"BBC Sherlock" articles & other miscellany

[Arcadia]

I suspect they'd have to up the ante as movies, and make them even more bombastic to appeal to an even wider audience in order to get studio backing. So no, the idea doesn't appeal to me.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I'd say keep it as is and if it does go the movie route go the tab route: single TV movie.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Arcadia]

Besides, it sure as heck saves me money to be able to watch it on TV

[Arcadia]

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38972437
 

Sherlock has come out on top again - this time in a worldwide poll of most popular BBC television characters.

Actor Benedict Cumberbatch said he was "honoured" to see his portrayal of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's sleuth voted top by viewers in seven countries.

He continued: "Who would have thought a high-functioning sociopath could be so popular... all over the world?"

Another poll of iconic BBC moments saw Sherlock seemingly falling to his death score more than a quarter of the vote.

That put the ending of 2012's Reichenbach Fall episode streets ahead of Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch, its closest competitor

[J.P.]

Not sure where to post it, as it's about the series as a whole…

I found it interesting

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157588970757/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

[bedelia1984]

Not sure where to post it, as it's about the series as a whole…

I found it interesting

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157588970757/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

 

I really liked that post.

 

I agree with a lot of what the author is saying about the emotional investment versus the lack of follow through in the storytelling. And also about the performances being so big and so honest, but the story/ motivations behind the actions at times not standing up to analysis.

[Arcadia]

I liked it too, although I found myself taking exception with some of her points. (I don't agree, for example, that Mycroft necessarily knew all about Mary before Sherlock came back ... I think there's room to show it's something he learned about later.) And I think some of the plots hold up better than she implies. But I can't deny there's something to what she says.

 

Along similar lines ... I was looking at some comments on another site, and saw something I've seen many, many times: "nothing in this show happens accidentally." In this case, they were talking about how some of the sets in S4 seemed unrealistic, and they therefore MUST have some hidden meaning. But I've seen it many times ... the titles of the books on Sherlock's shelves are important. When something looks like something else, there's a reason. There's messages in the wallpaper.

 

Does anyone know where this idea got started? I mean, was there something that actually worked that way in S1 or S2? Why are some people so convinced there's hidden messages in Sherlock, whether it TJLC or something else? I'm drawing a blank, I'm wondering what you all think of this.

[gerry]

Not sure where to post it, as it's about the series as a whole…

I found it interesting

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157588970757/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

That was perfectly succintly stated. Completely agree.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not sure where to post it, as it's about the series as a whole…

I found it interesting

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157588970757/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

 

I agree (in general) with everything that writer says.  Which is one big reason I'd like to see them get back to writing episodes like the ones in Series 1 and 2 (only further along in the characters' lives).  Which it sounds like they're talking about doing (unless that's just my wishful-thinking interpretation).  No more big pseudo-meaningful moments that will never be explained or integrated.  Just some beautifully executed self-contained stories for us to cherish.

 

I liked it too, although I found myself taking exception with some of her points. (I don't agree, for example, that Mycroft necessarily knew all about Mary before Sherlock came back ... I think there's room to show it's something he learned about later.) And I think some of the plots hold up better than she implies. But I can't deny there's something to what she says.

 

I'm not so sure that Mary knew about John's connection to Mycroft either (at least till it was kinda late to back out).  But yeah, in general I think that's what's been bugging me about S3 and S4.  Take "Empty Hearse," for example.  I get the feeling that they plotted "Reichenbach" with no more than a cursory idea of what actually happened.  They promised that all would be explained -- but then when they found they couldn't make things hang together, they claimed they were making all the theorists happy by proving nobody wrong.  I believe the technical term is "copout."

 

Along similar lines ... I was looking at some comments on another site, and saw something I've seen many, many times: "nothing in this show happens accidentally." In this case, they were talking about how some of the sets in S4 seemed unrealistic, and they therefore MUST have some hidden meaning. But I've seen it many times ... the titles of the books on Sherlock's shelves are important. When something looks like something else, there's a reason. There's messages in the wallpaper.

 

Does anyone know where this idea got started? I mean, was there something that actually worked that way in S1 or S2? Why are some people so convinced there's hidden messages in Sherlock, whether it TJLC or something else? I'm drawing a blank, I'm wondering what you all think of this.

They may be taking Moftiss at their word (as in, "everybody missed something, but we'll never tell you what"), plus extrapolating from a few isolated examples.  Hmm, lemme think.  Well, there's the squash ball.  Umm....

[Arcadia]

Yeah, the squash ball's the only thing I've been able to come up with too.

