is there already a thread on this? its fun!
watson was in AFGHANISTAN
― max, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
as he was in the conan doyle stories
― Ward Fowler, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
though i guess watson was in AFGHANISTAN in the stories too eh
― max, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
"Cumberbatch's Sherlock uses modern technology, such as texting and internet blogging, to solve the crimes"
some talk on the bbc iplayer thred:
starring martin freeman and bernard cumberbatch
first episode has been and gone and was surprisingly... actually alright
― the tape store called... (cozen), Monday, 26 July 2010 08:20 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Holmes texting and using 'tinternet seemed really natural. Also LOL at "three patch problem". Running around central Loldon with a map overlaid on the screen = DUD though. Wish it were slightly less nu-Who like, but it's a Mark Gatiss thing so inevitable.
― ninjas and lasers and gold and (snoball), Monday, 26 July 2010 09:05 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Gatiss totally played the brother as Panto Mandelson.
― the phantom flâneur flinger (suzy), Monday, 26 July 2010 09:55 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Wish it were slightly less nu-Who like, but it's a Mark Gatiss thing so inevitable.
You don't blame this on Moffatt at all? I really liked it.
― ailsa, Monday, 26 July 2010 16:40 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
read that as new-wu and got confused and excited.
― a hoy hoy, Monday, 26 July 2010 17:42 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
xp I got confused. It's a freaky Moffatt/Gatiss joint all the way...
― ninjas and lasers and gold and (snoball), Monday, 26 July 2010 17:50 (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
This was good. Very good. Although Martin Freeman's basically playing Martin Freeman.
Intriguingly their 221b baker street set has a near identical layout to the one in the Granada/Jeremy Brett version.
― no, you're dead right, it's a macaroon (ledge), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:35 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Yeah, it's hard to imagine anyone looking at the pasty, pudgy Freeman and thinking 'hm, there's a military man, not long back from under the Afghan sun'. This was okay though. Cumberbatch great, Gatiss grates.
― Born too beguiled (DavidM), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:39 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Yeah Cumberbatch was terrific and this series has fantastic potential.
Didn't think a modern Sherlock would work but they somehow pulled it off, the GPS and laptops aspect didn't feel shoehorned in but where they nailed it was getting the atmosphere. The way it was filmed really helped give a claustrophobic and menacing Victorian feel to modern London, lots of dark back alleys and very little of the visual clutter you associate with this city. They should keep the series out of gleaming office buildings and keep it in the realm of dark streets and snug old pubs IMO.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 11:44 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Liked this a lot, and I'm a bit of a Holmes traditionalist. Only bit that felt a bit LOLmodern shoehorned was the continued references to them being in the gayXorz. Or is that an in-joke about 'Sherlock', the game for the Spectrum and C64?
― Hey Jabulani! Pope of four four two. (aldo), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 12:42 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
I thought martin freeman was really good; surprisingly so, in fact, but granted I've not seen in him in anything stand-out since the office
― cozen, Tuesday, 27 July 2010 12:45 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
The way it was filmed really helped give a claustrophobic and menacing Victorian feel to modern London
also the way my PS3 auto screen dimming kicked in after about 30 mins and i didn't notice for another 30 :/
― no, you're dead right, it's a macaroon (ledge), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 12:47 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Only just caught up with last week's, good stuff. I like the fact they included a puzzle without an explanation right at the end (Sherlock's comment re how to tell a good restaurant, with the answer presumably being lol Chinese people are short)
― if, Sunday, 1 August 2010 19:45 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
Am quite enjoying Sherlock, I have to say. Thought the last episode was a bit laborious, but among other things I like a lot - the configuring of London topography in a way that reminds me strongly of Machen, Stevenson (funny sort of London but still a version of it), and Conan Doyle (museums, small out-of-the-way shops, abandoned houses, dark side-streets); all the emphasis on hidden information - again a sort of reconfiguration of the London environment, whether it's mobile communication or graffiti; the way it patterns Victorian sensational fiction themes (such as the sax rohmer yellow peril stuff of the last one) on to the 21st century; + all the comic book stuff (a touch of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen about it, again perhaps not surprisingly) and, you know, a proper fight! behind the curtain of a stage! Great!
