DS Forums

 
 

Sherlock - BBC Drama (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 12:58
Semierotic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,208
Couldn't care less about plot holes. I do care about an engaging mystery. The last episode did not have one. When the nagging question throughout a show is 'what am I supposed to care about?' something's gone wrong.
Semierotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 13:01
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
Viewing figures suggest otherwise. As for the alleged gaping plot holes, alleged is all they are. Are some of the plot details a little fantastic? Yes. But that's entirely in keeping with Conan Doyle's invention. Holmes is a man who survives a fall of hundreds of feet from a waterfall and is able to disguise himself so expertly that even his closest ally recognises him. Nobody expects realism from this series (well nobody who matters!) To demand it in Sherlock is like demanding the laws of physics be obeyed in Star Trek or that Merlin be deprived of magic.
The difference with Star Trek, Merlin, or any Sci-Fi series is that the premise of the shows is based on the fiction part of the science! Oh look, we can travel at speeds beyond light speed or we can beam from one place to another, or hey look I'm a wizard that can do magical things. There generally needs no detailed explanation for how or why because the audience accepts that these things are simply possible within the realms of these fictitious times/places/universes etc.
I've always associated Sherlock, in all the versions I've seen, to be a fictional character set within the boundaries of reality, after all "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".
As for the fall from Reichenbach Falls, he was never meant to survive. That was supposed to be the end. Only pressure from the books fans persuaded ACD to revive the character which he did by writing a prequel & then using a convoluted story to explain how.
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:05
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
Viewing figures suggest otherwise. As for the alleged gaping plot holes, alleged is all they are. Are some of the plot details a little fantastic? Yes. But that's entirely in keeping with Conan Doyle's invention. Holmes is a man who survives a fall of hundreds of feet from a waterfall and is able to disguise himself so expertly that even his closest ally recognises him. Nobody expects realism from this series (well nobody who matters!) To demand it in Sherlock is like demanding the laws of physics be obeyed in Star Trek or that Merlin be deprived of magic.
I'm not sure that's true. Things like disguises fall into the broad category of artistic licence: we ignore the implausibility of a close friend failing to recognise him because it helps the plot. But most people would probably understand a plot hole to be a discrepancy or inconsistency which means that the plot hinges on something that could not actually happen. The case cited in this thread of Sherlock arriving at a "random" location before Mary and then saying it was because he put a tracker in her USB stick is a good example. It couldn't happen, yet the plot depended on it happening. So it's not an alleged plot hole, it's a real one.

And despite your claim to the contrary, real plot holes do break the rules. You have to be very, very good to get away with that, and Sherlock's not that good.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:09
PaperSkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
Rumours are swirling that following the universal praise of this storyline the BBC is working on a brand new prequel series which will focus on Mary's mercenary adventures. Cumberbatch may cameo in an episode.
That's a joke, right?................. right?..............................RIGHT??!!!!!!

PaperSkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:10
fiveinabed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 498
Viewing figures suggest otherwise. As for the alleged gaping plot holes, alleged is all they are. Are some of the plot details a little fantastic? Yes. But that's entirely in keeping with Conan Doyle's invention. Holmes is a man who survives a fall of hundreds of feet from a waterfall and is able to disguise himself so expertly that even his closest ally recognises him. Nobody expects realism from this series (well nobody who matters!) To demand it in Sherlock is like demanding the laws of physics be obeyed in Star Trek or that Merlin be deprived of magic.
Thank you Baz for the voice of reason, and for saying in one paragraph what I've been shouting at the screen for the last 24 hours! Bless ya!
fiveinabed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:14
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,922
Can anyone help me with a couple of things?

With respect to the son dying in the car at the start, wouldn't the most basic police work establish that the phone call had been relayed by the mobile phone mast nearest to the house itself? In other words, the son was not in Nepal, and was most probably at home? Also, passport checks would have revealed that he returned to the UK a day earlier or whatever. Why do the police not know this?

