DS Forums

 
 

Sherlock - BBC Drama (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 18:33
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
This Guardian piece seems more inline with the feelings here:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...ct-cumberbatch
I think that's a pretty good summary in that article which reflects how I feel.
I actually like glimpses into Sherlock's mind palace as I think that can be a good opportunity to visualise how Sherlock's mind is working. It's a great plot device which provides the viewers with some visual spectacle without having to resort to turning Sherlock into a literal action series.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 18:37
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
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.
That's a very good question actually, because in the episode didn't Sherlock say that the person died before the car explosion?
I suppose he could speculate based on the phone call where the son didn't sound well, but how did he conclusively deduce that he died on that evening if all that was left was the skeleton?
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:23
Zeke_Zoom
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 26
That's a very good question actually, because in the episode didn't Sherlock say that the person died before the car explosion?
I suppose he could speculate based on the phone call where the son didn't sound well, but how did he conclusively deduce that he died on that evening if all that was left was the skeleton?
Balance of probability I suppose. If he didn't die on the night it means he sat in the car under a fake seat cover for a week. He wouldn't have done that if he wanted to surprise his father.

Zeke
Zeke_Zoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:23
Ber
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 22,335
That's a very good question actually, because in the episode didn't Sherlock say that the person died before the car explosion?
I suppose he could speculate based on the phone call where the son didn't sound well, but how did he conclusively deduce that he died on that evening if all that was left was the skeleton?
In answer to Versailles:

It wasn't a skeleton, it was a burnt corpse. Tissue samples could still be taken and chemical analysis would determine if putrefaction had started and how far along it might have got. So they might not be able to pinpoint an exact day, but they could tell if it was a recent death or not, and give an estimated timeframe.

Obviously you couldn't deduce that just by looking though!
Ber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:55
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 998
In answer to Versailles:

It wasn't a skeleton, it was a burnt corpse. Tissue samples could still be taken and chemical analysis would determine if putrefaction had started and how far along it might have got. So they might not be able to pinpoint an exact day, but they could tell if it was a recent death or not, and give an estimated timeframe.

Obviously you couldn't deduce that just by looking though!
It looked like a skeleton to me. If it was any tissue left, there had to be more than a bit to establish time of death so exactly.

I just wondered about the medical examiner, claiming that the skeleton had been dead for one week. How could he tell, if there was not much left.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:24
colinwill
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 238
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.
I watched the first half hour and it started going off the rails again.....so I did give it a go, and I did switch off.

If somethings on BBC4 then writers can be let off the leash a bit, but not on BBC1.

On BBC1 you specifically have to make mainstream drama for a mainstream audience.
That's why Ricky Gervais has said that he refuses to write anything for BBC1, and that's not a complaint on his part, he merely understands what BBC1 is.

Stephen Moffat is a good writer when he has a boss (like when Russel T Davies was chief writer on Dr Who, Moffat wrote some of the best episodes.) but when he is put in charge, he turns into an absurd, asinine, birdbrained, boneheaded, brainless, dense, dull, foolish idiot....your words. not mine.

Moffat has an ego the size of a planet, and that might be his problem. Burst the ego and you have a good writer. Allow him to rub his ego up against a sycophantic media, and the ego gets bigger and the ego never bursts.

I think this year is Moffats last year as head writer of Dr Who....so, at least Dr Who fans will get their TV show back.

Yes....Sherlock does belong to the viewers.....not to Moffat or his sycophantic media buddies.....it's not art in the sense that you intepret it as....we're not talking about the Tate here.

Top Gear and Bake Off are good examples that prove that TV programmes belong to the viewers. Moffat needs to understand that...and hand Sherlock over to new writers to give it a fresh coat of paint so to speak.

Every dog has its day and Moffat has had his as far as Dr Who and Sherlock are concerned. Move along now.
colinwill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:43
wuffles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 38,313
No. Just no.
That would be awful. Another fake death?!
Unless either John or Sherlock are dreaming/hallucinating.
wuffles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:53
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
It looked like a skeleton to me. If it was any tissue left, there had to be more than a bit to establish time of death so exactly.

I just wondered about the medical examiner, claiming that the skeleton had been dead for one week. How could he tell, if there was not much left.
And it would be cooked, melted, or charred, which I wouldn't have thought would have possessed the structural integrity to endure forensic tests.
But what would I know, I'm not an expert in that field.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:57
callumfreeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mawdsley Street, Weatherfield
Posts: 8,633
It wasn't brilliant but I did think it was an improvement on last year's special and the whole of series three.
I must be one of the few people (well at least on these forums) who actually liked series 3. I also preferred Magnussen as a villain.

Each to their own I guess.
callumfreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 21:01
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
I watched the first half hour and it started going off the rails again.....so I did give it a go, and I did switch off.

If somethings on BBC4 then writers can be let off the leash a bit, but not on BBC1.

On BBC1 you specifically have to make mainstream drama for a mainstream audience.
That's why Ricky Gervais has said that he refuses to write anything for BBC1, and that's not a complaint on his part, he merely understands what BBC1 is.

