Sherlock - BBC [4]

Yeah, on that we can both agree

Well, figg is certainly right about two things. One, the ratings did drop, discuss the reasons for that those who will. Two, critics are decidedly divided on this one, as seems the audience reactions going by rotten tomatoes.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/sherlock/s04

10 fresh 7 rotten
Top critics
4 fresh 2 rotten

32% of 1839 people voting liked it, and gave it and average score of 2.1/5

azriel wrote:Yeah, on that we can both agree

*gasps!* DON'T DO THAT!!!! Have you ANY idea how shocking those words are to see in here?!?!?!!! They were just sitting there on top the page, no explanation. You nearly killed me!

OMG Amarië I'm so sorry ! I didn't mean to scare you

Well, we can't watch the Brett version stateside, which is a shame. I'll have to poke around for it.

I actually liked the Moffat version of Irene Adler quite a bit...but I'm under the influence, being male.

{{Try this one Halfy!}}

Brett is Sherlock Holmes, there could never be a better interpretation. Its like David Suchet is Poirot, or Steven Fry is Oscar Wilde, and Alan Rickman is Snape.

And Sean Connery is James Bond

The Adler adventure is brilliant so far, though she closes the wrong eye to shoot.

{{You finish the ep Halfy- curious what you think both of it and of the modern treatment of the same story.}}

{{Series 4 through the eyes of Garostudios}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{You finish the ep Halfy- curious what you think both of it and of the modern treatment of the same story.}}

Oh I like both of them. I thought Scandal in Belgravia was one of the more interesting Sherlock episodes. The womenfolk here may not have appreciated a naked dominatrix, but I found it to be a playful interpretation of Irene Adler; one where she's even more in control than the original.

It's not being a naked dominatrix that's the problem, it how they simply *had* to make sure she was rescued by Sherlock in the end to restore his Superiority. It doesn't really help that she fits right into the typical Moffat "Strong"/Evil Female Character slot either. They all have the same hairdresser and shop at the same store.

Lady "Love" -whatshernameagain?- had potential for a while, but then we find that she had been added solely to be a love(?) interest for Mycroft.

it how they simply *had* to make sure she was rescued by Sherlock in the end to restore his Superiority- Amarie


{{I dislike that scene for the same reaosn Amarie- even though I know that's not what is supposed to be happening here.
According to the director they spent a long time trying to get the final look she gives Sherlock to convey that she is very much in control, knew he would come and is about to use him to get out of there- I don't think they do get that across myself- but at least in the script the aim is for her to win.
And Moffat wrote a follow up scene for his own amusement in which she makes off in Sherlock's clothes leaving him naked and tied up.

'then we find that she had been added solely to be a love(?) interest for Mycroft.'

{{No she was used as a means to highlight one of the themes - that all the Holmes siblings in one manner or another suppress their humanity to achieve their success. And that even the seeming best of them, Mycroft, is not immune to it- this is also the case with Mycroft being terrified at the start of the last episode by Sherlocks tricks.
Everything that has happened in Sherlock has its source narratively in Euros' game with her brother- the game to solve the puzzle she set and for him to be able therefore to rescue her. Its based purely on emotional need.

Every test she puts them through is one designed to let her see how Sherlock reacts emotionally to the situation. Its his emotion she is interested in because its the one thing she wants and needs and never felt he has got because she is so distant from everyone and so detached- as exemplified when she drops the two innocent men to their deaths, then when John protests, drops the guilty one and concludes that there is no difference, because the mechanical act of killing the guilty and innocent felt the same to her.

Its the same with the Molly scene- its how Sherlocks deals with it she cares about "so many little emotions, I lost count," its not about torturing Molly, it about drawing out of Sherlock the proof she needs that he has the capability still to save her, that he hasn't gone so far down the path she has gone that he lost the ability too.
Think what she says to him when in disguise and she has chips with him, "you're a lot nicer."/"Nicer than what?"/Nicer than I expected."

She is the Holmes condition taken to a horrific extreme- she is all independent analysis, separated from everything. To such an extent that as a child she cut her own arms open because she wanted to see how her muscles work, and when asked if she felt no pain replied, 'which one is that?' To her even her own physical sensations are just a series of inputs to be analyzed and filed not something she feels in the normal sense of the word.
She is Sherlock and Mycroft if they ever achieved what they try to do- purge themselves of all the apparent emotional weaknesses of humanity, even of the flesh- but Mycroft fights his weight and Sherlock his drug addiction- she is pure intellect.

Love being a deficit found on the losing side is an example of where Sherlock, though he doesn't actually  completely live by that as his Woman encounter shows, nevertheless holds it up as a truth and an ideal to be striven for.
Well, Euros is that truth achieved. She is far and away the best most brilliant of the three- she can correctly prevent three terrorist attacks going on nothing more than one hour spent on twitter- she is in that sense Sherlock's deductive method and disdain of emotion in its purest most brilliant form. But the cost of that loss of humanity to her is huge on a personal level, on the emotional level, emotions being the one set of sensations she has never been able to figure out because she never had any emotional bounds to anyone or anything save her brother who didn't want to play with her- they are left flapping as lose ends leaving her metaphorically alone on the plane forever observing and never making contact with those below.

I have said before that Moffat is a thematic writer, he is interested in broad themes over a long period, if you want to know why a character is there or why they act in a particular way that puzzles, its often best to start with the question 'how does it relate to the overall themes?' first as with Moffat everything eventually does tend to tie back into the overall wider themes presented across the whole. Its his style of writing.

