Are you guys watching Sherlock? (BBC Series)

[mangaluva]

The thing is, reading the original novels, I always took Sherlock to be definitely asexual and quite probably aromantic. His bond with Watson is the most powerful in his life, but I never really took it as romantic or sexual and didn't see Holmes as someone who was interested in romantic or sexual bonds. I wouldn't necessarily reject an adaptation where Holmes and Watson are a couple, but a GENUINE couple, not a chunk of queerbait, and can they please STOP with the Irene Adler stuff? I would kill for an adaptation that introduces Irene in a story that even remotely resembles the one where she was introduced, wherein Sherlock developed a genuine respect for Adler because of her cunning and intellect, not "because he fancied her" as Moffat assumes (because, respecting women you don't want to shag, lol, who has time for THAT?) or an adaptation where Holmes is explicitly asexual (oh, but "asexuals are boring", according to Moffat...)

[Patrick]

I couldn't disagree more with Moffat then
I'm with you, I believe Doyle's Sherlock is completely asexual, I always remember the scene where Mary comes to Sherlock for help and when she leaves Watson tells Sherlock she was beautiful, and Sherlock is like "was she? I didn't notice".

[Jd-]

I would kill for an adaptation that introduces Irene in a story that even remotely resembles the one where she was introduced, wherein Sherlock developed a genuine respect for Adler because of her cunning and intellect, not "because he fancied her" as Moffat assumes (because, respecting women you don't want to shag, lol, who has time for THAT?) or an adaptation where Holmes is explicitly asexual (oh, but "asexuals are boring", according to Moffat...)

If you have not already seen it, a treat of great delight awaits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shLYcUVOMb4

By far the best adaptation of "A Scandal in Bohemia" with excellent acting and portrayals all around.

[mangaluva]

I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A "SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA" JEREMY BRETT EPISODE THIS IS THE HAPPIEST DAY OF MY LIFE

[Jd-]

I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A "SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA" JEREMY BRETT EPISODE THIS IS THE HAPPIEST DAY OF MY LIFE

LIFE... IT IS GOOD THIS DAY!

Some of my favorites from the series off the top of my head, even though save for the last dozen'ish when Brett was sick were all great:

The Speckled Band (PERFECT!)
The Red-Headed League (PERFECT!)
The Final Problem (PERFECT!)
The Empty House (PERFECT!)
The Solitary Cyclist
The Second Stain (PERFECT!)
The Resident Patient
The Devil's Foot
The Dancing Men
The Six Napoleons

Those are all ones where I felt the adaptations were great in their own right and in some instances even improved upon the originals. Really an amazing feat of television--it's just a shame that things deteriorated with Brett's health toward the end.

A nice fun-fact too: Rebecca Easton, the PBS producer who worked on this series and helped see it commissioned, is also one of those who has also served the same role on Sherlock. She's one of the greatest Holmes supporters in the business.

[Stopwatch]

I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A "SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA" JEREMY BRETT EPISODE THIS IS THE HAPPIEST DAY OF MY LIFE

How-? o.O (If you've not got around to watching it yet, please do so soon :x)

Um, okay, it's been ages since I've watched this and ITV Player is ugh so thanks for the link, Jd- ^^.

[caribou]

Sadly, I have to agree with the negative criticism of the 3rd series...

[spoiler]... I have to say that my favourite moment in the entire series was the last few minutes of the third episode, because Moriarty's appearance gave me some hope that we'll be returning to the style of the first 2 seasons that focused more on the mysteries.

I'll start by saying that I like the interpretation a lot, I LOVE the idea of a modern retelling of the Sherlock Holmes stories. I adore the cast especially Martin Freeman's Watson. and if I am being objective, the 3rd series is really enjoyable and entertaining. There is a lot of character exploration and a lot of great acting. Everything is beautifully shot.

but I am a bigger fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories than I am of the BBC's Sherlock, so I can't really forgive that they seem to have shifted the focus of the story so much. I think other people have said that a lot of the elements in the 3rd series are just self-indulgent, and that is really the only word that I can use to describe it. I found that a lot of things were unnecessary and feel like they were done only to (1) shock, or (2) try to be funny.

I re-read the original story on Milverton before watching the 2nd and 3rd episode, and I was really excited about how this villain would be interpreted. As far as Sherlock killing him at the end, I have to admit that I don't have as much objection to it as the other fans here. I understand the source of the objection, but I also understand the extrapolation that the writer of the episode made (Moffat?) just based on the canon that Milverton was essentially the most disgusting villain Holmes had ever met. But I do agree that the handling of the consequences of the case was very poor. My main objection is there was so much potential with the character, but they've completely wasted it! the focus was shifted from this great villain, to (unnecessarily!) make way for Mary's ex-assassin past. Is there no main character who is allowed to be normal??

The problem is that Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss claim to be fervent fans of the original series themselves. and with this latest instalment, I just feel betrayed.[/spoiler]

[Mjöd]

I was so busy with stuff, I can only answer now. But you already pointed out so many things! I can only agree with most of it, though I couldn't read everything. Four topic pages of very long, very good posts!

