DVD/Blu-Ray Extras for Series 3

[SherlockedCAMPer]

CAM does it out of greed where by Sherlock does it as away to protect himself and/or to solve a crime. For him it is more or less used as a lesser of 2 evils kind of.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Is Sherlock abusive? Insensitive, certainly (or, hopefully, pretends to be).  Manipulative? Yes. Still, I can't quite equate the things he does to people with the things CAM does to people. I'm not sure what the difference is but I feel like there is one. The degree of malevolence involved, perhaps.

 

CAM does it out of greed where by Sherlock does it as away to protect himself and/or to solve a crime. For him it is more or less used as a lesser of 2 evils kind of.

CAM claims it's all business with him, but I don't see where either malevolence or greed factor in, at least not directly. He explicitly states that he wants to control people, and I think that's how he gets his jollies. What else would explain the delight he takes in licking Lady Smallwood's face, for example? He clearly doesn't enjoy the human contact itself, since he carefully wipes his tongue afterward. He just gets a kick out of humiliating her. That sort of sadism is apparently his hobby.

 

[Boton]

 

Is Sherlock abusive? Insensitive, certainly (or, hopefully, pretends to be).  Manipulative? Yes. Still, I can't quite equate the things he does to people with the things CAM does to people. I'm not sure what the difference is but I feel like there is one. The degree of malevolence involved, perhaps.

 

CAM does it out of greed where by Sherlock does it as away to protect himself and/or to solve a crime. For him it is more or less used as a lesser of 2 evils kind of.

CAM claims it's all business with him, but I don't see where either malevolence or greed factor in, at least not directly. He explicitly states that he wants to control people, and I think that's how he gets his jollies. What else would explain the delight he takes in licking Lady Smallwood's face, for example? He clearly doesn't enjoy the human contact itself, since he carefully wipes his tongue afterward. He just gets a kick out of humiliating her. That sort of sadism is apparently his hobby.

 

 

I think Sherlock and CAM are completely different.  

 

CAM messes with (I keep wanting to use an expletive-based idiom here, but I won't....) people just to mess with people.  He messes with people because he can.  He builds his power and influence so he can use his power and influence.  There's no overarching purpose behind him, so he's both evil and ungovernable.  As long as people can be messed with, he will do it.  That is evil, dangerous, and sadistic.

 

Sherlock messes with people, but for a purpose.  Yes, Sherlock may choose to not show emotion, or he may choose to manipulate someone's behavior to get a particular piece of information, but he does it on a limited and controlled basis that is scaled to the job at hand.  I am sort of thinking of the way he manipulated the wife in the Janus Cars scheme in TGG into telling more information about her husband as one example; even though she was in on a crime, Sherlock only manipulated her enough to get information; he didn't keep torturing her.  I think he does that a lot; he just gets the information he needs and moves along.  

 

I think Sherlock is very interesting because he proves that someone can be a force for the positive without being particularly kind.  He separates the emotion and the empathy out of the equation and gets the job done.  I think it was Toby this weekend who reminded us that Conan Doyle based his hero on a doctor.  I think that's a very on-point reminder.  To me, John is a GP, who needs a good bedside manner.  Sherlock is basically a surgeon, who doesn't need people skills as much as he needs a lot of knowledge and a confidence that lets him hold someone's beating heart in his hands.  

[Arcadia]

CAM does it out of greed where by Sherlock does it as away to protect himself and/or to solve a crime. For him it is more or less used as a lesser of 2 evils kind of.

CAM claims it's all business with him, but I don't see where either malevolence or greed factor in, at least not directly. He explicitly states that he wants to control people, and I think that's how he gets his jollies. What else would explain the delight he takes in licking Lady Smallwood's face, for example? He clearly doesn't enjoy the human contact itself, since he carefully wipes his tongue afterward. He just gets a kick out of humiliating her. That sort of sadism is apparently his hobby.

I think Sherlock and CAM are completely different.  

