Haven't read the whole thread but... for me a good plot is really important. The Conan Doyle stories are masterpieces of intelligent plotting. Sherlock isn't. The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned in favour of just finding out what happens, and that's not good enough.
It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.
Well I thought it was splendid. Enormous fun from start to finish. Sat there with a big smile on my face most of the time. Some great jokes (including those at the expense of obsessive fans) and some pleasing nods to the original stories, plus some enjoyable character development, especially from Holmes. Well worth the wait. After Adventure in Time and Space, the Tractate Middoth, and now this, Mark Gatiss is clearly at the top of his game.
Not sure what to make of Mary, though. I liked the character well enough, and she interacts well with Holmes and Watson, but I'm just wondering if there's more to her than meets the eye. After all, we know she and John got together while he was vulnerable after Sherlock's death, and she seems a bit 'too clever'. Do GP receptionists usually diagnose the patients before announcing them to the doctor, or was that just a necessary part of Gatiss's humour in that segment? And she spotted the skip code in the text message pretty quickly. Suspicious, or just trying to show she's smart enough to keep up with the two leads? I'm not sure, but I do wonder if Moffatt and Gatiss are relying on us taking the character at face value simply because of who she is in the books...
I prefer it when a writer/creator produces work to "satisfy himself". That is much better than a sort of programming by numbers to serve an imagined average audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the better writers/creators, they produce something that appeals to other people as well.
In this case, I think it worked well, and I enjoyed the ride. If the next episodes continued in the same vein with lots of supposed explanations each with a reveal afterwards, it would soon become boring, but so far I think it works well.
I realise its not to everyone's taste - but that would happen regardless of what type of show they produced. Overall I've enjoyed all of the Sherlock's produced by this team - my favourite was episode 1 of series 1, mainly because of the way they updated Sherlock to the modern world, and showed how he operated, both in an analitical as well as a human way.
Agree that episode 1 of Series 1 was brilliantly done but then it was followed up by what I found a really dull story about a bank. The 3rd however got back to form. It's the plots themselves I like more than anything. (I hated the Hound of the Baskervilles update)!. That's me I suppose as I don't like too much distraction and why I haven't really taken to this whole prolonged death scene teaser stuff.
The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Crime procedurals are ten a penny and we are already very familiar with the Holmsian method of solving cases which are now made as delicious background to other interesting aspects of his story.
Does no one see the difference between humour as part of the plot and as part of the characters' er, character, and humour shoehorned in just for a laugh?
(Nudity in Doctor Who, Sherlock's parents in Sherlock).
Compared with the overnight figure of 8.75m for the season 2 opener. Big, big number - and it will only get bigger once time-shifted viewing is taken into account. Every chance the final figure will be 11m+.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Crime procedurals are ten a penny and we are already very familiar with the Holmsian method of solving cases which are now made as delicious background to other interesting aspects of his story.
The story is about Sherlock solving crimes. If it's not that, it's nothing but fanfic.
Haven't read the whole thread but... for me a good plot is really important. The Conan Doyle stories are masterpieces of intelligent plotting. Sherlock isn't. The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned in favour of just finding out what happens, and that's not good enough.
It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.
I agree that a good plot is very important, but equally Conan Doyle's characterisation - particularly in The Empty House - was sometimes a bit off. Holmes is gone for 3 years (in the books' timeline), comes back, Watson faints, everything's then as it was as if Holmes had never gone. Really?!? I thought this was handled much better.
I would expect the final two stories to be more plot-driven. Personally I think you have to look at this one as a one-off, to explore how Sherlock and John's relationship has changed over two years, rather than immediately pressing the reset button.
Some nice gags in there, especially a notable Apocalypse Now visual gag.
