At the moment I prefer Elementary. Was a bit bored with the two latest episodes but I think they will get better. Are there only three in the new series?
it's gone a bit silly and unfortunately turning into light entertainment a la Dr Who, still enjoyable though and Cumberbatch is excellent.
I think this effectively sums it up for me, really enjoyed the first two series but this series just feels like Dr Who-ish whereas the first serieses appealed to me because they were darker. Since I read the books I've come to hate Cumberbatch's Holmes a lot of the time just because he's such a contemptible d*****bag most of the time. Last night's episode was an exception for that but I found that episode utterly boring for 45m/hour until stuff started happening. Also, I find it hard to believe that a guy who just wants revenge for his dead family member on the Major would randomly decide to murder a random guard for no other reason than to "practice". The guy wasn't a psychopath or a serial killer he just wanted revenge. It doesn't make sense for him to randomly kill that guard. Or attempt to. Plus the references to the books are so liberally used I feel offended by them sometimes.
Good in places but a bit all over the place for most of it this series. It's moved away from one case per episode to mixing them all up and focusing far too much on Sherlock and Watson's relationship.
it's gone a bit silly and unfortunately turning into light entertainment a la Dr Who, still enjoyable though and Cumberbatch is excellent.
I think this effectively sums it up for me, really enjoyed the first two series but this series just feels like Dr Who-ish whereas the first serieses appealed to me because they were darker. Since I read the books I've come to hate Cumberbatch's Holmes a lot of the time just because he's such a contemptible d*****bag most of the time. Last night's episode was an exception for that but I found that episode utterly boring for 45m/hour until stuff started happening. Also, I find it hard to believe that a guy who just wants revenge for his dead family member on the Major would randomly decide to murder a random guard for no other reason than to "practice". The guy wasn't a psychopath or a serial killer he just wanted revenge. It doesn't make sense for him to randomly kill that guard. Or attempt to. Plus the references to the books are so liberally used I feel offended by them sometimes.
That's exactly what I thought, also, surely killing a soldier outside of BP would be extremely risky and much more so than doing it at a wedding seems very, very far fetched that you'd practice there.
Still think its watchable but there's way, way too much jumping around in this series.
I think the writers have become victims of their own success,slightly: the latest series is a bit too pleased with itself and is subsequently overworked.
However, that said, it's still the only thing I make point of watching. I bloody love it.
I very rarely watch any entertainment programmes on TV but when I do I want entertainment. I want to be entertained and that usually involves a bit of escapism and often some far fetched stories which could easily be picked to pieces when analysed. What I don't understand is why people have to do this? Pick holes in plots etc. If everything was made true to life it would not be entertainment, real life is pretty boring. I remember loads of people having a go at the last Bond film, Skyfall, saying it was too far fetched and this and that couldn't have happened etc. As far as I'm concerned Skyfall was the best two hours of entertainment in a cinema I have had for years. My wife has watched Sherlock since it began and kept telling me how good it was. I finally watched the new series and enjoyed it for what it is- Entertainment!
I think the writers have become victims of their own success,slightly: the latest series is a bit too pleased with itself and is subsequently overworked.
However, that said, it's still the only thing I make point of watching. I bloody love it.
Totally agree with this. Love the show. Found the first episode of this series to be very smug and self satisfied. The second one I really enjoyed as I think they' earnt it with the character relationships, and I hope the third one will be back on form.
As for plotholes in general, sure it's not worth pondering on them for too long. Take Star Trek Into Darkness for example. It was full of them, but it didn't really matter given the breakneck speed of the plot and action.
Skyfall, however, wasn't just full of holes - how did a man get shot, drown, and end up drinking tequila - but it had a story and resolution without integrity. Not only was the ending utterly nonsensical, but it undid the fine work that started with Casino Royale!
