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!
Wait, Misfits is a half an hour? That just raised my willingness to give it a try by a zillion percent. It is on Netflix Instant, ja?
Well, I would like to be all "whatevski, bromance away!" but like, as a straight white dude, I feel weird being like "this is problematic, "problematic" being what I say when I realize that I'm using my privilege but I use it anyway." You know? So I just gotta be aware. Anyhow, I know what you mean about UK-- & European-- attitudes towards sex. I would say "not being Puritanical doesn't mean you are misogynists" but you know, six of one, half dozen of the other.
I find the Tennant episodes lacking as well, so on the Moffat side of things I tend to like him. That being said he is-- wait for it-- "problematic." He's just got such a "boy's club" mentality.
Actually I don't think it's on Netflix...I get it on Hulu Plus, which is annoying but I'm taking the compromise because I don't have or want a DVR. I stand corrected...just checked Hulu+ and the episodes are more like 45 minutes.
Is the bromance problematic because they're white/cisidentified? I find it less problematic precisely because the show is willing to play with the are-they-or-aren't-they (in a playful but mostly meaningful way, not in a cheapie phobic humor way) line without forcing the characters to conform to stereotypes. It's rather refreshing, I suppose, to see how much more leeway a straight cis white Brit has (my recent viewings of The Only Way is Essex also plays into this viewpoint) in comparison to the relative straightjackets (pun intended) available to the same characters in many US shows. Or at least the ones I'm watching.
Really? I think they "oh are you a couple, oh NOOooo we aren't!" thing isn't as cute as the story thinks it is. Yeah, it just a boring old recapitulation of the same old "lets talk about how white cisdudes are feeling! What are they doing! Lets do it!"
It is a fairly standard trope in mysteries these days
Well, it's a standard trope, full stop. Letting the viewer know something the character does not is one of the textbook ways to create suspense. I think every single Hitchcock movie uses this technique to one degree or another. And not just in mystery either - it crops up all over the place. To be fair, I don't think it's as effective when the author leads the audience to feel like they figured something out, rather than just coming out and telling them (as Hitchcock does). Like, maybe that guy feels like he's doing his audience a favor, making them feel involved by leaving them clues to unravel? But I think that kind of involvement is too close to the feeling of when you're reading something that telegraphs an obvious plot twist. Not fun.
A world without Batman where a morally ambiguous Riddler battles the Gotham villains would be...pretty greatYou could do this with pretty much any Batman villain - since his rogues' gallery are all basically weird mirror images and distortions
( ... )
Right, I guess I'm not talking about full fledged dramatic irony where the irony is explicit. You say telegraphs an obvious plot twist...but there are two of those things. Two kinds. The story that awkwardly telegraphs a plot twist & then is like "well ain't I clever!" & the story that telegraphs the plot twist & is like "ohhhh you figured that out all by yourself, aren't you clever!" Sherlock is the latter & I feel frustrated. That is what Watson is for! We feel smarter than Watson, but want Holmes to be smarter than us!
I said Riddler because I feel like that is the best comparison for Cumberbach's Sherlock, & because the Riddler hasn't been tainted (or I should say coloured) by unbridled malice. Like, The Joker as hero? Two-Face? Those are less ambiguous & more monstrous. Making the Riddler "good" is a slight twist...isn't he "good" for the last few years, anyhow?
I guess. Maybe I'm getting old, but I think of the man dressed like a bat more as an amoral vigilante force than as "good" per se. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood.
I think that question violates the internal logic of...like, comic books? Just as well ask why Superman doesn't eradicate energy concerns by shooting eyelasers into a battery for five minutes each morning. Because of the laws of capes & cowls!
I think the problem with the show is that it is named Sherlock. You have so many preconceived expectations based on your fetish for 'Icons'. If his name were John Smith, I think you would enjoy it twice as much. It's a piece of solid acting, witty banter and simple time wasting. With an occasional exception, the mysteries are simply framing devices. It's really in a genre that is about a weird guy expressed through his relationships. If you thought the first season mysteries were obvious, wait till you get to The Hounds of Baskerville. You practically want to scream the solution at the screen, like a Dhara the Explorer episode. Calling the second episode racist is a bit of an overstatement. They are Chinese people in a Chinese circus, a bit generic maybe, but vaguely true to it's source material and era, I guess. It's not the best episode in the season, but it's not like they race rickshaws either, and when you only have 6 episodes, writing off individual episodes as sub-par seems a bit excessively discriminating, even to the snob.
