Sherlock - New BBC Drama (Part 2)

18586889091126

Comments

  • BelligerenceBelligerence Posts: 40,613
    Forum Member
    roger_50 wrote: »
    Look, can we stop with this childish "don't dare say anything bad about the show I love!" nonsense. This is an open thread for discussion of the show, for both praise and critique - depending on people's experience of watching it.

    Let those of us who are disappointed with the show discuss it without constantly being called whingers. Grow up.
    Amen ot that.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hetty_rose wrote: »
    Where can I read about this please?
    I can't really provide any pointers without giving the game away. I'll happily point it out after the finale next weekend, but it is a small giveaway clue that really does give a major plot point away.

    Sorry, I don't mean to be obtuse, but as a reviewer I'm not supposed to give spoilers away about episodes I've been granted preview privileges to.
  • NormandieNormandie Posts: 4,617
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rammie96 wrote: »
    Whether you liked the episode or not I don't think anyone can deny that the show has changed significantly in this third series - comedy and characters have become more important than plot or detective work.
    Quite. I like quality characters to tell a good and plotful story; on that premise, this series isn't working for me.

    I came late to the first series, realised what I was missing and loved the second series. This one is a disappointment and in a 3-episode run, apparently using the 2nd episode to set up the third (if I'm understanding what some of the tiresome "in the know" posters are saying) is wasteful and self-indulgent. Particularly following an episode featuring a bomb with an off switch.
  • jack_kerouacjack_kerouac Posts: 2,865
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You clearly haven't read much Conan--Doyle. After you seem to have spent all of last night telling people on a thread about Splash how rubbish the program is its almost as if you might be a troll. Heaven forbid.

    this from the one eyed Sherlock fan who will have nothing said against it.

    Splash is so bad its good and the whole point of joining the forum when watching is precisely to join in the slagging off and witty comments.

    but hey your a detective you should have spotted the theme of the Splash thread.

    Now try being objective ;-):)
  • nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Fantastic stuff. I really don't understand the whinging.

    I agree. I thought it was great. Loved it. :D
    peach45 wrote: »
    TBH the whinging on this thread is probably needed to balance the blind, uncritical fangirl/boyishness of some.

    How gorgeous did Benedict look in his morning suit!? And his blue eyes...

    Sorry peach. ;)

    There's something about Mary. I think she's a criminal... or something. That look Sherlock gave her towards the end of the episode!
  • RhumbatuggerRhumbatugger Posts: 85,712
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have enjoyed both of the new eps. But, in fairness, they aren't as good, as thrilling and clever, as the first two series (most of them).

    I'm hoping that the next one will draw it all together a bit, or at least be a solid, detecting - heavy show.

    And this one was great fun, although there were dullish bits here and there.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    olive0000 wrote: »
    i thought she looked happy, did u see something different?

    Sherlock leaving reminded me of mrs hudson telling sherlock how she never really saw her bridesmaid after the wedding and that she didnt stay or whatever for the full thing and then sherlock didnt...

    Maybe I was reading too much into things, but there was a moment after Sherlock announced the pregnancy that Mary looked worried/sad and Sherlock noticed. But perhaps it wasn't anything.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Never had to rewatch any classic episode of Sherlock before.

    One episode, one crime , one detective work deductions, one solved crime , one reveal.

    Job done.

    It used to be called Crime Writing before Dr Who in a Deerstalker dragged his sorry butt through a mire of episodes to get to the point ...
    That's fair enough, but horses for courses. The original stories - particularly the 56 short ones which form the bulk of the Holmes canon - are all clever but really quite simplistic. (I grew up with the ITV series with Jeremy Brett - loved those.) Personally I prefer these arc-driven stories, but I appreciate that not everyone else does.
  • Bus Stop2012Bus Stop2012 Posts: 5,624
    Forum Member
    olive0000 wrote: »
    Sherlock leaving reminded me of mrs hudson telling sherlock how she never really saw her bridesmaid after the wedding and that she didnt stay or whatever for the full thing and then sherlock didnt...

    I agree.

    Quite liked this episode, but agree with the comments about Mary getting in the way. Maybe she'll be gone in the last episode :D
  • saladfingers81saladfingers81 Posts: 11,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    this from the one eyed Sherlock fan who will have nothing said against it.