Skyfall, however, wasn't just full of holes - how did a man get shot, drown, and end up drinking tequila - but it had a story and resolution without integrity. Not only was the ending utterly nonsensical, but it undid the fine work that started with Casino Royale!
its a fiction series chill folks it aint all going to make perfect sense
I get that, and it's what my missus says to me but although its fiction, it's not science fiction - it's still based within the realms of reality which for me means we shouldn't completely suspend our critical faculties. Murdering an on duty soldier outside Buckingham Palace for practice and getting away with it is too ridiculous for a show that's supposed to utilise reason and logic as a major plot device.
its a fiction series chill folks it aint all going to make perfect sense
I get that, and it's what my missus says to me but although its fiction, it's not science fiction - it's still based within the realms of reality which for me means we shouldn't completely suspend our critical faculties. Murdering an on duty soldier outside Buckingham Palace for practice and getting away with it is too ridiculous for a show that's supposed to utilise reason and logic as a major plot device.
One definition of fiction is "works of the imagination". Imagination doesn't have to be "within the realms of reality". Imagination is boundless.
its a fiction series chill folks it aint all going to make perfect sense
I get that, and it's what my missus says to me but although its fiction, it's not science fiction - it's still based within the realms of reality which for me means we shouldn't completely suspend our critical faculties. Murdering an on duty soldier outside Buckingham Palace for practice and getting away with it is too ridiculous for a show that's supposed to utilise reason and logic as a major plot device.
One definition of fiction is "works of the imagination". Imagination doesn't have to be "within the realms of reality". Imagination is boundless.
True, but the boundaries of this fiction have been set by the author and writers of the TV show, that is that it exists within modern day London whose only real distinction from reality is that it features an incredibly intelligent detective who uses his almost superhuman faculties of reason and logic to solve mysteries. Within those boundaries the murder of an on duty soldier outside BP for practice seems ridiculous to me.
its a fiction series chill folks it aint all going to make perfect sense
I get that, and it's what my missus says to me but although its fiction, it's not science fiction - it's still based within the realms of reality which for me means we shouldn't completely suspend our critical faculties. Murdering an on duty soldier outside Buckingham Palace for practice and getting away with it is too ridiculous for a show that's supposed to utilise reason and logic as a major plot device.
One definition of fiction is "works of the imagination". Imagination doesn't have to be "within the realms of reality". Imagination is boundless.
True, but the boundaries of this fiction have been set by the author and writers of the TV show, that is that it exists within modern day London whose only real distinction from reality is that it features an incredibly intelligent detective who uses his almost superhuman faculties of reason and logic to solve mysteries. Within those boundaries the murder of an on duty soldier outside BP for practice seems ridiculous to me.
But that's just it - your above example isn't its "only real distinction from reality", is it? Murdering an on duty soldier outside Buckingham Palace for practice and getting away with it may well be, in your words, "ridiculous", but it's also a distinction from reality. It's a story - it's fiction. It's made up. You can do anything in a story.
It's a very good show, not arguing with that and one of the better shows on television, but I don't think we shouldn't be able to criticise television because its "fiction" and therefore anything can happen and should just sit back and accept it. That fact doesn't mean that we should reward shows equally if one show is perfectly plotted and thought through with no plot holes, and another is full of problems and inconsistencies because its "fiction". Sherlock is closer to the former than the latter but I don't see why we can't pull out problems with it just because its a "fiction". It's what we do with films too. People have talked about Star Trek and Skyfall as having inconsistencies etc but it being forgiveable because its meant to entertain through action and fights and explosions rather than Sherlock which relies on, as people have said, reason and logic. Whodunnits surely have to have reasonable resolutions that fit into the scenario where the evidence supports the conclusion, and for me there were problems with that.
The fact of the matter is that the writers have tried to update the classic Holmes stories of Conan Doyle to the 21st Century. This episode is (loosely) based on the story "The sign of the Four", the third Holmes story and contains some of the same characters i.e. Mary Marston, Major Shotto, Holmes, Watson Lestrade etc.
Given the subject matter of the original story and modern day sensibilities regarding race and stereotypical portrayals thereof I think they probably did as well as they could have. I do recommend the original however it's a ripping yarn in the good old fashioned sense and no one should forget when it was written or the fact that we have moved on in our world view since then.
You may have gathered by now that I am a lifelong Sherlock Holmes reader and fan and as such I have really enjoyed the T.V. version so far I cannot believe that some posters are enjoying the crap U.S version more - Joan Watson FFS?
