BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » [spoilers] Moffat says people who see plot holes are not clever enough

dartmoordoggers · January 19, 2014 8:12 pm

I don't see this 'thorough security'.
Poor body search techniques. High risk PA who obviously has not been vetted properly. Employs ex-cons. Relies to heavily on his reputation to keep people from taking him on. (As Smallwood alludes to in the car.) Over confident.
'.

sj4iy · January 19, 2014 8:19 pm

Cat of Ulthar wrote:
... but we did see CAM's men pat Sherlock and John down, when CAM first visits Sherlock? So it's presumably standard procedure, so why did they omit it now?

Just because it happened once doesn't mean it happened again. CAM visited Sherlock in the restaurant by himself, why didn't he have someone pat him down then if he's so thorough? The answer is that he didn't see Sherlock as a threat. If he didn't see him as a threat that time, he surely wouldn't have seen him as a threat the next time.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 19, 2014 8:20 pm)

Cat of Ulthar · January 20, 2014 12:55 am

Yeah, that's the only conclusion I could finally come up with - he must have been overconfident. Still, it's not very logical for a master criminal of his status who thus far has not been caught or thwarted. Also, even if he is overconfident, did he specifically instruct his security staff not to search them, even though they come to his home, and he is likely to make them angry? The sloppiest of searches would have turned up a gun in a jacket pocket.
It's sloppy writing, and I think Moffat is letting his position as God of TV Series getting to his head.

Ok another one, off the top of my head: The Blind Banker. Sherlock deduces the girl hasn't been in for a while due to some wet post in front of the door. There are several bells at that door, several levels of apartments. Where are all the other people who live there? Again, they *could* collectively have gone on holiday, but it's not logical.
Sherlock Holmes, who notices everything, misses completely that the girl had started translating part of the code. Again, not very likely.
And last but not least, when someone points an elaborate machine to shoot you, and then gets distracted, leaving you tied to a chair, you fall over out of the arrow's path. Sheesh, damsel in distress, have half a brain.

Look, I'm not saying Moftiss are bad writers - they are brilliant and I love their work. But saying their plot holes don't exist and people are just not being clever, is too arrogant. As a writer you should believe in your stories, but also take legitimate criticism to heart. Whether or not you believe this criticism is legitimate... we appear to disagree on that.

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 1:11 am

Cat of Ulthar wrote:
Yeah, that's the only conclusion I could finally come up with - he must have been overconfident. Still, it's not very logical for a master criminal of his status who thus far has not been caught or thwarted. Also, even if he is overconfident, did he specifically instruct his security staff not to search them, even though they come to his home, and he is likely to make them angry? The sloppiest of searches would have turned up a gun in a jacket pocket.
It's sloppy writing, and I think Moffat is letting his position as God of TV Series getting to his head.

And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing. Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him? If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing. Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world. He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 20, 2014 3:47 am)

Schmiezi · January 20, 2014 7:09 am

sj4iy wrote:
Cat of Ulthar wrote:
It's sloppy writing, and I think Moffat is letting his position as God of TV Series getting to his head.
And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing. Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him? If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing. Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world. He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.

I was just about to post basically the same.

Cat, please don't use personal insults. This is an interesting thread where we can exchange our opinions about the writing, but there should be no space for critisizing the production team on a personal level.

silverblaze · January 20, 2014 12:26 pm

Swanpride wrote:
One thing for sure, some reviewers have long stopped to be remotely professional with their articles. I stumbled today over this little "gem":

"As with Doctor Who, Moffat has become his show’s biggest problem—this episode is primarily concerned with being as cool and implacable as the Sherlock it’s created. (We’re saving man-child stuff for later, I assume.) Much ado about the Belstaff coat? Cumberbatch’s parents in a cameo as Sherlock’s parents? Tearful declarations of feeling at the climax of the action? Sufficient declarations of No Homo beforehand? Occasional, often dismissive nods to the canon? Moffat has it all; it’s going to be a meta season."

The episode this was about? The empty hearse. Because, yeah, that one was totally Moffat's responsibility.

I've seen similar things; people blaming things on Moffat while it was actually Gatiss who wrote them. People seem to have decided to hate him, for whatever reason, and then just shoehorn whatever reason they can find to reinforce that. Pretty disgusting and unprofessional.

He really doesn't deserve the hatred, regardless of what he writes is to your taste, he's an absolute craftsman in what he does. There's a reason why he's at the head of two very popular TV series. I don't understand those people, if the things he writes are something you don't like, stop watching the series and find something you do like.

