Spoilers Sherlock Series 4 Discussion Thread

"Some random word association that has nothing to do with it" generally doesn't bother me. It was a trope often used in House, and Elementary uses it, too. The reason it doesn't bother me is that it's true to the Canon, notably the conversation between Holmes and Watson in the first chapter of Hound -- "You yourself are not luminous, but you are a conductor of light."

 

It was used far too often in House, if you ask me. That was actually one of the chief examples I had in mind when I complained about the overuse of the trope. Yes, sometimes you can get stuck on a problem, let it simmer in your brain for a while, and then hear something that suggests an alternate way of looking at it that gives you the answer you needed -- but too much fiction portrays that as the default way that problems get solved, rather than the exception. I wish more fiction would show that, most of the time, you solve a problem by actually thinking through that problem, rather than going off to do something else and waiting for the answer to fall into your lap. Sure, House did show the doctors employing logic and deduction and reasoning their way through problems, which is how it's supposed to work, but all it ever did was lead them to one wrong answer after another until the magic epiphany moment where they stumbled upon the right answer while talking about something entirely different. Which was very, very contrived and annoyingly repetitive.

 

It took Wiles years to solve for Fermat--and he had to all but shut himself away

 

House went through a stretch of lazy writing where those epiphanies just came out of nowhere but I didn't see too much of that on Sherlock. What we did get was mostly keen observation, like when he noticed something amiss on the table full of Thatcher pics, or we got a floodgate of ideas and solutions once something clicked. And he delivered them all with flair and eccentricity. That happened often so maybe that's what people don't like. The only bit that was too contrived was when he was decoding that mid-air word puzzle in the graveyard. That was too quick and easy, or so it seemed.

I've always said that this version of Sherlock was a pioneer of the mind and what I got from series 4 was someone who just goes with it and doesn't get bogged down with too much thinking. Mrs. Hudson saw the same thing.

 

I think it wouldn't do Sherlock justice to have him explain every one of his deductions in detail. He does explain his process in ASiP (first when he deduces John, later on at the crime scene), he does it again with Irene, with Henry Knight and with "Faith". But quite frankly, it's a show about the detective himself, not about his work - and have it about the latter in detail turns it into an ordinary run of the mill crime-show (the way Elementary is for 90%... though the remaining 10% can be brilliant, I grant you).

I think what TFP did well was that it offered closure to the show... without it being definite. There's the possibility of returning, but they don't have to. All the relationships are open-ended, if they decide to continue it could still go in every direction. And I appreciate that very much because, even if there's never going to be another episode, there's plenty of room to spin the story forward, to imagine your own "What happens next". (And they even put Moriarty to bed in TFP... actually, I'd be really looking forward to a season where the spectre of that annoying as hell Moriarty doesn't overshadow everything else. Hated that over-acting, Joker-wannabe. Ledger overdid the Joker as well, but "The Dark Knight" is better for it. But I still don't see what people see in that over-the-top portrayal of Moriarty. It's seriously off-putting and, as I said before, to me one of the rare weak, cringe-worthy points in Sherlock).

Having said that, the way to that point has been messy. My own favourite episodes all stem from seasons 1 and especially 2, only TLD comes close to breaching that threshold of brilliance. And I think the problems started with season 3. They never quite found the right balance again after adding Mary, and some twists, turns and story-focuses just felt off. Such as John's portrayal, Mary's redemption-arc, even Mycroft. Add to that the added facts that just don't make much sense (such as Eurus and Moriarty's meeting *after * TGG when Moriarty already called John Sherlock's pet, an appellation which only gets significant due to the backstory given in TFP - but Moriarty wouldn't yet know about that). That's annoying because it could have been prevented, and there are plenty of such inconsistencies. Somehow, Mofftiss lost a real proofreader/editor along the way, it appears.

Still, they got Sherlock's arc, his development absolutely right, it felt true and real... and since it was his story, that's the most important thing. Loved that, simply loved that.

 

It is a somewhat conventional procedural in format, but it's a particularly well-done example of the genre, and it's the characters and sensibilities of the show that really make it stand out. As an ongoing series putting out nearly two dozen episodes a year, it has the room to delve deeply into Holmes's and Watson's characters and relationship over time. It's the tortoise to Sherlock's hare.

There are better ways for a story to show the deductive process than just to have the character spell it out in dialogue. Like Gene Roddenberry said to his Star Trek writers, a cop doesn't stop to explain the workings of his gun or his radio to the audience; he just uses them. Showing how something works is better done by seeing it demonstrated by the plot than by just having a lecture about it. But that's what isn't getting done when shows like House or Sherlock treat it as a magic epiphany.