First of all, thank you Jd! I agree with nearly everything you said.

So... Forget every episode you thought was the worst and most misguided in this series' history. Nothing will ever come close to how far this single episode, this finale, has departed from where this all began.

Oh, Yes! But I shall come back to that in a few... or several... or some lines.

[spoiler]

What I always liked about the Holmes canon was that sort of in-between: the things that are purely left to imagination but never outright shown. When we show these things and really focus on them, we inevitably close that gap. I think a great deal of the fascination that's surrounded Holmes and Watson all these years is that we really don't know everything about them and their interactions. How they handled certain things and how certain things unfolded are and forever will be inherent mysteries left purely up to the readers to solve, all with their own conclusions. Here, we're spending a lot of time establishing those moments that... I really can't help feel would be better off minimized if not left off-screen entirely. It's like they're spending 80% of the episodes just to have fun, silly, touching moments between Sherlock and John, and trying to find a way to throw in a case at the end so that it still at least appears like a mystery series.

[/spoiler]
^ I totally agree. Not telling about everything, was really a good thing. But to be honest, I think you give Doyle too much of a credit. Holmes sacrificing himself in a duel, yes, that's what we think now. Tbh, I doubt Doyle had that in mind. I think he decided on this by chance, because subconsciously he knew Holmes would act in this kind of way.

As there is a lot of daily life and interaction between them, is why the episode is funny at first, but then you don't really feel like watching it again, by which I agree with Mangaluva.

@Patrick: Yes, there was always some fan-service, but it was limited. It started in the first episode, when Mycroft said as a joke that Holmes and Watson might marry end of the week. But in the third season it tipped from "let's spice it a little" to "let's turn the whole thing into an episode" (referring here to episode 2, although episode 3.1. had already too much of fan-service). That's the problem.

Now about the gay topic: Seriously? In what kind of world do we live that between "I don't care about the person" and "I want sex with that person" is nothing in between? O.o There are asexual people out there and to say "this is not possible" is such a discrimination! Holmes is asexual. “I'm a brain, Watson. The rest of me is a mere appendix.” is the quote I would like to give at this point. And why do we have to change this fact about Holmes? (This is really something that is special about him and personally I like it a lot. It wouldn't be Holmes otherwise.) Just because you are asexual doesn't mean you have no emotions.
I'm not asexual, but I can say from my own experience that you can really be good friends with someone without starting a sexual relationship. I think it is sad that some people (I don't say names here), don't understand this. I feel a little sorry for them, tbh.

Okay, but enough about the general thing.
I can hardly add something to your discussion, as you said most of it, but... (this wouldn't be the internet and not me, if I was not to add something )
[spoiler]The idea of the episode was good, but Moffat just cannot stick with "let's do a good episode" he always wants to overdrive things. And then stuff gets horrible. Episode 3.2. nearly had no story, then episode 3.3 had far to much. They could have split it up. I thought, when John nearly died in 3.1, that this is the way they wanted to go. Always something little happen... a little more. So that Holmes really gets pissed. Like in the story "The three Garrideps" (I think it was), when Watson was nearly killed and Holmes was about to shoot the criminal. But that was on impulse; a completely different situation to the one in 3.3.
One of my thoughts was "this is not only 2010 but 1998". Because in 3.1 Sherlock said "Killing me is so 2010" and then he nearly-died and most-certainly-died in 3.3. 1998 is referred to "The Avengers" (no, not the Marvel Comics, but with John Steed and Emma Peel), I mean, even the name August is the same.

And to be honest, I totally lost the point in all this. Perhaps you can help me here. Mycroft says Magnussen was too intelligent to interact with governments, but wasn't that exactly what he did all the time? And why shouldn't Sherlock interact and should have his own brother as his enemy, if Magnussen himself said he never had Mycroft in his hands? Is it just me, or is this whole episode based on a HUGE logic mistake? You complain about Holmes being a weak character here, I think Magnussen himself is an incredible weak character. For me he isn't actually a character, just some very bad behaviour personalised so that everyone dislikes him. Where is the motive for all of this? (To have Mycroft in his hands... but WHY??? To see them dance? The Danish Joker or what?)

Holmes using a woman to this point of few: Are you making fun of me? Perhaps that's me, but somehow this doesn't fit in my personal picture of Holmes (or Sherlock).

How they should have done it: The idea is good, then throw some motive in it (I mean, it would make the criminal interesting). Don't kill Holmes, but let the criminal have some issue with Mycroft for example (the one no one can touch, but then someone actually gets his hands on him), but not now, more like in the fourth season. They knew they would get a fourth season from the beginning after all. Then just introduce Magnussen in 3.3 during a case... an actual case, just like usual. And then later on refer to it. (It has to be different than 1.3 and the Moriarty plot.) Perhaps a case in which we see in the end that Mary is not the innocent nurse we thought she was, which could have left some awesome speculations that lead into the fourth season. (Then of course: Don't make Sherlock have a gf.)
And... DON'T BRING MORIARTY BACK! I mean, I love this dude and I was so sad that he was dead. But... LOGIC LACK AGAIN! Yes, you can explain everything, because this is fiction, but... either everything that follows has no point or the whole second season is pointless. The only thing how they can save the situation (as no one died although Sherlock is back, but Moriarty is not dead and Mycroft and Sherlock not seeing this, although they were so intelligent to figure out Moriarty's plans, but then they were not and... okay, I stop here) is to turn Moriarty into a Joker. And... that's so 2008.
Yes, I can cope only with this situation with sarcasm and cynicism, I'm sorry. Well, actually I'm not.[/spoiler]

This is just additionally, many other things were named by you already. And I calm down now.