Also, how did the family end up with the Thatcher bust? Was it a pure coincidence that Sherlock happened to be on a case where he noticed (the lack of) it and it just happened to be linked to Mary's backstory. Seems kind of...ridiculous.

And when on earth did Sherlock become so skilled at hand to hand combat that he could beat up an SAS veteran in a swimming pool?

I only half watched the episode so the answers may be obvious.
And all that would have established how he came to be incinerated in a car which had been sitting empty in the driveway for weeks on end, would it? The mystery that Holmes solved had nothing to do with when the son entered the country or where he called from. It was how the heck was his torched corpse sitting in that car.

How did the family end up with a Thatcher bust? Er .. they bought it to accompany their collection of Thatcher memorabilia. Yes it's a coincidence. On such things are pretty much all detective stories, and Holmes stories in particular, built! This one is no more nor less extraordinary than those which occurred in the first two series but the knives weren't out then!

And the fighting skills are part of Holmes armoury. We know from the Conan Doyle stories that he is skilled in a substantial range of martial arts and people seem to have forgotten that he takes on a bunch of guards with a scimitar at the end of Scandal in Belgravia to save Irene Adler from certain death so this is by no means the first time that we have seen them demonstrated.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:22
primosprimos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 359
Couldn't care less about plot holes. I do care about an engaging mystery. The last episode did not have one. When the nagging question throughout a show is 'what am I supposed to care about?' something's gone wrong.
You said it. And from many of the posts, it appears to have stunk even more than I thought it did. Glad I was right.

They're flogging a dead horse. Since I assume it's a lucrative one, it will keep on keeping on.
primosprimos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:30
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
Viewing figures suggest otherwise. As for the alleged gaping plot holes, alleged is all they are. Are some of the plot details a little fantastic? Yes. But that's entirely in keeping with Conan Doyle's invention. Holmes is a man who survives a fall of hundreds of feet from a waterfall and is able to disguise himself so expertly that even his closest ally recognises him. Nobody expects realism from this series (well nobody who matters!) To demand it in Sherlock is like demanding the laws of physics be obeyed in Star Trek or that Merlin be deprived of magic.
Difficult to know if you're being serious, but I'll assume you are. Ok, why shouldn't we expect realism from Sherlock? It's set in modern day recognisable London, and makes use of modern day locations, organisations, technology etc. It's not set in an alternate universe. It's set on Earth, in London, exactly as it is 2016. Why, then, should we not expect realism in, say, the way situations un-fold, technology is used and people act? The great thing about setting something in another decade, planet or timeline, is that this gives the writers license to do pretty much whatever they want, but Sherlock doesn't have this excuse.

If no-one expects realism, why not just have him be able to time-travel, defy the laws of gravity, mind-read or bring people back from the dead? Would you consider that fair game?
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:30
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,922
I'm not sure that's true. Things like disguises fall into the broad category of artistic licence: we ignore the implausibility of a close friend failing to recognise him because it helps the plot. But most people would probably understand a plot hole to be a discrepancy or inconsistency which means that the plot hinges on something that could not actually happen. The case cited in this thread of Sherlock arriving at a "random" location before Mary and then saying it was because he put a tracker in her USB stick is a good example. It couldn't happen, yet the plot depended on it happening. So it's not an alleged plot hole, it's a real one.

And despite your claim to the contrary, real plot holes do break the rules. You have to be very, very good to get away with that, and Sherlock's not that good.
But he doesn't get there before her! There is absolutely no reason to suppose that she has not been at the hotel for hours or even days and is merely returning to her room. She's not shown checking in, she clearly has free access to the room, and an expectation that nobody would be there; else why pull out the gun? Her first question to Sherlock is specifically "How did you get in here?", exactly the question you would ask of someone who had entered a room that she had left previously and secured. The plot hole is purely an invention of the carpers. It has no basis whatsoever!

