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
Thought this was going to be a disaster and was blown away - the bar is set so high in the first ep that the second seems really weak by comparison, tho. LOVED the Mycroft scene in the first ep, fooled me completely.
In the original Study in Scarlet 'Rache' actually IS the German word for revenge! So to have Sherlock lecture Lestrade on how pedestrian that guess is is hilarious.
Nice fan site, tons of interviews etc http://www.sherlocking.org/
― Brakhage, Tuesday, 10 August 2010 15:32 (5 years ago) Permalink
This information is available to anyone who reads a newspaper
If only I could find one I liked.
― there are so few places i can wear my jester costume (Ned Trifle II), Wednesday, 11 August 2010 01:22 (5 years ago) Permalink
I got confused and thought Moriarty was the Rupert Graves-replacing copper from the second episode. And was like, "Why is he talking about his underwear?". Anyway.
Thought this was very entertaining indeed, although mugging Jim Carrey Moriarty was almost a last-minute shark jumping moment. Did they resolve how the four cases were connected, or was it just Moriarty fucking around?
― Chuck_Tatum, Friday, 13 August 2010 09:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
What a bloody awful thread title.
I didn't mind Moriarty really. The way his character was built up and up and kept mysterious that his eventual reveal was always going to be a bit of a slight let down.
Though you know you're getting old when Holmes and Moriarty start looking young.
― Born too beguiled (DavidM), Friday, 13 August 2010 09:30 (5 years ago) Permalink
i never made the sherlock holmes / dr who connection before
― Born too beguiled (DavidM), Friday, 13 August 2010 09:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
I liked his mutable, squirming accent, good take on it I thought.
― Hide the prickforks (GamalielRatsey), Friday, 13 August 2010 09:34 (5 years ago) Permalink
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Friday, 13 August 2010 09:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
Moriarty reminded me of some weird cross between Paul McCartney and Sam Rockwell.
― ô_o (Nicole), Friday, 13 August 2010 12:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
couldn't make heads or tails of his accent for a while, until it seemed like it settled down on 'irish' of some kind?
― pies. (gbx), Friday, 13 August 2010 13:52 (5 years ago) Permalink
The actor's from Dublin, so, yeah, 'Irish'.
Moriarty reminded me of some weird cross between Paul McCartney
Ha, he played McCartney in the recent awful Lennon Naked, with former Dr Who Chris Eccleston. It's all connected...
― Born too beguiled (DavidM), Friday, 13 August 2010 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
― ô_o (Nicole), Friday, 13 August 2010 14:03 (5 years ago) Permalink
LOL, he was quite convincing as Macca in that
― tom d: he did what he had to do now he is dead (Tom D.), Friday, 13 August 2010 14:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
START YOUR OWN THREAD 'DAVIDM'
― max, Saturday, 14 August 2010 17:28 (5 years ago) Permalink
This information is available to anyone who reads a newspaper.
I read one, it didn’t have anything about Sherlock in it.
Wished they hadn’t done a Moriarty reveal so early, but liked him having already popped up and pranked Holmes, and v much liked the shifting accent making him harder for Holmes to deduce anything from.
― bitchmaid (sic), Tuesday, 12 October 2010 23:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
PBS is airing this on the 24th on "Mystery!".
― Jaw dropping, thong dropping monster (kingfish), Friday, 15 October 2010 20:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
This is the first thing on PBS "Masterpiece" that I've enjoyed in ages.
― macaroni rascal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 3 November 2010 22:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
PBS cuts out like 5-10 minutes from each one though, which is pretty lame.
― Loup-Garou G (The Yellow Kid), Thursday, 4 November 2010 03:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
i enjoyed this a lot more than i thought i would, considering the granada/jeremy brett series is probably my favorite tv show ever.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 4 November 2010 04:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
I feel like these could suffer to lose five minutes! maybe less so the first episode. It'd depend if it was general tightening-up or if it was just whole scenes gone, though.
― thomp, Thursday, 4 November 2010 10:56 (5 years ago) Permalink
Now that this has been on PBS, my mom told me that she has a crush on Benedict Cumberbatch. File that under information I really did not need to know.
― romoing my damn eyes (Nicole), Thursday, 4 November 2010 11:05 (5 years ago) Permalink
watched the first two episodes of this over the weekend. it's pretty fun (and looks cool, lots of interesting camera angles - is this common for bbc series?) but i was groaning when the first episode went into princess bride "battle of wits" territory.
― bows don't kill people, arrows do (Jordan), Monday, 29 November 2010 16:32 (5 years 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months ago) Permalink
Went to find a copy from the usual sources, read thread, skipped.
― Elvis Telecom, Tuesday, 5 January 2016 12:00 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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.
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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months 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 (4 months ago) Permalink