BBC's Sherlock

[Passdagas the Brown]

I'm not a mystery guy either, and do enjoy the fact that the tropes of the genre are juggled about, stood on their heads, and sometimes tossed off a building. That's not really at the center of my criticism, though I do find the mystery elements this time to be quite unconvincing.

I was mostly just annoyed by the "self-congratulatory" feel of the 3rd season, as Elentári aptly put it. There seems to be too much fan service this time around. I'm also just getting tired of the multi-tasking, fast-moving camera and "text" trope that the series has created for itself. Was novel the first two times around, but feels pasted on now. Perhaps it's just a tad too millennial for me...

Lastly, I didn't find Sherlock himself either funny or uniquely insightful/ intelligent this time around (a marked contrast from the first two seasons). He seems to be playing "super-smart" (without much substance to convince me) and his sociopathy and general meanness just didn't get a free pass from me this time. He was just...well...unlikeable. I wonder if the stretches of time between shoots, and the massive following the show has generated, is leading Cumberbatch to unintentionally imitate himself...Not sure.

I might sit down and watch them again, and see if I react differently.

ETA: And I can't stand that lab assistant plot-line, and her worshipful attitude towards Sherlock. For a modernized version of the series, that's an incredibly weak female role!

[Passdagas the Brown]

The show also brings up something I've felt for a long while: I very much prefer nice geeks to mean geeks. A nice geek is...well...nice, and usually far more open-minded and curious about the world. Hasn't lost that infectious, child-like giddy geekery that keeps them never bored, never disinterested, and always alive (most of the people at HoF, really!). A mean geek has decided that there's only one thing (or specialty) that matters, and anything (and anyone) who doesn't fall into that square peg is a waste of time (or an idiot). I just find the nice geek to be generally more intelligent, versatile and likeable, overall.

In that context, I think Sherlock's just wearing on me. I don't learn anything from him, his geekiness is cold and unenthusiastic, and he doesn't get me interested in his craft.

Apart from his emotional connection to Watson he is, essentially, an automaton. I'd like to see some more genuine excitement from him in Season 4.

[axordil]

The question is, can he break away from that and remain Sherlock? One of the things I like is the character's studied indifference: to custom, to other people, to any expectations but his own. Even now, as he makes clumsy overtures toward some semblance of humanity with regards to people close to him, he proceeds on his terms, almost mystified at why he's doing it...but doing it anyway, because on some level he knows it's the right thing to do.
Ethically, if not morally.

My fear is some mawkish epiphany episode or other where he "sees the light."

[Passdagas the Brown]

I don't need him to lose his "studied indifference." That is at the center of what makes him Sherlock. And I certainly do not want anything mawkish or sentimental. I just need him to be more excited, more energized, by his own craft. For some reason or another, his love of a good mystery to solve just didn't come through this time. The "shorthand" the film-makers use to convey his intelligence (some uninspired form of nerve-fired Jedi mind trick), I fear is dulling the passion Sherlock has for doing this kind of work. On the page, and in previous television portrayals (including the first two seasons of this one), the reader or audience really gets swept away with Sherlock's energetic forensic geekiness. In Season 3, I don't feel that energy at all. He seemed to be going through the motions. Frankly, it was a slog.

[axordil]

That's a good point, actually: his energy was the focus of the first two seasons, modulated by John's humanity. Those two have reversed roles for the first two episodes of season 3, at least, and while I'm enjoying the awkwardness, I don't want it to be the norm either.

[Frelga]

I don't know, I really like John going into the full Captain Watson mode. Calling Sherlock

Hidden text.

nurse

, too.

I agree with everybody. The craftsmanship wasn't quite there in the last 2 episodes (haven't seen the last one yet). It's a bit as if the show has killed off Sherlock for real, and then the fangirls took over.

But I found him a lot more annoying in the first seasons. I never had much patience for jerks, no matter how brilliant (hence my weakness for Castle who, while starting out as a rather smug character, was always warm and caring). The best part in the past seasons was Freeman's John not taking it from Sherlock. ( The interesting part this season was seeing Sherlock recognize the bond he has with John and try to figure out the behavior appropriate to that relationship. And I adore what they did with Mary.

Mystery plotting was always the weak part of the show, IMO. With the possible exception of the Study in Pink and the Hound. Series 3 ep 1 was the worst, IMO. Like, what was the point of

Hidden text.

kidnapping and almost roasting John? Did they really pulled that "they had a fight but then one saved the other's life so he had to forgive him" trick,

or did I miss something?

