What Series of Sherlock is Your Favourite?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, we all have our days....

[Rose Tyler]

I read somewhere he deliberately loses weight, stops smoking and stays out of the sun while filming Sherlock cuz he wants him to have a Lord Byron look.

 

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I also read that for Season 3, he didn't do the anorexic thing. He kept some of the weight on.  He has said in an interview or two that when he is working he tries not to smoke anyway. He does work out. He also adds honey to his diet. (Hhhhmmm I wonder if he takes Queen's Jelly...a byproduct of the hive. It's supposed to promote health and long life....a very long life....the original Holmes is supposed to have taken it. It's why he's immortal.)

 

 He just did a bicycle race for charity.  But yeah....as long as he keeps that porcelain skin and high cheekbones, it's all good.

[T.o.b.y]

It seems His Last Vow has aired in my home country now, because I just read a snooty review on it. Which claimed that series 3 was much weaker than the first two on the grounds that the main focus has shifted from the cases to the characters. Now, this irritates me to no end and since it won't do me or anybody else an ounce of good if I try to reply to that person directly, I'll just blow off steam here. If you don't mind...

 

Why, pray, must a work of fiction automatically loose in quality if it concerns itself primarily with the personalities of and relationships between the characters? Are the lives and loves of people actually less significant subject material than a string of murders? The series is very deliberately called "Sherlock" instead of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" or something like that, if you ask me. And while I deeply enjoy a clever puzzle and an intricate plot, it is always the characters that draw me into a story (or fail to do so in many cases...).

 

The crime show aspect was never what made Sherlock special. The cases were good enough, but they were always whacky and sometimes downright silly, often based on a string of logic you'd do well not to question too hard. The characters on the other hand are unique, multilayered, intriguing and completely believable in spite of being, most of them, very fantastical at the same time. And the relationships are all endlessly fascinating. Come to think of it, I cannot think of a single connection between two people on Sherlock that is easy to sum up. Think about it:

 

- Sherlock and John: best friends. But it sounds odd when John calls Sherlock "mate".

- Sherlock and Molly: Unrequited love. But he objects to her dating other men and she won't accept a date offer from him when given the chance.

- Sherlock and Irene: passionate affair. Only they never had sex (as far as we know). And they betrayed each other. Then he saved her life. Um... this is all so F***ed up I won't even try to describe it further.

- Sherlock and Mycroft: brothers or arch enemies? I still can't decide. Probably both. But they do love each other. Sort of.

- Sherlock and Mrs Hudson: surrogate mother. Only he has a perfectly okay biological mother, so why...?

- Sherlock, Mycroft and their parents: If they're all really such a happy little family, then why did they never celebrate Christmas together until Sherlock got shot?

- The Watsons: Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

 

All this is really interesting to me and it deserves a lot of attention and I, for one, am perfectly happy to accept the cases as plot devices to advance character development. Thank you very much. There are a gazillion crime shows out there, but there's only one Sherlock.

 

That said, I still like series 1 the best, but for different reasons.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

When Season Three aired here in Maine, the critics loved it. Said it was better then Breaking Bad......but it was still over shadowed by Downtown Abby....don't know why.

[Arcadia]

Ah, critics. They have to say something, I suppose. At least the Washington Post critic admitted the show simply wasn't to his taste, rather than saying it was not good. Fair enough.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why, pray, must a work of fiction automatically loose in quality if it concerns itself primarily with the personalities of and relationships between the characters? Are the lives and loves of people actually less significant subject material than a string of murders? The series is very deliberately called "Sherlock" instead of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" or something like that, if you ask me. And while I deeply enjoy a clever puzzle and an intricate plot, it is always the characters that draw me into a story (or fail to do so in many cases...).

 

 

I won't argue with that (though I do like a little casework with my character study).  But I can't help wondering if this means we've accidentally resigned ourselves to being fans of a soap opera? 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Gosh, if the soap operas were as good as Sherlock they would still be around and I'd still be watching them. I think there are only two left and I can't stand to watch either one.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why, pray, must a work of fiction automatically loose in quality if it concerns itself primarily with the personalities of and relationships between the characters? Are the lives and loves of people actually less significant subject material than a string of murders?

 

 

I won't argue with that ....

 

 

After some additional thought, I'm going to disagree after all.  I love what we see of the characters and their interactions and development, and that may even be my favorite part of the show.  But we started re-watching "Study in Pink" tonight, and I think what I like the most about it is the mix of elements -- the individual characters (and we meet quite an assortment!), their developing relationships, the humor (but no jokes!), the canon references, the mysteries, Sherlock's deductions, the wonderful acting (and everything else).

 

I don't think I'm getting the same sense of richness and complexity and balance from Series 3.  It's as though I told the baker how much I enjoyed the crispy raisin cookies (with coconut and chunks of walnut), and she said, "Well then, here -- have a nice bag of raisins!"  Getting more of my favorite part doesn't necessarily make the show better.

 

Dunno how good an analogy that is, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

 

[Arcadia]

After some additional thought, I'm going to disagree after all.  I love what we see of the characters and their interactions and development, and that may even be my favorite part of the show.  But we started re-watching "Study in Pink" tonight, and I think what I like the most about it is the mix of elements -- the individual characters (and we meet quite an assortment!), their developing relationships, the humor (but no jokes!), the canon references, the mysteries, Sherlock's deductions, the wonderful acting (and everything else).

 

I don't think I'm getting the same sense of richness and complexity and balance from Series 3.  ...

 

Really? This took me by surprise, I had to think about it for a bit. I guess the mysteries weren't particularly complex in S3, but the rest of the things you mention seem pretty intact to me. The deductions and the acting were especially sensational, I thought.

 

It seems to me the biggest difference is, there's more emphasis on Sherlock this time around -- and he's certainly a more outsized, flamboyant character than John. So in that sense, I agree, the balance was different. I have to admit I liked it though. But I'm thinking I could actually do with a little less complexity!

[Janie]

I won't argue with that (though I do like a little casework with my character study). But I can't help wondering if this means we've accidentally resigned ourselves to being fans of a soap opera?

Oh, I wish all soap operas had the same quality as Sherlock and only about ten episodes. Sometimes I wonder why I still have a tv.

 

I have to admit that I slightly prefer casework in Sherlock and that's why I was at first a bit disappointed with series 3. Now I focus more on the characters and totally love it. Not as much as series 1 and 2 but it's still good enough for me to watch it over and over...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, I'm not threatening to stop watching the show!  (Not yet, anyhow....)  Just that I don't have quite the same affection for Series 3 as for the first two.  I'm intrigued by the developments, but -- well, if I hadn't known the characters already, I doubt that I'd be nearly as interested in what happens next.

 

I wonder if Moftiss are intentionally counting on our prior investment in the show to give them a wider latitude for future developments.  That would make sense, of course.  But I wouldn't advise them to take it as carte blanche.

 

Julia Mae said somewhat the same thing (but more colorfully!) in her SHERLOCKED blog:

 

... Moffat ... is right about one thing:

As long as we have Sherlock and John and Molly and Lestrade and dear Mrs. Hudson, he can pretty much get away with his arrogant bullshit.  But be careful, darlin.'  There may come a moment when you piss on us one time too many.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

 

Why, pray, must a work of fiction automatically loose in quality if it concerns itself primarily with the personalities of and relationships between the characters? Are the lives and loves of people actually less significant subject material than a string of murders?

 

 

I won't argue with that ....

 

 

After some additional thought, I'm going to disagree after all.  I love what we see of the characters and their interactions and development, and that may even be my favorite part of the show.  But we started re-watching "Study in Pink" tonight, and I think what I like the most about it is the mix of elements -- the individual characters (and we meet quite an assortment!), their developing relationships, the humor (but no jokes!), the canon references, the mysteries, Sherlock's deductions, the wonderful acting (and everything else).