But beyond that a rather poor episode that perfectly demonstrated that as long as the writer/s tip their hats to online fandom they can get away with the most thread bare and frankly amateur fan w*nk imaginable. An episode that firmly shoved it's head up its own backside at the expense of believable structure and drama meant to be set in a 'real world'
If a show jumps up and down 'shouting look how clever we are' then it needs to pull it off in an adult way and not so with half arsed writing that makes CBBCs look like Steinbeck. I've never been one for the phrase 'dumbed down'' but if the cap fits.
So Sherlock's character development it to be an absolute c** t to his closest friend, really.
Each series has had a weak one, the somewhat Scooby Doo Chinese one, the tepid Baskervilke one and now this frankly intelligence insulting mess. Some nice gags yes but..er....yes...that's about it.
The story is about Sherlock solving crimes. If it's not that, it's nothing but fanfic.
For me it's about crime-solving but also about the dynamic between Holmes and Watson, which is drawn here better than in any version I have seen. I think it's important to make the distinction between 'character drama' and 'soap'. I felt that last night's episode got the balance right. The main focus is on John/Sherlock and how their relationship needs to be repaired, and we also have to introduce Mary. If the series becomes all about Watson's (or Sherlock's) domestic dramas, then I'd agree it's too soapy. But as long as the emotions revolve around the case rather than the characters in future episodes, I'm okay with that.
As I've said elsewhere, I think you have to look at this episode as a bit of a one-off. Personally I'd have been really annoyed if Gatiss had just pressed the reset button and not addressed how John felt about Sherlock returning and being kept in the dark about it (which is what Conan Doyle effectively did).
Some nice gags in there, especially a notable Apocalypse Now visual gag.
But beyond that a rather poor episode that perfectly demonstrated that as long as the writer/s tip their hats to online fandom they can get away with the most thread bare and frankly amateur fan w*nk imaginable. An episode that firmly shoved it's head up its own backside at the expense of believable structure and drama.
If a show jumps up and down 'shouting look how clever we are' then it needs to pull it off in an adult way and not so with half arsed writing that makes CBBCs look like Steinbeck. I've never been one for the phrase 'dumbed down'' but if the cap fits.
So Sherlock's character development it to be an absolute c** t to his closest friend, really.
Each series has had a weak one, the somewhat Scooby Doo Chinese one, the tepid Baskervilke one and now this frankly intelligence insulting mess. Some nice gags yes but..er....yes...that's about it.
That wasn't really character development - Sherlock has always been like that to John. He simply doesn't understand human nature, as he explained to Mary.
More interesting, I thought, was the nice touch he offered in giving Molly a day in John's shoes. And the evident panic in his voice as he and Mary go to rescue John, which betrayed his true bond with John behind all the bravado.
Moff is far worse than Gattiss on this. Moff actually hates fans, he only writes for himself, it's infuriating.
All the best writers write for themselves. Those who write for fans are on a perilous path that's more likely to end up veering into self-indulgence than the former type, ironically. I much prefer writers who say 'this is what I'm doing, take it or leave it.' I enjoy what they're doing on Sherlock, you don't; that's fine, isn't it?
Haven't read the whole thread but... for me a good plot is really important. The Conan Doyle stories are masterpieces of intelligent plotting. Sherlock isn't. The idea that you watch because you want to find out not just who did it, but more importantly why, or indeed what they did, has been completely abandoned in favour of just finding out what happens, and that's not good enough.
It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.
I agree with most of this - like Watson referring to Holmes' 'death', I want to know 'why' as much as I do 'how'. But I disagree that Sherlock isn't smart writing; it's just a different type of show from the US crime procedurals. I'm hoping that the 'why' of Moran's plot is tied up with the slow reveal of the series' main villain. For me, Holmes linking two seemingly separate mysteries (the 'Underground network' message and Moran's tube disappearance) were highly reminiscent of the way he works in Doyle's stories.
I'm an enormous fan of the original Conan Doyle tales, especially the short stories, but many of them are little more than a description of the crime, followed by Holmes making a clever deduction or two, then entrapping the perpetrator. Great reading (and highly recommended to anyone who hasn't read them) but all a bit familiar in TV terms, and certainly not enough to carry a modern 90-minute programme. Just my opinion, of course.