That last one was extremely indebted (presumably deliberately) to The Talons of Weng-Chiang, not at all a bad thing imo.
I don't watch a lot of tv so maybe there's a few programmes doing interesting stuff like this, but yeah, good stuff.
― Hide the prickforks (GamalielRatsey), Tuesday, 3 August 2010 12:34 (6 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
thought sherlock was p.dece on the whole
― cozen, Monday, 9 August 2010 08:54 (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
i never made the sherlock holmes / dr who connection before but so many things about holmes and watson are so VERY who, aren't they
i thought the first episode was tremendous - i love the text overlays on the screen
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 August 2010 11:11 (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
― ledge, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:49 (5 years ago) Permalink
lot of grousing on ~forums~ earlier about moriarty and his accent but I thought he was ace
― cozen, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
moriarty was p. great last night. Also really like the floating-text-message device. and the coat.xp otm
― stet, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
moriarty was great i thought! sad that it's already over tho? didnt realise there were only going to be 3 eps
― just sayin, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
has xmas special written all over it
― cozen, Monday, 9 August 2010 15:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
Haven't seen the third one yet but the first two were pretty good fun, I hope they spin a few more out of them.
― Matt DC, Monday, 9 August 2010 16:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
woah wait, what, that's it? ffs.
― stet, Monday, 9 August 2010 16:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
3 eps too many imho
― former moderator, please give generously (DG), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
well each one is the length of a movie. it's basically 3 dr whos, or 6 half hours of american television (approx 20 mins each)
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
er i mean 6 dr whos, and 13 half hours of american television
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
is this seeable w/o cable
― pies. (gbx), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
do u know about "the internet"
― max, Monday, 9 August 2010 16:36 (5 years ago) Permalink
― pies. (gbx), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
I saw the first episode & all those words floating around reminded me of "Ghost Writer."
― spanikopitcon (Abbott), Monday, 9 August 2010 16:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
benedict cumberbatch Vs. sheldon turnipseed
― conrad, Monday, 9 August 2010 17:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
Totally watchable. Was disappointed with Moriarty, the end of last night's episode was a little soppy. Still good though, Cumberbatch was great in the role.
― mmmm, Monday, 9 August 2010 17:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
I watched this last night, I was pleasantly surprised - "reboot" of an old favourite character is usually shorthand for dreadful garbage, but this was good. It was schlocky, but kind of felt like grownup schlock, not adolescent bollocks. Cumberbatch was great.
― Take my hand, we'll make it I swear (Pashmina), Monday, 9 August 2010 18:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
low expectations for this, found it to be surprisingly enjoyable, although there's plenty of stuff to nitpick about. ep 2 was the weakest, I think, trying to update the 19th century version of the "exotic orient" just came off a bit too silly. and ending the last ep on a cliffhanger, with no word on when the next one will be-- irritating. but everyone above on the greatness of Cumberbatch is otm.
― her breath came in short pants (sciolism), Monday, 9 August 2010 20:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
How come there's only three episodes? That seems crazy.
Benedict Cumberbatch is the name of some Hogwarts reject, I still refuse to believe that that is a real name.
― ô_o (Nicole), Monday, 9 August 2010 20:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
― conrad, Monday, 9 August 2010 21:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
That might be even worse! Although it is pretty close.
― ô_o (Nicole), Monday, 9 August 2010 21:02 (5 years ago) Permalink
Three 1 1/2 hour films is pretty good going - wouldn't have been surprised if they'd just got to make one single episode to start with, tbh (though I think they did an hour-long unscreened pilot which became the first episode). Presume Moffatt and Gatiss a bit busy with Doctor Who stuff as well.
Also, everyone saying Ben Cucumberpatch is awesome is incredibly OTM. I've seen him in other stuff and not been wowed, but he fits this really well.
― ailsa, Monday, 9 August 2010 21:06 (5 years ago) Permalink
Speaking of weird and colonial, three guesses why Cumberbatch is a relatively common name amongst African-Americans. Benedict Cumberbatch is really excellent.
Won't someone respond to my point that Mark Gatiss' Mycroft is like watching Peter Mandelson in panto?
