silverblaze wrote:

Suspension of disbelief is not really something you can steer, at some point you might just go 'nah, no way'.

Oh, definitely. I prefer cop or medical-based TV dramas, and I can hand wave a lot, but if it gets too stoopid, at times I have made the decision to just quit the show. You know, if it gets bad enough, it's just not fun for me to watch.

For some reason I always keep in mind that a piece of fiction has a writer, and I think about what he or she must mean or tries to tell us with it. It's never actually as 'real' for me as it must be for some others on the forum, just judging by people's responses.

I do love a story I can get lost in, though. If an author/screenwriter can draw me into the 'verse he's created, I find that the most delightful way to read/observe. If I suddenly find myself *aware* of the writing (or the acting, or the direction, or the lighting or the set itself, whatever), because something about the story has pushed me out into the cold, that's when I stop enjoying myself. I do like to be captivated. There are aspects of Sherlock that captivate me, but for me, it's not always because of the story/writing-- it's more because I find the acting/actors/characters intriguing.Yes, including Mary.

Sherlock is the only show I analyse to death. So things that I normally don't notice get magnified. Also, I was projecting, like, a lot. I most probably suffer from a mood disorder and doing what John did to Sherlock would have been the worst reaction ever to me. So I had more of a reaction that I otherwise would have had, as I said, it depends on the individual.

When the characters become real to us, it's hard to be objective. When I like characters, I find that I actually can feel their pain, as thought they were real; this, to me, is good writing, good acting, good everything, when that happens. I've been called the Angst Queen for a reason-- I do luv me some angst, lol! And I'm not adverse to being moved to a few tears or laughter or anger either.

I believed Mary. I liked her from the get-go, right from the bit at the restaurant table oh, no! but you're dead!, confessing she never had liked John's face hair, lol, then later outside with Sherlock you don't know much about human nature, do you to when she told John I like him in the cab. I liked Mary,but then the writers pulled at me and caused me not to like her (no one gets to hurt Sherlock, and by doing that, hurt John!) But then by the end of HLV, I liked her again (probably the pregnancy makes me feel for her). 

And now because ACD killed her off in original canon, we're all wondering how she will die in this show. But y'see, in this show, the real Mary M. is already dead....  heh.  Very clever, those writers.

ancientsgate wrote:

 I do love a story I can get lost in, though. If an author/screenwriter can draw me into the 'verse he's created, I find that the most delightful way to read/observe. If I suddenly find myself *aware* of the writing (or the acting, or the direction, or the lighting or the set itself, whatever), because something about the story has pushed me out into the cold, that's when I stop enjoying myself. I do like to be captivated. There are aspects of Sherlock that captivate me, but for me, it's not always because of the story/writing-- it's more because I find the acting/actors/characters intriguing.Yes, including Mary.

I do too, but at the same time I always think about the creator and how he or she must have meant it. For example, I love Magnussen, all his scenes were so horrible. So at the same time, I'm in the story and I hate him, while I also think of the writers and the actor and think 'wow, that's a really cool villain'. When I think about the writing in Sherlock, it's because it's so good, not because it's so bad so it doesn't spoil it for me.
I find it quite disturbing when people 'forget' the difference between reality and fiction, for example those crazy people who sent Amanda hate mail because of something her character does. More benign versions can be found here too, especially related to Mary, though I expect the people who post that are quite young. I can't think of another explanation. Or don't want to think. 

ancientsgate wrote:

 When the characters become real to us, it's hard to be objective. When I like characters, I find that I actually can feel their pain, as thought they were real; this, to me, is good writing, good acting, good everything, when that happens. I've been called the Angst Queen for a reason-- I do luv me some angst, lol! And I'm not adverse to being moved to a few tears or laughter or anger either.

And yet you were not moved by the tarmac scene!  How's that possible, the most emotional scene in the series. (Only joking, only joking.) 

 

I said the other day that I don't think they'll kill Mary off because AA is part of the Sherlock family.
I think maybe this offended some people because it hinted at unprofessionalism on the part of Moftiss.
I really am not the kind of person to try to cause offence, honest! But I do believe there's a friendship particularly between Mark, Amanda and Martin, and your post, ancientgate, about the casting
of Amanda has given me a better idea how to explain what I mean:
If Mary wasn't going to remain in the show, then I think another actress may have been cast.
But I think, maybe, the intention was always for her to be a long running member of the cast, and so the role was given to Amanda.
Again, I don't mean to annoy by saying this, but the fact is, Amanda has spoken about having no work for ages, and about Martin always asking if there was a part for her when he was offered work in anything, and then Mark Gatiss being at their home for dinner one night and saying they wanted to write Mary into the show and wanted her to play the part.
She plays the part really well, and getting jobs because of who you know isn't exclusive to the acting profession.
I just don't like the way the character panned out.
But I do think she will stay around for a while, one way or another.
I'm not sure how they'll square Watson being a Dad though - maybe by saying that just because ACD didn't mention his children, it didn't mean he never had any?!

