Jump to content

Sherlock UK


  • Please log in to reply

9668 replies to this topic

#16247183

Cindy McLennan

Cindy McLennan

    Network Executive

Posted Jan 19, 2014 @ 7:21 PM

Sherlock fans who are watching on the U.S. schedule, season 3 premieres tonight. We have a brand new forum for it (and UK schedule viewers are welcome to post, provided they don't spoil people). For some reason, the new forum is not yet linked in the forum pulldown menu. I have already reported this and (after posting this) will remind the staff that the new forum still needs to be added to the pulldown.

In the meantime, if you want to discuss Sherlock on the U.S. schedule, please come over to the new forum.

Edited by TWoP Pembleton, Jan 19, 2014 @ 9:56 PM.


#3421

kete

kete

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 11:59 AM

Yes, that's the way I see it, too.

Btw, are there any good ideas about what that ominous IOU means? It's almost as if little Sherlock has thrown little Jim off the seesaw, when they were both in Kindergarten. But Sherlock has deleted that, of course. Why else would Jim owe Sherlock a fall?
  • 0

#3422

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 12:23 PM

But she would not deny him his body parts because of the rules, but because she wants to punish him for not going on a date with her.

To me, it doesn't matter why Molly decided to start following the rules of her workplace. Just the fact it's the rules of her workplace mean that she's perfectly fine doing so.

Sherlock is pretty much constipated to all matters emotional, and it is shown to be a weakness, thus surely Molly's way of handling her emotions are a strength.

I don't think Sherlock is the person to be measuring emotoinal strenth against. Compared to him, it's hard to find someone emotionally weak. Molly seems weak to me because of how desperate she is for Sherlock's approval
Spoiler
and the fact that she refuses to take a hint. Maybe it is "strength" to go for it once but over and over again?

Btw, are there any good ideas about what that ominous IOU means?

I thought that was just a red herring when Moriarty was fucking with Sherlock about the secret code that can break into anything ever.
  • 0

#3423

kete

kete

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 12:47 PM

The two do not seem connected in my view.
  • 0

#3424

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 12:55 PM

The two do not seem connected in my view.

What two?

Edited by Princess Aldrea, Apr 14, 2012 @ 12:55 PM.

  • 0

#3425

kete

kete

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 1:49 PM

IOU and the code.
  • 0

#3426

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 9:28 PM

Just a question but spoilered because it's about ASiB:

Spoiler

  • 0

#3427

kostgard

kostgard

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 9:57 PM

I don't think
Spoiler

  • 0

#3428

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 10:30 PM

So Irene said
Spoiler

  • 0

#3429

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 10:55 PM

Spoiler

It wasn't
Spoiler

  • 0

#3430

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 14, 2012 @ 11:38 PM

Man, can I hardly wait until May so we can break out of these prison bars...

Spoiler

Edited by DrBlork, Apr 14, 2012 @ 11:40 PM.

  • 0

#3431

kostgard

kostgard

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 12:21 AM

I didn't mean that
Spoiler

  • 0

#3432

not Bridget

not Bridget

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 8:20 AM

Man, can I hardly wait until May so we can break out of these prison bars...

`

During the last series of Downton Abbey, most PBS stations ran an episode of Sherlock just after Lord Fellowes' epic. But not my station (KUHT Houston); we got some other show with the general theme of "Ain't Nobility Wonderful!" I was not happy; of course I have the BluRay & have watched Sherlock on Netflix numerous times--but I want more people to watch! Now KUHT's plan has been revealed; they'll show "A Study in Pink" tonight, beginning the leadup to the new series. (Will I bother to tune in, having just seen new episodes of Game of Thrones & Mad Men? Of course!)

It will be interesting to compare the various female roles in the two sets of episodes. Mrs Hudson, of course. Plus Sally & Molly; interestingly, they are both original characters with no counterparts in the canon. Then, there's the scandalous tale of Ms Adler--21st Century Adventuress....
  • 0

#3433

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 10:18 AM

Spoiler

But John didn't
Spoiler

Spoiler

If the writers
Spoiler

Edited by Princess Aldrea, Apr 15, 2012 @ 1:31 PM.