    Splash is so bad its good and the whole point of joining the forum when watching is precisely to join in the slagging off and witty comments.

    but hey your a detective you should have spotted the theme of the Splash thread.

    Now try being objective ;-):)

    Sherlock has lots of problems. Too self referential, too pleased with itself, pacing issues.

    Its still a great 90 minutes of TV. I'm not blinkered. I'm just not interested in debating an episode of TV and its merits with people who admit that they haven't watched it and in some cases have confessed they are automatically predisposed to dislike it because of Moffat. Where is there to go with that?
  • SallysallySallysally Posts: 5,070
    Forum Member
    This series (so far) is much more about the psychology of Sherlock and his relationship with Watson (and Mycroft) than actual detecting.
    Which has its pros and cons. The con is that you don't really get the frisson of delight when the case is solved and shown all the reasoning that went into solving it. This is a real pity because that was the whole point about the original Sherlock stories and I loved it.
    The pro is that for once, Sherlock becomes a real person, fleshed out in all his glory and yet perverseness. His autistic spectrum is beautifully portrayed and his struggle to form relationships (shades of Saga from The Bridge here) is there for all to see.

    On the whole, I have really enjoyed all 3 series - I just roll with it and take it as it comes, because it is so slick and well acted, it does not really matter that it is not quite true to the original.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ukcarter wrote: »
    But why would somebody die because of a puncture to the skin? A belt would only conceal the effect of a cut artery or a damaged vital organ. Whether the blood collects inside the torso or on the floor matters not, surely? So there can have been no such damage.
    The key is the location of the blow. A wound to the abdomen is most likely to be fatal and is generally relatively slow (particularly if you believe the belt thing - I don't know enough about such things to dispute this), giving the killer time to slip away. A stab to the heart is faster and more effective, but instantly observable.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,084
    Forum Member
    Yeah exactly.

    Mary is nice enough, and the actress isn't bad, just don't think she should feature too heavily.

    thats how i feel...mary seems nice enough but i dont want her to be in it so much. it feels like an intrusion on the duo..to me lol
  • sn_22sn_22 Posts: 6,460
    Forum Member
    Unfledged wrote: »
    I can kind of understand the negative reaction, though I hope (pure speculation follows!) a lot of it is rescinded when - in the final episode - it becomes clear how the first two episodes fit into a single story for the series (and - even more speculation - John's new wife is revealed as the big bad of the series).

    I'll admit, as standalone episodes they're not up to the quality of the first two seasons. Hopefully I'll be vindicated with the third episode!

    I hope so too. The plotting weirdness certainly would be vindicated if it was all wrapped together with the big bad next week.

    However, I think they've lost grip on the tone of the show slightly. And that can't really be excused by a better third episode. I could bear with the nods and winks to the fandom last week, considering the resolution of such a talked about cliffhanger. But it did feel tonight like they were going out of their way to create scenes that serve as better GIFs than they do as TV.

    I don't want to come down too hard on it - I'm not a robot, and like some displays of emotion from Sherlock (I loved the deduction of Mary's pregnancy and Sherlocks early exit, for instance), but I can't shake the sense it's become too self-reverential and a tiny bit smug. Which rather sapped the tension and drama out of what could have been a good murder mystery.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 353
    Forum Member
    Normandie wrote: »
    Quite. I like quality characters to tell a good and plotful story; on that premise, this series isn't working for me.

    I came late to the first series, realised what I was missing and loved the second series. This one is a disappointment and in a 3-episode run, apparently using the 2nd episode to set up the third (if I'm understanding what some of the tiresome "in the know" posters are saying) is wasteful and self-indulgent. Particularly following an episode featuring a bomb with an off switch.

    Agree :D
  • glyn9799glyn9799 Posts: 7,391
    Forum Member
    I loved the episode on the whole but when you realise it's episode 2 of just 3 I can't help thinking that not enough happened and they are wasting time! We only have 1 left...
  • eggshelleggshell Posts: 4,416
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nethwen wrote: »
    I agree. I thought it was great. Loved it. :D



    How gorgeous did Benedict look in his morning suit!? And his blue eyes...

