Didn't expect to have to defend this comment, as I hoped that it was very obviously tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously, but here goes...
So which other hits do you think he achieved? In terms of long-term popular hits, he certainly contributed to the two Ronnie's, but no other show he did achieved anything like the 'hit' status of Only Fools. Yes, we can look at his earlier contributions such as Citizen Smith and Just Good friends. Both can be considered hits of the time, but can't be considered as lasting hits in the same way as Only Fools. Of later work, should I talk of Roger Roger or The Green Green Grass (which, if memory serves, both wasn't particularly good and was largely not written by Mr Sullivan)? Or should I consider him as a gentleman who shall forever be remembered for creating one true timeless classic hit?
If we're talking of attempted humour, I feel my comment stands.
I really don't know which I find more baffling - people who don't watch a show then come on here and say it was awful because a few people on twitter have said so, or people who watch shows they hate in order to be able to come on here and say how bad they were.
Its the people who don't watch it and then criticise.
Yes, there might be some weirdness associated with people watching something they hate, but at least they watched it. Even if they watched it for the sole intention of hating it, they did, at least, actually watch what they hated. That's better than hating something you've never seen, on the basis that you've heard someone else say they didn't like it.
What gets me are the people who seemingly loved series 1 and 2, but gave up watching after one episode of series 3 and are hating on episode 2 even though they haven't seen it! One episode you hate seems a little much to give up on a series you'd previously loved.
Just to say, I'm ok with people who watched and disliked the last two episodes and are fans of the prior two series. That's just personal opinion and taste. Nothing wrong with that. Its just weird things like "I loved all the prior episodes, but hated last week's, so never bothered to watch this week because it was obviously Moffat-masturbating rubbish." It just seems such a sudden and aggressive switch for supposed fans. I've loved enough series, that have had the odd bad episode, to know you can't give up on something that had entertained you previously on the basis of one or two eps.
What really amuses me, though, is the Moffat-hating bandwagon-jumping. Its hard to take anyone seriously when they blame his mere presence for destroying the quality of the show, when he's the very man who created the show in the first place! If its obvious Moffat's involvement would wreck Sherlock, then it should have been wrecked since series 1.
I enjoyed it, but its not as good as the previous series'. The comedy/sluething ratio was a bit off for me. It would have been fine as part of a longer series, but of as 1 of only 3...
Not getting the Moffet hate though. Without him there would be no sherlock....
I enjoyed it, but its not as good as the previous series'. The comedy/sluething ratio was a bit off for me. It would have been fine as part of a longer series, but of as 1 of only 3...
Not getting the Moffet hate though. Without him there would be no sherlock....
That doesn't excuse him for then ruining it, or make him immune from any criticism.
Blaming Moffat for a bad episode of Sherlock that he didn't write, is like blaming him for the dire Rings of Akhaten that was written by Neil Cross for DW. There is some element of responsibility on the showrunner's part, but they are not in any way wholly to blame.
That said, Moffat's is the finale. Regardless of the thing's actual quality, it's pretty much guaranteed that some will love it, some will hate it, and this thread will become a civil war. Again. Albeit more so, because, well, Moffat.
Blaming Moffat for a bad episode of Sherlock that he didn't write, is like blaming him for the dire Rings of Akhaten that was written by Neil Cross for DW. There is some element of responsibility on the showrunner's part, but they are not in any way wholly to blame.
That said, Moffat's is the finale. Regardless of the thing's actual quality, it's pretty much guaranteed that some will love it, some will hate it, and this thread will become a civil war. Again. Albeit more so, because, well, Moffat.
His hands were all over it, as they were the Reichenbach Fall, I highly doubt they let Steven Thompson write anything soley by himself after his story in the first series and his mess for Doctor Who. I don't actually think it was a bad story though, just lacking one. If it had any less it would have been a sitcom. I actually liked the story there was, just wished there was a lot more of it rather than centring most the episode on his speech and comic anecdotes.
So out of the three most vocal forum members criticizing tonights episode 2 didn't even watch it and 1 didn't pay much attention! And you expect the BBC to take your opinions seriously let alone fellow forum members? We are truly through the looking glass now.
Epic fail yet again. I have not criticised episode 2 as I made clear in my previous post. But feel free to selectively quote as per usual.
Re. how many people liked it / didn't like it etc, well it seems discussing the actual programme and what happened seems to have been abandoned about 7 pages ago.
It's just a Moffat slanging match now.
Can't say I know much about him though I've gleaned some info from posts on here.
It does seem some of the 'anti' forum members are obsessed with him.
The people who liked the programme have just discussed the programme, but have then been drawn into fruitless brawls with Moffat 'haterz' (to use an internet phrase)
Quite entertaining watching the hammer and tongs, but ultimately pointless as you won't change an opinion when people have channelled blistering disgust onto one person.
Only the people that liked it? Is everyone else just a Moffat hater?
I was wondering whether that was Debbie Chazen in tonights ep, she's lost a lot of weight. As for the episode I enjoyed it, I don't see what all the complaints are for.