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Monday, 9 August 2010 21:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
three guesses why Cumberbatch is a relatively common name amongst African-Americans
This reminds me of thinking that maybe ska pioneer Theophilus Beckford was related to mento singer Stanley Beckford or U-Roy aka Ewart Beckford, until it was pointed out that there was another reason why a lot of Jamaicans are called Beckford. Which was a slight bummer to my joyful contemplation of reggae history.
Think it's about time I watched this Sherlock, too.
― rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Monday, 9 August 2010 21:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
Didn't Gatiss say he'd based him on Mandelson?
― ailsa, Monday, 9 August 2010 21:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
I have no idea, but it is super-funny. I want to see him sitting on a big throne with a bound volume of fairy tales.
Benedict Cumberbatch has brought his family history up in interviews to basically say o_0. A few years ago I was at a book launch and was introduced to a frightfully posh young man whose surname was Womack. I hadn't realized this was an English name AT ALL until that point, and then the guy told me the singers' surname was no accident because theirs had been a slaving family.
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Monday, 9 August 2010 21:47 (5 years ago) Permalink
Just watched the third one, this kind of nonsense is 100% up my street. Not much that I didn't enjoy, there. A few months ago we re-watched all the Jonathan Creeks and this filled the void that left quite nicely. Although J-Creek wouldn't have had any woooo mysteeeerious stuff (left mysterious).
>>SPOILERS>>>>>>>>I totally called Moriarty as a bad guy the first time he appeared, then forgot. WHY would someone faking a painting make half of it something so weird and "obviously" fake? This really confused me. Was the mistake put in there deliberately by Moriarty? But how?>>>>
― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 05:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
Btw in the opening shot, my husband was convinced that Sherlock was actually Alan Rickman. He looks and sounds identical there!
― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 06:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
Only grouse so far (apart from the fact that ep.2 wasn't as good as the other 2) is I hope they don't just go for lots of murders. One of the things I enjoyed about the originals is the stories about non-lethal puzzles and oddities.
According to Zoe Ball (who, I'm sure, must know) Cumberbatch went up for Dr. Who and Matt Smith went up for Dr. Watson. Someone in casting seems to be doing the right thing anyway.
― i find music confusing and annoying (Ned Trifle II), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:09 (5 years ago) Permalink
They're already setting up Holmes marathons in the USAhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVaDQ26TVnBtf3h0iisgyybUFRTQ
― i find music confusing and annoying (Ned Trifle II), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
Matt Smith read for Watson and was judged too manic, but when BC was approached to try for Doctor Who, he didn't want to do it because of the merchandising nightmare. This information is available to anyone who reads a newspaper.
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
cumberbatch would have made an impeccable doctor imo
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
This was a lot of fun to watch, and I hope they make more... Cumberbatch borrows a couple of mannerisms from Brett (quick lift off the chair while sitting in it indian-style, and the quick flash of rictus type of smile) but takes a totally different, and appealing, tack with the character. I also loved the mindfuck where they show the overhead shot of him at his desk, looking like he's just shot up. As intended, it made me think "here we go again, lazy scriptwriters making Holmes use cocaine DURING a case, which he never ever does" and then it turns out to be nicotine patches! Hilarious. They got me.
― the girl from spirea x (f. hazel), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
I had no idea his mum is Wanda Ventham. Blimey.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
BC even turned up as a guest in a friend's wedding photos last week (she's from a luvvie family too). Truly this man gets everywhere.
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
Fast forward to 7:14 for nice comic moment and Michael Winner looking like an ass.
― State Attorney Foxhart Cubycheck (Billy Dods), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 09:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
He would have ruined the show for me thanks to his "You have to bite it!" scene in Atonement. In Sherlock it's not as bad because I can't see him raping Martin Freeman.
― ô_o (Nicole), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm sure ILX's slashfic aficionados know where to find exactly what you describe.
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
I had no idea his mum is Wanda Ventham. Blimey.
Blimey indeed, I just happnened to see her in The Saint before I left the house, what a babe!
Dr. Who is a bit like Sherlock Holmes in many way.
