I don't know if it's a matter of the show playing down Sherlock's intelligence or if we're so used to the visual language of film and TV that many of us were able to figure out the "answers" before Sherlock (shot lingering on cabs, the telescope, etc.).
Anyway, I actually like this show better than Moffat's version of Doctor Who, possibly because there aren't any shortcut timey-wimey ontological paradoxes that I see as lazy, and possibly because there aren't any major female characters for them to screw up. (How terrible is that? Is it better to have no representation or shitty representation? Although I have heard some horrid things about how Irene Adler is portrayed in series 2, although people say Molly makes up for it. We shall see.) Moffat is best when the subject he's tackling is more cerebral than emotional, and Sherlock is definitely that, although I have to hand it to Martin Freeman, who is probably the best Watson figure I've seen in a while and makes me, you know, care. (The thing I've been asking of Moffat forever!
( ... )
Well that is why I mention the cinematography; some of it is the visual cues, but just as much of it is stuff you expect Sherlock to be able to figure out. "Oh who moves among us, oh, why is that cab stopped suspiciously, oh lets check the passenger," come ON. Even the dopes on a normal police procedural should go "oh what about the driver." Like if this was Castle I'd've been annoyed at them for being stupid.
See here is the thing: I <3 onotological paradoxes (paradice?) & I like when people use Clarke's Maxim. Strike that, I like when people abuse Clarke's Maxim. Anyhow, I think we have different opinions on the fatal screwing up of River & Amy. Or rather, I know we do. Also, maybe because I am more cerebral, but I feel far more attachment to Moffat's Whovians than I do to the Davies Whovians. Maybe I feel like emotional cheapshots are...cheap shots.
I don't mind cerebral, but if something is cerebral at the expense of emotional logic (like River and Amy's storylines) then I am less impressed. My problem with Moffat's Who is that he seems to move characters like pieces on a chessboard, without any regard to whether or not a character might actually act or think or feel like that in real life. They're not humans; they're pawns. I never felt that Davies' emotional cheapshots WERE emotional cheapshots, although I will be the first to admit that he is campy and over the top and his plots are completely underwhelming. Oh RTD. You can't finish anything to save your life. Still, I cared about his characters because they had to make decisions that had consequences, and those consequences shape and change them. None of Moffat's characters do except Rory (which might be the reason I liked him best). His characters are awfully static. And that would be okay (the way it is in Sherlock) if I weren't used to, you know, real people populating Doctor Who
( ... )
I agree with your chessboard point, but that isn't a turnoff for me-- & I definitely don't agree with your "static" point. Matt Smith's Doctor goes from immature popinjay to ancient cynic in the course of two seasons, & it is pretty wonderful; the juxtaposition of childlike glee & incredible weight of immortality is a moving target, which is why I like him. Buuuuuut now we're not talking about Sherlock at all!
Oh sure, the Doctor changes, and as I've said before, I don't have a problem with Matt Smith's Doctor. But I suppose for me, I'd always been more invested in the companions' journeys. The Doctor, by the nature of who he is, can change, but must remain distant from humanity. Hence why I'm more invested in the character journeys of the companions than him--they are the audience proxy.
Eh, not much to discuss in Sherlock aside from: clever show, good acting, is interesting! (Plus, Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty, if you are inclined that way...)
I'm usually not one for audience proxies either, or am I? I don't know. I do know my favourite characters tend to be the ones nobody else likes (Gaius Baltar, Ben Linus, Sansa Stark, etc.). But in the case of both Sherlock and Doctor Who, I am drawn to the "audience proxy", i.e. the companion and Watson. Like, the show is ABOUT the eponymous character, but we view that character journey through the proxy? Does that make sense?
Paradoxes. Unlike, say, "index", paradox isn't the exact same word in its root language; both the Latin and Greek have other inflected endings after the X.
I disagree! I mean, I haven't seen Sherlock, but pretty much every thing that's good about Doctor Who is within the range of the emotional and the sentimental. Strip that out, and there's nothing much cerebral left over. Actively hand-waving over the the non-sciency or ontologically invalid isn't a bug of the show, it's a feature. It's not about that; that stuff is just the dressing.
Anyway, I actually like this show better than Moffat's version of Doctor Who, possibly because there aren't any shortcut timey-wimey ontological paradoxes that I see as lazy, and possibly because there aren't any major female characters for them to screw up. (How terrible is that? Is it better to have no representation or shitty representation? Although I have heard some horrid things about how Irene Adler is portrayed in series 2, although people say Molly makes up for it. We shall see.) Moffat is best when the subject he's tackling is more cerebral than emotional, and Sherlock is definitely that, although I have to hand it to Martin Freeman, who is probably the best Watson figure I've seen in a while and makes me, you know, care. (The thing I've been asking of Moffat forever! ( ... )
Reply
See here is the thing: I <3 onotological paradoxes (paradice?) & I like when people use Clarke's Maxim. Strike that, I like when people abuse Clarke's Maxim. Anyhow, I think we have different opinions on the fatal screwing up of River & Amy. Or rather, I know we do. Also, maybe because I am more cerebral, but I feel far more attachment to Moffat's Whovians than I do to the Davies Whovians. Maybe I feel like emotional cheapshots are...cheap shots.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Eh, not much to discuss in Sherlock aside from: clever show, good acting, is interesting! (Plus, Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty, if you are inclined that way...)
Reply
I totally see the Cumbercrush. It makes sense. Seems like he oughtta make out with Dexter or something.
(Oh yeah, also the show is always talking about gay people? ALL THE TIME. Not like, homophobically, but just like...constantly?)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment