Sherlock... What did you think?

Nick Barlow wrote:

Lee Carey wrote:

Nick Barlow wrote:So, Moffat's second series ends with a confusing series of nested plots and a hero who has to fake his own death to take the pressure off him and can't tell his friends he's still alive.

Should I cross-post this to the 'The Wedding of River Song' thread too?

Curse that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for stealing the end of The Wedding of River Song one hundred and twenty years before it was shown.

Wow, anyone might think that the Blessed Moffat couldn't come up with his own ideas.

Lee Carey wrote:

Nick Barlow wrote:I think it's a good series, just not the second coming of televisual Jesus that some people seem to think it is.

I think it's an excellent series, and I doubt I'll watch much that equal its quality this year, but am interested in "the second coming of televisual Jesus that some people seem to think it is" as I've yet to see anyone claim that.

Yes, no one used that exact phrase and under the Poetic Licence Act of 2007, I'm no longer allowed to exaggerate or slightly tweak what's really been said for mildly comic effect.

Lee Carey wrote:Or is an expression of enjoyment about anything to be disregarded nowadays? That's an incredibly adolescent opinion to have. To paraphrase the gospels of St. Julian of Cope, the archdrude himself, cynicism and irony are simply things to hide behind out of fear that others may dislike the things you do.

So is only mindless admiration to be allowed? Are people not allowed to say 'I liked it, but it had a few issues with sexism that I found rather disconcerting' or 'it's good, but there are other things I enjoy watching more', or is that level of discernment and nuance only allowed to adolescents now?

But your original pots didn't indicate what you thought was wrong with it, only that anyone who disagreed with you weren't just wrong, but positively misguided in how they liked it. Just reread your original statement and found no mention of sexism as a charge against the entire season of Sherlock, and would be interested in arguing that with you (as I disagree-- if that's allowed). But instead you simply used a catch all phrase for effect. Which, when it comes to Moffat, is no different than the way people used to criticise Davies using phrases such as "Gay Agenda" and "Soap." I remember the Wrinklies forming at least in part because of that casual dismissal of Davies, but obviously double standards are acceptable when it comes to Mofat, so I think I'm done with these forums now.

Bye.

I don't really want to post anything but I do want to just say that I read Nick original post as quite a light-hearted one, pointing out parallels between Moffat's work on the two shows. Sort of in the way that people say Terry Nation always wrote the same Dalek story, while thoroughly enjoying all of them.

The wrinklies were indeed formed partly because of casual dismissal of Davies. This meant that those who gravitated to the wrinklies were all admirers of his work on the show. Inevitatbly some of us will like Moffat's take rather less. Certainly I do. It is far less likely that a wrinkly prefer Moffat's Doctor Who to Davies' simply from the way the wrinklies formed. I honestly don't see double standards operating on this board and am very aware that there are people who didn't take all that well to Davies' Doctor Who but who adore Moffat's and consider it 'proper Who' compared to the previous 'rubbish'!

Perhaps Lee shouldn't be going on the internet so early in the morning?

And here I thought all the controversy over "Sherlock" was that CBS television was blatantly ripping off Gatiss & The Moff's 21st Century take on Holmes and Watson with their new series, "Elementary," and setting it in New York. I think the production team for Sherlock should sue.

They've said that they might, depending on how much is ripped off, such as the text messages on screen. CBS had come to them to get the rights to remake Sherlock, then when they didn't get them they decided to make a version anyway.

Rich Flair wrote:Perhaps Lee shouldn't be going on the internet so early in the morning?

Baby. Been there...

Patrick wrote:And here I thought all the controversy over "Sherlock" was that CBS television was blatantly ripping off Gatiss & The Moff's 21st Century take on Holmes and Watson with their new series, "Elementary," and setting it in New York. I think the production team for Sherlock should sue.

Until there's evidence that the CBS show took ideas from them that are unique to their particular production, they really can't. Modernizing Sherlock Holmes has been done before.

Zoltar wrote:

Patrick wrote:And here I thought all the controversy over "Sherlock" was that CBS television was blatantly ripping off Gatiss & The Moff's 21st Century take on Holmes and Watson with their new series, "Elementary," and setting it in New York. I think the production team for Sherlock should sue.

