BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Watching Sherlock repeats is "Mandatory"

Sherlock Holmes · March 3, 2012 5:49 am

Nice article off BBC website....written last year when they were repeating Series One.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/jul/20/sherlock-repeat-we-want-to-see

Davina · March 3, 2012 5:27 pm

...'a brain the size of a planet and the social skills of a clam.' Ha! Like it! Which planet would that be? Sherlock Holmes wouldn't know would he!

Sherlock Holmes · March 3, 2012 6:42 pm

No, he's not a solar system person.

Davina · March 3, 2012 7:15 pm

It was nearly his undoing! Super nova!

Sherlock Holmes · March 3, 2012 7:51 pm

I wonder if he stored it in his Mind Palace after that though?

Ceto · March 5, 2012 9:23 pm

Nice article! I read the comments though many negative ones I can't really understand when people says that the auctors are terrible or the story is bad written. I guess everyone can have their own opinions..... But really! How on earth can they not like it!? XD

Last edited by Ceto (March 5, 2012 9:23 pm)

Davina · March 5, 2012 10:34 pm

I actually found some of the negative comments really amusing but probably not in the way the authors intended. For instance ' The element of surprise doesn't hold up on a repeat viewing'. No really, you do surprise me! Surely you wouldn't watch it again for an element of surprise!!

Another great homophobic comment: ' Gatiss's making heterosexual characters into gay ones...and the Moriarty character talking about his clothes'. Are these people really so obtuse? So a man cannot refer to his very expensive suit being ruined straight after he 's been man-handled (no pun intended) unless he is gay? Oh for goodness sake!

We then have Moriarty referred to as a pantomime villain sketch at the end. Then the great, award winning actor, Andrew Scott, is said to be not a 'proper actor' and an 'annoying unconvincing pipsqueak'. Would that be due to the fact that he is nothing like the Moriarties previously played on screen? Or would it be due to his Irish accent and general demeanour.

I loved the comment that said ' then I remembered all Guardian readers are miserable cynical sods who don't like anything that is remotely popular on principle. Joyless, smirky husks urinating scorn on all they survey.' This comment, I feel, cannot be improved.

Irene Adler · March 5, 2012 11:28 pm

The actors terrible? Really?
I think this is one of the best cast groups I've seen in a long time. Specially Martin, Benedict, Andrew and Mark. They're absolutely awesome...

Sherlock Holmes · March 6, 2012 12:12 am

Davina wrote:
Another great homophobic comment: ' Gatiss's making heterosexual characters into gay ones...and the Moriarty character talking about his clothes'. Are these people really so obtuse? So a man cannot refer to his very expensive suit being ruined straight after he 's been man-handled (no pun intended) unless he is gay? Oh for goodness sake!

This person obviously missed the point entirely as well. No one ever said that Moriarty was gay, only when he was pretending to be "Jim from IT" with his gay underpants. The real Moriarty is probably about as interested in sex as Sherlock is.

Morton · July 8, 2012 8:44 am

This is terrible, I feel now, this morning, that the intellectual acumen of devoted fans is somewhat above average .Episodes are so multi-layered and ambiguously written and packed with canon that even if I watch an episode 5 times I still see something I missed the other four times.

The actors terrible? That's absurd. Martin, to pick just one, puts so many subtle layers and colours into his performance when he isn't even delivering lines.

Mattlocked · July 8, 2012 9:13 am

Don't know, but maybe some people are not "flexible"? Showed the new Sherlock to a friend of mine (only pics) and she cried out What a terrible Sherlock! She sticks to the "old-fashioned" characters, the Sherlocks from decades ago. Which were also brilliant, no doubt. But some people maybe just don't give new, different views a chance..........

btw: interesting comment reg. Donovan. "hugely annoying, unlikeable and unpleasant". Maybe... anyway I think it's quite a good and important role she has. She's just talking out loud what most people think when they meet Sherlock.

kazza474 · July 8, 2012 9:14 am

I missed this when it was posted; probably tired of reading review after review all saying the same thing. But interesting to read some comments.
I think there are actors in this series whose performances have been over rated but who 'slip through' on reputation alone. It is easy to become one-eyed; I guess having not seen most of these actors before, I have a slightly different perspective than many fans though.
Some criticisms are either justified or have some kind of solid basis, naturally there will always be some that have no real basis at all.