    Sorry peach. ;)

    There's something about Mary. I think she's a criminal... or something. That look Sherlock gave her towards the end of the episode!

    I hope not, Mary was John's wife in the books perfectly happily and changing that, like they did with Jim Phelps in the Mission Impossible films I find disrespectful to the source.

    All this Mary hate just feels like wishful thinking from people who love the bromance aspect...not for me I am afraid.
  • nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What was the piece of music that Sherlock played for John and Mary's wedding dance?

    And what was the wording that he put on the music piece that was shown before he put it in the envelope?
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    19Nick68 wrote: »
    I enjoyed it but I expected more of a follow on from the shadowy criminal mastermind seen at the end of episode one.
    There *was* a clue linked to him, but it's easily missed. All will become clear next week.
  • EiraEira Posts: 558
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The stag night bit and drunk John and Sherlock was one of the funniest things I've watched in a while. I thought Benedict Cumberbatch played totally smashed brilliantly. I loved that bit.

    However, I'm not that impressed by the rest.

    I can't tell if the frantic Doctor Who like Sherlock (who seems to be unspooling - he was all over the place more than usual during that speech and when deducing the guests)is just the writers turning him into Doctor Who or whether it's supposed to be Sherlock actually unspooling and heading towards a breakdown or something - he's slower at solving things than he was before The Reichenbach Fall, his character has changed and he's noticeably lonley.

    I enjoyed it as entertainment - but it's nothing on the previous series'. And considering we only get three episodes I feel too much is being wasted on fluffy stuff.
  • Ed SizzersEd Sizzers Posts: 2,671
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    Look, can we stop with this childish "don't dare say anything bad about the show I love!" nonsense. This is an open thread for discussion of the show, for both praise and critique - depending on people's experience of watching it.

    Let those of us who are disappointed with the show discuss it without constantly being called whingers. Grow up.
    I agree. There's nothing at all wrong with criticising a show you've watched if you didn't enjoy it. I did it meself with Atlantis. A lot.

    But coming on a thread and moaning about a show you've only seen 5 minutes of the previous week's episode of, and your real issue is with what a particular writer has done with a completely different programme?

    That's a bit odd, isn't it?
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    :D

    That scene was a bordered on self-indulgent gobbledygook.
    And yet contained a subtle clue which will become significant in the finale ...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 46
    Forum Member
    sn_22 wrote: »
    But it did feel tonight like they were going out of their way to create scenes that serve as better GIFs than they do as TV.

    I don't want to come down too hard on it - I'm not a robot, and like some displays of emotion from Sherlock (I loved the deduction of Mary's pregnancy and Sherlocks early exit, for instance), but I can't shake the sense it's become too self-reverential and a tiny bit smug. Which rather sapped the tension and drama out of what could have been a good murder mystery.

    I hadn't thought of them as gifs, but I know what you mean. I was surprised when I read that Moffat hadn't written this episode as it has his hallmarks of a 'clever' episode - I can just imagine the brainstorm where he said "Wouldn't it be great if Shelock gave a best man's speech. I bet we can make an episode out of that!”
  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ed Sizzers wrote: »
    I agree. There's nothing at all wrong with criticising a show you've watched if you didn't enjoy it. I did it meself with Atlantis. A lot.

    But coming on a thread and moaning about a show you've only seen 5 minutes of the previous week's episode of, and your real issue is with what a particular writer has done with a completely different programme?

    That's a bit odd, isn't it?

    Not on DS ;-)
  • saladfingers81saladfingers81 Posts: 11,301
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ed Sizzers wrote: »
    I agree. There's nothing at all wrong with criticising a show you've watched if you didn't enjoy it. I did it meself with Atlantis.

    But coming on a thread and moaning about a show you've only seen 5 minutes of the previous week's episode of, and your real issue is with what a particular writer has done with a completely different programme?

    That's a bit odd, isn't it?

    That's exactly my point. There is a difference between disappointment and dislike of something that you otherwise like. If you hate the writer and his style then just don't watch. Moffat and friends have a distinct style. You know by now what you're getting.
This discussion has been closed.