With the Lady character she is not there as love interest but as part of the theme, she allows us to see that Mycroft, despite talking of humans like he is part of a different race from them, is in fact still really one of them. And given the narrative of Euros, thats an important piece of information to show that the viewer needs to know, even Mycroft is human. Its completely justified by the story I'd say and not in anyway just there as a 'love interest for Mycroft'.

They all have the same hairdresser and shop at the same store. - Amarie

I love how you seem to imagine Moffat also runs the costume and design departments too! All just to pin something else on him which in actuality he has nothing to do with! I assume you think he designs the sets too on his days off from writing it all and producing it!}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

'then we find that she had been added solely to be a love(?) interest for Mycroft.'

{{No she was used as a means to highlight one of the themes - that all the Holmes siblings in one manner or another suppress their humanity to achieve their success. And that even the seeming best of them, Mycroft, is not immune to it- this is also the case with Mycroft being terrified at the start of the last episode by Sherlocks tricks. }}}

so she was used as a love interest for Mycroft. She is there not in her own right but as Mycroft McGuffin to get him to feel. She has no purpose other than to make him seem like a normal person. Like Molly is just there to suffer from fangirl heartbreak she as a person does not matter, she is dropped once she has been 'used'.

{{Everything in a story is a McGuffin, everything is just there to show something, highlight something, motivate the characters, unmotivate the characters, move them about or provide them or deny them answers- its all rigged you know writing, someone makes it up and plans it all out and then refines it!

The question is does it serve a genuine purpose in the story or is she just solely there to give him a love interest?
She provides two things directly to the story- it provides direct visual conformation that Mycroft is really human and still has human urges he can react on, he is not pure intellect despite his brilliance. This is a plot point, relevant to the Euros storyline and its conclusion.
And secondly it plays into the theme of all the Holmes siblings and to what degree they are capable of suppressing their humanity and what effect that has had on each of them.

From any objective view of it as writing it is therefore entirely justified as a means to convey that information, and as reason to include her character- it fulfills two necessary functions within the narrative- and if you need a character to fulfill that role she is in fact the only likely candidate as she is the female Mycroft has had most interaction with and whom the viewer has seen before on several occasions interacting with him.}}

According to the director they spent a long time trying to get the final look she gives Sherlock to convey that she is very much in control, knew he would come and is about to use him to get out of there- I don't think they do get that across myself- but at least in the script the aim is for her to win.

Yeah, I think the idea is that she snaps her fingers and he comes running and arrive just when he is intended. But it's not the impression we are left with, so one is left wondering what the message really is.

And Moffat wrote a follow up scene for his own amusement in which she makes off in Sherlock's clothes leaving him naked and tied up.

As if Sherlock in a nothing but a sheet didn't do enough to make melt the synapses of the Sherlock fan base.

I suppose one can hope that Lady has some more character development in the next series. It's a shame if she was shown as professional, capable and smart only to be a fitting mate for Mycroft. She has potential.

I got around to watching The Four Thatchers and was thoroughly unimpressed. I think one of my least favourite scenes was the entirely pointless filler that was 

Spoiler:

And how cliche was Sherlock's insensitivity to the grieving family at the beginning? "Sorry about your daughter, er... son." That scene was so cringe-worthy! 

I just wasn't compelled by the story. Mary's super-spy background is completely dumb. John's womanizing came out of nowhere and felt inconsistent. The villains were tripping over themselves to spill all the details of their machinations. The doctor character, erm.. Molly has been demoted to the role of babysitter. The big fat huge cliffhanger from last season has led to nothing so far except more view-baiting.   

Spoiler:

Ugh, Doctor Who's endlessly re-treaded line about the Doctor "running away" has even bled over into Sherlock now. I am so tired of people talking about running away... I think it's affecting me on a deep psychological level. Do all stories eventually become ones about people running away? The only running I'm going to be doing is running away from having to watch the rest of this bloody season!!! 

{{That's definitely the worst episode of the series- the middle one is more like a series 2 episode and the finale depends a lot on your view of a variety of factors throughout Sherlock. Although I dont get why people keep saying John's womanising and roving eye comes from nowhere when its been present since episode 1 and him even trying to hit on Mycrofts secretary. Its also true to the books.}}

There's a difference between having an eye for the ladies and actually cheating on your wife and new-born simply because some lady makes eyes at you on the bus. 

Besides, those scenes in which John is "womanising" were just comedic moments in which he gets shut down.

Anyway, I'm halfway through The Lying Detective and despite a little too much of the ridiculous I think this episode is working quite well so far. The presence of a, thus-far, really juicy villain is doing wonders for giving the show the drive it needs. I think that's a large part of what was missing from the last episode. The show is at its very best when Sherlock is up against a credible villain like the nefarious cab driver or Moriarty.

BLAAARGH I take it back! Moffat just can't resist over-complicating things and tying every single last tidbit of story to big reveals later on that are meant to wow and stun the audience into admiring the stupendous enormity of his brain. 

The whole "save Watson" thing just had to come back. I was really hoping that would just go away. I just want Sherlock to re-interpret classic Holmesian mysteries without dragging in all of this Mary-Watson-Sherlock human-interest stuff into it, is that so much to ask for? And now there's a 

Spoiler:

The towering edifice that is the convoluted writing for this series is overpowering my ability to enjoy the show. 

{{{ The 'other' Holmes sibling, like the Watson has a roving eye and doesn't do long term relationships well, has been hinted at for series! Does no-one actually watch things any more! }}}

Just because someone in the past hinted that you might step in dog poo doesn't make it any more pleasurable when it happens.