Also I'd have to question how the plot 'depends' on it happening even if it were the case that Holmes had magically arrived before her.. All that is required is that Mary, Sherlock and Watson be in the same place when Ajay catches up with her. When and how any of them arrive is totally irrelevant.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:46
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,922
Difficult to know if you're being serious, but I'll assume you are. Ok, why shouldn't we expect realism from Sherlock? It's set in modern day recognisable London, and makes use of modern day locations, organisations, technology etc. It's not set in an alternate universe. It's set on Earth, in London, exactly as it is 2016. Why, then, should we not expect realism in, say, the way situations un-fold, technology is used and people act?
You mean you're being serious?

It's fiction. And detective fiction (which H. R. Keating once observed is basically fairy stories). And moreover superhero fiction. Its author was a fantasist who believed in fairies and spiritualism. It creates its own reality in exactly the same way that Nanny McPhee, or Superman, or Willy Wonka or any other fantastic fiction does. It is the author who decides how much of reality the story accesses. Any similarity to reality beyond that is purely coincidental.

Having said that, you've still to prove that there is any actual case to be answered for departure from reality (the debunking of this pre-arrival theory is now complete).
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 13:52
skinj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
I'm not sure that's true. Things like disguises fall into the broad category of artistic licence: we ignore the implausibility of a close friend failing to recognise him because it helps the plot. But most people would probably understand a plot hole to be a discrepancy or inconsistency which means that the plot hinges on something that could not actually happen. The case cited in this thread of Sherlock arriving at a "random" location before Mary and then saying it was because he put a tracker in her USB stick is a good example. It couldn't happen, yet the plot depended on it happening. So it's not an alleged plot hole, it's a real one.

And despite your claim to the contrary, real plot holes do break the rules. You have to be very, very good to get away with that., and Sherlock's not that good.
Thing is, instead of saying they put a just tracker on the usb stick they could easily have said, they downloaded the contents first, knew all the safe houses and guessed that was where she was going from the trackers general direction. far more feasible and believable!
skinj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:00
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,437
You mean you're being serious?

It's fiction. And detective fiction (which H. R. Keating once observed is basically fairy stories). And moreover superhero fiction. Its author was a fantasist who believed in fairies and spiritualism. It creates its own reality in exactly the same way that Nanny McPhee, or Superman, or Willy Wonka or any other fantastic fiction does. It is the author who decides how much of reality the story accesses. Any similarity to reality beyond that is purely coincidental.

Having said that, you've still to prove that there is any actual case to be answered for departure from reality (the debunking of this pre-arrival theory is now complete).
Sherlock Holmes is a superhero in your view? Is that 'superhero' as most people would understand it, i.e. the Marvel/ DC type, or you're own interpretation of the word? If the former, can't say I agree, but it's an interesting theory, and it certainly explains a lot of your comments. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to add as we're obviously coming at Sherlock from completely different angles.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:07
millysshaw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,228
Forget it. I tried to let it pass hoping no one would notice. Tiredness, too much booze, take your pick.
I got my shows mixed up and I was tired.
I think what I should have said is that she'd just had a child and she'd be risking a lot. For some reason I got it into my head that she was actually pregnant. But nevertheless it can't hide the embarrassment I feel for my error. What can I do other than to hold my hands up for making an idiotic mistake?
But if you and I keep quiet about it hopefully no one else will notice.
Did not notice a thing.

But i know what you mean she just had a baby, why would she want to let her child grow up motherless. Sherlock was winding the secretary up. Then seem shocked at the out come.
millysshaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:14
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
But he doesn't get there before her! There is absolutely no reason to suppose that she has not been at the hotel for hours or even days and is merely returning to her room. She's not shown checking in, she clearly has free access to the room, and an expectation that nobody would be there; else why pull out the gun? Her first question to Sherlock is specifically "How did you get in here?", exactly the question you would ask of someone who had entered a room that she had left previously and secured. The plot hole is purely an invention of the carpers. It has no basis whatsoever!