Until there's evidence that the CBS show took ideas from them that are unique to their particular production, they really can't. Modernizing Sherlock Holmes has been done before.

But in this case looks about as coincidental as Paramount turning down a shot at making B5 and then coming out with part of the Trek franchise set on a space station blah blah blah.

It's pretty clear that CBS have seen the success of the recent movies and the Moffiss take on Holmes, and decided that yet another thing needs to be remade for the great American public.

Seriously, Zoltar and Patrick, are you not worried about the implied insult here?

Dave Webb wrote:But in this case looks about as coincidental as Paramount turning down a shot at making B5 and then coming out with part of the Trek franchise set on a space station blah blah blah.

Oh, I never suggested it was in any way coincidental. My comment was directed at the legal aspect. If CBS's show infringes on something specific to the Beeb's Sherlock, they can go after them. And more power to them. But the act of simply making their own modern Sherlock seems to me to be not enough to take legal action at this time.

Dave Webb wrote:It's pretty clear that CBS have seen the success of the recent movies and the Moffiss take on Holmes, and decided that yet another thing needs to be remade for the great American public.

Well, the films were already an American co-production, were they not? Regardless, it's certainly as you describe. Sherlock looks popular, CBS wants a piece of it.

Dave Webb wrote:Seriously, Zoltar and Patrick, are you not worried about the implied insult here?

What, from Hollywood to the American viewers? If the show looks like the cynical money grab it sounds like it will be, I won't watch. I'll vote with my remote, as it were.

What I'm worried about is precedent. Every time an American production has attempted to adapt a British television series to our screens, the result has always been disasterous. That's the insult I'm trying to avoid. Sherlock deserves better than the treatment American productions typically do, indeed, the treatment I fully expect they will do.

Like Zoltar, I'll be voting with my remote.

Dave Webb wrote:But in this case looks about as coincidental as Paramount turning down a shot at making B5 and then coming out with part of the Trek franchise set on a space station blah blah blah.

Which was a coincidence. The creators of DS9 didn't know anything about B5, despite what Paramount execs turned down.

Rich Flair wrote:

Dave Webb wrote:But in this case looks about as coincidental as Paramount turning down a shot at making B5 and then coming out with part of the Trek franchise set on a space station blah blah blah.

Which was a coincidence. The creators of DS9 didn't know anything about B5, despite what Paramount execs turned down.

Let's see what JMS says: Ah, he says studio execs are to blame, maybe

So, Series 2 of Sherlock finally made it to our shores with "A Scandal In Belgravia" Sunday night. I would just like to say Lara Pulver deserves a huge award for being as riveting on camera as Cumberbatch, and holding her own against him in every scene. Brilliant stuff.

Belgravia is the weakest of the season IMO. The treatment of Irene Adler is typical puerile sniggering Moffat and completely undermines the character, making Sherlock's respect for her completely nonsensical.

However it is beautifully shot and the cast do a fine job with a poorish script.

Well, cut me some slack, Supreme Leader. We've only had the first episode on this side of the pond. I can't compare it to anything else in series 2 yet.

No, you really shouldn't judge the whole of Series two based on the first episode. Especially when you're deciding that Moffat was "definitely overstretching himself".

I suppose it is because I got the same feeling of disappointment from Scandal in Belgravia that I got from Moffat'sDoctor Who episodes in Series 32. I plan on watching The Hounds of the Baskerville tonight.

Good man!

Not having a go at you Patrick, just saying they get better! Although I think series 2 generally does somewhat less interesting things with the source material than series 1 did.

I'm looking forward to Hound of the Baskervilles Sunday night.

At a panel discussion at Comic Con in San Diego concerning "The Hobbit," Martin Freeman confirmed that series 3 of Sherlock will begin filming in early 2013, and shoot over a four month period of time. The first of the three episodes will be a Mark Gatiss adaptation of Conan-Doyle's "The Adventure of the Empty House."

I'm guessing that will during Who's downtime.

C=O, won't Series 7 still be running in January and February?

Not filming though AFAIK.