Cat of Ulthar · January 20, 2014 3:41 pm

sj4iy wrote:
And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing. Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him? If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing. Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world. He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.

I'm not talking about his writing, I'm talking about this interview with him. I love all episodes of Sherlock, but his attitude in the interview is arrogant, which is him as a man, as a writer.

silverblaze · January 20, 2014 6:32 pm

Plus he writes a show that is aimed at children, and it's hugely succesful. Apparantly children have no problems understanding the plots. Not so strange that he thinks that adults who don't get the plots of his children's television program are a bit dense.

On a related note: I'm really surprised about what people don't get sometimes, not even mentioning the plots, some people cannot read emotion off actor's faces when it's not the most basal form of it, never mind subtext. They should really stick to soap series because this is just too difficult for them.

The Doctor · January 21, 2014 5:49 am

Schmiezi wrote:
sj4iy wrote:
Cat of Ulthar wrote:
It's sloppy writing, and I think Moffat is letting his position as God of TV Series getting to his head.
And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing. Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him? If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing. Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world. He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.
I was just about to post basically the same.

Cat, please don't use personal insults. This is an interesting thread where we can exchange our opinions about the writing, but there should be no space for critisizing the production team on a personal level.

In Cat's defense, this is a popluar commotion in recent times, e.g., the well-respected G. Valentine writes on http://www.avclub.com/review/the-empty-hearse-107058

Moffat has a very direct and sometimes antagonistic relationship with his shows’ fans, whose attention he seems to equally crave and hold in contempt.

One of the most off-putting threads in “The Empty Hearse” is its attempts to illustrate how Sherlock survived the Fall, for which Moffat assured viewers the answer was forthcoming. Spoilers: nope. Instead, we get a collection of fan scenarios that could have been lifted from Tumblr. Anderson’s involves a kiss with Molly; in another, Sherlock and giggly co-conspirator Moriarty lean in for a rooftop snog (doesn’t happen, of course), thanks to the imagination of a dreamy Sherlock fangirl. Sherlock later outlines a solution of his own, but the show winkingly determines that, too, is a lie.

As with Doctor Who, Moffat has become his show’s biggest problem—this episode is primarily concerned with being as cool and implacable as the Sherlock it’s created.

Schmiezi · January 21, 2014 7:45 am

The Doctor wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
sj4iy wrote:

And I hate this criticism, because people are making personal judgments about a man they have never met based on whether or not they like his writing. Surely there are ways to criticize his writing without criticizing him? If you don't like something in his writing, keep it to the writing. Don't attack the man, when all he has done is devote his life to writing and producing two of the most popular and beloved British programs in the world. He's not abusing the fanbase simply because you don't like an episode.
I was just about to post basically the same.

Cat, please don't use personal insults. This is an interesting thread where we can exchange our opinions about the writing, but there should be no space for critisizing the production team on a personal level.
In Cat's defense, this is a popluar commotion in recent times, e.g., the well-respected G. Valentine writes on http://www.avclub.com/review/the-empty-hearse-107058

Just because it is "popular" to insult people personally does not mean it is right to do so.

I don't mind at all if someone critisizes the writing or the plotting or whatever. But please let us continue to discuss on a more professional level and not start attacking creators or writers personally.

silverblaze · January 21, 2014 1:23 pm

The Doctor wrote:
Instead, we get a collection of fan scenarios that could have been lifted from Tumblr. Anderson’s involves a kiss with Molly; in another, Sherlock and giggly co-conspirator Moriarty lean in for a rooftop snog (doesn’t happen, of course), thanks to the imagination of a dreamy Sherlock fangirl. Sherlock later outlines a solution of his own, but the show winkingly determines that, too, is a lie.

So basically some people don't share Mark's sense of humour. That's fine, each to his own, but why hate Steven for it? And why be upset about it? They're just lightheartedly messing us around a bit, there's no real malice, it's just fiction. And they're pretty clear about what the true answer is, the wink is just that, a wink. Some people don't like the answer but this is what they made, maybe not entirely watertight, but it's just ficion.

And honestly, I don't really see why the Reichenbach solution is so important. There are plenty of other reasons to watch.

The Doctor · January 22, 2014 4:36 am

Swanpride wrote:
... and apparently no knowledge that this episode was written by Gatiss.

You realise all episodes are co-written by MGT as a team?

As usal in such small productions, specific writing credits are then given due to legal/custom/award criteria etc reasoning.