[Frelga]

Also, this

[Primula Baggins]

I don't know. I read all of the Holmes stories and novels many times before I was 14 (and since). I mean all of them. Including the annotated versions.

I know and love them. And I love this show.

I agree that the first two episodes have been more in-jokey and fan-ficcy than they had to be. That doesn't mean I didn't love them. Growing up as a Star Trek fan I treasured those moments when Spock would call Kirk "Jim." That doesn't mean I was into slash (I would have been shocked speechless at that age, in that era); it means that the humanity of that relationship—two intelligent people who cared about each other, adventuring together—was at the center of that story for me, as that of Holmes and Watson was always at the center of the Holmes stories. I loved the mysteries, but that was not the point—to me.

This series doesn't nail the mysteries as the originals often did, or the PBS series back in the VCR days. But what it does nail does matter—to me.

[Elentári]

Mystery plotting was always the weak part of the show, IMO. With the possible exception of the Study in Pink and the Hound. Series 3 ep 1 was the worst, IMO. Like, what was the point of

Hidden text.

kidnapping and almost roasting John? Did they really pulled that "they had a fight but then one saved the other's life so he had to forgive him" trick,

or did I miss something?

That does have a pay-off in Episode 3...or, at least, we find out who was behind it!

[Lalaith]

I don't know. I read all of the Holmes stories and novels many times before I was 14 (and since). I mean all of them. Including the annotated versions.

I know and love them. And I love this show.

I agree that the first two episodes have been more in-jokey and fan-ficcy than they had to be. That doesn't mean I didn't love them. Growing up as a Star Trek fan I treasured those moments when Spock would call Kirk "Jim." That doesn't mean I was into slash (I would have been shocked speechless at that age, in that era); it means that the humanity of that relationship—two intelligent people who cared about each other, adventuring together—was at the center of that story for me, as that of Holmes and Watson was always at the center of the Holmes stories. I loved the mysteries, but that was not the point—to me.

This series doesn't nail the mysteries as the originals often did, or the PBS series back in the VCR days. But what it does nail does matter—to me.

IAWP!

(I have also read many of the Sherlock stories and enjoyed them tremendously.) There's just something that really clicks with me in this series. (And, no, I don't have a crush on Benedict Cumberbatch. My crush is on Martin Freeman. )

But, seriously, it's the writing--brilliant, clever, deep--, and it's the story of the relationship between John and Sherlock with all of the other characters also being of stellar quality.

(And I don't mind Molly being obsessed with Sherlock. That is real life--people get obsessed with other people.)

[Passdagas the Brown]

(And I don't mind Molly being obsessed with Sherlock. That is real life--people get obsessed with other people.)

At least among the adults I know (and Molly is an adult) I have never seen an overwhelming crush like that. If Molly were in her teens, I could certainly accept it. As it stands, she's an incredibly weak female character that serves as a mere cipher for demonstrating Sherlock's brilliance. Call me PC, but I think it borders on chauvinism.

[Lalaith]

And I get tired of things having to be PC. (I'm not talking about you; I'm just talking in general, and that is mostly out of my rear. So feel free to disregard.)

I have seen a crush like that. Some women and men are like that. I think it's a realistic storyline.

If there were no other "strong" female characters in the series, then I might be concerned. But since there are several, I'm fine with their portrayal of a character (female or male) with such a crush. One could argue that the guy from the fan club (? conspiracy club) has such a crush on Sherlock as well; we just don't get to see as much of him as we do the lab assistant.

[Frelga]

I don't see anything non-PC about Molly, either. Sure she has a crush on Sherlock, and sure it hurts that he does not reciprocate. What's so unrealistic about that? She gets on with her life, does her job, sees other men. We never see her crying drunken tears or stalking him. She's unhappy in love and she deals. That makes her a strong character, IMO.

[Elentári]

IAWF AND L!

you can feel sorry for Molly but she's strong and she deals. And, in fact, is just as brilliant in her field as Sherlock is in his. Hint: you'll enjoy her key contribution in Episode 3.

[Pearly Di]

I have a feminist friend who adores Molly because you don't have to be Lara Croft in order to be a strong woman. Molly - shy, socially awkward Molly - is a strong woman. Just because she's nervous and quiet doesn't mean she's not strong. The 'Kick Ass Girl' trope gets very tiresome when it's over-done. Molly is intelligent and vulnerable - but we see her feistier side in Season 3, and it's great.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I'm not looking for Lara Croft. Just some self-respect.

