DS Forums

 
 

Sherlock - BBC Drama (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 10:17
colinwill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 238
I'm glad I watched Mission Impossible!

Sherlock went off the rails in series 2, particularly the marriage episode if memory serves.

Moffat is the problem in my opinion, not Gattiss. Moffat has ruined Dr Who, and now he's ruined his own version of Sherlock.

It's interesting that all the professional TV reviewers are having wet dreams over this episode, but the online comments on websites like the Guardian all say pretty much what is being said here.

Sack Moffat, or seriously reign him in, he's become too much of a dictator. These are our programmes, not his, and they do not belong to the critics either. Moffat should stop being a pretentious prat, with his head stuck up the media industries bum, and get back to writing for the viewing public.

Anyway, he's done Endeavour a big favour.
colinwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 10:32
Callum Collum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,259
Overall I enjoyed the episode and thought it was of good quality in terms of acting, production, etc. I'd like them to move on from Moriarty but others may disagree.
Callum Collum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:35
thefairydandy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,841
That's interesting. Like Molly, I always thought it meant "Rose of the World". There's a rose called Rosa Mundi which means that.
My grandparents wanted to call my mum Mary Rosamund to mean Mary, Rose of the World. I think it's just a convenient romanticism of an already existing name.
thefairydandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:41
Welsh-lad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,459
People are moaning because of they way it has gone downhill rapidly since series 2...how you can say well done the makers of Sherlock for this episode is baffling, knowing how good it used to be.
Don't care how 'baffled' you are, I found it good.
Just as I always have done.
Welsh-lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:27
PaddyODawes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 54
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.
Well, that's one deduction, but not actually the only one. As others have said, suspension of disbelief is part & parcel of enjoying fiction, but it doesn't excuse writers from breaking the rules of the world they have chosen to portray. Sherlock's creators, eg, have chosen to portray a world much like our own, where, say, human beings cannot suddenly turn into six foot rabbits. There are fictional worlds in which this could happen - fairy stories, say - but Sherlock's isn't one of them. Events that don't make sense, given the story's own frame of reference, are fair game for criticism, from the armchair or otherwise.
PaddyODawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:31
pianoforte
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 574
It's interesting that all the professional TV reviewers are having wet dreams over this episode, but the online comments on websites like the Guardian all say pretty much what is being said here.
This Guardian piece seems more inline with the feelings here:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ct-cumberbatch
pianoforte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:36
Semierotic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,208
I'm afraid if it doesn't have Jeremy Brett playing the lead role then it's not Sherlock.
The character's bigger than any actor, but I did rewatch a couple of his episodes the other day (most are on youtube). He was truly phenomenal.
Semierotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:28
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
My grandparents wanted to call my mum Mary Rosamund to mean Mary, Rose of the World. I think it's just a convenient romanticism of an already existing name.
Yes, so it seems (I was so astonished by your former post I looked it up). Strange people those Germanic types to call a baby girl "Horse enclosure".

It's just an odd coincidence that the Latin words mean Rose of the World.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:39
wuffles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 38,313
I rewatched again last night and one of the nurses in the preview for next week definitely looks like Mary.
wuffles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:50
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 998
If you take two bodies, one died today, and the other died one week ago, and set them both on fire, so all that is left are skeletons. Would a medical examiner be able to tell when they died?

Not by the fire, since that was today in each case.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:51
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 998
I rewatched again last night and one of the nurses in the preview for next week definitely looks like Mary.
No. Just no.
That would be awful. Another fake death?!
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:59
thefairydandy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,841
Yes, so it seems (I was so astonished by your former post I looked it up). Strange people those Germanic types to call a baby girl "Horse enclosure".

It's just an odd coincidence that the Latin words mean Rose of the World.
Yep! I actually double-checked before I posted because it's such a weird origin.

My mum always hated the real meaning, especially since it's a pretty name. It did make us laugh seeing the name switch on TV, given my mum changed hers too.

Though I stand by the statement that it's pretty stupid to call your baby after your original identity if you're supposed to be in hiding. Another thing - I've just double checked the original scripts, and Mary says that AGRA are her initials.

I suppose I'm too stupid to realise that Mary meant 'the initials of my secret group of assassins, not my individual initials, obviously, the writers didn't make up this plot after the last one with no clear idea where it was heading'
thefairydandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:43
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
This Guardian piece seems more inline with the feelings here:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ct-cumberbatch
Good to see a critical review. It's also good to see them highlight series 3 as where it started to go wrong (the last episode of that was indeed pure 'Bond' for me) but I felt very much in a minority shocked at the way the show was going.