 

CAM messes with (I keep wanting to use an expletive-based idiom here, but I won't....) people just to mess with people.  He messes with people because he can.  He builds his power and influence so he can use his power and influence.  There's no overarching purpose behind him, so he's both evil and ungovernable.  As long as people can be messed with, he will do it.  That is evil, dangerous, and sadistic.

 

Sherlock messes with people, but for a purpose.  Yes, Sherlock may choose to not show emotion, or he may choose to manipulate someone's behavior to get a particular piece of information, but he does it on a limited and controlled basis that is scaled to the job at hand.  I am sort of thinking of the way he manipulated the wife in the Janus Cars scheme in TGG into telling more information about her husband as one example; even though she was in on a crime, Sherlock only manipulated her enough to get information; he didn't keep torturing her.  I think he does that a lot; he just gets the information he needs and moves along.  

 

I think Sherlock is very interesting because he proves that someone can be a force for the positive without being particularly kind.  He separates the emotion and the empathy out of the equation and gets the job done.  I think it was Toby this weekend who reminded us that Conan Doyle based his hero on a doctor.  I think that's a very on-point reminder.  To me, John is a GP, who needs a good bedside manner.  Sherlock is basically a surgeon, who doesn't need people skills as much as he needs a lot of knowledge and a confidence that lets him hold someone's beating heart in his hands.

I find myself agreeing with all three of you, even though you're saying slightly different things. (It's the Perceiver in me, I can't help it! )

 

I think there is a degree of greed in what CAM does ... he wants what he wants, period ... and malevolence too, in the sense that he knows exactly how his behavior disturbs people. But he thinks he's above such petty concepts as greed and sadism, good and evil. They don't apply to him. So in that sense, they're not a factor; he's not motivated by them, he doesn't "get his jollies" from them. I'm not sure he gets jollies from anything, actually; of all the characters depicted in Sherlock so far, CAM's the one who most fits the label of "psychopath." Even Jim had emotions, however distorted. CAM's barely human.

 

It just occurred to me ... especially since seeing that deleted scene ... that the best word to describe CAM may be "pervert." Everything that falls into his orbit is distorted, debased, made unclean ... in a word, perverted. It's all rather sick and something I could never apply to Sherlock even in his most depraved moments. Perhaps Sherlock's motives, in spite of his means, are just more ... pure? He doesn't torture the cabby because he wants to see the man suffer, he does it because he selfishly wants to know. Still a bit not good, but not precisely evil either.

 

Honestly, though, I'm not sure sometimes what to make of Sherlock. He does unkind things, then he does kind things. He acts like he's clueless about human nature, yet he's a dead accurate observer of human nature. He claims to be coldly logical, but obviously isn't. I can't help but wondering if he's written that way ... or if the actor and the directors just have different ideas of who he is, and BC is putting something more into the performance than is in the scripts. Moftiss chose him, though, so you'd think that's what they want; but they act sometimes like they don't know it's there. 'Tis a puzzlement.

[sittything]

 

Honestly, though, I'm not sure sometimes what to make of Sherlock. He does unkind things, then he does kind things. He acts like he's clueless about human nature, yet he's a dead accurate observer of human nature. He claims to be coldly logical, but obviously isn't. I can't help but wondering if he's written that way ... or if the actor and the directors just have different ideas of who he is, and BC is putting something more into the performance than is in the scripts. Moftiss chose him, though, so you'd think that's what they want; but they act sometimes like they don't know it's there. 'Tis a puzzlement.

 

 

Is your impression of Moftiss not knowing it's there from interviews?  I haven't seen many interviews with them, so that's why I'm asking.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think it was Toby this weekend who reminded us that Conan Doyle based his hero on a doctor.  I think that's a very on-point reminder.  To me, John is a GP, who needs a good bedside manner.  Sherlock is basically a surgeon, who doesn't need people skills as much as he needs a lot of knowledge and a confidence that lets him hold someone's beating heart in his hands.

