If anything, I would compare "Downton Abbey" and "Parade's End" because they both deal with the same period of English history. I think the one or other thing has been written about this. My personal opinion is that DA is cleverly conceived but really in the style of a lavish soap opera. As for the story-telling, acting, and visual style I would always prefer "Parade's End". 

For a comparison with "Sherlock" I do not see a real basis because the only commonalities are that both shows are British and successful. This is not really much to go on. 

Kittyhawk wrote:

silverblaze wrote:

... Contrived plots, unbelievable characters, ...

Now, that's much more applicable to Sherlock than to Downton Abbey! Good grief, compared to Sherlock (as a portrait of "now"), Downton Abbey is practically a documentary on life in a manor house at the beginning of the 20th century (the writer grew up in similar circumstances). The characters most definitely are not idiots! They are perfectly believable, maybe a bit too perfect at times (okay, maybe all the time), but heck, why not (enough imperfect idiots in real life).

silverblaze wrote:

In the quality, quantity tradeoff, they made the exact opposite decision,

Wrong! Downton Abbey has wonderful actors, great decors, intelligent scripts, wonderful dialogue. The only thing it doesn't have, compared to Sherlock, is in-camera special effects (well, not noticeable ones, in any case). The filming is completely traditional. But that doesn't make it a low-quality show!

Really, you shouldn't judge series you haven't seen. I don't normally watch soaps (unless you count ER among them), I only picked up Downton Abbey at the library because of the fuss made about it. And I was very agreeably surprised and have watched all episodes with great pleasure. Really, the only "defect" is that the series is so perfect, there's no need to discuss anything ;)

Totally agree; Downton Abbey is an excellent show. Excellent. And I think the writing is stellar. The performances are fabulous. An amazing amount of research went into it. It's a serious show-- and it deals with serious issues, interespersed with lighter-hearted bits-- but the whole show is about a loss of a way of life, due to WWI. By the way, as an American-- I found the show profoundly enlightening; over here in the States, what we get during studies of WWI is very, very scant knowledge about the impact on England. (We tend to be a bit myopic and self-absorbed, so we seem to only be concerned with how WWI impacted the US.) 

As regards Sherlock-- well, it's apples and oranges, isn't it? Sherlock is not a serious show-- it's about flash, and flashier plot twists, and tech, and cinematography, and character: that's what the show's producers seem to focus on. It's like comparing a comic book, albeit a very well done comic book--- to Pride and Predjudice. 

I'd be more likely to compare Sherlock with something like "Arrow", or "Daredevil", "Dexter", or even "Hannibal." . All of which have fewer issues with continuity of character, plot holes, jumping the shark in ways that don't quite make sense...(don't hit me!), but, there it is. Those shows deal with the fantastic, the unbelievable-- and Sherlock seems to fit that-- superhero genre type writing. 

Still love Sherlock, will always watch it-- but I don't watch it for the same reasons I watch Downton Abbey; they aren't in the same category.  

Now, thinking about it-- here's other comparisons that might work:

Sherlock VS Luther
Sherlock VS Broadchurch
Sherlock VS Wire in the Blood-- ( which I think is the closest match)
Sherlock VS Starsky and Hutch
Sherlock VS (yeah it's a movie, but still buddy-cop) Lethal Weapon movies

Dunno-- can anyone think of any other shows for comparison? 

Hmmmm......

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (April 30, 2015 7:00 pm)

Davina wrote:

I couldn't possibly group Arrow and Daredevil with either Dexter or Hannibal. They are completely different animals (super hero stuff vs. the activities of two, very different psychopaths and those in their orbit) and, frankly, the writing of the latter two is far better than the first two. Two-dimensional character development vs. fully developed, multi-dimensional characters. I think there are some similarities in cinematography between Hannibal and Sherlock. Also there are some similarities between Dexter's and Sherlock's social interactions and exclusion (minus the cling film and duct tape).

On another note: I don't watch Downton as I have always felt it to be fairly derivative of preceding series set in the same time-frame. We do costume dramas well in the UK and that is, essentially what Downton is a costume drama mixed with aspects of a soap opera. Very well-written and very well-acted though it is, it is not Pride and Prejudice.

The genres are different but perhaps the nearest would be a standard police procedural and compared with the majority of these Sherlock is in a different league. I would also include Luther and Broadchurch along with the Scandinavian crime series such as The Killing and Wallander in the premier league.

Wallander is EXCELLENT!! 

I've been watching both Arrow and Daredevil--  Oliver Queen is a pretty complex dude for a comic book character. So is Matt Murdoch. To kind of flesh out what I said, i think the superhero genre ( and yes, that includes Hannibal and Dexter) is a better fit for Sherlock; that genre allows for fantasy logic. Like "surgical shots." Belts that stab people to death without the victim ever feeling it. 

You couldn't make that work in something like Wallander.