Sherlock - BBC [4]

There's an episode where Sherlock and John are locked in with a bomb with John shouting at Sherlock "go into your mind palace! go into your mind palace" to find a way to disable the bomb.

the fact that it was all a setup is irrelevant - the mind palace is being used as this magical thing to solve problems.

There's plenty of cases where we see inside Sherlock's mind without it, the mind palace adds exactly nothing. The creators are justly proud of how they display thinking etc visually, so why obscure it?

{{I dont think it is ever used as a magical device to solve problems- all the clues put together in the mind palace come from the episode already- its just a means of showing how Sherlock uses, collates that information and draws conclusions. But more often than not its also used to convey something about Sherlocks internal emotional state- an angle on the character unique to this production.

From an out of show perspective I happen to know where it comes from- there is a sort of reference to it in the original works which they have taken as their starting point for it- but actually its from Who.
Long ago before Moffat was show runner on either show he was asked in an interview about how the Doctor thought- his reply was basically to imagine that the Doctor had thrown himself out of a window- but he can process information so fast that for him time would seem to slow and he could retreat into his mind and work out a way to survive- as he falls but before he hits the ground. If that sounds familiar its because Moffat eventually put that scene in an episode of Who he had been sitting on for decades as too out there to do- the brilliant Heaven Sent.
But not before he had incorporated the same idea into Sherlock. With the added irony that by the time it turned up in Who he was accused of using ideas from Sherlock!
In fact he was doing what all writers doing which is re-appropriate ideas from the past, or from other stories they have written which had not seen the light of day. Tolkien does exactly this reusing ideas from older unpublished tales in published ones- right down to the same wording sometimes.

In Sherlock the purpose is to further connect the viewer to the internal Sherlock rather being as is usual in Holmes adaptions from the Watson perspective of amazed impressed onlooker. This ties directly to the overall aim of exploring what makes Sherlock tick as opposed to just showing him doing his thing solving cases. }}}

It was okay once, and would be fine with casual mentions afterwards, but I say it was overused to the detriment of the series. And it very much IS used as a magical device.

{{Doyle used it more than once- but actually its not used in many episodes- its impact is greater than its appearances- and indeed I dont think it makes a first appearance until halfway through series2 with Hounds.
It reappears in the first episode of series 3 in the scene you mentioned before on the train with the bomb- but as you say there its not used as a solution. Therefore not a 'magical device.'
It does play a more crucial role in the final episode of series 3 as the bad guy also makes use of the technique to store his blackmail information. But here its used as a plot twist, not as any sort of solution to anything.
Its next and final appearance is in the series 4 finale we just had- where the technique is refereed to rather than used, and a variation of it is used to visualize the mental state of Euros as a child alone and lost on a plane above everyone else. Again it is not used to provide any form of solution.

So not only does it not in fact appear that often but I still don't see where plot wise it is used to provide solutions out of nowhere or as a 'magical device'.

I need examples I'm afraid as I cant find any! }}}

{{{In fact he was doing what all writers doing which is re-appropriate ideas from the past, or from other stories they have written which had not seen the light of day. Tolkien does exactly this reusing ideas from older unpublished tales in published ones- right down to the same wording sometimes.

In Sherlock the purpose is to further connect the viewer to the internal Sherlock rather being as is usual in Holmes adaptions from the Watson perspective of amazed impressed onlooker. This ties directly to the overall aim of exploring what makes Sherlock tick as opposed to just showing him doing his thing solving cases. }}}

I couldn't read this without drawing comparisons to Movie Thorin and the writers' fascination with what makes him tick. It's certainly a thing writers do now, but I have to agree with Halfy and Figg. It just seems to me to be better storytelling if the ticker is heard from behind a curtain of a working narrative.

To say it another way, I think the question of what makes a clock tick is only interesting when asked of a clock that's a working time piece. Otherwise the ticking is just another irritating noise.

Beautifully said!

It just seems to me to be better storytelling if the ticker is glimpsed behind a curtain of a working narrative.- David


{{I wouldn't say it was better storytelling- its a different approach completely. I would argue there is a very well structured working narrative in Sherlock that has a beginning, middle and end.
The question of focus makes sense to me taking on Holmes from the current perspective in time- it would be hard to sell as new the original tales- we all know them and the characters, and nothing really develops or ever changes or grows- they are like a cartoon- they reset to standard at the end of every story ready to go again.
That was clearly not the sort of version the writers wanted to tell.
As massive fans of all things Holmesian they were interested in all the stuff between the cracks. This gave them a completely fresh approach to take to the stories and the characters.
Overall as a four series piece I think it works- I was more often entertained than I was not.