  • 0

#3434

kostgard

kostgard

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 11:54 AM

Maybe "joke" is the wrong term since it seems to be causing confusion -
Spoiler

  • 0

#3435

McClard

McClard

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 12:50 PM

calais I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the fact that the show itself is kind of sexist. There's all this time and energy devoted to giving us strong male characters, while most of the females are either evil or weak or irritating.
I don't agree about most of the males being likeable, though. I don't think any of these characters are particularly "likeable" in the sense that if they were real people, I'd seek them out for friendship. Some of them, Mycroft and Sherlock, for example, would be fun to listen to, just having a conversation, and soaking up their knowledge, but it wouldn't take long for them to insult me(even unintentionally). John, meh. I don't find John particularly "likeable" either. To me Lestrade and Molly are the only ones I find remotely likeable, that I might have fun having a meal with or just hanging out. Of course I love most of the characters, but loving and liking...not the same thing.
  • 0

#3436

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 1:22 PM

Spoiler



The confusion is due to two different jokes being discussed here
Spoiler


But John didn't

Spoiler

I didn't say John said he knew; I said he couldn't have known simply from a logic perspective, and that's why it's a joke.

Spoiler


I think it would be great if in series 3 Molly gets over her unrequited crush, gets a bit of a backbone, and becomes another Lestrade-type: someone Sherlock fundamentally trusts and isn't actively annoyed by all the time, even while he's still rude to them because, yes, agreed: he's an equal opportunity prick! And that Molly agrees to help Sherlock only because she feels she is getting something from Sherlock in return for all she does for him--friendship, help with her own work, whatever.

I think she's already well over the crush
Spoiler
Maybe she's not the feminist paragon some think she should be, but if you speculate about why she became a coroner in the first place (assuming she's an MD and not just a tech), and her somewhat bashful approach to dealing with living humans, I think she's not weak at all but just her own unique personality. Gods, I hope she doesn't turn into "another Lestrade-type." And I don't know why she should expect something from Sherlock for helping him. That's not why friends help each other. While I doubt Molly thinks of herself as a friend of Sherlock's (by the usual definition), I think she supports and shares his pursuit of scientific truth, even if it's forensic and not, e.g., something more noble like researching a cure for cancer.

Edited by DrBlork, Apr 15, 2012 @ 12:52 PM.

  • 0

#3437

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 1:35 PM

Spoiler

But even then,
Spoiler

I didn't say John said he knew; I said he couldn't have known simply from a logic perspective, and that's why it's a joke.

That still doesn't make any sense. Why would the fact that John couldn't have known from a logic perspective but is trusting what Sherlock said to be true a joke? At all?

Spoiler

I don't see how
Spoiler

  • 0

#3438

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 2:50 PM

I know you were quoting someone else first, but I'll chime in anyway. :-)

Spoiler

But we can't "presume" anything, we have to go by what's onscreen.
Spoiler
We've never seen that happen in the show, and if it's not there, it's, well, not there. There's no way to argue a "what if" because neither end of the argument can prove its point. But if we agree that what we see onscreen is the characters' reality, "what if" goes out the window.

This is just my stupid opinion, anybody can believe anything they want. But for me, if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage, and the writers haven't shown this about Sherlock.

I didn't say John said he knew; I said he couldn't have known simply from a logic perspective, and that's why it's a joke.

That still doesn't make any sense. Why would the fact that John couldn't have known from a logic perspective but is trusting what Sherlock said to be true a joke? At all?

Well, it's either a joke or John actually believes that Sherlock does in fact talk to himself when John's not there. To me, the humor is in the IDEA that Sherlock talks to a skull or talks to John in John's absence. I doubt John, being the pragmatic man he seems to be, would believe that, any more than he believes Sherlock actually talked to a stupid skull. That, too, was a throwaway joke in 1x01. Why? Because, as in the above example, unless we see it happening, why would we think it's anything other than a joke? That just makes Sherlock look nuts (he isn't) and John look gullible (he isn't).

Later, when Sherlock has to ask

Spoiler

I don't see how her wanting to help out of loyalty or a desire to be helpful and not because she's desperate means that she's over her crush.

I guess it's just in how I look at the character's integrity. I don't see her as weak, I see her as reticent to grab hold of life with both hands, so typical of shier people, and who wouldn't be fascinated by Sherlock? Fair enough, maybe she's not completely over her crush, maybe that never happens when you think you're so in love with someone that you'll never let them go completely. But look at her performance in the
Spoiler

  • 0

#3439

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 2:53 PM

But we can't "presume" anything, we have to go by what's onscreen.

Well, that's why I said "might."

I doubt John, being the pragmatic man he seems to be, would believe that, any more than he believes Sherlock actually talked to a stupid skull.

I think that before John Sherlock talked out loud to himself because it helped him think and might continue to do it when John's not there but it's more helpful when John has input.
  • 0

#3440

calais

calais

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 3:01 PM

And I don't know why she should expect something from Sherlock for helping him. That's not why friends help each other. While I doubt Molly thinks of herself as a friend of Sherlock's (by the usual definition), I think she supports and shares his pursuit of scientific truth, even if it's forensic and not, e.g., something more noble like researching a cure for cancer.


But are she and Sherlock friends? Honestly, I would not mind if they were friends, and if Sherlock were someone she could count on (just like John, where Sherlock does treat him pretty badly much of the time, but he gets this amazing friendship out of it). Sherlock really does not give Molly the time of day. Ok, you say that she doesn't think of herself as Sherlock's friend, but she's doing it out of sharing his pursuit of scientific truth. Excellent--I'd love to see that on the show, because on the show all I've seen is Sherlock manipulating Molly into doing things for him by paying her little compliments and, I believe, taking advantage of her crush on him. Even in TRF he
Spoiler
. The fact is, I don't think Sherlock is "friends" with anyone besides John (
Spoiler
). So if other people put up with him, I, as a viewer, want to understand why. I think with Molly they (the writers) tried to explain it away with "crush." I'm just saying that I wish the depiction we got of Molly was one of a serious scientist who helps Sherlock because he shares his results with her and they bond in this completely nerdy, science-y way--maybe we'll get more of that in series 3?

McClard: you're right about the word "likeable"--it's kind of weak and doesn't really get at the core of the issue very well. Maybe it should be something like strong and well rounded characters?

Edited by calais, Apr 15, 2012 @ 3:04 PM.

  • 1

#3441

McClard

McClard

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 5:26 PM

Strong is a better word. But then, it's really not a fair comparison. None of the females come close to being major players, and except for one episode with a guest female, Irene, none of them have ever been a driving force in any story. Then again...except for Sherlock and John, the same could be said about the men. Mycroft has one episode that he's on for more than fifteen minutes, total, and that is hardly enough to really establish much. And while I agree that the show should always mostly feature Sherlock and John, IMO the side characters should be better written and fleshed out. I don't think they should eat the show, and their interactions should tie in to one or both main characters. But getting to know the supporting players is important if we are going care about them.
Personally, I've said it before and I'll happily say it again: John and Sherlock are not as interesting in terms of "meaty" material, as are Mycroft and Sherlock. There's really only so much you can do with John and Sherlock when they aren't solving crimes. Their relationship doesn't even have a fraction of the complexities of Mycroft and Sherlock. And Mycroft still is, a relatively minor, unexplored character. Just because someone is a side character, doesn't mean they should just be brought out to play out plot points. It diminishes their overall importance when they ARE shown, if the audience has nothing to go on in terms of knowing the characters. It's kind of hard, for instance, for me to believe Sherlock gives a crap about Lestrade, when they've barely had interactions and Sherlock doesn't know his first name.
There doesn't have to be tons of airtime for the side characters-male or female-in order to accomplish that.
  • 0

#3442

kete

kete

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 6:24 PM

I don't care about the absence of more women in ACD canon. And I do see the women who are there (Molly, Mrs Hudson, even Sally) as pretty strong characters. You would have to be to even be a BLING on Sherlock's radar. After all it's all about him. He preactically *is* the story. It's about his genius, his development, his reactions to the world surrounding him. All the other players are practically just moons to his sun. Of course they all have their own lives - but are we really interested in them? They're the little ordinary people and their stories are not that interesting to me. At least not in this canon.
  • 0

#3443

DrBlork

DrBlork

    Video Archivist

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 6:46 PM

I don't care about the absence of more women in ACD canon. And I do see the women who are there (Molly, Mrs Hudson, even Sally) as pretty strong characters. You would have to be to even be a BLING on Sherlock's radar. After all it's all about him. He preactically *is* the story. It's about his genius, his development, his reactions to the world surrounding him. All the other players are practically just moons to his sun. Of course they all have their own lives - but are we really interested in them? They're the little ordinary people and their stories are not that interesting to me. At least not in this canon.