I like that analogy -- the generalist and the specialist. Sherlock does indeed remind me a bit of some medical specialists I've met, and it's good to know they're around when you're in a real bind -- but otherwise, give me a good GP any day!

 

Honestly, though, I'm not sure sometimes what to make of Sherlock. He does unkind things, then he does kind things. He acts like he's clueless about human nature, yet he's a dead accurate observer of human nature. He claims to be coldly logical, but obviously isn't.

Maybe observing people is a bit like remembering facts -- Sherlock does it only when he can see a point to it.

[Arcadia]

Is your impression of Moftiss not knowing it's there from interviews?  I haven't seen many interviews with them, so that's why I'm asking.

I think right now I'm mostly reacting to the S3 commentaries, although I'd have to go back and read them again to be able to cite specific examples. But interviews, too, yeah, I seem to remember them extolling his psychopathic virtues over his human ones. Altho to be fair, Moffat quite clearly, on a number of occasions, has expressed the opinion that Sherlock is in fact a very emotional person who just hides it.

 

Do anyone want to see more interviews? I might be able to put together a list of the ones I've found. Quite frankly I just assumed everyone on this forum was way ahead of me in that regard! I've never been in a "fandom" before, I keep thinking everyone knows more than I do..... (and I'm probably right!)

 

Oh, and warning ... Moffat's interviews in particular can make some people very, very angry ..... sometimes it's better to not know....

[sittything]

I guess I'll have to look forward to hopefully *fingers crossed* getting the discs for Christmas. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, and warning ... Moffat's interviews in particular can make some people very, very angry ..... sometimes it's better to not know....

 

 

He sometimes reminds me of a little kid who says things just to shock people. 

 

[Boton]

 

I think right now I'm mostly reacting to the S3 commentaries, although I'd have to go back and read them again to be able to cite specific examples. But interviews, too, yeah, I seem to remember them extolling his psychopathic virtues over his human ones. Altho to be fair, Moffat quite clearly, on a number of occasions, has expressed the opinion that Sherlock is in fact a very emotional person who just hides it.

 

 

I might be going on commentaries too, but I get the impression that Moftiss truly want to create the Sherlock Holmes experience that they had as boys, which I would imagine involves a fair amount of pleasant memory of looking up to Holmes as a way to be a quirky, interesting, intelligent man.  They don't seem as interested in his emotional development as his general oddness, and that's the way I'd expect a lot of boys to be.  My opinion is that their interest in Sherlock's emotions is a later development for them that perhaps came when they were writing the character, so there is a certain amount of tension inherent in the characterization.

 

BC, on the other hand, seems to infuse even more emotion into the portrayal than I would expect to see.  I know that he has said that he considers the Sherlock/Irene interactions to be dark because Sherlock is playing with the chemistry of an emotion.  I see his point, but it absolutely would never have occurred to me to think of that as "dark."  I think of it as rather clever, myself -- being able to simultaneously enjoy the chemical attraction and turn it to use as a weapon or a defense if necessary.  

[Boton]

 

I think it was Toby this weekend who reminded us that Conan Doyle based his hero on a doctor.  I think that's a very on-point reminder.  To me, John is a GP, who needs a good bedside manner.  Sherlock is basically a surgeon, who doesn't need people skills as much as he needs a lot of knowledge and a confidence that lets him hold someone's beating heart in his hands.

I like that analogy -- the generalist and the specialist. Sherlock does indeed remind me a bit of some medical specialists I've met, and it's good to know they're around when you're in a real bind -- but otherwise, give me a good GP any day!

 

 

 

 

I think that's the part we forget -- you only call a specialist (Sherlock) when the normal avenues aren't helping.  So, yeah, John or Lestrade may be less prickly to deal with and might make you feel more understood, but Sherlock will solve the case even when all the conventional leads have dried up.  I guess I'm kind of the opposite of you in that regard -- I've always said that if I really have a problem I need solved and I can't do it myself, give me the arrogant SOB who thinks he walks on water but can get the job done.