If you don't read or just can't be arsed I do also recommend the re-runs of the original "Memoires of Sherlock Holmes" programmes starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, made in the eighties and which are often shown on Alibi or some such. A better retelling of Conan Doyles stories will be hard to find and so much better that Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Laws' efforts at the cinema which appear to have received far less opprobrium than Sherlock. It's interesting that the film Game of Shadows covers the same story as The sign of Three and takes far greater liberties with the original and requires a much greater suspension of disbelief.
I also love the fact that Irene Adler reappears albeit briefly in the T.V show just to prove that Lara Pulver naked, is so much better than Rachel Macadam although I would accept either if offered:)
With Moffat and Gatiss I think you need to accept you have to watch at least the whole series - and in the case of Dr Who, several series - for things to make sense. They're in danger of disappearing up their own arses, but let's see what the third episode has to offer.
That said, if you're only going to film 3 episodes a series, you really should be making each one a bloody marvel.
Skyfall, however, wasn't just full of holes - how did a man get shot, drown, and end up drinking tequila - but it had a story and resolution without integrity. Not only was the ending utterly nonsensical, but it undid the fine work that started with Casino Royale!
Skyfall, however, wasn't just full of holes - how did a man get shot, drown, and end up drinking tequila - but it had a story and resolution without integrity. Not only was the ending utterly nonsensical, but it undid the fine work that started with Casino Royale!
People who are complaining - it's a neccessity of storytelling and writing that characters have to move on, develop and grow throughout an episode/series. Without this you would be complaining that the series has become incredibly stale. I'm loving the more emotionally connected sherlock, he's a lonely person that is being taught how amazing friendship is etc. He's a complex character and the writers are showing this. Otherwise he'd just be a boring clever clogs, who wants to watch that?
Bet the ones that are complaining here are the same that said Breaking Bad is the greatest written tv series in the BB thread :P
Personally i'm loving this version far more than the guy ritchie and elementary versions. All from our own BBC.
Comments
Still think its watchable but there's way, way too much jumping around in this series.
However, that said, it's still the only thing I make point of watching. I bloody love it.
What I don't understand is why people have to do this? Pick holes in plots etc. If everything was made true to life it would not be entertainment, real life is pretty boring. I remember loads of people having a go at the last Bond film, Skyfall, saying it was too far fetched and this and that couldn't have happened etc. As far as I'm concerned Skyfall was the best two hours of entertainment in a cinema I have had for years.
My wife has watched Sherlock since it began and kept telling me how good it was. I finally watched the new series and enjoyed it for what it is- Entertainment!
As for plotholes in general, sure it's not worth pondering on them for too long. Take Star Trek Into Darkness for example. It was full of them, but it didn't really matter given the breakneck speed of the plot and action.
Skyfall, however, wasn't just full of holes - how did a man get shot, drown, and end up drinking tequila - but it had a story and resolution without integrity. Not only was the ending utterly nonsensical, but it undid the fine work that started with Casino Royale!
Given the subject matter of the original story and modern day sensibilities regarding race and stereotypical portrayals thereof I think they probably did as well as they could have. I do recommend the original however it's a ripping yarn in the good old fashioned sense and no one should forget when it was written or the fact that we have moved on in our world view since then.
You may have gathered by now that I am a lifelong Sherlock Holmes reader and fan and as such I have really enjoyed the T.V. version so far I cannot believe that some posters are enjoying the crap U.S version more - Joan Watson FFS?
If you don't read or just can't be arsed I do also recommend the re-runs of the original "Memoires of Sherlock Holmes" programmes starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, made in the eighties and which are often shown on Alibi or some such. A better retelling of Conan Doyles stories will be hard to find and so much better that Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Laws' efforts at the cinema which appear to have received far less opprobrium than Sherlock. It's interesting that the film Game of Shadows covers the same story as The sign of Three and takes far greater liberties with the original and requires a much greater suspension of disbelief.
I also love the fact that Irene Adler reappears albeit briefly in the T.V show just to prove that Lara Pulver naked, is so much better than Rachel Macadam although I would accept either if offered:)
That said, if you're only going to film 3 episodes a series, you really should be making each one a bloody marvel.
Bet the ones that are complaining here are the same that said Breaking Bad is the greatest written tv series in the BB thread :P
Personally i'm loving this version far more than the guy ritchie and elementary versions. All from our own BBC.