Also I'd have to question how the plot 'depends' on it happening even if it were the case that Holmes had magically arrived before her.. All that is required is that Mary, Sherlock and Watson be in the same place when Ajay catches up with her. When and how any of them arrive is totally irrelevant.
You're right, showing Mary travelling all over the place in various disguises before arriving at the final location to find Sherlock there already could be cunning misdirection. Or it could be a careless plot hole. But we should be able to tell which it is without arguing about it on bleedin' forums for hours.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 14:38
anotherlongers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,178
I hope Mary Watson doesn't come back to ruin another story
anotherlongers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:35
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,003
I did not like the fight, it was too much of a "real" fight (in want of a better word) than we are used too when it comes to Sherlock.

Hos fights usually ends fasts, and are elegant, because he predict his oponents moves.
God, such horrible spelling
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:46
Martin Blank
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The South
Posts: 1,630
I really picked the episode to introduce the girlfriend to Sherlock!

It really wasn't very good. From the ham acting, through the bizarre 'plot' (if that's what you call it) the stage play feel, Benedict talking so fast he could hardly get his words out. It just came off as trying too hard to be too clever and disappeared up it's own televisual bum.

Is it just me or does Mary come across as an actress who's been given a job purely for nepotistic reasons?

Keep on milking that cash cow!
Martin Blank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:49
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,070
And all that would have established how he came to be incinerated in a car which had been sitting empty in the driveway for weeks on end, would it? The mystery that Holmes solved had nothing to do with when the son entered the country or where he called from. It was how the heck was his torched corpse sitting in that car.

How did the family end up with a Thatcher bust? Er .. they bought it to accompany their collection of Thatcher memorabilia. Yes it's a coincidence. On such things are pretty much all detective stories, and Holmes stories in particular, built! This one is no more nor less extraordinary than those which occurred in the first two series but the knives weren't out then!

And the fighting skills are part of Holmes armoury. We know from the Conan Doyle stories that he is skilled in a substantial range of martial arts and people seem to have forgotten that he takes on a bunch of guards with a scimitar at the end of Scandal in Belgravia to save Irene Adler from certain death so this is by no means the first time that we have seen them demonstrated.
I think people seem to be misremembering the previous Sherlock series. They have always been fantastical. This one is no more or less fantastical than them.

As for fighting, I remember Sherlock having a fight with a swordsman in the flat in one episode, but I can't remember which. John came in and tutted at him for scratching the table, and moaned at him for doing nothing all morning. It never explained what became of the assailant, but no one noticed that.
Granny McSmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:50
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,922
Sherlock Holmes is a superhero in your view? Is that 'superhero' as most people would understand it, i.e. the Marvel/ DC type, or you're own interpretation of the word? If the former, can't say I agree, but it's an interesting theory, and it certainly explains a lot of your comments. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to add as we're obviously coming at Sherlock from completely different angles.
As most people would understand it? If Batman is a superhero, then yes. All his 'special' powers come from exceptional talent and training. To quote Wikipedia ...

Some characters like Batman, Mockingbird, the Phantom and the Question possess no superhuman powers but have mastered skills such as martial arts, espionage techniques, and applied or forensic sciences to a highly remarkable degree. Others rely on fantastical weapons or technology, such as Iron Man's powered armor suits, Green Lantern’s power ring, and trick arrows employed by Green Arrow and Hawkeye.
It's pretty clear that Holmes fits the description very nicely.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 15:56
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,922

Is it just me or does Mary come across as an actress who's been given a job purely for nepotistic reasons?

!
I don't know whether it's just you! Given the level of daft criticism so far it could be hundreds or even thousands of you that are absolutely wrong.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 16:59
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
It was a fun little subplot but absolutely full of holes and you're right, the most basic police investigation would have revealed all the evidence they needed to establish the facts. So they brought Sherlock in before they had done their own investigation, which is surely against the "rules" of Sherlock Holmes stories.