[Arcadia]

He [Moffat] sometimes reminds me of a little kid who says things just to shock people. 

I might be going on commentaries too, but I get the impression that Moftiss truly want to create the Sherlock Holmes experience that they had as boys, which I would imagine involves a fair amount of pleasant memory of looking up to Holmes as a way to be a quirky, interesting, intelligent man.  They don't seem as interested in his emotional development as his general oddness, and that's the way I'd expect a lot of boys to be.  My opinion is that their interest in Sherlock's emotions is a later development for them that perhaps came when they were writing the character, so there is a certain amount of tension inherent in the characterization.

lol, I think Carol and I have had this exchange before; that essentially this is a show by boys, for boys, about boys. And that's the aspect of the writing I enjoy the most -- the sheer ebullience. It helps to remember that from time to time!

[T.o.b.y]

lol, I think Carol and I have had this exchange before; that essentially this is a show by boys, for boys, about boys. And that's the aspect of the writing I enjoy the most -- the sheer ebullience. It helps to remember that from time to time!

 

You're right, of course, but why is it so appealing to women, then? Seems to me like most Sherlock fans are female. Or do the male audience simply not talk about it?

 

And I don't know, "by boys, for boys, about boys" shows are usually different, I think. Less character-driven, more action-based.

 

 

[Boton]

 

He [Moffat] sometimes reminds me of a little kid who says things just to shock people. 

I might be going on commentaries too, but I get the impression that Moftiss truly want to create the Sherlock Holmes experience that they had as boys, which I would imagine involves a fair amount of pleasant memory of looking up to Holmes as a way to be a quirky, interesting, intelligent man.  They don't seem as interested in his emotional development as his general oddness, and that's the way I'd expect a lot of boys to be.  My opinion is that their interest in Sherlock's emotions is a later development for them that perhaps came when they were writing the character, so there is a certain amount of tension inherent in the characterization.

lol, I think Carol and I have had this exchange before; that essentially this is a show by boys, for boys, about boys. And that's the aspect of the writing I enjoy the most -- the sheer ebullience. It helps to remember that from time to time!

 

 

I tend to agree with this.  And, frankly, I'm jealous -- I wish I could figure out a way to get paid to live occasionally in one of the worlds that I loved as a child.  You can really see that element in their writing.

 

I think women like the show in part because Moffat and Gatiss are talented writers and know how to put in the "unisex" elements that make for a good story.  I wonder if, had they thought they would get an all-male audience for whatever reason, if they would have dropped the character development a notch and had a few more explosions?  

[Arcadia]

You're right, of course, but why is it so appealing to women, then?....

I dunno, but if I had to guess, I'd guess it's for the same reason that LOTR, Star Trek, Star Wars, Bourne, Indiana Jones, etc etc are popular with (some) women ... we like to watch our boys run around and blow up stuff? Like Mary says, "it's a little bit sexy." ???

 

And I don't know, "by boys, for boys, about boys" shows are usually different, I think. Less character-driven, more action-based.

Not the ones that women like, I bet.

 

Okay, I'm being a bit facetious, of course, and generalizing horribly! But there's some truth to it too, methinks.....

[Arcadia]

....  I wonder if, had they thought they would get an all-male audience for whatever reason, if they would have dropped the character development a notch and had a few more explosions?  

Depends on whether they were aiming it at boys or men.

[sittything]

I think I'm drawn to Sherlock for the same reason I was drawn to X-Files.  Whether or not it was their original intent, X-Files ended up being about two FBI agents.  You got loads of interesting stories, mysteries, conspiracies on the side, but in the end it was really the story of the two agents and their lives.  

[Arcadia]

For me it's the humor. If this were a straight up dark drama, I don't think I'd be watching it. But there's a certain kind of male humor that tickles me no end, and this show has it in spades. And as I mentioned before, the exuberance. Even when it's sad, there's just so darn much fun being had. And, of course, it has Benedict.... (Sorry, Martin! Love ya, man.)