In other words, no, Gatiss has not written the episode by himself.

the_dancing_woman · January 22, 2014 7:08 am

Well as I understand it Moffat and Gatiss plot out the general storyline together. But both have said many times that they write separately, which makes sense. I don't know if you've tried, but actually writing something creative together with someone else is rather tedious and more of a hindrance than in any way productive to the writing process. So I think when the name Gatiss appears on the screen it's actually he who wrote the episode.
Anyway concerning the AVclub, if people don't like the show or the storyline, the easiest solution to their troubles would be to stop watching it and not waste precious lifetime by attacking the writers. I will never get this.

January 22, 2014 11:03 am

Let's assume he tells the truth.
What can we deduce from that?
They are clever. They made up a story. They serve clues. It's Sherlock Holmes. They won't mess with him and put him into a tardis or fly him to the moon. No. Silly. Don't listen to me.
As long as we walk with our theories and end into a blind alley the theory is wrong and needs adaptation.

The third series is just proof that the writers are on the one hand desperate and on the other amused. I don't think that they mock their fans. Well, not much.

Imagine Sherlock talking to John and telling him his story and the truth beforehand. Maybe John just doesn't get it.
John made himself a picture of Sherlock where Sherlock is a hero. Sherlock felt that he is put on a pedastal. If Sherlock tried to tell John he didn't listen or didn't understand. Sometimes it looks like a clown's costume and it is possibly horrible.

silverblaze · January 22, 2014 1:22 pm

@The Doctor The plotting is a collaborative process, the writing is done separately and then the drafts are passed back and forth between them and they edit, make suggestions, connect storylines and whatever. So all episodes will be influenced by M&G, how much ST is involved I don't know, but they all have one main writer who has done most of the work. Mark's episodes are easily recognisable as his structuring is very distinct from the others.

The point was never that MG wrote them alone, the point was that SM gets blamed for things people don't like, regardless of who wrote it or who is credited with it.

tonnaree · January 22, 2014 1:37 pm

I think Moffat's personality just rubs a lot of people the wrong way. He's abrasive and sarcastic and says just what he thinks. Personally I love the mad Scot. But I can see how people could get the wrong impression.

The Doctor · January 23, 2014 3:59 am

tonnaree wrote:
I think Moffat's personality just rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I like Moffat as a person as far as I can tell (never met him in person) but I do not always agree with his writing, as exemplified in the missing Fall explanation (because it got simply too big a task, fair enough) and the recent Doctor Who shows:

"The problem is that the multitude of possibilities offered through Doctor Who create their own set of issues. When events can be explained away by a giant reset button (season 5), a robot filled with tiny people (season 6), or a quick jump into someone else’s timestream (season 7), it allows writers to go off the rails without planning any real way to reign things back in. It is a problem often faced by fantasy and science-fiction stories, and is one that has undermined the success of Moffat’s era of Doctor Who."

sj4iy · January 23, 2014 4:38 am

The Doctor wrote:
tonnaree wrote:
I think Moffat's personality just rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
I like Moffat as a person as far as I can tell (never met him in person) but I do not always agree with his writing, as exemplified in the missing Fall explanation (because it got simply too big a task, fair enough) and the recent Doctor Who shows:

"The problem is that the multitude of possibilities offered through Doctor Who create their own set of issues. When events can be explained away by a giant reset button (season 5), a robot filled with tiny people (season 6), or a quick jump into someone else’s timestream (season 7), it allows writers to go off the rails without planning any real way to reign things back in. It is a problem often faced by fantasy and science-fiction stories, and is one that has undermined the success of Moffat’s era of Doctor Who."

...did you happen to catch anything that happened in the 43 years before Moffat on Doctor Who? Reset buttons and messing with time streams are part and parcel of Doctor Who and always have been. "Oh no, Moffat is using time travel in a show about time travel! The nerve!" The worst "reset button" episode on Doctor Who was "Last of the Time Lords", and despite it's absolute god-awfulness, RTD didn't get half as much flack for writing it as Moffat does for writing Series 5...which was superb and is generally thought of as the best Series since it returned in 2005.

Sorry for the off-topic.

The Doctor · January 23, 2014 8:38 am

sj4iy wrote:
...did you happen to catch anything that happened in the 43 years before Moffat on Doctor Who?

Yeah, I am pretty much in the loop.

Anyway, I wil not post about any Moffat writing -related isues for a while because previous attempts at conversation start to look more like stating flame wars, especially between us two. Peace Out, and see you around...

silverblaze · January 25, 2014 11:37 pm

LOL