Blaming Moffat for a bad episode of Sherlock that he didn't write, is like blaming him for the dire Rings of Akhaten that was written by Neil Cross for DW. There is some element of responsibility on the showrunner's part, but they are not in any way wholly to blame.
That said, Moffat's is the finale. Regardless of the thing's actual quality, it's pretty much guaranteed that some will love it, some will hate it, and this thread will become a civil war. Again. Albeit more so, because, well, Moffat.
I don't care who writes it. Stabbing a character in the back without them noticing, having them walk around with some sort of tourniquet and not bleeding all over the place and then have them collapsing in the shower, having not noticed the blood pouring away is inexcusable.
Re. how many people liked it / didn't like it etc, well it seems discussing the actual programme and what happened seems to have been abandoned about 7 pages ago.
It's just a Moffat slanging match now.
Can't say I know much about him though I've gleaned some info from posts on here.
It does seem some of the 'anti' forum members are obsessed with him.
The people who liked the programme have just discussed the programme, but have then been drawn into fruitless brawls with Moffat 'haterz' (to use an internet phrase)
Quite entertaining watching the hammer and tongs, but ultimately pointless as you won't change an opinion when people have channelled blistering disgust onto one person.
Not actually very accurate. The people who disliked the episode have provided reasons why, those who claim to have liked it have not.
I really don't know which I find more baffling - people who don't watch a show then come on here and say it was awful because a few people on twitter have said so, or people who watch shows they hate in order to be able to come on here and say how bad they were.
It's actually quite simple, not at all baffling. People are complaining because the shows they like are, in their opinion, nowhere near as good as they used to be. And there is one common person involved in the decline.
Like cooking a Christmas roast, this episode requires patience. The central mystery takes a long time to cook and, for its opening hour, has more than a whiff of turkey about it. However, the end result is a pleasant enough filler episode – diverting, but run-of-the-mill by Sherlock’s standards - more stuffing than turkey.
But the story is unlikely to top many fans’ favourite episode lists. For me, it took too long to pull the threads together, rendering the narrative shapeless until the closing 20 minutes. Fans upset by a perceived increase in ‘soapy’ and humorous elements at the expense of plot in the opener will have more ammunition here.
This is the problem I had with it. Parts of the episode I loved but it really felt like a filler episode, and when you only get 3 episodes every 2 bloody years or whatever, you don't have time for filler episodes! Whereas we're normally shown Sherlock's strengths, this episode seemed very much about his weaknesses. I don't know, it was an odd one for me...
That's the first time I've felt disappointed after watching Sherlock. The trailer for next week looks interesting so fingers crossed for that.
And for the record I'm no Moffat fan boy. He has made some awful decisions on DW or at least hasn't done what I would have liked. And yes these two episodes of Sherlock have in my opinion bordered on self indulgence and at times have seemed to have played to the gallery in placing the double act of Cumberbatch and Freeman front and centre at the expense of some pure detective action. I'm not deluded about the flaws.
But I'm sick of these anti Moffat obsessives who seem convinced he's destroying TV. At least watch the bloody program you're critiquing. Or even better watch something you like and stop with the bizarre personal vendettas against a man who just writes some very successful TV programs.
And I'm equally sick of those who defend Moffat despite all the evidence that he is a very poor showrunner and writer (talking about quality of scripts not ratings).
I thought the main idea of telling a story in flash-backs during a Best Man's speech was really clever, but agree with those who say it was style over substance again, like last week.
Comments
Didn't expect to have to defend this comment, as I hoped that it was very obviously tongue in cheek and not meant to be taken seriously, but here goes...
So which other hits do you think he achieved? In terms of long-term popular hits, he certainly contributed to the two Ronnie's, but no other show he did achieved anything like the 'hit' status of Only Fools. Yes, we can look at his earlier contributions such as Citizen Smith and Just Good friends. Both can be considered hits of the time, but can't be considered as lasting hits in the same way as Only Fools. Of later work, should I talk of Roger Roger or The Green Green Grass (which, if memory serves, both wasn't particularly good and was largely not written by Mr Sullivan)? Or should I consider him as a gentleman who shall forever be remembered for creating one true timeless classic hit?
If we're talking of attempted humour, I feel my comment stands.
Its the people who don't watch it and then criticise.
Yes, there might be some weirdness associated with people watching something they hate, but at least they watched it. Even if they watched it for the sole intention of hating it, they did, at least, actually watch what they hated. That's better than hating something you've never seen, on the basis that you've heard someone else say they didn't like it.
What gets me are the people who seemingly loved series 1 and 2, but gave up watching after one episode of series 3 and are hating on episode 2 even though they haven't seen it! One episode you hate seems a little much to give up on a series you'd previously loved.
Just to say, I'm ok with people who watched and disliked the last two episodes and are fans of the prior two series. That's just personal opinion and taste. Nothing wrong with that. Its just weird things like "I loved all the prior episodes, but hated last week's, so never bothered to watch this week because it was obviously Moffat-masturbating rubbish." It just seems such a sudden and aggressive switch for supposed fans. I've loved enough series, that have had the odd bad episode, to know you can't give up on something that had entertained you previously on the basis of one or two eps.
