Originally Posted by wildyounghearts:
“Ok. don't post here much anymore but jumping in here to say I though that episode was really great.I don't really understand a lot of the Moffat bashing and the nepotism allegations- Amanda Abbington was pretty great in ITV's Mr. Selfridge (as far as I knopw she'll be in series 2) and for me she's been great as Mary- the off screen stuff is of little interest to me.
I am borrowing this description for a review I read elsewhere but Sherlock is not a detective story, it's a story about a detective.
If you just want plot twists and a fancy procedureal this isn't the show for you. Those shows are fine, they wouldn't particularly interest me but some people will most definitely prefer them.If you are uncomfortable with exploring the relationship between the central characters (and I don't mean relationship in any romantic sense),or about seeing Sherlock express emotion,or deal with human emotions; if he must remain the character he was in episode 1 of the first series with no character development than this isn't the show for you. There are many good procedurals out there where the episodes can stand alone.
Sherlock is character driven, it is about the relationship between Sherlock and Watson, has been since the first episode. That is the story they have been telling all along. Yes, they are trying to solve mysteries and crimes but those plots are secondary to the relationship between the central characters. For me a truly great show is never plot driven because plot, plot twists, plot contrivances can only take you so far.Really great drama is character driven. It packs a punch becuase you know and care about the characters. If you don't care about the central relationship between Sherlock and Watson this episode won't interest you, I can see how you might find it boring. If all you want is a murder mystery, and not for the show to waste time on 'emotions' then again this isn't the show for you. If the only thing you can say after that 90 mins is 'I guessed it was the photographer before Sherlock' than congrats but that wasn't really what this episode was about, it wasn't a straight whodunnit.
If you do like character driven drama than it was wonderful. Being 'dead' for 2 years has changed Sherlock, he can do detached, smart, cocky show off no problem but what happens when you start to let people into your life and start to care about them than it changes you.The worst thing that could have happened in my view would be to have had Watson under-react to losing his best friend. Somebody coming back from the dead is not a small thing.This consequences of this should be explored onscreen.
Life and our life experiences change us. Mycroft still looks down on ordinary people but Sherlock is changing. He cares about Watson, therefore he wants to do right by him.To be his Best Man is so far out of his comfort zone it challenges how we see Sherlock. He's not as blindly dismissive of people as he was, he know respects Molly therefore he goes to her for help. It doesn't mean he's changed completely but it shows character growth. This is a great character exploration and last night's episode was a fantastic showcase for Benedict in particular.That final scene on the dancefloor was particualarly effective. For all the talk that nothing would chance between them, Watson's marriage does change things.
I do not accept suggestions that this is soap operabecause it dares to explore how the characters feel. it is not soap opera. There were none of the silly plot contrivances that blight soap weddings, there were no silly stumbling blocks, the wedding went off without a hitch. The Bridge and Groom are happy and seem well suited. Sherlock and the geusts are there to celebrate the day. There was no convoluted drama, no innapropriate emotion. I also don't see why it's a problem that it was very funny in parts, that's a sign of good writing.If you can't get any joy out of seeing Sherlock drunk, that's fine, but I enjoyed those scenes.
I think we won't fully be able to review this series until the end of next week's episode. Something shocking/dreadful is going to happen which has been the reason time has been spent on characterisation. I think people are too quick to judge. If you reviewed last week's epsiode on the basis of the first 5 mins you would be completely wrong. If you based your views on the first thirty mins of this episode you'd be wrong too.People were very quick to slate Moriarty on the basis of a cameo in season 1 but he turned out to be a fantastic villain and the Reichenbach Falls one of the best epsiodes.
So perhaps I might suggest we sit back and just let them tell the story they want to tell and see where Series three leaves us. Again, to borrow from something else I read online- there's something about Mary and I suspect next week we're about to find out.”
This is a great post.
Getting character development ALONG with a clever and interesting plot is the trick.
Because, as you say, detective procedurals are ten a penny, and fine in their own way, but limited.
Having watched both twice now, I feel happy about them. I think the 'plot' part will reassert itself somewhat, and that is important. However, the 'relationship' part is ALSO important, very important, and that's been focused on enough now, although it was essential that it WAS, to a serious degree, in order to reassert 'Sherlock' as 'drama', as MORE than just a procedure show.
It's a balance that won't ever be 'right' for many people, but it must be attempted. After all, we love the plots, but it's the CHARACTERS that we are captivated by, and their influence, and also their development, is therefore hugely important.