― tom d: he did what he had to do now he is dead (Tom D.), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
― unchill english bro (history mayne), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
Really ejoyed this. Even Martin Freeman was suprisingly decent, but Cumberbatch was amazing in the Sherlock role. Was talking to a friend about Cumberbatch in Doctor Who and we both came to the conclusion he would make a great Master to play off Matt Smith if Steven Moffat ever goes down that route.
― Mr.Prologue, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
would objectify― unchill english bro (history mayne), 35 minutes ago
― unchill english bro (history mayne), 35 minutes ago
^^^^^^^^Genuine laugh out loud at this popping up in blog view. Would seriously love if this caught on as a meme.
Kinda follow Penny Red's views on "oh lawd enough with the Holmes already" but, erm, I <3 Cumberbatch for his Momusian turn in To The Ends Of The Earth. I'm avoiding reading any of the slash (it's already turning up in my LJ stream) until I've seen the thing. Which at my rate of tellyviewing is, erm, never.
That is all.
― all your life is channel 13, Sesame Street, what does it mean? (Masonic Boom), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
I'm avoiding reading any of the slash (it's already turning up in my LJ stream)
always read this as LJ you-know-who
― "It's far from 'loi' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 11:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
Loving it so far - Cumberbatch great, Freeman really good as well (nicely balanced between easy-to-follow everyman & the more actorly damaged army doctor, which is a nice reading of Watson), there's wit & nous in the modernising, cute nods for the fans around the place (Mycroft losing weight, Rache, plenty more I'm missing), really likes London. Perfect Sunday viewing.
And seconded on the drug-haze misdirect - so glad that it didn't just blunder into the world of EDGY Holmes cliché.
― tetrahedron of space (woof), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 12:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
Another vote for 'would objectify'. LULZ
― duchy of Pornwall (suzy), Tuesday, 10 August 2010 14:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
"the fact that hiring Sherlock"
― Tuomas, Monday, 4 January 2016 12:38 (1 month ago) Permalink
straight dope gives the first recorded usage of 'shotgun wedding' as 1903 fyi (shotguns are pretty old!)
― carly rae jetson (thomp), Monday, 4 January 2016 12:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
this was really enjoyable, if you would have preferred a straight up victorian murder mystery alternative entertainments are available, for boring people
― carly rae jetson (thomp), Monday, 4 January 2016 12:49 (1 month ago) Permalink
i see a lot of complaining about the "mansplaining" on the most recent episode. which is fair enough, but i'm racking my brain and i can't actually recall sherlock holmes ever _not_ "mansplaining" anything.
― new zingland (rushomancy), Monday, 4 January 2016 13:02 (1 month ago) Permalink
^seems like a misuse of 'mansplaining'.
one could easily imagine transposing Holmes' character as a woman, doing precisely the same shtick, and it being both equally entertaining and equally (im)plausible.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 4 January 2016 18:21 (1 month ago) Permalink
The first 20 mins were terrific, and then all the "this isn't what it seems" hints, which could have been fun and mysterious, were so jackhammeringly obvious they spoiled the fun for the rest of the episode.
I think the mystery of why Lady Carmichael hires Sherlock is pretty clearly resolved without being too lampshade-y: she doesn't hire him *at all* because it's a dream, as Lestrade (I think) points out. Tuomas right to be confused by this, though:
I think the stupidest part was that the one bit of new evidence about Moriarty we got didn't even make sense in light of what happened earlier in the episode... At the end, Sherlock says that no one could survive blowing their brains out, and that his mind palace hallucination proved that to him. But in the actual hallucination we saw how someone could fake their suicide like that, so why did Sherlock claim the opposite?
Apart from that, does anyone find "fan favourite Moriarty" unutterably awful? God what an annoying performance.
― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 4 January 2016 19:43 (1 month ago) Permalink
They deliberately pushed the portrayal of Moriarty to an extreme and then pushed him over a cliff, where he should have stayed.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 4 January 2016 19:50 (1 month ago) Permalink
i see a lot of complaining about the "mansplaining" on the most recent episode. which is fair enough, but i'm racking my brain and i can't actually recall sherlock holmes ever _not_ "mansplaining" anything.
Not really, mansplaining is 'explaining' something that the listener already understands. The whole point of Sherlock Holmes is that he is supposed to explain shit that no one else gets.