 

I don't think I'm getting the same sense of richness and complexity and balance from Series 3.  It's as though I told the baker how much I enjoyed the crispy raisin cookies (with coconut and chunks of walnut), and she said, "Well then, here -- have a nice bag of raisins!"  Getting more of my favorite part doesn't necessarily make the show better.

 

Dunno how good an analogy that is, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

 

 

I follow you. I suppose there has to be a main focus, and something else will suffer in return. It is, however, possible to have great casework and great character study in the same episodes. Most of s1 and s2 pulls that off nicely. And I will say again that there was a lack of cases in s3 - but somehow that doesn't bother me much anymore.

 

I just watched all of series 3 last night. Yet again, I find myself loving it more, and I really wonder if it's my favorite after all... Then again, I have a big soft spot for s1 which introduced us to this wonderful universe, and in some ways feels most original. S2 has my favorite episode in it, and the other two episodes are also emotional, really funny, and just incredibly entertaining, so it's hard to pick a favorite series.

 

Series 3 did not make me feel so sad this time around, but looking back I can understand why I was so emotionally overwhelmed by it. First of all, dealing with the Reichenbach aftermath in 90 minutes was, as I had feared, not only unsatisfying but also like punch to the stomach - it takes time to recover from. HLV was just the most emotional 90 minutes I've ever watched. TSoT focused so much on 'the end of an era' that it made an otherwise heart-warming episode fairly heart-wrenching. Only after a number of viewings do I feel the way I wish I had felt upon first watching these episodes.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

 

 

I don't think I'm getting the same sense of richness and complexity and balance from Series 3.

 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I mean by that.  As has been pointed out, all of the usual elements do still seem to be there.  (The casework is a bit weak, but I don't think that's my point.)

 

OK, S3 may have all the pieces, but they're kinda divided into separate piles this time:  "Empty Hearse" is the exciting episode and "Sign of Three" is the funny episode and "Last Vow" is the emotional episode.  (That's an oversimplification of course, but I assume you see what I mean.)  Whereas before, things tended to be more interwoven, resulting in a richer texture that I really loved.

 

[Arcadia]

Hmm. I would've said Hearse was the funny episode, TSo3 the emotional one, and HLV -- HLV was a bomb going off. Or maybe Hearse was the emotional one....

 

I'm wondering -- maybe it's that S3 seems just .... bigger, somehow? More flamboyant, more opened out,  more ... just more. I agree, it's hard to define, but I suspect we're sensing the same (or similar) thing. I think our only difference is, I rather loved it that way, it was a bit of a rollercoaster ride. But I can also see how it could easily go too far in that direction, I wouldn't want every episode to follow the same pattern.

[T.o.b.y]

My biggest problem with series 3 is The Empty Hearse, really. It feels a bit rushed and disjointed and it relies too much on other episodes to make sense at all, while not really adding anything to them or bringing any kind of real closure to The Reichenbach Fall. Of course, the original, "The Empty House", is a bit like that, too. But then, that story has a much more positive "feeling" for me. I love reading it, there's a kind of a deep joy and exultation that He is back and all is "indeed like old times". It's totally unrealistic, of course, and not what I wanted from Sherlock, but it's something to hold on to.

 

'Course I love The Empty Hearse, anyway.

 

The Sign of Three is... different. From anything I've ever seen before. I couldn't even assign a genre to it. I would not want the whole series to become like that, but as a single episode, I think it's brilliant. And the cases are only disappointing until you (well, at least I), realize they make a lot more sense if you look at them on a more, how shall I say, "symbolic" level.

 

And His Last Vow finally felt like the "real thing" again, to me. So I'm glad it's the last. Series 3 does kind of end where we started, I think, which makes me a bit more optimistic concerning future episodes.