Last edited by Tinks (May 15, 2014 3:43 pm)

I think there may well be a split, between those who are largely unaware of canon or are simply not that invested in it, and are happy to see a badass female character on the show (and I have to say that I've come to find this type of character a bit boring and cliched), and those who don't enjoy too much deviation from ACDs work and who love the dynamic of these two guys and their slightly eccentric ways and devoted friendship.
I've got to admit, I'm in the latter camp!

Last edited by Tinks (May 15, 2014 3:49 pm)

SusiGo wrote:

I wonder what the reaction of the fandom will be if they keep her in the show for long. Of course I only know part of the reactions to series 3 but I get the distinct impression that many people do not wish to see a "leading triangle". Many of them want to go back to Sherlock and John at 221B (no matter if as friends/lovers/whatever). Everything else would be a massive deviation from Canon, even more massive than making her an assassin and killing the hero in the first place.  

A divorce would partially write Mary out of the show.  She could be living somewhere with Baby, while John goes back to 221b.

I still want to live long enough to see Sherlock dealing with a little kid underfoot-- not with them at crime scenes, I don't mean that, but maybe tripping over the kid in the LR at 221b, the kid wanting to sit in his lap and Sherlock not knowing what to do with such a creature, etc.

Now don't roll your eyes! If Mrs. H can bring them breakfast, or bring up a tray of tea and biscuits for John and his date, or putter around in the guys' kitchen doing dishes, that's as silly and domestic as John having vistiation with his kid and bringing him home for a few hours for Sherlock to gawp at. Or maybe I've read too much fan fic, lololol.

But anyway, there are ways to get Mary moved around so that John can come back to 221b. Even if they kill her off, I won't believe it-- after all, they killed off Sherlock for a while, too.
 

Why are you all so keen on having John back with Sherlock? I really, genuily, do not understand that. I actually really love that the dynamics are changing, keeping to the same situation would only be boring.  

Tinks wrote:

It was never boring in the books when they spent the majority of time solving cases together, though!
I actually think it's becoming more boring that writers on TV shows don't seem able to properly develop characters without introducing new people and making different pairings with them,
In my opinion, it saves them from having to come up with new and interesting challenges for the original team to face together; it's much easier to focus on conflict or changing dynamics within a relationship than it is to create interesting scenarios without doing this, and (again, just my opinion) it's something that's done too often - shaking up a relationship to make it more "interesting"
As I say, Conan Doyle managed to keep the stories fresh without resorting to assassin wives, babies, etc!

 
I second this, Tinks! They were after all the main characters and I can't say in the slightest that the books bore me, neither did the BBC just after two seasons.

silverblaze wrote:

Why are you all so keen on having John back with Sherlock? I really, genuily, do not understand that. I actually really love that the dynamics are changing, keeping to the same situation would only be boring.  

Because the show is *about* them, just as the original stories were. They were supposedly stories about a special detective and his cases, but always, everywhere, there was John. And I think that's the way it should be, johnlock or no johnlock-- there should always be a Sherlock and John, together as much as possible, in each other's pockets, even if they're squabbling inside those pockets, lol.
 

Tinks wrote:

It was never boring in the books when they spent the majority of time solving cases together, though!
I actually think it's becoming more boring that writers on TV shows don't seem able to properly develop characters without introducing new people and making different pairings with them,
In my opinion, it saves them from having to come up with new and interesting challenges for the original team to face together; it's much easier to focus on conflict or changing dynamics within a relationship than it is to create interesting scenarios without doing this, and (again, just my opinion) it's something that's done too often - shaking up a relationship to make it more "interesting"
As I say, Conan Doyle managed to keep the stories fresh without resorting to assassin wives, babies, etc!

Word.

It's all about the writing, folks. Yes, the actors are lovely and accomplished, but unless the writers can find interesting, challenging things for them to say and do, then....  well, what does that leave us? Stuck in a soap opera, I suppose, and who wants to go there?  Not me.

But that's neither here nor there, for the purposes of this thread. We *do* have Mary, and now those aforementioned writers will have to do something with her. And the baby. And John. And Sherlock. All of them.


 

besleybean wrote:

I agree with you, though I do get sick of the squabbling!

Usually there's no heat in it, no viciousness, so I don't mind it. It's often played for humor. And it adds to the johnlock-ness, since so often, they sound like an old married couple.

And now TPTB have inserted Mary into the middle of that. Huh. Well, good luck, that's all I have to say. Sherlock and John are bound with invisible but unmistakable ties, and now TPTB have to figure out "the problem that is Mary."  I see them as having painted themselves into a corner, but I trust they have planned a way out of that corner already.