There's a vague get-out-of-jail card about that scene all being in Sherlock's head - and in any case I think Dream-Sherlock was explaining feminism to Dream-Watson rather than the Suffragettes themselves - but the whole thing was so flimsy, clunky and stupid that I'm not inclined to play it. And that's before you get onto the issue of the world's greatest detective being unable to spot a woman in a false moustache.
― Matt DC, Monday, 4 January 2016 19:56 (1 month ago) Permalink
Mansplaining is when men explain things for women, instead of letting them have their own agency and explaining things themselves. In that sense Sherlock's final summation was a perfect example of it, because it was inexplicable why the women couldn't explain their scheme and motivation themselves, and this being inside Sherlock's dream is no excuse, because Watson still had plenty of agency there... Unless the point of that scene was to expose Sherlock's inner sexism, but it didn't really read that way.
Also, Aimless' "what if the genders were flipped" excuse doesn't really work, because mansplaining is about the difference in power positions of genders, so a woman can't mansplain, just like a white Westerner can't be a victim of racism.
― Tuomas, Monday, 4 January 2016 20:14 (1 month ago) Permalink
In my first iteration I also mentioned the point Matt made, that Holmes' ability to explain was unique to him, and therefore 'uniquesplaining', which part I removed, but I shouldn't have. It was the combination of the two (flipping gender and uniqueness of ability) that removed the 'man' from the 'splaining'. My error.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 4 January 2016 20:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
To think I assumed this worst of all things couldn't get worse
― The difficult earlier reichs (darraghmac), Monday, 4 January 2016 20:49 (1 month ago) Permalink
enjoying the men splaining mansplaining itt a lot more than I did that episode
― sktsh, Monday, 4 January 2016 20:54 (1 month ago) Permalink
all-purpose use of mansplaining as a rhetorical device is reminiscent of the many uses of rubber-glue in elementary school
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 4 January 2016 20:59 (1 month ago) Permalink
As a rough guide:
The random guy at the bike store who wanted to tell my partner how to use a bicycle pump properly = Mansplaining
Sherlock summing up whodunnit at the end of a TV show/short story = Not Mansplaining
Sherlock summing up whodunnit at the end of a TV show specifically about how men deny agency to women = Probably Mansplaining
― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 4 January 2016 22:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
wasn't even revealed until well after we found out it was all dream, so it wasn't even a clue
this is what I said
just an example of the writers trying to cover up their own ineptitude with a meta wink.
since they have the ability to go back pages in Final Draft, I would assume that they didn't accidentally realise that it made no sense for Lady Carmichael to hire Sherlock on page 80 and have to go with it. therefore it seems more reasonable to read it as, especially as it becomes apparent after the meta nature of the 1880s story is entirely revealed, a further commentary on Sherlock's narcissism and selective observation, which at this point has become a major theme of the episode.
again, I'm not arguing that it is a great or clever or satisfying element. but in context it does appear to be deliberate.
(same goes for Sherlock's line about shooting the back of one's head off: it could be that he is speaking specifically and only about Moriarty's suicide, by intentional contrast to the Abominable Bride scenario - as the Moriarty one took place directly in front of his eyes, not on a mid-distant balcony, with a lace curtain behind him that an accomplice could spray fake blood through. It could be a set-up for a revelation in S4 that Moriarty did somehow fake his own death after all, by showing that it can be done. Or it could just be one of many, many examples across the five years of this series of Sherlock saying things that are wrong - again, possibly as a herald of a twist in 2017, or as in other instances in this episode of imaginary-Sherlock making incorrect observations, or of drugged-up real-world Sherlock being incoherent in his chemical cocktail haze. The audience has a year or two to enjoy the tension caused by this ambiguity, if they want to.)
― glandular lansbury (sic), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 02:20 (1 month ago) Permalink
it's interesting that in august of 2010, martin freeman was "tim from the office". from that to arthur dent to watson to the greatest little hobbit of them all.
