to act as if they had not happened would be odd. To simply retell the same stroies with different actors largely pointless- and I doubt anywhere near as successful}}

But in this adaptation, where they fail is by making the origin story more important than the crime solving stories. They'd have done better to keep it in the background.

And the major problem with the mind palace is not that it's portrayed incorrectly, but that it's used as a sort of deux ex machina over and over. It's eye-rolling.

{{Its main purpose is to explore inside Sherlocks mind- allowing the links to be shown visually to water and to the other flashback memories too and to let us see that inner struggle that is heart of the mystery of who he is. I am struggling to think of what episodes its used in where its purpose could be described as deux ex machina- examples please!


'where they fail is by making the origin story more important than the crime solving stories'

Again this seems to me like judging it on what you wanted not what it was. You say it fails by making the origin more important than the crime solving- but if that was the aim of the piece, to make the crime solving in Sherlock secondary to an exploration of the man Sherlock- then it cannot be said to have failed in that task. Rather it achieved exactly the aims it set out to.}}}