Offline
It's an old review, but geez doesn't he give it to him!?
Once again, I do find myself agreeing with the Moriarty criticisms.
Offline
I really can't say much about this as I still have to watch Doctor Who but I can definitely say that I don't feel outside the demographic (although I'm roughly as old as the guy who wrote this). Had a look at the comments, most of them were critical.
Offline
I don't feel outside the demographic either! Moriarty does appear quite a lot but he is actually dead now (because that's what people do!) so he won't be appearing anymore. As for the criticism of Irene Adler, where does she pop up all over the place? She is only in one episode! Has he been watching it again on DVD and getting confused or something? The criticism of Moff for the story of Sherlock supposedly dying is erroneous because that is in the canon so he could hardly change that could he. Perhaps the use of a similar idea in Doctor Who is founded though. Matt Smith...well they could hardly go with a clone of 'Mr. Sex' David Tennant could they?
Andrew Scott...so small, attractive, (Irish) men cannot be psychopathic villains. Hmmm an interesting idea.
There is actually going to be a Series 3 so I suppose I could hazard a wild guess that there may, just possibly be some more villains and adversaries appearing then (can you detect some sarcasm here? I do hope so).
Offline
I think it's the amount of screen time she gets a compared to her 'being in the action' in the canon. She doesn't 'appear' that much in the story.
Offline
Wow. Blinkin 'eck.
Offline
Interesting review... someone clearly hates the Moff
I do find myself slightly agreeing with the Matt Smith issues, but I have met so many people who prefer him over David Tennant, that it's obviously just a matter of personal taste in men.
Back to Sherlock...
Moriarty appears a lot, yes. But a three-episode BBC 1 series is a different medium than a classic Victorian detective novel or short story. If Moffat and Gatiss had taken 6 original Sherlock Holmes novels and filmed every single scene, in the same pacing, wording etc., they would have produced an awful TV series.
It might not suit everybody, but on TV you need a strong sense of continuity, a clearly defined villain, otherwise you get stuck in what is known as BOTW ("baddie of the week"), a style of storytelling that is harshly critizised by fans of all genres (rightly so IMO).
The same is true for Irene... she does appear a lot, but that is because we as viewers need to get a chance to see what she is about, to understand her. In written stories, the author can give a short description of a character that includes everything we need to know, but on screen you cannot do that (or at least, it would seem a little out of place in a show like this one). You have to define characters by showing them in action.
Regarding Andrew Scott not being a proper villain, I really cannot comment, no idea were that comes from.
Offline
Grr, nobody criticizes my Sherlock ò-ó
I see how people might criticize the use of Moriarty and Irene Adler, but really? Not everything had to be according to the canon and the main goal is to create fantastic TV, isn't it? Moffat achieved this by including those characters...
I find myself slightly agreeing with him on Doctor who, though. "When the other bloke was in charge, Moffat wrote all the best episodes." Well, that's kinda true.
And it's also true that I feel like there's something missing since Moffat took over... the next season might change this impressions. I'm positive.
Offline
Yeah same. I actually agree that Doctor Who has taken a bit of a dive since Moffat took over from RTD (in fact that's why I refused to watch Sherlock for over a year) but I love what he's done with Sherlock. I just think, based off Sherlock and Doctor Who, that he works better under direction from someone else (and for Sherlock, that's ACD)