― remove butt (abanana), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 03:00 (1 month ago) Permalink
― remove butt (abanana), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 03:01 (1 month ago) Permalink
This is pretty much accurate. I didn't mean to say that every Sherlock summation is mansplaining, since besides Irene Adler there haven't even been female master criminals in the series, but with this particular case and these particular culprits it veers towards it. Note that mansplaining isn't some special way of talking, nor are the men doing it usually even aware that they're doing it... So Sherlock could be doing the same style of summation he did when talking about Moriarty's crimes, but because the power dynamic is different, because he denies agency from someone not socially equal to him while talking for her, it's mansplaining.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 10:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
mansplaining is totally a special way of talking
that is why you can make the #actually joke
― j., Tuesday, 5 January 2016 10:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
What I meant by that was that you can't say a "Sherlock summation" can't be mansplaining, because he's done similar speeches in non-mansplaining situations. It's not about the particular way he talks, it's about who's present, who's he talking for, and who remains silent.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 10:49 (1 month ago) Permalink
My mum hated this... according to my sister... I didn't see it.
― Anyway, it's not a three, it's a yogh. (Tom D.), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 10:55 (1 month ago) Permalink
this was awful. last year's was awful too... there's a real problem with them doing one big meta story each year when most people watching are mega hungover each time, can't remember what happened the year before, and (at least in my house) aren't willing to put up with the nonsense they're shovelling as narrative. when was the last episode they did that was just an investigation without all the awful stuff about what it MEANS and who Sherlock REALLY IS
because nobody cares about that stuff.
― jamiesummerz, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:05 (1 month ago) Permalink
best thing about it was the hidden skull print that he had on the wall, similar to this one:
― koogs, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:06 (1 month ago) Permalink
This was wanky and annoying. It feels to me as if they (they being Moffat and production team) have bitten too hard into the belief that Sherlock is big and clever and important TV, hence doing one big meta story, which never works. Because you end up enjoying Silent Witness way more.
― Hey Bob (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 11:50 (1 month ago) Permalink
Went to find a copy from the usual sources, read thread, skipped.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:00 (1 month ago) Permalink
Reminds me of when I watched Moonlighting as a kid - in later seasons you would also cross your fingers that it'd be a "case" epsisode, and not a "relationship" episode... but it was always a bloody relationship episode with a dream sequence,
― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:08 (1 month ago) Permalink
I think a series can afford to do a big meta story when it's been running for years and the iconography and character are so familiar it's fun to see them being deconstructed. IMO the first part of this episode was kinda enjoyable like that, because the meta wasn't about this particular series but about Sherlock Holmes fiction in general, so they had plenty of history and familiar material to play with. But as soon as it jumped to the present day and it became apparent this was just another character study of this particular Sherlock Holmes (not Sherlock Holmes in general), it became boring, because Sherlock hasn't been on long enough and hasn't established its own iconography deep enough to earn the right to get meta about itself.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:13 (1 month ago) Permalink
Last few posts otm. I read the summary for last year's (which I did see at the time) and it just sounds like complete garbage.
― ledge, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:17 (1 month ago) Permalink
xps As anyone who's read my posts in the past year or several will know, I am all in favour of seeing mansplaining and microaggressions everywhere, and I do like Chuck's breakdown in this particular case
however the entire genre of detective stories does rather revolve around that final detectivesplain, where the hero lists all the events in painstaking detail while the suspect/master criminal listens meekly to their own motives and actions. not quite sure abt saying that if the suspect is a woman this improbable-in-reality narrative device itself becomes problematic
though I am thinking, do female-protagonist whodunnits have less grand-splainy-narration in their denouements? I do not remember e.g. Miss Marple giving a Sherlockesque monologue, more flashbacks and nudging the suspect into a detailed confession instead. could definitely buy a "genius man holds forth" / "socially adept woman says little - nobody likes a woman who monologues* - but prompts the (often male) murderer to tell all" dichotomy, but maybe that's all in my had.