I loved it. It had to focus on the explanation(s) as we'd all been hanging around with tongues lolling out for two years, waiting. If that had been over in a jiffy and then we'd moved onto an intricate crime solving plot, we would have felt short-changed. I thought Gatiss et al provided a perfect balance between satisfying the need for a heartfelt, complex reunion and moving the story on with the bomb plot.
Benedict C is remarkable, but hats off to Martin Freeman whose portrayal of John's turmoil, especially in that first restaurant scene, was just glorious. Absolutely fantastic acting.
I'm glad to see so many positive posts, but, as usual, 'discussion threads' on DS seem to be hijacked by people who seem determined to criticise for the sake of it. I don't mind criticism, but please don't keep coming back to beat us all over the head with the same thing over and over until everyone agrees with you.
I used to love DS but rarely post now as every time I go to a thread, I read the same old vitriol, which largely seems designed to reinforce the commenter's own sense of superiority simply by the fact that they can see why something was shite and the rest of us lesser mortals can't.
It should be easy. Did you enjoy something? If yes, tell us why then let everyone else have their say. If no, tell us why then let everyone else have their say.
To me there is always on episode in each run that doesn't do it from me - its the 2nd one each time in fact so maybe the next two will be top notch - hope so!
same as me. I absolutely love most of the previous episodes but I found myself a little bored by this episode, its just didn't draw me in as much as the others.
I was also disappointed that the bomb on the underground mirrored V for Vendetta so much. im quite surprised that mark gatiss wrote it as he must have realised this
Okay, the terrorist plot was boring, essentially a non event and poorly thought out.
Everything else was great though - the reunion between Sherlock/Watson, the brotherly dynamic with Sherlock/Mycroft, anything involving Molly, Lestrade, Anderson and Hudson.
The theories playing out were amusing to watch, even if the episode became super meta at times.
I like Mary. I want her to stay and not be a baddie. She was immensely likeable throughout the episode.
I agree that a good plot is very important, but equally Conan Doyle's characterisation - particularly in The Empty House - was sometimes a bit off. Holmes is gone for 3 years (in the books' timeline), comes back, Watson faints, everything's then as it was as if Holmes had never gone. Really?!? I thought this was handled much better.
I would expect the final two stories to be more plot-driven. Personally I think you have to look at this one as a one-off, to explore how Sherlock and John's relationship has changed over two years, rather than immediately pressing the reset button.
I haven't read The Empty House and now I must do so. The 2 year gap in this show may have been by design, in order to create a similar hiatus as in the original Conan Doyle stories. I remember that originally, Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes and was forced to bring him back, therefore he had to come up with a plausible explanation for his faked death. In Sherlock, the whole plot has been planned in advance and is not a response to the audience's shock at Sherlock's apparent death. However, they have included a nod to the audience reaction, so that's quite a clever angle.
As far as I am concerned, the writers are still sticking to the overall plan, of modernising the Holmes stories. I don't think this episode has driven the whole project off track and some people are suggesting.
Personally, I really enjoyed it and I'm waiting to see what happens in the other episodes.
I haven't read The Empty House and now I must do so. The 2 year gap in this show may have been by design, in order to create a similar hiatus as in the original Conan Doyle stories. I remember that originally, Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes and was forced to bring him back, therefore he had to come up with a plausible explanation for his faked death. In Sherlock, the whole plot has been planned in advance and is not a response to the audience's shock at Sherlock's apparent death. However, they have included a nod to the audience reaction, so that's quite a clever angle.
As far as I am concerned, the writers are still sticking to the overall plan, of modernising the Holmes stories. I don't think this episode has driven the whole project off track and some people are suggesting.
Personally, I really enjoyed it and I'm waiting to see what happens in the other episodes.
That depends on the next episode. Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside.