Yep, the name of the show is, after all, Sherlock. Not Sherlock & Associates, or even Sherlock & John. :-)

However, I do want to know more about the peripheral characters but only insofar as they give insight into Sherlock and/or John. I also wouldn't mind if Mycroft started taking a bit more of a powder if only because he's being written almost as complex as Sherlock and certainly more so than John. Yeah, he's interesting, but with him and his world involved in Sherlock's, there's too much ambiguity, too much conspiracy, too many red herrings to sort out.
Spoiler
and we can see some of the other ACD villains waiting in the wings. I hope. :)

It's kind of hard, for instance, for me to believe Sherlock gives a crap about Lestrade,

Spoiler

Spoiler

Edited by DrBlork, Apr 15, 2012 @ 6:54 PM.

  • 0

#3444

callie lee 29

callie lee 29

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 7:46 PM

So since this is the place I share my love of TV, I felt it necessary to share that I have watched S1 of Sherlock on Netflix in 36 hrs (I'm in the states). This is an amazing show!! I love that it's set in current time, while retaining an inordinate amount of Sherlock Holmes "specialness". One of the first things I noticed is that the apartment is stylized and laid out in a way that is very similar to the way I pictures it when I read the Holmes stories. Brilliant! And I love reading everyone's comments about the current episodes (which sadly I have not seen yet, but do not mind being spoilered [not entirely sure that's an actual word]). I currently have a unexplainable love for Donaovan (interestingly enough I always liked Lestrade in the written Holmes), I do hope there is more of her in later episodes.

Now I must decide whether or not I have the patience to wait for season 2 to debut on Netflix (for which I would subscribe just for this show) or go ahead and purchase from itunes!! Hmm..

Edit for new knowledge: Well crap on a cracker, I can't get it at all!!!! <sigh> This is rather depressing.

Edited by callie lee 29, Apr 15, 2012 @ 7:56 PM.

  • 0

#3445

Cress

Cress

    Stalker

Posted Apr 15, 2012 @ 10:05 PM

I don't care about the absence of more women in ACD canon. And I do see the women who are there (Molly, Mrs Hudson, even Sally) as pretty strong characters.


Isn't this contradictory? Molly and Sally are not ACD's characters. If you're talking about the books, there are no regular female characters other than Mrs. Hudson and Watson's wife (who becomes more anonymous after The Sign of Four), but there are plenty of women in the stories as damsels in distress, as well as murderers. In any case, talking about sexism in ACD canon is not the same as talking about sexism in Sherlock; one doesn't excuse the other. In fact, I would argue that ACD canon at least had stronger female characters, and that Holmes at least treated the women with chivalry even when he didn't necessarily respect them.

To me, Molly isn't a strong character, and neither was Anthea, nor that Chinese girl in Blind Banker, nor that art museum lady in the Great Game. She couldn't even be a competent villain, just duped and ruined by Moriarty. Sarah started okay, but became a helpless damsel. The only interesting woman in season one was the dead lady in pink. I see this as sexism in the writing, that we can't get any women as strong as in ACD canon. It's damned annoying.
  • 1

#3446

kete

kete

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 1:42 AM

You're right. I should have said in BBC canon.

The lack of so-called strong female characters in any work has never bothered me. I don't know why. In fact I prefer to read about men. The mysterious other, perhaps? I'm a woman. I know what it feels like to be a woman. I don't need to read or watch women. They're not that interesting to me, because I am one. Reading/watching women protagonists is like spending your holidays on your own balcony. Which is nice, but I'd rather go to an exotic location.
  • 0

#3447

Cress

Cress

    Stalker

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 5:49 AM

But not all women are the same. They come in just as many interesting varieties as men do. As long as the character's convincing or the story's good, I'm content to watch either gender. I think that Gatiss & Moffatt shouldn't have created any female characters at all if the only ones they could make were as limp and flat as the ones they populated this show with. Even John's therapist was basically an unprofessional idiot who was never seen again, and both Mycroft and Sherlock claimed that she was incompetent for misdiagnosing John. Why write in all these female characters, only to be bits of nothing? But that's enough ranting.
  • 0