[bedelia1984]

 

Along similar lines ... I was looking at some comments on another site, and saw something I've seen many, many times: "nothing in this show happens accidentally." In this case, they were talking about how some of the sets in S4 seemed unrealistic, and they therefore MUST have some hidden meaning. But I've seen it many times ... the titles of the books on Sherlock's shelves are important. When something looks like something else, there's a reason. There's messages in the wallpaper.

 

Does anyone know where this idea got started? I mean, was there something that actually worked that way in S1 or S2? Why are some people so convinced there's hidden messages in Sherlock, whether it TJLC or something else? I'm drawing a blank, I'm wondering what you all think of this.

They may be taking Moftiss at their word (as in, "everybody missed something, but we'll never tell you what"), plus extrapolating from a few isolated examples.  Hmm, lemme think.  Well, there's the squash ball.  Umm....

 

 

Yes and Redbeard too, and the East wind, 'the other one'. It wouldn't be entirely true that people didn't notice, but I suppose many didn't guess the true meanings. Though I don't believe they had every little detail plotted out, to the degree they would like us to think they did.

 

I think the set designer got into a bit of strife with TJLC this season over a picture of a pink elephant that was supposed to be significant?

 

But really, some frustrations seem to have happened because when the writers made a nod to the fans, it wasn't accepted as being enough but rather as 'baiting'. It's a tricky game Moftiss play with the audience. For some reason, this year it seemed more conspicuous than others that there was more fan-pleasing and less actually happening- which was weird in what was on-paper an action packed season.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, but those are from S3, and people were already saying "nothing's accidental" by then.  I'm curious what gave them the idea in the first place that "everything" in this show has significance.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Redbeard too, and the East wind, 'the other one'. It wouldn't be entirely true that people didn't notice, but I suppose many didn't guess the true meanings. Though I don't believe they had every little detail plotted out, to the degree they would like us to think they did.

 

I believe they've already admitted that they meant those things rather superficially when first introduced, and gave them deeper meanings only while they were writing S4.  Maybe they intended them to have deeper meanings, but they didn't yet know what they were going to be.  So technically speaking, I don't consider those to be examples in the sense that the squash ball appears to be.

[Arcadia]

Weird, alluva sudden most of my snowflakes are trapped in little rectangles ...

 

Any, the kind of thing I mean is ... like the book titles all have significance, or the way a room is filmed, or the kind of paintings that are in it, or which color a certain character wears at a certain time. I've seen all those referenced as "meaningful," although I don't recall anyone offering an explanation that ever panned out. Which is why I'm wondering where the notion that it "all" means something came from.

 

Okay, the rectangles almost went away, but now they're back thicker than ever ... it must mean something!!!!!!

[Arcadia]

And literally as soon as I typed that, they disappeared. I'm starting to feel spied upon.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Only starting to?

[Arcadia]

Uh oh. What are you trying to tell me?

[bedelia1984]

Have the writers possibly said something about the set of 221B being a sort of character too? They did some features around TAB, didn't they about the clues to the story in details of the set (admittedly this is post season 3, but maybe there are earlier examples?)

[Arcadia]

Maybe, but I don't recall anything like what I'm talking about, where Moftiss have come out and said something like "yeah, the angle of the mirror in the hallway was a clue to Mary's past".

[J.P.]

Maybe it started with the canon references?

Because, to be honest, the only one real clue WAS the ball.

 

We could, of course, wonder about the dog statue, the skull, the picture of a cenote, and the pool, and Sherlock's first case being a drowned boy. But we don't know if they were even a vague ideas in Mofftiss' heads, when they appeared on screen for the first time.

 

The books have no meanings, beside those who have.  :P The whole thing is: each book which title is visible on screen, needs some kind of allowance from the publisher (and probably a fee), so they generally avoid to show them - at least it's what Arwel told us. Which makes me wonder about the promotion pix, where you can read each and every title. 

 

As for the meta: it sums quite well, why S4 feels so magnificent and so disappointing at the same time.

[J.P.]

Oh, yes, Mary and Mycroft.

Even if Mary didn't know who was her former boss, there is no way Mycroft didn't know about Mary's past, being the one who had hired AGRA. And he had to know, that Sherlock will return to John, and therefore to his assassin wife, which meant trouble, sooner or later.

( okay, Sherlock seeing Mary working for Mycroft in TAB could be seen as a clue!)

[J.P.]

The meta has a nice follow-up:

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157669576357/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

[Arcadia]

Oh, yes, Mary and Mycroft.

Even if Mary didn't know who was her former boss, there is no way Mycroft didn't know about Mary's past, being the one who had hired AGRA. And he had to know, that Sherlock will return to John, and therefore to his assassin wife, which meant trouble, sooner or later.

( okay, Sherlock seeing Mary working for Mycroft in TAB could be seen as a clue!)