They've missed a bit in that review though. The opening biscuit nonsense was straight out of Matt Smith's Doctor Who - a place where it actually fitted in with the character. Last series they used the 'mind palace' for both Who and Sherlock (I think they did it twice for Sherlock with the second being the special).

Now we basically have a superhero of sorts it seems, solving crimes on twitter, and behind his back on his phone no less.

At least Moffat's leaving Who soon (hopefully to take Gatiss with him).
nattoyaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:52
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,066
Yep! I actually double-checked before I posted because it's such a weird origin.

My mum always hated the real meaning, especially since it's a pretty name. It did make us laugh seeing the name switch on TV, given my mum changed hers too.

Though I stand by the statement that it's pretty stupid to call your baby after your original identity if you're supposed to be in hiding. Another thing - I've just double checked the original scripts, and Mary says that AGRA are her initials.

I suppose I'm too stupid to realise that Mary meant 'the initials of my secret group of assassins, not my individual initials, obviously, the writers didn't make up this plot after the last one with no clear idea where it was heading'
No, Moffat would never do that. No, definitely not. Well, not more than 90% of the time.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:14
pjc229
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,202
If you take two bodies, one died today, and the other died one week ago, and set them both on fire, so all that is left are skeletons. Would a medical examiner be able to tell when they died?

Not by the fire, since that was today in each case.
Come back in a week and I'll have your answer.
pjc229 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:50
fayebeatle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 871
BBC's Sherlock is not about the crimes
fayebeatle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:14
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
The character's bigger than any actor, but I did rewatch a couple of his episodes the other day (most are on youtube). He was truly phenomenal.
He really was. He was the Holmes by which all others are judged.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:21
fayebeatle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 871
He really was. He was the Holmes by which all others are judged.
It allegedly drove him mad. BC's mum knew him and worried for her boy when he took the role in 2010.
fayebeatle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:22
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
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.
I think you need to read what I said a little more closely. I quite clearly said that it was Keating who described detective fiction in general as fairy stories and Sherlock was superhero fiction like Superman. I did not say that Sherlock Homes was endowed with superpowers like Superman at all!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:44
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
These are our programmes, not his, and they do not belong to the critics either.
Of all the absurd, asinine, birdbrained, boneheaded, brainless, dense, dull, foolish, idiotic, imbecilic, inane, lamebrained, ludicrous, lunatic, mad, mindless, moronic, puerile, sappy, silly, simple, vacuous, witless comments in all the world this has to be the most absurd, asinine, birdbrained, boneheaded, brainless, dense, dull, foolish, idiotic, imbecile, inane, insensate, jerky, lamebrained, ludicrous, lunatic, mad, mindless, moronic, puerile, sappy, silly, simple, vacuous, and witless. Our programmes? It's Moffat's show. Like any piece of art, play, song, film or book your only investment is the decision whether to experience it or not when it's offered. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Or watch it and moan. That's up to you. But that's as far as your rights take you.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:47
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
I rewatched again last night and one of the nurses in the preview for next week definitely looks like Mary.
It's clearly the girl on the bus (unless it's nobody but another nurse)!
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:04
Horza's Drone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Schar's World
Posts: 472
It wasn't brilliant but I did think it was an improvement on last year's special and the whole of series three.
Horza's Drone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:35
RedSnapper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,089
Left wing, politically correct claptrap - and that was just the first 20 mins.
RedSnapper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 17:54
PaperSkin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,076
So having only recently found out (due to this thread) that Martin and Amanda broke up I was wondering is that the reason why the character of Mary was killed off all of sudden, or was it always part of the plan for her to be killed in series 4 just after she had a baby with John.... (I know the character dies in the books, but the timing in the series is a little odd)

And I read up some things and Amanda said the reason they drifted apart was that Martin was spending so much time away filming that they got use to being apart, I wonder if that's why Amanda got the part in the first place, so she and Martin could spend more time together, Martin would have the clout to ask for such a thing.. the writers/producers are completely at the mercy of Martin and Benedict as their stardom took off in movies, they want to keep them sweet to keep them around... so its possible that the scenario I mentioned might of been what happened.
PaperSkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:24
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
Overall I enjoyed the episode and thought it was of good quality in terms of acting, production, etc. I'd like them to move on from Moriarty but others may disagree.
I like Andrew Scott as Moriarty, so it's not a case of me necessarily wanting to move on from Moriarty, it's more the case that I want them to get on with it and stop the teasing about Moriarty. Make their mind up one way or the other if they want to bring him back as they seem to keep teasing people with or just drop it and move on.
The promotional material for this episode was very misleading what with all the 'miss me' shit, and it just appears to be a cheap and tacky way to get viewers to tune in.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17.