What really amuses me, though, is the Moffat-hating bandwagon-jumping. Its hard to take anyone seriously when they blame his mere presence for destroying the quality of the show, when he's the very man who created the show in the first place! If its obvious Moffat's involvement would wreck Sherlock, then it should have been wrecked since series 1.
Not getting the Moffet hate though. Without him there would be no sherlock....
That doesn't excuse him for then ruining it, or make him immune from any criticism.
Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10547857/Sherlock-The-Sign-of-Three-season-3-episode-2-review.html
The second episode of Sherlock (BBC One) saw Benedict Cumberbatch’s otter-faced detective tackle his toughest challenge yet: delivering the Best Man’s speech on Dr Watson’s wedding day. No easy task for a high-functioning sociopath who’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum and simply does not understand trifling matters like love.
Metro http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/05/sherlock-series-3-episode-two-the-sign-of-three-second-episode-provided-three-mysteries-for-the-price-of-one-4248141/
Sherlock’s best man speech is initially awkward but ultimately poignant – from his own self-description (‘the most unpleasant, rude, ignorant and all-round obnoxious arsehole that anyone could possibly have the misfortune to meet’) to his heartfelt praise for John (‘the bravest and kindest and wisest human being I have ever had the good fortune of knowing’)
Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/sherlock-the-sign-of-three-review-bromance-is-in-the-air-9038017.html
Unlike the usual open and shut case, this week was made up of a compelling series of vignettes told via Sherlock’s unorthodox best man speech. All the strands were delicately woven together by writer Stephen Thompson to create a strong story.
That said, Moffat's is the finale. Regardless of the thing's actual quality, it's pretty much guaranteed that some will love it, some will hate it, and this thread will become a civil war. Again. Albeit more so, because, well, Moffat.
His hands were all over it, as they were the Reichenbach Fall, I highly doubt they let Steven Thompson write anything soley by himself after his story in the first series and his mess for Doctor Who. I don't actually think it was a bad story though, just lacking one. If it had any less it would have been a sitcom. I actually liked the story there was, just wished there was a lot more of it rather than centring most the episode on his speech and comic anecdotes.
Epic fail yet again. I have not criticised episode 2 as I made clear in my previous post. But feel free to selectively quote as per usual.
Only the people that liked it? Is everyone else just a Moffat hater?
Compelling?? What was she smoking?
Here's one from the Daily Mail:
Irritating, soppy and, worst of all, boring... how Sherlock turned into a cross between 'Carry On Doctor Watson' and 'Doctor Who' for grown ups
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2534247/Irritating-soppy-worst-boring-Sherlock-turned-cross-Carry-On-Doctor-Watson-Doctor-Who-grown-ups-Jim-Shelley.html
I don't care who writes it. Stabbing a character in the back without them noticing, having them walk around with some sort of tourniquet and not bleeding all over the place and then have them collapsing in the shower, having not noticed the blood pouring away is inexcusable.
because that was the entire plot wasn't it?:o
Cos their critic didn't like it at all.
Not actually very accurate. The people who disliked the episode have provided reasons why, those who claim to have liked it have not.
It's actually quite simple, not at all baffling. People are complaining because the shows they like are, in their opinion, nowhere near as good as they used to be. And there is one common person involved in the decline.
From that Metro review:
Like cooking a Christmas roast, this episode requires patience. The central mystery takes a long time to cook and, for its opening hour, has more than a whiff of turkey about it. However, the end result is a pleasant enough filler episode – diverting, but run-of-the-mill by Sherlock’s standards - more stuffing than turkey.
But the story is unlikely to top many fans’ favourite episode lists. For me, it took too long to pull the threads together, rendering the narrative shapeless until the closing 20 minutes. Fans upset by a perceived increase in ‘soapy’ and humorous elements at the expense of plot in the opener will have more ammunition here.
This is the problem I had with it. Parts of the episode I loved but it really felt like a filler episode, and when you only get 3 episodes every 2 bloody years or whatever, you don't have time for filler episodes! Whereas we're normally shown Sherlock's strengths, this episode seemed very much about his weaknesses. I don't know, it was an odd one for me...
That's the first time I've felt disappointed after watching Sherlock. The trailer for next week looks interesting so fingers crossed for that.
Says it all really. We only have 3 films, is there room for filler?
No it really wasn't a fair point. Maybe if you paid more attention to the posts.....
And I'm equally sick of those who defend Moffat despite all the evidence that he is a very poor showrunner and writer (talking about quality of scripts not ratings).
What happens in episode 3?
Sherlock Holmes encounters Charles Augustus Magnussen, the one man he truly hates, through a case of stolen letters. How will he tackle an enemy who specialises in blackmail and knows the personal weakness of every eminent person in the Western world?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pzpgy
Radio Times http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/crmprh/sherlock--series-3---3-his-last-vow
It looks and sounds very promising. Like the 'Sherlock' of old. Maybe we can salvage one good episode from the series!