Stephen Moffat is a good writer when he has a boss (like when Russel T Davies was chief writer on Dr Who, Moffat wrote some of the best episodes.) but when he is put in charge, he turns into an absurd, asinine, birdbrained, boneheaded, brainless, dense, dull, foolish idiot....your words. not mine.

Moffat has an ego the size of a planet, and that might be his problem. Burst the ego and you have a good writer. Allow him to rub his ego up against a sycophantic media, and the ego gets bigger and the ego never bursts.

I think this year is Moffats last year as head writer of Dr Who....so, at least Dr Who fans will get their TV show back.

Yes....Sherlock does belong to the viewers.....not to Moffat or his sycophantic media buddies.....it's not art in the sense that you intepret it as....we're not talking about the Tate here.

Top Gear and Bake Off are good examples that prove that TV programmes belong to the viewers. Moffat needs to understand that...and hand Sherlock over to new writers to give it a fresh coat of paint so to speak.

Every dog has its day and Moffat has had his as far as Dr Who and Sherlock are concerned. Move along now.
And when he did write under RTD he was applauded for his 'horror' type stories. Which is why he was so well regarded in the first place. And which left us with the mystery as to why he didn't carry on with that style when he took over the series himself. That must be the most disappointing aspect for me.
But you have to bear in mind that very early on when he was working under RTD in one episode where The Doctor and Rose were in a hospital type setting RTD was going to finish with a dark ending, but it was Steven Moffat who advised him "Let them all live".

It's such a shame that Moffat has a talent for horror, but it doesn't seem to be something which he's that into. But strangely was when working for Doctor Who under RTD.

I just realised that this is more a Doctor Who post than a Sherlock one, but I suppose it's still just about relevant if we're talking about Moffat's style.

I do remember Jekyll being very good too though.
I do think Moffat has lost something over time. I have no idea why because I believe that he's an exceptionally talented writer when he wants to be. I also remember Coupling in the very early noughties being excellent.

It might be a workload thing where if he's under certain pressures he doesn't produce what he's evidently capable of when he does produce something which is a labour of love.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 21:08
Alrightmate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
I must be one of the few people (well at least on these forums) who actually liked series 3. I also preferred Magnussen as a villain.

Each to their own I guess.
I wasn't a big fan of series 3, it was okay on the whole, but I loved Magnussen as a villain.
I thought he depicted a very particular form of evil which felt very authentic to me and put a chill down my spine because I feel that there may be a lot of people in the real world like that who work in big business and politics.
Alrightmate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:12
iamian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Up North
Posts: 718

Stephen Moffat is a good writer when he has a boss (like when Russel T Davies was chief writer on Dr Who, Moffat wrote some of the best episodes.) but when he is put in charge, he turns into an absurd, asinine, birdbrained, boneheaded, brainless, dense, dull, foolish idiot....your words. not mine.

Moffat has an ego the size of a planet, and that might be his problem. Burst the ego and you have a good writer. Allow him to rub his ego up against a sycophantic media, and the ego gets bigger and the ego never bursts.

I think this year is Moffats last year as head writer of Dr Who....so, at least Dr Who fans will get their TV show back.

Yes....Sherlock does belong to the viewers.....not to Moffat or his sycophantic media buddies.....it's not art in the sense that you intepret it as....we're not talking about the Tate here.

Top Gear and Bake Off are good examples that prove that TV programmes belong to the viewers. Moffat needs to understand that...and hand Sherlock over to new writers to give it a fresh coat of paint so to speak.

Every dog has its day and Moffat has had his as far as Dr Who and Sherlock are concerned. Move along now.
I largely agree but it's not just Moffat.

Pharaoh and Graham wrote the excellent Life on Mars and for two series it stayed within a single frame of an idea, even if it pushed the boundaries occasionally.
With massive popular and media acclaim they came back with Ashes to Ashes which quickly became self-indulgent and too 'clever' for its own boots. The individual episodes were risible and the overall story arc badly lost its way. The writers had literally lost the plot with no coherent way to end what they had begun. I feel exactly the same about the Mary plot in Sherlock. Moffat and Gatiss were too pleased with their own success and indulged in a storyline which became both too dominant and too silly.
iamian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:32
anotherlongers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,177
I reckon they should cut their losses and do a 'Dallas' style scene. John Watson steps out of the shower, dries himself and walks into Sherlock's study, then says;

"Crikey, Holmes, I've just had a mad dream that I was married to an SAS kung-fu ninja."

Holmes then replies; "How ridiculous. Now let's forget all that unbelievable nonsense and move on to a proper investigation."
anotherlongers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:20
chipsaunt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 928
I actually enjoyed it, because it had a bit more Sherlock behaving as he did in series 1. I disagree that the action aspect has derailed it - this has never been "Sherlock Holmes", it always had a 21st century vibe and I am willing to stick with it. Gatiss wrote this episode, and I thought it was better than the last series.