( ... )
Nah! You misconstrue-- my interest in narratives is doubled if it falls into the mythic art. By which I mean the retelling & reimagining that smooths a story like an ocean smooths a rock. Your Hercules, your Arthur, your Superman, your...well, Sherlock. I have way more invested in acknowledged archetypes. If this was called "John Smith..." well, isn't that Dexter? A show I have little interest in? Yeah. Also, avoid all The Sopranos if you ask me, tres boring. (& uh, the parity between white people who are Italian & Chinese immigrants is...not a winning comparison in the "lets play hierarchies of oppression!" game)
I don't see how Sherlock is Dexter. Sopranos is definitely boring. And Battlestar is the easiest example of just racism on tv. I don't see a major difference between the sort of racism that portrays Chinese people as circus performers very different than a show that portrays Italians as mobsters. The racism is simply choosing to portray a section of the population that does exist, but also reflects a stereotypical image. If you are saying Italians are and white and white people can't cry racism, even in loose metaphors, I would respond that being Chinese doesn't seem like a particularly oppressed minority either. Bearing in mind that my frame of reference is that I have spent the last decade living in a city that has more asians than any other ethnic group
( ... )
The major difference, my friend, is that ideological weight isn't the most important measure of racism-- but rather, actual real world context. Like-- when an Irish person brings up "Irish Need Not Apply"...it is usually as a way to excuse the actual real world racism that someone else is currently experiencing. Like-- I'm not saying that "drunken mick" & "joisey mobsta" archetypes aren't racist--- sure!-- but to honestly compare them to, I dunno, orientalism? Which actually thrives in America these days? Yeah, the difference isn't a pretty academic qualitative one; it is an organic one, based on actual context. To use an extreme example, it is why "mick" is a quaint out of date slur, but I won't type "the n-word." Because of real world context.
Comments 43
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
Reply
Well, I would like to be all "whatevski, bromance away!" but like, as a straight white dude, I feel weird being like "this is problematic, "problematic" being what I say when I realize that I'm using my privilege but I use it anyway." You know? So I just gotta be aware. Anyhow, I know what you mean about UK-- & European-- attitudes towards sex. I would say "not being Puritanical doesn't mean you are misogynists" but you know, six of one, half dozen of the other.
I find the Tennant episodes lacking as well, so on the Moffat side of things I tend to like him. That being said he is-- wait for it-- "problematic." He's just got such a "boy's club" mentality.
Reply
Is the bromance problematic because they're white/cisidentified? I find it less problematic precisely because the show is willing to play with the are-they-or-aren't-they (in a playful but mostly meaningful way, not in a cheapie phobic humor way) line without forcing the characters to conform to stereotypes. It's rather refreshing, I suppose, to see how much more leeway a straight cis white Brit has (my recent viewings of The Only Way is Essex also plays into this viewpoint) in comparison to the relative straightjackets (pun intended) available to the same characters in many US shows. Or at least the ones I'm watching.
Reply
Reply
Well, it's a standard trope, full stop. Letting the viewer know something the character does not is one of the textbook ways to create suspense. I think every single Hitchcock movie uses this technique to one degree or another. And not just in mystery either - it crops up all over the place. To be fair, I don't think it's as effective when the author leads the audience to feel like they figured something out, rather than just coming out and telling them (as Hitchcock does). Like, maybe that guy feels like he's doing his audience a favor, making them feel involved by leaving them clues to unravel? But I think that kind of involvement is too close to the feeling of when you're reading something that telegraphs an obvious plot twist. Not fun.
A world without Batman where a morally ambiguous Riddler battles the Gotham villains would be...pretty greatYou could do this with pretty much any Batman villain - since his rogues' gallery are all basically weird mirror images and distortions ( ... )
Reply
I said Riddler because I feel like that is the best comparison for Cumberbach's Sherlock, & because the Riddler hasn't been tainted (or I should say coloured) by unbridled malice. Like, The Joker as hero? Two-Face? Those are less ambiguous & more monstrous. Making the Riddler "good" is a slight twist...isn't he "good" for the last few years, anyhow?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment