The trouble is they don't, do they? The BBC makes the same mistakes over and over again despite numerous internal investigations and reviews of procedure. It simply beggars belief that not one senior manager actually bothered to preview the programme and make an executive decision based on common sense.
How do you know they didn't? Just because they didn't make the same executive decision that you would have done, doesn't mean that someone didn't look at the programme and decide that it was fine to broadcast (which, IMO it was).
With the greatest respect I don't believe being on before the watershed made any difference. The programme had exactly the right amount of sex and violence needed to tell the story. Adding more would not have improved it.
Well there was no sex to speak of in it nor was any needed for the plot, the comment was about the nudity or rather lack of.
The Benny Hill like camera work to avoid showing naked people made the scenes into farces and definitely distracted. It is hard to see how the sight of naked bodies could have been a problem except for the prudish.
The Benny Hill like camera work to avoid showing naked people made the scenes into farces and definitely distracted. It is hard to see how the sight of naked bodies could have been a problem except for the prudish.
If you don't NEED to show everything to tell the story then why bother. ?
Just as in tv autopsies showing dangy/furry bits doesn't add anything to the story (Silent Witness could learn much from NCIS), we didn't have to see her nipples to know she was naked and to understand what she was doing to Sherlock.
If you don't NEED to show everything to tell the story then why bother. ?
You can say that about many things that don't NEED to be shown, why bother showing the screen of the mobile when you can tell the story without it? Nudity is picked on because the prudish nature of some people causes them to have issues with it.
I'll repeat myself, the childish attempts to avoid showing naked bodies was a distraction from the plot. I was half expecting Sherlock to light a cigar and the camera to be angled just right to obscure the woman's nipples with the cigar:D.
Having just watched the New Year's episode after a 4 and a half hour long marathon of the previous series, I do think that the latest episode was a definite change for the programme. It was structured in a completely different way, with less of a single 'case' pushing the story forwards, which I think threw some people at first. I loved the first series, frickin; ADORED it, and I feel the same about what I've seen of this series so far.
I think the plot was just complicated enough, with layers to really get into, without being one long explanation of various events. The only bits that seemed a bit off were:
1) Sherlock 'falls for' Irene enough for him to be pretty devastated by her death when he'd barely met the woman.
2) The hiker was killed by a boomerang. That just seemed a little stupid to me :P
As for it being inappropriate for the time-slot, my ten year old brother watched and enjoyed it, although he probably shouldn't have. Then again, my parents do let him watch absolutely anything.
If you don't NEED to show everything to tell the story then why bother. ?
Just as in tv autopsies showing dangy/furry bits doesn't add anything to the story (Silent Witness could learn much from NCIS), we didn't have to see her nipples to know she was naked and to understand what she was doing to Sherlock.
I didn't think we did see nipples, or did I miss something?
To you. Plenty of others watching found it amusing and in keeping with the humour elsewhere within the production.
It may be amusing if it was better done though I think the Benny Hill version was definitive so very difficult to copy. The impression I got (especially with the woman's nudity though also with Sherlock's) was that it wasn't done for humour but for reasons of prurience (some people are just gasping to be offended and complain to the BBC).
As is often the case, regarding the complaints, I think common sense lies somewhere inbetween; tbh I did think it was perhaps a tad inappropriate for the dominatrix theme to be pre-watershed and the beeb should have probably shunted it to 9pm in hindsight, but on the other hand it was fairly brief and pretty tame overall - probably only get a 12 certificate on DVD - so any 'major' complaints would be too over-the-top.
It's a bit of a non-story really. If she'd been full frontal, whipping someone senseless in their nether regions while screaming obscenities, then it would be different of course.
Of course it does. Some people will complain about anything. It's what they do.
I'll guarantee you that some of the people complaining about the programme didn't even see it.
And some Daily Mail readers will complain about it now, having not seen the programme, on the back of the photographs published in their daily family newspaper! I bet they don't complain to the Daily Mail about publishing the photos.They'll probably write in thanking the editor for bringing this outrageous breach of public decency to their attention.
Hang on- you've taken one bit from my reply and written what you want to about it, rather than dealing with it in the context I presented.
And think about this- I didn't complain, but I agree with the complaints.
The trouble is they don't, do they? The BBC makes the same mistakes over and over again despite numerous internal investigations and reviews of procedure. It simply beggars belief that not one senior manager actually bothered to preview the programme and make an executive decision based on common sense.
True but it isn't going to happen as the top-heavy management will fight to secure their own positions at a time of heavy cutbacks, at the expense of programming.
As a supporter of the BBC, I'd like to counter you, but I fear you are correct.
:Dsome of the comments on here really made me LOL a lot.