The introduction of a mystery was good, along with the "Bond-like" story line that so many object to. I am not a Sherlock obsessive, just someone who enjoys the show and I think I am reasonably objective. I hated some of the more bizarre episodes in the last couple of series, and this was better.
chipsaunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:23
chipsaunt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 928
I largely agree but it's not just Moffat.

Pharaoh and Graham wrote the excellent Life on Mars and for two series it stayed within a single frame of an idea, even if it pushed the boundaries occasionally.
With massive popular and media acclaim they came back with Ashes to Ashes which quickly became self-indulgent and too 'clever' for its own boots. The individual episodes were risible and the overall story arc badly lost its way. The writers had literally lost the plot with no coherent way to end what they had begun. I feel exactly the same about the Mary plot in Sherlock. Moffat and Gatiss were too pleased with their own success and indulged in a storyline which became both too dominant and too silly.
I liked Ashes to Ashes and it was part of the same story arc. The third series explained the whole premise of Life on Mars and tied up loose ends. It was different, but it was set in the 80s. Gene Hunt was still himself and it worked for me. Life on Mars was more gritty but it was based on 70s dramas.
chipsaunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:58
Semierotic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,208
And it would be cooked, melted, or charred, which I wouldn't have thought would have possessed the structural integrity to endure forensic tests.
But what would I know, I'm not an expert in that field.
I suspect you're putting way more thought into it than the writers ever did.

If I was the son I would have just ducked behind the dashboard, but hey-ho.
Semierotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:05
iamian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Up North
Posts: 718
I liked Ashes to Ashes and it was part of the same story arc. The third series explained the whole premise of Life on Mars and tied up loose ends. It was different, but it was set in the 80s. Gene Hunt was still himself and it worked for me. Life on Mars was more gritty but it was based on 70s dramas.
I have to diasagree that the third series of AtoA explained the whole premise. The Sam Tyler story was adequately concluded in the last episode on LonM. Whilst Sam Tyler was brilliantly written and John Simm gave a nuanced performance as being 'lost in a sunken dream', I found the Keeley Hawks character all over the place, at some points arrogant, at others bewildered. I felt no empathy with Alex Drake, just as I felt none with Mary in the last few episodes of Sherlock.
I agree that Gene Hunt was a great character but deserved a better show than AtoA and particularly its surreal third series when they could not even be bothered with some very non-80s anachronisms.
iamian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:20
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,839
I've been a bit of a 'Sherlock sceptic' from the start. I read a lot of the source material as a kid and I love the genre but there was something about the series that just didn't sit right with me. I call it the 'Hustle effect', where the BBC continually makes this same type of programme where smart people do and say cool stuff with clever editing and 'clever' twists but the whole never quite adds up to the sum of it's parts.

I have to say though that I enjoyed a lot of the first half of the new episode, it had mysteries that were actually possible for the viewer to deduce, and felt fairly grounded. But then everything to do with A.G.R.A. was just nonsense - I stopped paying attention and started browsing on the internet around that time.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:49
pianoforte
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 574
Thank God for Elementary, currently halfway through season 1 and so far it has been excellent.
pianoforte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:31
missymorgan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 490
I rewatched again last night and one of the nurses in the preview for next week definitely looks like Mary.
Just seen the trailer and I agree, except she has very smooth skin. It's only a brief glimpse so difficult to tell.
missymorgan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:08
nattoyaki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,703
Blimey one critical review and Gatiss responds with a whole poem!

Spoiler
nattoyaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:16
Versailles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 998
Blimey one critical review and Gatiss responds with a whole poem!

Spoiler
Where? Gatiss is one of my favourite persons. Not because of what he writes, but because of his acting and looks.
Versailles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:19
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,435
Where? Gatiss is one of my favourite persons. Not because of what he writes, but because of his acting and looks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38516886
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:23
Baz_James
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,910
Where? Gatiss is one of my favourite persons. Not because of what he writes, but because of his acting and looks.
It's a response to the dim-witted Guardian review which all the gripers here are praising as a masterpiece of crtique (god help us!) Here t'is ...

Here is a critic who says with low blow
Sherlock's no brain-box but become double-O.
Says the Baker St boy is no man of action -
whilst ignoring the stories that could have put him in traction.

The Solitary Cyclist sees boxing on show,
The Gloria Scott and The Sign of the Fo'
The Empty House too sees a mention, in time, of Mathews,
who knocked out poor Sherlock's canine.

As for arts martial, there's surely a clue
in the misspelled wrestle Doyle called baritsu.
In hurling Moriarty over the torrent
did Sherlock find violence strange and abhorrent?

In shooting down pygmies and Hounds from hell
Did Sherlock on Victorian niceties dwell?
When Gruner's men got him was Holmes quite compliant
Or did he give good account for The Illustrious Client?

There's no need to invoke in yarns that still thrill,
Her Majesty's Secret Servant with licence to kill
From Rathbone through Brett to Cumberbatch dandy
With his fists Mr Holmes has always been handy.
Baz_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:36
wuffles
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 38,313
I heard Andrew Scott narrating a wildlife programme the other day and it's surprising how much softer his accent is in RL.
wuffles is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34.