A key part of the appeal of the mystery genre, after all, is that it's an intellectual challenge for the reader or viewer. A well-done mystery gives the audience all the clues that are necessary to solve the case for themselves, if they can observe and deduce well enough. The logical process is built into the narrative itself, so the audience can follow the chain of reasoning -- at least after the fact, if they didn't manage to beat the detective to the punch.

You dismiss proper mysteries as "ordinary run of the mill crime-show(s)," but that just proves you're not a mystery buff. To people who like mysteries to be actual, legitimate challenges for their minds, it's disappointing to see Sherlock Holmes approached as just a character drama/comedy about people who happen to solve mysteries sometimes. It's disappointing to see the actual work Holmes does solving mysteries reduced to a superficial montage because the writers clearly have no interest in it. And it's frustrating to see Holmes's thought process treated as something bordering on divine inspiration, a fundamentally irrational treatment of a character who should be the paragon of rational intellectualism.

I don't see any similarity at all to Ledger's superb turn as the Joker. Jim Moriarty is basically Jim Carrey's Riddler.

 

First of all... no need to get personal (or condescending) here as I don't think you quite are in any position to judge my preferences in shows and/or reasons why I watch them! Never said I was a mystery-buff... and I don't see that as the detriment you apparently imply it to be, on the contrary, since I enjoyed Sherlock and you apparently did not (but still watched it...).

Secondly, I never saw "Sherlock" as a mystery show but a drama, pure and simple. Perhaps your problems with the series stem from a misplaced label?

(Besides, I don't see where "Elementary" falls under the label of "mystery show", either... as the cases are hardly ever "proper mysteries". Crime-show is the label I'd use for it.)

Again you're misunderstanding me: I referred to the overacting by both Ledger and Scott in their respective roles, and didn't compare the character Moriarty to the Joker. It's interesting BTW, that you choose to attack my statement about Moriarty when it's in fact pretty much the only thing we agree on concerning Sherlock (i.e. Moriarty being terrible)...

 

It's hardly misplaced when Sherlock Holmes is the ultimate mystery protagonist of all time. My point is that, for those of us who enjoy Sherlock Holmes as a mystery character, it is disappointing to see a version of Sherlock Holmes made by people who obviously have no interest in telling mystery stories. If you're only interested in the dramatic stuff, that's your right, but those of us who are mystery fans have legitimate reasons to be disappointed in Sherlock's approach and to prefer Elementary's approach. For us, the fact that the latter actually tells mystery stories is a feature, not a drawback.

And yes, Elementary is more a crime procedural than a drawing-room mystery, but it's still actually interested in telling stories about the characters doing their job as detectives.

I never said you compared the characters. Like you, I'm comparing the actors. I see no similarity between Scott's performance and Ledger's performance. Scott's Moriarty was pure Jim Carrey.

 

We expect Sherlock Holmes stories to be all about the mysteries, but this series seems to be more about exploring Sherlock himself. He is a "high functioning sociopath", at the beginning. Sherlock has always been able to figure out the mysterious but not as able to understand or care much about people, especially women. Sherlock in the beginning of this series wouldn't have cared about a child on a plane, for instance, except as a problem to solve which in this case wouldn't have been intriguing enough to bother with. As this series progressed, Sherlock has changed through interacting with John Watson, mostly, which his brother recognized and encouraged. Sherlock gradually learned to care about others such as Mary Watson and her baby (he showed pictures of her to Mycroft!) and we got to find out how he became the way he was. He was a happy child with a best friend until his psychopathic sister destroyed his childhood and probably precipitated his obsession of solving mysteries through his search to find his friend.

 

Well, I didn't find a general thread for the "Sherlock" series, so I thought I'd post in this one since it seems to be the last one that was active.

I recently started to watch the show and I like it a lot. Today, I have watched the second episode of season one which was in my opinion as brilliant as the first one. But one question doesn't stop haunting me: At the beginning of the episode, Sherlock Holmes is attacked in his and Watson's flat by a guy wielding a sword which he manages to fight off. But... who the f*ck was that guy?? And was behind this attack? How did he manage to access the flat? During the whole episode I was expecting that this scene will be somehow connected to the rest of the story, but it was never mentioned again, there was no explanation unless I missed something. I mean, we learn that the killer climbs buildings and enters rooms, so I thought maybe it was the same guy that would kill the victims later in the episode. But why would he attack Holmes before he even shows up on their plan with his investigation and why would he use a goddamn sword when he shot the other victims? I'm really wondering about this since I had seen the episode, hopefully someone knows more ^^

 

It was never explained, it was just meant to represent that Sherlock leads an exciting life.