Sherlock 1.03

[selenak]

In short: better than the second one, definitely better than Gatiss' iDalek episode; still not as good as the opening case. Contains elements that made me smile and elements that made me groan. I'm ambiguous about whether or not I want more of the show, especially since the show I really want, about Lestrade's team with Sherlock only an occasional

Comments

[kalypso_v]

On the plus side, Lestrade was back. On the minus side, he was a pale shadow of the Lestrade of the opening episode. Not actually stupid, but not the witty man who knew how to handle and deploy Holmes. Mycroft seemed more subdued, too.

I decided that, until the series returns, and Squeaky Jim is still Moriarty, I will stick to my original thesis that Molly can't possibly be as stupid as she appears, and that, since Moriarty likes to speak through mouthpieces, Jim is just a more subtle form: he thinks he's her partner rather than her pawn. And in the final moments Sherlock pointed the gun at the bomb-and-comms gear to signify that he'd worked it out.

[selenak]

I like your idea of Molly as Moriarty, yes indeed.

Gatiss!Lestrade versus Moffat!Lestrade: err, Gatiss is a Holmes/Watson OTPler and thus he can't allow Lestrade to shine and know how to handle Holmes, let people would wish to 'ship him with Sherlock instead?

[kalypso_v]

Probably, but Kalypso!Lestrade isn't daft enough to get involved with Holmes on that level. That's why he appealed to Watson to sort him out instead, in his great-man-good-man speech in the first episode - he knows how to handle and deploy both of them.

Can't you write your series? We need more Lestrade.

[redfiona10]

I like that they've made Holmes so wonderfully unsympathetic, I think it's because I'm stick of seeing lead characters be absolute jerks and not have either another character (Watson, Lestrade and Donovan) or the feel of the show object to it. But then again, I'm also a sucker for 'not just a comedy sociopath'.

[selenak]

The thing is, the way the show does it reminds me (not surprisingly, given the origin) of House and House, in that, yes, both characters and show point out the lead character being a jerk, but the audience is still expected to love and admire said lead character.

[redfiona10]

With the understanding that I only ever saw the first half of the first season of House, I see what you mean. Admittedly I find Holmes less repellant because you got the feeling that House enjoyed hurting people while Holmes doesn't care, but I can see the similarity.

[trobadora]

Sociopath!Holmes was back in full force

Heh. That's exactly how I love my Holmes best, and I was very happy the episode gave me that unflinchingly, without glossing over the unpleasantness.

[selenak]

I think I'm still House - burned in that I can't help but wonder whether they don't want to have their cake and eat it with the depiction. But you know, it's weird. Truman Capote in Capote, for example, is depicted far more unsympathetically, and I still completely felt for him. And here all my hackles rise. ? *is puzzled a bit, but there it is*

[ponygirl2000]

I go back and forth on sociopath!Holmes. I liked the scene with the painting, while everyone else is freaking out about the child, Holmes is able to concentrate and solve the puzzle - as he said earlier to Watson, not focusing on the victims allowed him to actually help them more efficiently. It's the cruelty without purpose that makes him unsympathetic, especially when it's directed at characters we know like Molly and John. As in House it strains credulity that actual people would put up with it, no matter how much of a genius he's supposed to be. In the first episode it seemed like Sherlock was as much a victim of his brain as those around him, in the last two episodes he often comes off as a petty jerk.

[selenak]

As in House it strains credulity that actual people would put up with it, no matter how much of a genius he's supposed to be.

At least as opposed to House, we don't have to keep wondering why Holmes doesn't get fired; he's not regularly employed. :)

The pettiness, yes. When I saw the teaser with Holmes correcting the prisoner's grammar, I was especially struck by this. And also thought: Doctor Who stealing homage, you're doing it wrong. The Doctor correcting Luke Rattigan's grammar in "The Sontaran Strategem" is both a good character scene and funny because Luke is a genius, their arrogance is mutual, and it's this dig that starts Luke wanting to score and impress him, in the process revealing his plans. Whereas the death-sentenced criminal is lacking all power, is, in fact, desperately needing help, and Holmes lording over him and flaunting his education because he can is just petty.

[bimo]

From the intention to the unintentional downside: at least I hope it was unintentional. So, let me get this straight (no pun intended). The Great Game has: one homosexual couple where one half is a killer and the other written as comic relief, and the main villain pretending (or not) to be homosexual, and several "people assume we're gay, ha, ha, ha" jokes re: Watson and Holmes.

Just briefly as I'm currently suffering from the head cold from hell....

I think that the rather unfortunate portrayal of homosexuality/homosexuals contained in this ep (completely agreeing with your analysis, btw.) is one of the very rare cases where one might actually be inclined to argue "in dubio pro reo". If the Wiki can be trusted on this, Gatiss appears to be publicly gay, so there's a considerable probability that the problematic stuff was unintentional.

He [Gatiss] currently lives in Islington, London, with his partner Ian and their Labrador, Bunsen. In 2006, Gatiss was awarded an honorary doctorate of letters by the University of Huddersfield.

[selenak]

Oh, agreed that it was definitely unintentional. But it was there (for me; as always, subjective viewing impression, etc.), and was one reason why I can't get on board the Sherlock/John train.

[bimo]

So far I haven't jumped on the pure, unadulterated love train, either. Call me old-fashioned, but most of my problems with Sherlock seem to stem from the pacing. To me the show feels like it's too rushed, too pseudo-clever, too detached for it's own good. I think I must be the only person in fandom who actually enjoyed the second episode more than the third.

[kernezelda]

Liked it less well than the first, much better than the second. Was glad to see Lestrade and Donovan, though he seemed somewhat less himself than before. Did not like Moriarty! I have vague familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, and my strongest memory of a Moriarty is the one in ST:TNG, playing opposite Data's Holmes. I liked that version very much. This one's sing-songing and sudden fits didn't inspire fear in me, merely annoyance. Some actors can pull off the insane/mercurial behavior convincingly; this one did not. I'd believe it of Benedict Cumberbatch, for example. His sociopathy was less, hm, sympathetic a character trait this time, in contrast to the first episode's epic boredom and inability to understand a mother's lingering grief

[selenak]

Moriarty: I have no idea whether it was deliberate, but I had moments of wondering whether his performance wasn't an epic failure to imitate John Simm's as the Master. Because, yes, some actors can pull off mercurial/playful/obsessed, but not this one.

I liked Watson best of all the three episodes, though (I mean, I also liked him in the pilot, just not as much as I did in this last installment, and I hadn't liked either of them in the second one). Re: stiffness, can't say I noticed; if I get around to a rewatch, I'll keep watch for it, for as you say, it would make sense.