Okay, the terrorist plot was boring, essentially a non event and poorly thought out.
Everything else was great though - the reunion between Sherlock/Watson, the brotherly dynamic with Sherlock/Mycroft, anything involving Molly, Lestrade, Anderson and Hudson.
The theories playing out were amusing to watch, even if the episode became super meta at times.
I like Mary. I want her to stay and not be a baddie. She was immensely likeable throughout the episode.
Overall, a fun episode, 8/10
Without a semi-decent, intriguing plot the show might as well pack up shop and go home. The series has always worked as a strong combination of character and plot. To ditch the plot almost entirely in favour of soapish character situations was a mistake and jettisoned half of what made the series so watchable, and we're already a third of the way through!
same as me. I absolutely love most of the previous episodes but I found myself a little bored by this episode, its just didn't draw me in as much as the others.
I was also disappointed that the bomb on the underground mirrored V for Vendetta so much. im quite surprised that mark gatiss wrote it as he must have realised this
Did V for Vendetta have a similarly exploding houses of parliament? If they did, I wonder if Sherlock did their own mock up, or just used footage from the film.
Just a thought, if somebody posts that they enjoyed the episode, I don't think they need to be lectured on why they shouldn't have. Or vice versa. I think we're all capable of discussion without trying to change each-others opinions to suit our own agendas ;-)
Comments
It's fun, well-made lightweight TV. But you'll get smarter writing in an average episode of Law & Order.
Not sure what to make of Mary, though. I liked the character well enough, and she interacts well with Holmes and Watson, but I'm just wondering if there's more to her than meets the eye. After all, we know she and John got together while he was vulnerable after Sherlock's death, and she seems a bit 'too clever'. Do GP receptionists usually diagnose the patients before announcing them to the doctor, or was that just a necessary part of Gatiss's humour in that segment? And she spotted the skip code in the text message pretty quickly. Suspicious, or just trying to show she's smart enough to keep up with the two leads? I'm not sure, but I do wonder if Moffatt and Gatiss are relying on us taking the character at face value simply because of who she is in the books...
Agree that episode 1 of Series 1 was brilliantly done but then it was followed up by what I found a really dull story about a bank. The 3rd however got back to form. It's the plots themselves I like more than anything. (I hated the Hound of the Baskervilles update)!. That's me I suppose as I don't like too much distraction and why I haven't really taken to this whole prolonged death scene teaser stuff.
(Nudity in Doctor Who, Sherlock's parents in Sherlock).
One is good drama, the other is pantomime.
I hate pantomime.
The story is about Sherlock solving crimes. If it's not that, it's nothing but fanfic.
I would expect the final two stories to be more plot-driven. Personally I think you have to look at this one as a one-off, to explore how Sherlock and John's relationship has changed over two years, rather than immediately pressing the reset button.
But beyond that a rather poor episode that perfectly demonstrated that as long as the writer/s tip their hats to online fandom they can get away with the most thread bare and frankly amateur fan w*nk imaginable. An episode that firmly shoved it's head up its own backside at the expense of believable structure and drama meant to be set in a 'real world'
If a show jumps up and down 'shouting look how clever we are' then it needs to pull it off in an adult way and not so with half arsed writing that makes CBBCs look like Steinbeck. I've never been one for the phrase 'dumbed down'' but if the cap fits.
So Sherlock's character development it to be an absolute c** t to his closest friend, really.
Each series has had a weak one, the somewhat Scooby Doo Chinese one, the tepid Baskervilke one and now this frankly intelligence insulting mess. Some nice gags yes but..er....yes...that's about it.
As I've said elsewhere, I think you have to look at this episode as a bit of a one-off. Personally I'd have been really annoyed if Gatiss had just pressed the reset button and not addressed how John felt about Sherlock returning and being kept in the dark about it (which is what Conan Doyle effectively did).
Oh, right, because the first two series were soaps weren't they.
I give up.