I do agree with this to some degree & this formula seemed to be carried over into Series 2. I hope they ditch this formula for Series 3, lol:
first episode = blinding, clever, dazzling, brilliant

second episode = all over the place, I blame Gatiss, cf his parlous attempts at writing various episodes of Dr Who.

third episode = not in the same league as the opener but much better than the second episode. However, it was completely ruined by the pantomime villain sketch of a Moriarty at the end. They'd better have rethought that or the second series will be a quick dive off Reichenbach Falls. And not in a good way....

Sherlock Holmes · July 8, 2012 3:51 pm

Second episodes of any series are generally hard to write but typically that is how it should work anyway, it's about peaks and troughs. You grab your audience in with the first episode and then leave them wanting more with the final episode. Just a standard writing trick really. If there were more than 3 episodes in a series it wouldn't be that noticable.

I know I didn't want to watch Sherlock when it first came out because I was too ingrained in the old Sherlock but everyone I know has liked it/loved it once they've given it a chance.

Sherli Bakerst · July 8, 2012 5:46 pm

The article was good; the comments were hilarious. I do think the second episode, in both series, was the weakest. But only in terms of plot. I think both second episodes were strong on character development and really expanded viewers' knowledge of the relationship between Sherlock and John. And in so doing, that helps make the third episodes stronger because the audience then sees a more fully developed, more well-rounded story in the Sherlock universe.

kazza474 · July 9, 2012 3:14 am

I can't see that they would deliberately make a lesser quality show at any stage of the series. Tv audiences are fickle; very easy to lose them that way.
I'd be more inclined to think they have concentrated so much on a brilliant start and brilliant finish & have 'rushed' the middle one.Which is a little amateurish really.The more cynical viewer may just watch Ep 1 & 3 of series 3 judging by their efforts so far.

hypergreenfrog · July 9, 2012 11:40 am

Thanks for sharing the article!

I do agree that certain comments are a bit over the top (how people can hate the whole show just because they dislike a minor character like Donovon, especially if they can't even remember her name is beyond me), but then again, people only tend to post comments to such articles if they strongly disagree. I usually don't read comments to reviews, because they tend to be written in very harsh language, calling actors and writers untalented and worse, based only on the experience of one or two episodes of a single show.

Regarding the "middle episode", I agree with you that the Blind Banker was the weakest of the season by far, but I liked Baskerville a lot, so I personally don't see a pattern emerging here. I think the three episodes per series format is extremely difficult to write, and therefore the show cannot really be compared to others that have 8-10 shorter episodes per series (let alone 15-20 in American shows).

KeepersPrice · July 9, 2012 11:53 am

I wouldn't miss or skip one of these episodes for the world. I glean something from each one. I often tell my husband that even when I see a dreadful movie that bores me to death, I can always find something in it that teaches me something I didn't know. Granted I'm a BBC Sherlock devotee, no longer just a member of the general viewing audience. I'm happy for any glimpse into life at 221B, finding the fun little nods to the canon, watching the developing relationships, the bits of humor. The worst episode for me was "Banker" as far as plot line, but there was so much more I loved - the lovely Su Lin (whom I think even Sherlock could have fallen in love with) and her devotion to the tea pots (learned a lot about ancient Chinese pottery), watching that young D.I. Dimmock become converted to Sherlock and how at the end he's practically worshiping at his feet, John proving his abilities with the straightforward approach to detection, the humor of the Sarah relationship with Sherlock as the third wheel on the date. On and on.......

Other people may not feel enriched by this series as a whole, but have been.

hypergreenfrog · July 9, 2012 2:46 pm

KeepersPrice wrote:
I'm happy for any glimpse into life at 221B, finding the fun little nods to the canon, watching the developing relationships, the bits of humor.

Beautifully put, thank you.

Fetchinketch · July 10, 2012 3:29 pm

I do blame The Blind Banker, in part, for putting me off the show the first time I watched it. I had enjoyed aSiP, but did not like the next one I watched and lost interest at the time. It wasn't until I happened upon Hounds that I was drawn back in.

I managed to draw a friend in by viewing aSiP with her last weekend. As I sent her home with the boxed set, I did warn her about BB, but suggested that it was worth watching for the character development. It is definitely the low point, IMHO.

Sherlock Holmes · July 12, 2012 8:48 am

The second episode in any series is always difficult, because you purposely make the first episode so amazing to capture people in.