#3448

Peace_47

Peace_47

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 7:49 AM

PBS has put up another trailer advertising the start of season 2 in the U.S. on May 6. Their promos really don't do the show justice at all: this one makes it seem like any other generic detective story you might find on Masterpiece. Compare that to the BBC promos (spoilers, obviously) like this or this, which play on anagrams of the phrase "Sherlock Returns."

callie lee 29, you remind me of me a few months ago when I stumbled across the show. I hope you like season 2: I think I may actually like it slightly better than season 1, although they each have their merits.

Holmes at least treated the women with chivalry even when he didn't necessarily respect them.

I think that is more sexist than treating women as crappily as he treats men (being chivalrous because woman are delicate flowers who cannot handle his abrasiveness).

I don't care about the absence of more women in ACD canon. And I do see the women who are there (Molly, Mrs Hudson, even Sally) as pretty strong characters. You would have to be to even be a BLING on Sherlock's radar. After all it's all about him. He preactically *is* the story. It's about his genius, his development, his reactions to the world surrounding him.

Yep, the name of the show is, after all, Sherlock. Not Sherlock & Associates, or even Sherlock & John. :-)

Just as an aside, and I know that this is not the thrust of this discussion, I think that "A Study in Pink" kind of came across as John's story just as much (if not more) than Sherlock's story: how meeting this remarkable person scooped John out of his hopelessness and put him on a better path. He's the one who experiences transformation in the episode. And "The Great Game" bookends that by being much more Sherlock's story. But yes, in this telling, it seems that Sherlock and John are the only truly important characters. I love stories with strong female leads, but I'm okay with this not being one of them. Then again, I really don't have much of a problem with either Sally's or Molly's characterizations. (Maybe I'm projecting a teensy bit with Molly, but I've been the "Molly" with the unrequited crush, and when you have to be around the object of affection constantly, it's hard to just "get over it". :-))

Even John's therapist was basically an unprofessional idiot who was never seen again, and both Mycroft and Sherlock claimed that she was incompetent for misdiagnosing John.

I don't think that she was unprofessional. She was wrong in diagnosing John with PTSD when he problem was more complete loss of purpose in his life, but her being wrong was a necessary plot device to have Sherlock be the one to fix John's problem (establishing how well they fit together). She wasn't wrong about a blog helping John, either.
  • 0

#3449

Princess Aldrea

Princess Aldrea

    Stalker

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 8:22 AM

Even John's therapist was basically an unprofessional idiot who was never seen again,

Not until
Spoiler

  • 0

#3450

McClard

McClard

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 16, 2012 @ 9:01 AM

Dr.Blork, what I said was, that I have a hard time believing Sherlock cares about Lestrade when he doesn't care ENOUGH to learn and remember his first name. They've never had a one on one scene, and their interactions have not been emotional or even friendly. THAT is why I think minor characters should be built more. Because of things like that. IF we are supposed to believe one cares about the other-give me some meat. Give me a reason to believe it, SHOW me. Don't just tell me so and so care about each other or are friends. At least with Mrs.Hudson, Sherlock and she are affectionate with one another in their interactions. I believe he cares for her.And while we've been given reason to believe Sherlock RESPECTS Lestrade, we've been given nothing to suggest they are anything other than acquaintances/colleagues.
Since it hasn't been said ON SCREEN, that Sherlock once knew and deleted Lestrade's name, that can't be a reason. What does seem to be evident/apparent, is that he never cared enough to bother to ask. That is what is happening on the actual show. Not what our head canon wants it to be. MY head canon wants to believe Sherlock cares, but there is no real evidence he does.
That is why
Spoiler
.

I don't think the minor characters in Sherlock need to be built up to the point where they take over the show. I do think the relationships need to be developed more though, if we are supposed to find it remotely plausible that a man would
Spoiler
That is not only not believable, it's sad, because the writers could have worked in developmental time with Lestrade and Sherlock to explain WHY they both care about the other. But they didn't. Because apparently, seeing John and Sherlock bicker about buying milk is just so much more enthralling.
  • 0