More interesting, I thought, was the nice touch he offered in giving Molly a day in John's shoes. And the evident panic in his voice as he and Mary go to rescue John, which betrayed his true bond with John behind all the bravado.
All the best writers write for themselves. Those who write for fans are on a perilous path that's more likely to end up veering into self-indulgence than the former type, ironically. I much prefer writers who say 'this is what I'm doing, take it or leave it.' I enjoy what they're doing on Sherlock, you don't; that's fine, isn't it?
I agree with most of this - like Watson referring to Holmes' 'death', I want to know 'why' as much as I do 'how'. But I disagree that Sherlock isn't smart writing; it's just a different type of show from the US crime procedurals. I'm hoping that the 'why' of Moran's plot is tied up with the slow reveal of the series' main villain. For me, Holmes linking two seemingly separate mysteries (the 'Underground network' message and Moran's tube disappearance) were highly reminiscent of the way he works in Doyle's stories.
I'm an enormous fan of the original Conan Doyle tales, especially the short stories, but many of them are little more than a description of the crime, followed by Holmes making a clever deduction or two, then entrapping the perpetrator. Great reading (and highly recommended to anyone who hasn't read them) but all a bit familiar in TV terms, and certainly not enough to carry a modern 90-minute programme. Just my opinion, of course.
Benedict C is remarkable, but hats off to Martin Freeman whose portrayal of John's turmoil, especially in that first restaurant scene, was just glorious. Absolutely fantastic acting.
I'm glad to see so many positive posts, but, as usual, 'discussion threads' on DS seem to be hijacked by people who seem determined to criticise for the sake of it. I don't mind criticism, but please don't keep coming back to beat us all over the head with the same thing over and over until everyone agrees with you.
I used to love DS but rarely post now as every time I go to a thread, I read the same old vitriol, which largely seems designed to reinforce the commenter's own sense of superiority simply by the fact that they can see why something was shite and the rest of us lesser mortals can't.
It should be easy. Did you enjoy something? If yes, tell us why then let everyone else have their say. If no, tell us why then let everyone else have their say.
same as me. I absolutely love most of the previous episodes but I found myself a little bored by this episode, its just didn't draw me in as much as the others.
I was also disappointed that the bomb on the underground mirrored V for Vendetta so much. im quite surprised that mark gatiss wrote it as he must have realised this
Everything else was great though - the reunion between Sherlock/Watson, the brotherly dynamic with Sherlock/Mycroft, anything involving Molly, Lestrade, Anderson and Hudson.
The theories playing out were amusing to watch, even if the episode became super meta at times.
I like Mary. I want her to stay and not be a baddie. She was immensely likeable throughout the episode.
Overall, a fun episode, 8/10
I haven't read The Empty House and now I must do so. The 2 year gap in this show may have been by design, in order to create a similar hiatus as in the original Conan Doyle stories. I remember that originally, Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes and was forced to bring him back, therefore he had to come up with a plausible explanation for his faked death. In Sherlock, the whole plot has been planned in advance and is not a response to the audience's shock at Sherlock's apparent death. However, they have included a nod to the audience reaction, so that's quite a clever angle.
As far as I am concerned, the writers are still sticking to the overall plan, of modernising the Holmes stories. I don't think this episode has driven the whole project off track and some people are suggesting.
Personally, I really enjoyed it and I'm waiting to see what happens in the other episodes.
That depends on the next episode. Last night's episode did everything but jump the shark. I've read numerous comments online from people who thought the episode was too smug, too self-referential, and that the series is in danger of disappearing up its own backside.
Without a semi-decent, intriguing plot the show might as well pack up shop and go home. The series has always worked as a strong combination of character and plot. To ditch the plot almost entirely in favour of soapish character situations was a mistake and jettisoned half of what made the series so watchable, and we're already a third of the way through!
Did V for Vendetta have a similarly exploding houses of parliament? If they did, I wonder if Sherlock did their own mock up, or just used footage from the film.