[Boton]

For me, it's probably three things:

 

1.  I love buddy pictures/bromances/whatever you want to call them.  I like watching male relationships, in part I think because I actually get to experience female/female and female/male relationships in real life, but fiction is as close as I will ever get to experiencing a male/male relationship.

 

2.  I love flawed heroes. There's a limit, of course, to the damage I will tolerate, but I get bored with white hats.  Give me a hero who struggles.

 

3.  The show is uncommonly even in its production. Yes, of course, we find the flaws because we're looking for them, but this is an ensemble cast that has quality actors (down to the smaller parts, which is unusual), a great script, a great score, and wonderful source material to draw on.  Usually, TV is much more something like Elementary, which I am also watching and enjoying.  But Johnny Lee Miller is basically (IMHO) acting circles around the rest of the cast, and they've departed far enough from the ACD canon to lose the grounding it provides.  In Sherlock, you've got actors who can actually balance out BC's quality, and Moftiss respects the canon enough that there's inherent integrity in the design that shines through.

[Carol the Dabbler]

You're right, of course, but why is it so appealing to women, then? Seems to me like most Sherlock fans are female. Or do the male audience simply not talk about it?

I'm pretty sure that a lot of men like it too, but women are more likely to talk about it, and even more likely to be active fans.  I think that applies to nearly anything that has a fandom. Star Trek started out as Gene Roddenberry's macho dream world, but the active fandom was about 90% female (and at least 99% of the fan fiction was female-written).

 

And I don't know, "by boys, for boys, about boys" shows are usually different, I think. Less character-driven, more action-based.

 

Ah, but Sherlock is written by two overgrown geeky boys! 

 

I tend to agree with this.  And, frankly, I'm jealous -- I wish I could figure out a way to get paid to live occasionally in one of the worlds that I loved as a child.  You can really see that element in their writing.

 

Watching Sherlock is kinda like being invited into their private treehouse, isn't it?  Which is fun, even if we don't always appreciate some details of the decor.

 

And, of course, it has Benedict.... (Sorry, Martin! Love ya, man.)

Odd -- I was going to say just the opposite! 

[T.o.b.y]

For me, it's probably three things:

 

1.  I love buddy pictures/bromances/whatever you want to call them.  I like watching male relationships, in part I think because I actually get to experience female/female and female/male relationships in real life, but fiction is as close as I will ever get to experiencing a male/male relationship.

 

2.  I love flawed heroes. There's a limit, of course, to the damage I will tolerate, but I get bored with white hats.  Give me a hero who struggles.

 

3.  The show is uncommonly even in its production. Yes, of course, we find the flaws because we're looking for them, but this is an ensemble cast that has quality actors (down to the smaller parts, which is unusual), a great script, a great score, and wonderful source material to draw on.  Usually, TV is much more something like Elementary, which I am also watching and enjoying.  But Johnny Lee Miller is basically (IMHO) acting circles around the rest of the cast, and they've departed far enough from the ACD canon to lose the grounding it provides.  In Sherlock, you've got actors who can actually balance out BC's quality, and Moftiss respects the canon enough that there's inherent integrity in the design that shines through.

 

Very nicely put (as always - you know, I am really, really jealous of your ability to express yourself).

 

If I made a list of all things that make Sherlock my favorite series (my favorite thing to watch, ever), this post would become long even for my standards. I'll just say that if someone had set out to create the perfect television program for me, the result would probably have been this. My only real complaint is the lack of an ending. But that may, in time, be remedied - and besides, there have been a few places already where one could have stopped watching and would still have had a good story. If I don't like series 4, I could always call it quits after His Last Vow. It would work the same way I still enjoy Matrix, even though the sequels were rubbish, in my opinion.