Such a witty, clever and titillating script, Sexier than Trueblood? it looks good,all the performances are fabulous and love the addition of SH's thought processess on the screen. Found it very sinister and chilling when Mycroft said 'if we wanted to get the password we have people who can extract that type of thing', reminded me of how hypocritcial the 'establishment' can be.
Some say she has a miniature Jeremy Clarkson head where her nipples should be, and that if you look carefully at her lady garden you can see an image of Jonathan Ross. All we know is she's called Irene Adler.
I was more upset that after the big deal about snow at Christmas the Battersea scenes still showed leaves on the trees in the background. A continuity mistake Sherlock would most definitely have picked up on :cool:
(But then, being a big old poof and all, I wouldn't even notice the lass if she'd flopped both baps out and done the ping-pong ball thing all at once )
Comments
How do you know they didn't? Just because they didn't make the same executive decision that you would have done, doesn't mean that someone didn't look at the programme and decide that it was fine to broadcast (which, IMO it was).
The whole business is just a storm in a B cup
Make your own dear. It's not as if it's so difficult to make one.:D
Well there was no sex to speak of in it nor was any needed for the plot, the comment was about the nudity or rather lack of.
The Benny Hill like camera work to avoid showing naked people made the scenes into farces and definitely distracted. It is hard to see how the sight of naked bodies could have been a problem except for the prudish.
LOL! Not sure that I could do it the justice it deserves!!
If you don't NEED to show everything to tell the story then why bother. ?
Just as in tv autopsies showing dangy/furry bits doesn't add anything to the story (Silent Witness could learn much from NCIS), we didn't have to see her nipples to know she was naked and to understand what she was doing to Sherlock.
You can say that about many things that don't NEED to be shown, why bother showing the screen of the mobile when you can tell the story without it? Nudity is picked on because the prudish nature of some people causes them to have issues with it.
I'll repeat myself, the childish attempts to avoid showing naked bodies was a distraction from the plot. I was half expecting Sherlock to light a cigar and the camera to be angled just right to obscure the woman's nipples with the cigar:D.
I think the plot was just complicated enough, with layers to really get into, without being one long explanation of various events. The only bits that seemed a bit off were:
1) Sherlock 'falls for' Irene enough for him to be pretty devastated by her death when he'd barely met the woman.
2) The hiker was killed by a boomerang. That just seemed a little stupid to me :P
As for it being inappropriate for the time-slot, my ten year old brother watched and enjoyed it, although he probably shouldn't have. Then again, my parents do let him watch absolutely anything.
It didn't distract me in the slightest. If anything it helped me to concentrate much harder.
I didn't think we did see nipples, or did I miss something?
I didn't see any , and I was looking !
To you. Plenty of others watching found it amusing and in keeping with the humour elsewhere within the production.
The same Daily Mail that happily pictures any celeb almost wearing clothing ?
Also, is it me or does someone who makes a comment like the below maybe have one or two issues of there own to work through ?
It may be amusing if it was better done though I think the Benny Hill version was definitive so very difficult to copy. The impression I got (especially with the woman's nudity though also with Sherlock's) was that it wasn't done for humour but for reasons of prurience (some people are just gasping to be offended and complain to the BBC).
Not to mention the inaccuracy....."....for most of it"????
Another complainant who doubtless didn't watch the programme.
Or who watched all of it just so they could complain about it (inaccurately)
Or a totally bogus comment created unattributably by the Daily Mail Consumer Complaints Generation Department to create a story out of a non-story
Either way, it, like the publication it appeared in, has absolutely zero credibility.
Hence my
I think I'm just getting shallow in my old age.
It's a bit of a non-story really. If she'd been full frontal, whipping someone senseless in their nether regions while screaming obscenities, then it would be different of course.
Hmm....Lara Pulver naked, Stephen Fry naked, Lara Pulver naked, Stephen Fry naked, Lara Pulver naked, Stephen Fry naked,..........
It's a tough call.......
Hang on- you've taken one bit from my reply and written what you want to about it, rather than dealing with it in the context I presented.
And think about this- I didn't complain, but I agree with the complaints.
As a supporter of the BBC, I'd like to counter you, but I fear you are correct.
I did . but I also complained about him talking and being in the film anyway .
Such a witty, clever and titillating script, Sexier than Trueblood? it looks good,all the performances are fabulous and love the addition of SH's thought processess on the screen. Found it very sinister and chilling when Mycroft said 'if we wanted to get the password we have people who can extract that type of thing', reminded me of how hypocritcial the 'establishment' can be.
(But then, being a big old poof and all, I wouldn't even notice the lass if she'd flopped both baps out and done the ping-pong ball thing all at once