As a bit of book original fan would I like to see a modern version thats more Brett style in its dedication to source? Yes, but not that many would I bet compared to Sherlocks global audience. And it would be for the simple reason that we have seen those sort of adaptations of Holmes before many, many times.
It not easy I imagine to find an entirely new angle and approach to take that still honours and shows the writers love and respect of the original works {look how badly done the modern Holmes films are with Downey!). I think they balanced those two things rather well myself and bar a few missteps here and there (mainly in series 3, which actually makes more sense now in the narrative now that we have the whole picture) they largely achieved it.}}}

You're still missing the main points:

1. You can have all the character development, but keep it off center stage
2. The fact that they made the artistic choice to put character development front and center doesn't give them a pass: they made the wrong choice.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
{{{It not easy I imagine to find an entirely new angle and approach to take that still honours and shows the writers love and respect of the original works. I think they balanced those two things rather well myself and with a few missteps here and there largely achieved it.}}}

I agree it's not an easy thing, which is what makes the first two seasons so brilliant, both in writing and directing. I think most of us agree on that. The clock keeps time, and the ticking works.

Since then I've taken a couple stabs at season 3 and was disappointed to find that it just doesn't fly for me on any level. I'm prepared to give season 4 a try at some point, but so far it doesn't sound promising.

I recognize that it's got to be hard to sustain the high level they set at the beginning, but I'm afraid as a viewer it's all the more disappointing because of the brilliant beginning.

{{{1. Not if the aim of the piece is to put it front and centre.
2. An opinion. Which is fair enough but not one you can expect to be shared and accepted by all. There is noting technically wrong with the work- it works as narrative, it works as character development and explanation, it has an overall structure, internal consistency, well written dialogue and well paced plots individually structured within the broader overall structure of the 4 series.
Not liking it is your opinion. Calling it the 'wrong choice' is, well wrong. You are stating your personal opinion as if its a self evident fact. You should know better than that Halfy your supposed to be a scientist!!

"I've taken a couple stabs at season 3 and was disappointed to find that it just doesn't fly for me on any level."- David

Even with the overall arc, which for me does give reason for series 3 having the approach it does- is nevertheless still the weakest of the series in my view and my personal least favourite and least watched. Four is much better than it in my view though ep 1 is only a notch or so above those of 3.}}}

Given that everyone on here except you seems to feel they made the wrong choice, statistically my opinion is correct.

Sure, if you like what they are doing then it works for you.  But they could have made more people happy by keeping the character backstory as, well, backstory.

{{I have global audience and overall critical acclaim on my side of the argument- not that Id use those- the work stands perfectly defensible on its own- the point was to make the backstory the main story- so keeping it backstory would in fact be pointless- you'd be as well to just leave it out and do the books straight without it like Doyle did- the whole point was to bring to the fore all the stuff Doyle doesn't but conceivably went on anyway.}}

'I have global audience and overall critical acclaim on my side of the argument' Petty

no you don't. the general consensus is it had bad critical reception, ratings and was a disappointing turkey.

30 yrs ago I didn't want to know what makes Sherlock be the man he is, 20 yrs ago I didn't want to know, I didn't want to know 10 yrs ago. I still don't want to know ! Ive excepted he is gifted, Ive excepted he is different. He leads a life HE chooses, & that's ok. I'm more interested in the cases brought before him, his decision if he will take it or not & then, I like to watch him work. That's it, no more. Watson is "me", like being in a dream where you can see things go on but, your a bystander with only so much power. Thru Watson I tag along & watch Holmes & its great At the end you feel you've been a part of the crime solving & you feel as pleased as they are so, that's what Id like in a program, on TV, & not about Sherlock's hang ups from a child. Fook, all of us have hang ups but, we don't bang on about it morning, noon & night till the listener is bored rigid & we never see them again. We don't need his inner toil every episode. We just need him to be the guy that we can rely on to solve the murder.

the general consensus is it had bad critical reception, ratings and was a disappointing turkey.- Figg


{{um where you getting that from? Any sources? Series 1-4 of Sherlock cannot be called anything other than a success in terms of overall critical reception and audience numbers. It was a hit.