 

A huge bonus of series 3 is we get to see so much of Sherlock's mind (and heart as well). It's very psychological, which I just love. A lot of the scenes that don't actually take place inside the mind palace are still sort of surreal and then there's the stag night with it's distorted images and so on that makes the viewer feel just as drunk as the protagonists. And then there are Magnussen's "vaults" as well, and so many memory scenes and John dreaming again and... god, the more I think about it, the more enthusiastic I become. Where are those DVDs?

[Carol the Dabbler]

And His Last Vow finally felt like the "real thing" again, to me. So I'm glad it's the last. Series 3 does kind of end where we started, I think, which makes me a bit more optimistic concerning future episodes.

 

I agree -- the final airport scene feels like The Game is about to be on once more! 

 

[sfmpco]

I think the episodes as a whole have gotten better with each season.  I'm glad we're not seeing the same Sherlock jumping with puppy dog excitement over a serial murder case by the time we get to episode 9.  Oh, it's still like Christmas to jump into a dangerous situation, but he's much more adult about it.  So although I like all the seasons, I LOVE series 3.  Then again, I've studied series 3 the most.

 

And I should add... if i love series 3 this much, I know I am going to be over the moon with the special and with Series 4.

[T.o.b.y]

I have no idea where to appropriately post this link, so I'll just do so here and then Carol or some such genius of online order can move it to wherever is better:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2014/01/27/140127crte_television_nussbaum?currentPage=1

 

It's an article from the New Yorker, written this January, I think before His Last Vow aired, about Sherlock, series 3, the love story elements and the show's reaction to its fan base and fan fiction. I think it's very well written and very insightful.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I have no idea where it "belongs" either, T.o.b.y!  But you're right, it's a good article.  Nussbaum apparently wrote it immediately after watching the first two episodes on PBS, and not only noticed a good many of the things we've been discussing for the past half a year, but also came up with unique interpretations of them.  Thanks for posting that!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well done and interesting. Thank you for finding and posting that, Toby.

[sfmpco]

One of the interesting things about BC is that he never photographs the same.  In one episode he can look anywhere from 25-45.  This is not true of the other cast members.  I'm not saying he could consistently play 25, but I do find it a little annoying sometimes in SHERLOCK that they haven't got the lighting issue with him straightened out.  Personally, I like his look in TEH, especially when he and Molly are at the bottom of the stairs and he kisses her cheek.  That's the 40's look.  I like seeing the character lines in his face.  He just gets better looking.  And I like the way he looks in HLV, especially in the Christmas and Magnussen end scenes.  He's developing a much more consistent, mature look to match that voice of his.

[Redbeard]

Although the incongruence of his youth with that voice is kind of sexy, I agree it is nice to see him age into it so beautifully.  I think not only his age can vary but also his attractiveness.  Sometimes I see shots of him and think he really isn't all that good looking, so I can respectably say I am a fan of his acting skills, not shallow!  But then I'll see another picture of him and just...yeah...he's dreamy lol. 

[T.o.b.y]

So this is what Steven Moffat allegedly had to say in a recent interview about the three seasons of Sherlock:
 

 

The first series was all about the beginning of their friendship. Second about the formative stages, the love and fear and loss and all that. The third was good days, me and my pal and my pal’s wife. Those are golden days.

 

Do you agree? Because "golden days" is not exactly how I would describe series 3...

[sherlockandjohn]

So this is what Steven Moffat allegedly had to say in a recent interview about the three seasons of Sherlock:

 

 

The first series was all about the beginning of their friendship. Second about the formative stages, the love and fear and loss and all that. The third was good days, me and my pal and my pal’s wife. Those are golden days.

 

Do you agree? Because "golden days" is not exactly how I would describe series 3...

 

;) No, that was my thought as well. I suppose they mean that with Sherlock and John reunited, and with all the camaraderie between Sherlock and Mary, it does get quite cute. Personally, I'd say series 3 (as far as the friendship goes) was 'life-changing events' or 'emotional upheaval' or 'the end of an era'.