 

I mostly agree with you on what particularly appeals to me about Sherlock, except that for me, the attraction is not limited to buddy stories about two men. I just like relationships in general, I think they're probably the most interesting thing there is, and while I've liked plenty of traditional love stories, the pattern does get a bit repetitive after a while. I'm always enthralled when a character and the way he or she connects to other characters cannot be explained with just a few words, and Sherlock is so wonderfully complicated and unusual that way. I wouldn't even call him and John "buddies". Even "friends" seems a bit forced to me, as if they needed a label and just decided on that for want of a more accurate word. And it's not just the central pair that is like that, if you look closely, nearly all the relationships in the series are somehow odd. That alone would be enough to make me fall in love with it, I think.

 

[Boton]

 

For me, it's probably three things:

 

1.  I love buddy pictures/bromances/whatever you want to call them.  I like watching male relationships, in part I think because I actually get to experience female/female and female/male relationships in real life, but fiction is as close as I will ever get to experiencing a male/male relationship.

 

2.  I love flawed heroes. There's a limit, of course, to the damage I will tolerate, but I get bored with white hats.  Give me a hero who struggles.

 

3.  The show is uncommonly even in its production. Yes, of course, we find the flaws because we're looking for them, but this is an ensemble cast that has quality actors (down to the smaller parts, which is unusual), a great script, a great score, and wonderful source material to draw on.  Usually, TV is much more something like Elementary, which I am also watching and enjoying.  But Johnny Lee Miller is basically (IMHO) acting circles around the rest of the cast, and they've departed far enough from the ACD canon to lose the grounding it provides.  In Sherlock, you've got actors who can actually balance out BC's quality, and Moftiss respects the canon enough that there's inherent integrity in the design that shines through.

 

Very nicely put (as always - you know, I am really, really jealous of your ability to express yourself).

 

If I made a list of all things that make Sherlock my favorite series (my favorite thing to watch, ever), this post would become long even for my standards. I'll just say that if someone had set out to create the perfect television program for me, the result would probably have been this. My only real complaint is the lack of an ending. But that may, in time, be remedied - and besides, there have been a few places already where one could have stopped watching and would still have had a good story. If I don't like series 4, I could always call it quits after His Last Vow. It would work the same way I still enjoy Matrix, even though the sequels were rubbish, in my opinion.

 

I mostly agree with you on what particularly appeals to me about Sherlock, except that for me, the attraction is not limited to buddy stories about two men. I just like relationships in general, I think they're probably the most interesting thing there is, and while I've liked plenty of traditional love stories, the pattern does get a bit repetitive after a while. I'm always enthralled when a character and the way he or she connects to other characters cannot be explained with just a few words, and Sherlock is so wonderfully complicated and unusual that way. I wouldn't even call him and John "buddies". Even "friends" seems a bit forced to me, as if they needed a label and just decided on that for want of a more accurate word. And it's not just the central pair that is like that, if you look closely, nearly all the relationships in the series are somehow odd. That alone would be enough to make me fall in love with it, I think.

 

 

 

Thanks for the nice compliment, Toby!  

 

And I totally agree, most of the relationships on this show defy an easy description, and that's part of what makes it fun. Regarding Sherlock and John, I almost think that the closest they ever came to describing the relationship correctly was "best man," but that's not something that lends itself to easy use.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

Umm, if I may hijack this thread a moment to talk about the extras in the Limited Edition Box Set -- Sherlockology just posted close-up photos of the busts of Sherlock and John, and my goodness, they look really nice:

 

 

 

Does anyone actually have these?  How tall are they?  What are they made of -- do they feel fairly heavy and substantial?

[sittything]

I don't have them, but they made the scarf blue.  Heh. 

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

... most of the relationships on this show defy an easy description, and that's part of what makes it fun. Regarding Sherlock and John, I almost think that the closest they ever came to describing the relationship correctly was "best man," but that's not something that lends itself to easy use.

I've read a fanfiction in which John mentions that his sister referred to him and Sherlock as 'hetero life partners'. Dunno how accurate you guys think it is.