This is the problem: if you start playing with the basic ground rules of a genre you lose the goodwill of the fans. It was an enjoyable episode but the sheer volume of criticism here shows that it's now lost a lot of good will by making simple textbook errors (possibly intentionally).
I'm pretty sure that the police would also have figured out that the other type of vinyl must have been covering him for it to melt onto his body on his front, rather than being a part of the seat he was sat on.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:00
Adeli
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 44
I have one issue with Sherlock as it is now.
The show seems like it wants to be a very involved & intricate program that relies on the viewer having a more than normal concentration on the show and the story it is telling. (It's not aimed at people that multi-task with their phone or tablet at the same time as too many details are easily missed).
The problem here is that by making the show in this way, people are actually paying attention and starting to see that the writers are actually nowhere near as clever as they would like their stories to be. Gaping Plot holes are left staring people in the face which then puts them off watching.
If that isn't a vicious circle, or even vortex! We make a programme so clever that only clever people can follow it, but they are so clever they figure out all the weak spots, so the programme will have to be even cleverer...and so on, ad infinitum

Re Sherrinford - that was one of the names ACD considered for his hero. Baring-Gould used the name for an older brother of Sherlock and Mycroft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_...rinford_Holmes)

And was it just our wonderful new telly, or did make-up really slap the stuff on this time? In nearly every close-up I thought they'd used significantly more face-paint than absolutely necessary?
Adeli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:05
Welsh-lad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,479
Lol, all good points... and if Sherlock's explanation was that he was tracking her through the USB drive, why did he arrive at her destination before she did? Answer: very poor writing!
I assumed he used the tracker to find her general whereabouts and then used his 'Sherlock sense' to work out the exact place she'd be likely to turn up, and then he apprehended her.

You are aware how implausible his deduction techniques have been from the very beginning of the first series aren't you? E.g in this episode he also worked out that Norbury lived in a flat in a particular street just because she had muddy shoes.


Also , as others have said, he might just have finally turned up at the diner / hotel she's been at for weeks. Nothing suggested that this was her first visit to the premises.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:27
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,741
As most people would understand it? If Batman is a superhero, then yes. All his 'special' powers come from exceptional talent and training. To quote Wikipedia ...



It's pretty clear that Holmes fits the description very nicely.
No, that's not the description you used to defend Sherlock in your original post. You're being a bit dishonest here. You likened Sherlock to be like fairy stories, using the idea of a magical fantasy world as an excuse, and you didn't compare Sherlock to Batman you compared him to Superman (A superhero with superpowers).

You appear to be taking a leap to the side away from what you originally said. Which is fine, but why aren't you being honest with the poster you're debating with over the superhero thing?

If you honestly conceded that Sherlock is supposed to exist in a world which is likened to the real physical world, no one will think any less of you. In fact I think that they might think more of you for being willing to curtail your ego.

There are rules which need to be adhered to, despite what you say. They are the rules which the creators of this series have set out themselves prior to this episode in the series. They can introduce a new skill set for Sherlock, but they need to set the precedent for such a situation beforehand. They can't just chuck things in and hope that they will fly in the eyes of the viewer. If they don't do that then they are just going to jar the viewer as it will feel inauthentic and as though too much is being taken for granted.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 17:30
bokonon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,959
I enjoyed it and actually have preferred the recent series and one-offs to the earlier series because I found the portrayal of Moriarty a bit dull.

I do wonder about those who are so obsessive about realism. On the one hand one would think the on-screen graphics might be a clue to the fact that we are watching a piece of artifice while on the other one wonders when we will get the criticism that Sherlock never goes to the loo.

The only deduction one can make from most of this is that Moffat, Gatiss and the gang are an awful lot smarter than the armchair critics.
bokonon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:46.