'The show met with critical acclaim, sustaining positive reviews across its series. Series one holds a Metacritic score of 85/100, based on 17 reviews, and series two scored 91/100, based on 24 reviews, while series three holds a score of 88/100, based on 22 reviews.The first two series hold 100% rating at critical aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, and series three has a 97% approval rating.'-wiki )))

As statistics start coming into the discussion, it's good to remember the lessen many engineering students are taught about the statistician who drowned in a river that averaged one foot deep....

azriel wrote:30 yrs ago I didn't want to know what makes Sherlock be the man he is, 20 yrs ago I didn't want to know, I didn't want to know 10 yrs ago. I still don't want to know ! Ive excepted he is gifted, Ive excepted he is different. He leads a life HE chooses, & that's ok. I'm more interested in the cases brought before him, his decision if he will take it or not & then, I like to watch him work. That's it, no more. Watson is "me", like being in a dream where you can see things go on but, your a bystander with only so much power. Thru Watson I tag along & watch Holmes & its great  At the end you feel you've been a part of the crime solving & you feel as pleased as they are so, that's what Id like in a program, on TV, & not about Sherlock's hang ups from a child. Fook, all of us have hang ups but, we don't bang on about it morning, noon & night till the listener is bored rigid & we never see them again. We don't need his inner toil every episode. We just need him to be the guy that we can rely on to solve the murder.

exactly. for me Sherlock should remain a mystery. You can still have a 21st century man while not spelling it out. Its like Irene Adler used to be mysterius before you saw her in the buff, then she just became like any other naked Kardashian showing off her bits. Irene Adler in the Brett version was a lady, not a dominatrix male fantasy.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:the general consensus is it had bad critical reception, ratings and was a disappointing turkey.- Figg


{{um where you getting that from? Any sources? Series 1-4 of Sherlock cannot be called anything other than a success in terms of overall critical reception and audience numbers. It was a hit.

'The show met with critical acclaim, sustaining positive reviews across its series. Series one holds a Metacritic score of 85/100, based on 17 reviews, and series two scored 91/100, based on 24 reviews, while series three holds a score of 88/100, based on 22 reviews.The first two series hold 100% rating at critical aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes, and series three has a 97% approval rating.'-wiki )))

1 and 2 were hits. 3 and 4 were not. end of.

end of.- Figg


{{Nice to see you ending with all the facts!

And the version of Sherlock you want Figg already exists- its the Jeremy Brett stuff for Granada- especially the early series- they are lifted right off the page- no additions, no backstory, no character development, no increased role for female characters- everything you want- its already been made. And brilliantly. Why would anyone want to remake a classic series like that though now? What would be the point for either the writers or audience? }}

http://screenrant.com/sherlock-season-4-finale-ratings-russian-leak/

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38635953

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/16/sherlocks-viewing-figures-slump-to-an-all-time-low-as-series-finale-airs-6385062/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/01/16/sherlock-finale-ratings-viewing-figures-nosedive-russian-leak/

http://en.yibada.com/articles/186830/20170116/sherlock-season-5-finally-canceled-season-4-finale-episode-receives-lowest-ratings.htm

{{yeah the episode was leaked so less folk watched it on transmission- but even taking that into account, and despite that article desperately trying to pin the blame on loss of quality instead of the obvious episode leak to the internet, it has to finally admit that even given any reasons for the drop - 'Regardless of the drop, it’s worth pointing out that getting around 6 million live viewers in the UK is still a fair achievement by modern standards'
So even here at its lowest point in terms of live audience (and catchup wont be in till next week) its still drawing in levels of viewers that most TV shows in the UK, if they got the same, would consider themselves a hit. }}

You can still have a 21st century man while not spelling it out. Its like Irene Adler used to be mysterius before you saw her in the buff, then she just became like any other naked Kardashian showing off her bits. Irene Adler in the Brett version was a lady, not a dominatrix male fantasy.........Mrs Figg.

I agree with Figgy about Irene Adler. She is the one woman that must have got Sherlock's interest. forgot his childhood hang ups then didn't he Took his mind off a sneaky twisted sister, I daresay he became confused over his sexuality also I'm being sarky now I actually liked the films with Robert Downey Jnr I thought they were good fun A bit over the top but, not as difficult to swallow as Moffs & Gatiss can be ?

not as difficult to swallow as Moffs & Gatiss can be - Azriel

{{{ Noone said art had to be easy to digest, or shouldnt challenge preconceived notions of what a thing should or should not be- indeed you could argue art should do those things, it should not be comfortable and easy or conform to your expectations.

Ont the otherhand like I say whats the complaint- it already exists!- go watch Brett's version, here- Scandal In Bohemia- Irene Adler exactly as she is in the book- and watch that and tell me that character, as is would work or even interest with a modern tv audience? }}

Gordon Bennet I gotta watch an hour of it ? I can do that because I'm fond of Brett's incarnation of Sherlock. Tho I don't think you can pit Brett with Cumbersomebum. Different times, 1980's then, 21st century now. People have been influenced by CGI, better film stunts, better video games, like PS4, Xbox one etc

I gotta watch an hour of it ? - Azriel

{{yeah but worth it for Brett. Still the greatest Sherlock Holmes ever in my view, utterly entrancing to watch he is mesmerizing in the role }}}}