I swear I didn't write this

Sherlock and Doctor Who: beware of fans influencing the TV they love
The plots of Sherlock and Doctor Who are being shaped by their fans – but hit shows must appeal to the widest possible audience as well as a narrow band of obsessives.

who wrote the article?

Mark Lawson.

To be fair they are still appealing to a massive section of the public. (9.4m overnight for Sherlock, and 11.1 million for DW). But I can see the article's point whilst I do disagree on several points. Fans can definitely be a show's worst enemy, however...

Actually, Lawson's point with respect to Doctor Who is quite weak, namely that a few minutes of the show was taken up giving the Doctor 12 more regenerations. He's on stronger ground when it comes to His analysis of Sherlock.

I wonder if he watches Supernatural and Glee.

Thanks for the article. An interesting read, as Mark Lawson so often is.

I've never seen Sherlock, and Lawson's description of it doesn't encourage me to participate.

His description of DW is quite interesting, pointing out that a lot of casual viewers must have had no idea what was happening: I didn't realise that the Doctor had been given another dozen regenerations in the Christmas episode! Has he?! I didn't realise that a specific(ish) number had been stated. Or is Lawson misunderstanding? Or am I misunderstanding? Most of the Christmas episode went in one eye and out of the other at the Chuff house.

It was said in the 80s that DW was pandering to fans too much. is it doing so now? I am a fan and don't consider myself pandered to.

I'm trying to work out if the article is amusing or trying to be controversial

One of Matt's last lines is that he's been given a completely new regeneration cycle (as opposed to just one) which would mean 12 new ones.

Although I think his argument regarding Who is less conclusive, I do agree with his drift.

Lawson is a smug git

What I don't agree with in the article is the implication that the 12-regeneration limit is somehow the product of 'fan fiction'. Yes, fans are more aware of the continuity of the show, but the regeneration limit had been quite definitively established in the programme itself. Fans didn't invent it. Moffat is simply respecting the ground rules laid down by previous writers.

Thanks Mulett! I didn;t spot the "new cycle" bit.

I certainly agree with Mark Lawson's drift.

I'm with you on that, and looking at some of the threads in this forum (especially the "Moffat must go" genre), you'd be forgiven for thinking the exact opposite.

A more relevant point in reference to Sherlock I feel. With regards to DW if Moffat is pandering to the fans then hes failing miserably because its mostly fans that grumble about him. Unusually weak arguments from Lawson. He is however right that the show should never appeal to the obsessives. I just don't think it does. I suppose the last three episodes have more than usual but it was the anniversary year.

Yes I agree with that.
I don't think that the Christmas Day episode was really influenced by fans.
The regeneration issue was something that needed to be sorted out anyway.
Perhaps in some respect introducing loads of popular enemies was a bit of fanwankery, but I think in the case of the Doctor Who episode it was either good or bad based on its own merits. Fans weren't necessarily demanding what was actually shown.
As saladfingers81 also above pointed out above, it is the 50th anniversary, and if Moffat was trying to please fans it would actually be quite a nice thing for him to do at this particular time in this circumstance. But I didn't think he did anything which was particularly trying to appease fans.

But in the case of the Sherlock episode I do agree with him.
All the references to Sherlock fandom just got in the way for me.
It was still enjoyable fun, but not Sherlock at its best. I think the time in this episode devoted to providing nods and winks to the viewer took away from time which could have been better served. It made it feel a bit too much like a pantomime. It kept jarring me out of my suspension of disbelief every time it went on to each and every fan based story element. Sherlock is much better when it just gets on with it and when it operates in its own atmospheric universe.
This really was trying far too hard to react to fandom. The first five minutes of the episode would have been enough and would have been brilliant if just left there.

You're completely right.

Who's saying "Moffat must go" though?
The fans, or the mainstream viewers?

The ratings for the Christmas Day episode were excellent weren't they? So surely he must have pleased the mainstream viewers.
If he's trying to appease the fans then he must be doing a terrible job if they're demanding him to go mustn't he?

Those who are posting in that vein on the threads that I have mentioned here. I am presuming that they are mainly fans, judging by the language used, and their propensity to post on this forum (but I could be wrong).




I totally agree

I only found out recently that JNT consulted Ian Levine for 'Attack of the Cybermen'.

I'm saying it, as a fan. I think Moffat should go. I've thought that since The Beast Below, which was appalling, and only his second story in charge.

But I know loads of viewers (as opposed to fans) who are very clear that they don't enjoy (or even understand) the show as much as they used to.

The Christmas Day ratings were of course excellent - interesting, though, that 2m people (a significant number) only tuned in for the final ten minutes, as if they wanted to watch the regeneration but couldn't be bothered to watch the whole episode.

I dunno , I think I'll defend Gatiss and Moffat here , I mean Sherlock is a kinda minor-celebrity in his world isn't he ? and there would be conspiracy theory groups I think meeting and trying to solve the mystery of his 'suicide' etc.

plus - I don't think it was just fandom or internet folk that were discussing how he survived , it was a general audience thing , so I think it's fair enough .

That may well be true. In such a case if what he has done hasn't pleased you as a fan, he can hardly be accused of writing to appease the fans can he?

I'm not saying it's not fair enough. That was what Gatiss (and maybe Moffat too) wanted to write, and they made their choice. They believed it to be a good idea and in theory should work.

But for me it didn't work. All that referencing fans in an ironic post-modern way just made it feel too self knowing for me.
It lost the mood, feeling, and atmosphere which worked so well for me in the previous two series of Sherlock.

I'm not saying it was terrible. I still enjoyed it to some extent. It just wasn't doing what Sherlock usually does best. For me anyway.
Too much fourth wall breaking.

I hope you're not in a hiring/firing position anywhere

I'd agree it was a case of breaking the fourth wall , this is why I think Lawson is wrong essentially , it wasn't a case of reacting to fans , it was making nods and winks to the audience in general which has been going on in tv shows for decades , Moonlighting did it all the time .

Interesting to hear Mark Lawson explain how explaining a key plot point at the end of the episode is in any way evidence of damaging fan service whereas I suppose 25 minutes spent visiting past companions in what equated to a self congratulatory victory lap for the writer and viewers is nothing of the sort....