Sorry, but she doesn't seem to have moved on at all (despite her new farce of a relationship). She's a quivering mass of jelly around Sherlock, can barely speak when he's around, and is incapable of resisting him (even though she has been rejected). He cynically goes in for a kiss, and despite the warning bells going off around her, has no power to stop him. In short, she hasn't dealt with the rejection at all.

She is also portrayed as wholly inadequate in assisting Sherlock on the crime scene. I understand this is setting up Watson's return to that role, but to me, it came across as belittling.

I concede that this may be realistic, to a degree. I am sure that there are certain women who have gotten that way about a man. But I don't have to like it! It's painful to watch. She comes across as pathetic, not strong. And the male Sherlock fan is bad counter-example, IMO, because he actually criticizes Sherlock's methods (leading to Sherlock's hilarious delivery of "Everyone's a critic,") and demonstrates a significant degree of autonomy. Molly just worships.

Mind you, this critique is not just reserved for women. I find the worship of other human beings to be a disturbing character trait demonstrating a serious lack of self-confidence. Again, possibly realistic, but not something I find very flattering.

ETA: In response to your comments, I'm missing in what way Molly is being portrayed as a strong woman. Examples? As far as I can see (perhaps not very far) even her intelligence is stomped on by Sherlock, and she ultimately ends up blubbering in the realization of her intellectual inadequacy in comparison to him. Sure, everyone in the show is inadequate compared to Sherlock in that regard, but few others are reduced to such incoherence as she is. She worships Sherlock's brilliance, and despises her own limited intellect as a result (and seems to despise herself more generally). To me, she's a very weak female character who is constantly dominated by a male character. If this was set in the 1200s, I would be more forgiving. But it's modern London, and she's a professional...

[Frelga]

Since I already said I disagree I will only point out that Molly is a massive geek whose job involves corpses. That would indicate social awkwardness comparable with Sherlock himself, so it's hardly a surprise that she is shy around him. In fact, she is doing amazingly well socially and romantically. And given how painful it is for a brilliant woman to be with a man less intelligent than herself, I don't blame Molly for holding out for Sherlock. Consider that

Hidden text.

one of her other boydfriends was actually Moriarty

(do we need spoiler tags for season 1?). Clearly this woman is attracted to intellectual brilliance.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Oh, I'm not expecting agreement. Just explanation. And thanks for that!

I understand the desire for a partner on her intelligence level. That's an absolute must for me (as is generally being a good person).

But I don't think of her reaction to Sherlock as awkwardness. She does not seem very awkward around other people, including her new dim boyfriend. Her awkwardness seems to primarily be precipitated by mere proximity to Sherlock. That emotional mess she becomes in response to him just bothers me, that's all. I think someone of her intelligence (and geekiness) would be more content with herself (and her craft) than that, and not so obsessed with a man that she's reduced to such a tangle of nerves and emotion...

I concede that it may be realistic, but I still don't see the strength in her character. And throwing her a bone in episode 3 seemed like too little, too late.

[Elentári]

He cynically goes in for a kiss, and despite the warning bells going off around her, has no power to stop him. In short, she hasn't dealt with the rejection at all.

I didn't see that as cynical at all...the impression I get is that Sherlock is being portrayed as having Asperger's, or at least some form of Autism with his inability to read and understand other people's human emotions (apart from where it correlates with his brilliant analytical abilities). It seemed to me his limited social awareness meant he knew he aught to be congratulating Molly on her engagement and awkwardly planted the kiss on her cheek - even if he was aware of her crush then it could have been deemed a sympathy kiss but I honestly don't think Sherlock is capable of understanding the situation on that emotional level. But Molly does understand why there is little hope, even though she finds it impossible to move on (so far.)

[axordil]

Although one of my great dictums is not to trust authors too much when discussing their creations, a recent interview with Moffat touches on a core conceit of Sherlock's character, here in particular regard to the Best Man speech:

Hidden text.

He always is [bullshitting]. He doesn’t think that at all. He doesn’t think any of those things, but he wants to think that he does, just as he wants to think he’s a high-functioning sociopath. He’s not a sociopath, nor is he high-functioning. He’d really like to be a sociopath. But he’s so fucking not. The wonderful drama of Sherlock Holmes is that he’s aspiring to this extraordinary standard. He is at root an absolutely ordinary man with a very, very big brain. He’s repressed his emotions, his passions, his desires, in order to make his brain work better — in itself, a very emotional decision, and it does suggest that he must be very emotional if he thinks emotions get in the way. I just think Sherlock Holmes must be bursting!