[Walnutdinosaur]

Can anyone in the US link His Last Vow please? That would be amazing if you could. I have to be in the UK to view it on BBC's website.

[kirite]

Can anyone in the US link His Last Vow please? That would be amazing if you could. I have to be in the UK to view it on BBC's website.

I watched it using Hola Better Internet or any other IP changer will do really.

So lots of people watched it here? Excellent.

Thoughts on John's taste:

[spoiler]I think John is not attractive to dangerous people per say. He's just attracted to extremely intelligent people who is totally cool with continuous threats to their life and won't get mentally scarred forever when bodies hit the floor repeatedly. His hobbies include running into drug dens by himself, following this self proclaimed sociopath to dangerous cases which may feature bombs (which his "normal" wife totally encourages), and missing the war zone in his sleep.

How he or anyone thought Mary is this innocent "normal" nurse in anyway is beyond me. How he keeps going on about how she's suppose to be "normal" just pisses me off. If she was your type of "normal" John SHE WOULD HAVE RAN AWAY ALREADY YOU BLOODY IDIOT IN DENIAL. OMG[/spoiler]


Thoughts on message vs cases:


[spoiler]This whole season was practically just hammering out

"Being different is okay"
"Just because you're different it doesn't mean you should be alone"
"You shouldn't prey on people who are different"
"All hail Queen Mary who is adorable!"

etc...

To the point where the cases are pretty yawn worthy, made watchable only by nice acting. There is just wayyyy too much drama and ham in this season. The whole attraction of Sherlock Holmes to me is cases and intelligent villains. Without it it's just completely forgettable, like this season.[/spoiler]

[Kaito Lady]

So I've just rewatched the whole Sherlock series and went on to watch the new episodes as well.

The Empty Hearse
[spoiler]I liked the way Mycroft went to kinda rescue Sherlock and loved Mary from the moment she appeared and I totally loved the way John reacted to Sherlock being alive and all, but I didn't really like the way he presented himself...nor really the rest of the episode...
It had its good parts but I still prefer season 2's episodes[/spoiler]

The Sign of Three
[spoiler]I actually laughed a lot at the part of Sherlock struggling how to make up a proper speech and at his reaction when John asked him to be his best man, it was hilarious.
Though I actually didn't really like the rest of the episode that much...[/spoiler]

His Last Vow
[spoiler]At the beginning I thought it would be just another not so good episode of the season but all that was thrown off the table the moment Sherlock discovered Mary in that office and when she shot him.
I bloody LOVE that part!!!!
From that moment on I loved the episode, every single moment of it.
AND THEN THE END!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN I SAW JIM I HONESTLY HAD SOME SORT OF ATTACK!!! THIS IS AWESOME AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/spoiler]

*still screaming like a fangirl internally*

[char13happy]

2016 is too far away. T.T

[MrDetective]

[spoiler]I'm still not over the fact that Sherlock killed someone. I will never forgive the writers. They turned Sherlock into a murderer. This should have never happenned.[/spoiler] >:(

[Mario2000]

[spoiler]I'm still not over the fact that Sherlock killed someone. I will never forgive the writers. They turned Sherlock into a murderer. This should have never happenned.[/spoiler] >:(

[spoiler]I agree completely. The situation is even worsened by the fact WHAT DID SHERLOCK COMMIT MURDER FOR: TO PROTECT A PROFESSIONAL ASSASSIN. Was it really worth it, to save her from jail? Don't her victims deserve justice? I understand many of them were probably not so innocent, since the CIA often targets terrorists, but still, there could have been some honest politician who crossed the CIA by simply defending his/her country's interests.[/spoiler]

[MrDetective]

[spoiler]I'm still not over the fact that Sherlock killed someone. I will never forgive the writers. They turned Sherlock into a murderer. This should have never happenned.[/spoiler] >:(

[spoiler]I agree completely. The situation is even worsened by the fact WHAT DID SHERLOCK COMMIT MURDER FOR: TO PROTECT A PROFESSIONAL ASSASSIN. Was it really worth it, to save her from jail? Don't her victims deserve justice? I understand many of them were probably not so innocent, since the CIA often targets terrorists, but still, there could have been some honest politician who crossed the CIA by simply defending his/her country's interests.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I agree! Plus, killing is so easy. It's like Sherlock proves that the bad guy wins by killing him. Killing is so un-sherlock. He doesn't resolve problems just by killing the other party, but by using his mind, and out-witting the villain. To murder him was so crude, I won't ever forgive the writers.[/spoiler]