* oh um hi
the Moriarty schtick is p. unbearable at this point, yes. I mean I suppose that's the point, but less of it anyway please
― a passing spacecadet, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
Though of course deconstructions of classic Sherlock are hardly new ("The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" and "Without a Clue" are funnier examples of that), and the first Guy Ritchie movie did the "Victorian Sherlock but with a modern sensibility" better than this episode, so it's not like the 19th century parts of the story were super classic either.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:23 (1 month ago) Permalink
The problem is that in most cases the master criminal is morally reprehensible, and the detectivesplaining is the first part of his punishment; he thought he was being so clever, and now he has to sit and quietly listen how the detective outsmarted him. But in this case the Suffragettes were supposed to be right in their cause (as acknowledged by both Mycroft and Sherlock), and they were presented as sympathetic characters, so there was no reason whey they couldn't explain it all themselves.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:27 (1 month ago) Permalink
I think you might have a point with your Holmes/Marple dichotomy too. Though sadly I haven't seen/read enough classic whodunnits with a female lead to know whether this is a more general phenonemon in them?
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:31 (1 month ago) Permalink
not quite sure abt saying that if the suspect is a woman this improbable-in-reality narrative device itself becomes problematic
Yeah I'm not sure about this notional female master criminal voluntarily standing there admitting their own crime and exactly how they did it just to show "agency", (as if becoming a master criminal doesn't require agency in the first place, up until the point at which they are arrested/defeated at least).
None of this is particularly relevant in this case because this episode was apparently written for the benefit of a child with no idea who the Suffragettes were, rather than an audience of 21st century viewers who aren't idiots. In fact I'm not really sure why there were Suffragettes in this in the first place, except to go "look, Suffragettes! Weren't they great?"
It's almost as if Moffatt was stung by criticism of his treatment of female characters and decided to ostentatiously swing the other way, and getting it equally wrong in the process. In fact it's amazing how one episode could manage to be simultaneously so condescending and so incomprehensible. Moffatt didn't bother to shake himself out of Dr Who mode, essentially.
― Matt DC, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:33 (1 month ago) Permalink
if a man explains something in the forest and no one hears does he make a splain/what is the sound of one man splaining
― soref, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
I remember the old Joan Hickson Marples always had a detectivesplain sequence at the end; and certainly there was always an extensive Jessicasplain at the end of every Murder She Wrote.
I really like the idea above that the reveal scene is the "first part of the villain's punishment". The other function (on TV anyway) is to give your lead actor a bit of monologue scenery to chew, so they don't feel like they're being upstaged by their own story. (Hickson was particularly good at using those scenes to reveal the real self behind her doddery oldperson act).
― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 13:00 (1 month ago) Permalink
One of the best things about Elementary is that the explanatory monologues at the end of the cases are usually tag-team routines between Holmes and Watson, each of them filling in parts of the puzzle.
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 14:17 (1 month ago) Permalink
My favorite part of this episode was the retro Sherlock Vision with newspaper clipping on strings.
For an episode entirely in Sherlock's head, it didn't seem to reveal many of his internal workings. Why was Watson the main character in the first half? What conclusion does he draw from the grave scene -- his theory involved Ricoletti being dead, the grave dream proved it wrong, so why does he wake up and say Moriarty is dead?
― remove butt (abanana), Tuesday, 5 January 2016 20:30 (1 month ago) Permalink
yes and in january of 2016 he is still "tim from the office" and so it shall be forevermore
― kinder, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 21:34 (1 month ago) Permalink
this was awful. last year's was awful too... there's a real problem with them doing one big meta story each year when most people watching are mega hungover each time, can't remember what happened the year before
You're so not paying attention that you don't remember that this has previously been three separate episodes each series, that the first was broadcast in July 2010, and the last was two years ago.
What conclusion does he draw from the grave scene -- his theory involved Ricoletti being dead, the grave dream proved it wrong
― glandular lansbury (sic), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 02:03 (1 month ago) Permalink
His theory was that Ricoletti used a double and the double was buried in the same grave.There was only one body in the grave, and the whole scene turned out to be part of his dream. Therefore he should think that his theory is unproven.
i'll also point out that the method of her fake death was the same as how sherlock survived jumping off the building that was revealed in the last season.
― remove butt (abanana), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 05:03 (1 month ago) Permalink
there was no actual reason to think the double was in the grave - that's the point, that he got wildly obsessed with this latest incorrect side-detail he'd pulled out of his arse, dragging Lestrade and Mycroft down into his pit of narcissistic bullshit and pushing Watson & Mary, who care about him in a closer fashion, away.
His subconscious is telling him this behaviour is damaging and inappropriate, the way the Sherlocksplaining scene is his subconscious telling him that he is horrible to women.
Ricoletti was dead, and had to be for the entire premise of the mystery to exist, based on the autopsy.
― glandular lansbury (sic), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 14:39 (1 month ago) Permalink
I've been reading some Holmes stories to my daughter and his explanations are part of the formula. They're not about punishing the villain (who often isn't present for the explanation) and there's no reason for them to become problematic when women are involved. It's just what he does. It's a bit odd to discuss modern ideas of agency when a character is doing exactly what he was created to do in the 1800s, especially in a case which is taking place in his head.
I thought the silly suffragette vigilante reveal was clearly signposted as a symptom of Holmes's guilt about how he treats women (doesn't Mrs Hudson protest that she's more than a plot device?). But clumsily done yes.
― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 15:09 (1 month ago) Permalink
More nitpicking, wasn't the '"it's never a twin" ho-ho how we laughed' moment at the start entirely out of character? Holmes would never indulge in such evidence-free generalisation.
― ledge, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 16:08 (1 month ago) Permalink
Well, I'd rebut that a little, if only because there's tons of meta/deconstruction stuff in the short stories as well (not so much the novels). Take "The Blue Carbuncle", where the crime is pretty piffling, and Holmes lets the culprit go, or "The Yellow Face", where Holmes gets everything wrong. Even "A Scandal in Bohemia", the very first short story, deliberately goes against the formula with the Irene Adler plot.
What you end up with is this ironic situation where the best episodes of A Very Modern Update of Sherlock are the ones that play it straight, while (some of) Doyle's best stories are the weird self-referential ones.
What's lame about the most recent episode isn't Sherlock's mansplaining (who cares, really) but that the (really interesting!) suffragette stuff gets shoved under a bus for all that tedious Holmes/Moriarty legend building.
― Chuck_Tatum, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 16:18 (1 month ago) Permalink
I've only read The Red-Headed League, Silver Blaze and The Speckled Band to my daughter so far so my memory of those self-referential stories is foggy. My point wasn't that Conan Doyle was relentlessly formulaic, only that the word mansplaining is meaningless in the context of Holmes. The whole idea is that nobody sees what he sees and he loves showing off about it so he's never going to let the culprits explain their own plan, whoever they may be.
― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 18:32 (1 month ago) Permalink
Er, I don't think anyone was saying anything about the original Conan Doyle stories, rather than this particular modern TV episode, which wasn't based on (except for some small details) any of the original stories. Also, it's not like the writers of any modern Sherlock adaptation are completely ignorant of the social context where it's made. You can't just deflect criticism by saying, "but it was in the Conan Doyle stories too". The original stories also have (obviously, given when the period they were written) loads of casual sexism, such as in "A Case of Identity", where Holmes lets the bad guy get away with his fraud, because he thinks it's better than letting the woman he screwed over know the truth and get upset.
Also, like I said, "mansplaining" isn't some particular type of speaking that you can identify regardless of context. Even if "Sherlock summation" is a formula inspired by the Conan Doyle stories, it can also be mansplaining when it denies women the authority to speak for themselves. And "loves showing off" is also often a part of mansplaining, when men feel like they have to show they're smarter than women, even when the women (as was the case in this episode) are clearly more knowledgable on the subject at hand.
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 6 January 2016 19:05 (1 month ago) Permalink
I'm not saying they should recreate Victorian values. I'd be worried if the TV version kept casting aspersions on gypsies. I just think that calling the most fundamental part of Holmes's character mansplaining in this one situation is stupid. He talks that way to everybody. He's not meant to be an empathetic modern dude.
― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 19:26 (1 month ago) Permalink
but, since it was all a dream, those women were not real women, but only dream images, so that no women were 'splained to in the making of that scene. it was just Our Hero having the Holmesian equivalent of a wet dream.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 19:28 (1 month ago) Permalink
While having flashes of guilt about how he treats women. It's sort of doing the opposite of what Tuomas says.
― impossible raver (Re-Make/Re-Model), Wednesday, 6 January 2016 19:38 (1 month ago) Permalink