 

I'm just not so sure. Here's the dialog:

 

SHERLOCK: AGRA is an acronym.

MYCROFT: Oh, good. I love an acronym. All the best secret societies have them.

SHERLOCK: Team of agents, the best. But you know all that.

MYCROFT: Of course I do. Go on.

SHERLOCK: One of them, Ajay, is looking for Mary, also one of the team.

MYCROFT: Indeed? Well, that’s news to me.

SHERLOCK (a little disbelievingly): Is it?

(Mycroft lowers his head and smiles at him in a sort of ‘believe it if you like’ way.)

SHERLOCK: He’s already killed looking for that memory stick. AGRA always worked for the highest bidder. I thought that might include you.

MYCROFT (frowning): Me?

SHERLOCK: Well, I mean the British government or whatever government you’re currently propping up.

MYCROFT: AGRA were very reliable; then came the Tbilisi incident. They were sent in to free the hostages but it all went horribly wrong. And that was that. We stopped using freelancers.

SHERLOCK: Your initiative?

MYCROFT: My initiative. Freelancers are too woolly; too messy. I don’t like loose ends – not on my watch.

 

It's the "That's news to me" that has me wondering. He could mean that it's news to him that Ajay is after Mary; but it sounds more to me like he means that he didn't know Mary was one of the members of AGRA. And of course, he could be lying, as Sherlock wisely notes. Mycroft goes on to say he used AGRA once, but that still doesn't mean he knew Mary was part of the team.

 

I agree that the way they've portrayed his character so far ... as practically omniscient ... it would make more sense, in terms of characterization, that he's known who Mary was all along. But it makes more sense for the sake of plot that he didn't, so I'm opting for that as long as I can. To be honest, this is an example of where I would have preferred that Moftiss had just made up their minds, and decided which way they wanted it, and said so; this way, it's an unnecessary and distracting mystery.

 

The meta has a nice follow-up:

http://marsdaydream.tumblr.com/post/157669576357/defying-analysis-sherlock-s3-4

 

Again, I don't really disagree with anything either of them say, except for this ...

 

I have come to the conclusion that the hive mind of thousands of people exploring characters and potential plots will always exceed the capabilities of a single author or small group of creators. There are simply more thought hours to spare in fandom and a greater range of experience and expertise. Doesn’t matter the ship, the best and brightest fanworks beat out the source material every time...

 

...for me, fandom has essentially always been about having fun in the spaces left by the creator. Acknowledging the weaknesses and either ignoring or strengthening them. About making something MORE thrilling or MORE amusing or MORE angsty or MORE romantic or MORE sexy and MORE meaningful and MORE consistent in terms of characterisation and MORE tightly plotted than the creators were ever going to manage.

Wow. That's quite a sweeping statement. And it may be true for the person who wrote it, but it sure as shootin' doesn't describe me. No matter how "true to canon" it is, no matter how well written and plotted, a fanwork always feels like a separate entity to me. Similar, sometimes, but living on a different plane of existence than the original. I don't compare them so much as I accept that they are simply different versions. So one can't be MORE of the other one; it's just ... other. Does that make sense? I'm having a tough time articulating what I mean, but I feel it quite strongly! :P

 

Something I also wanted to articulate, above, was the disconnect many viewers felt after S4, the feeling that they had been watching a different show than perhaps the creators were making. And I’m not just talking about shipping – many fans expected S4 to explain a lot of the inconsistencies and questions in previous seasons, because they thought Sherlock would provide answers, and at last some of the mysteries would be solved. I think many fans were surprised when the show became even more comic book-action-fantasy, especially in the last episode, and raised more questions than it answered.

 

... It felt as if the first two seasons were heightened realism, but by the time we got to the last season, we were straight-up James Bond / Marvel. It felt like a lot of fans didn’t see this shift coming.

This, on the other hand, I quite agree with. That was certainly my first reaction to T6T, for example ... I felt like I'd somehow wandered into the wrong show. Although perhaps I should have expected the James Bond-ery, because I remember, after seeing S3, fervently hoping they wouldn't go there. So something they were doing tipped me off, even if I chose to believe they were just messing with us. I pretty much despise the whole James Bond aesthetic; if I'd known without a doubt that's where the show was going, I might not have watched S4 at all.

 

But then I might have missed TLD, which is one of my favorite things ever (so far, at least. Some of you are working overtime to lessen my appreciation of it! :D) And TFP has enough going for it, especially the last 10-15 minutes, that I can accept its place in the "canon." And poor old T6T; well, I'll just have to lock it up in the basement with Moriarty and avoid it as much as possible. :(

[Carol the Dabbler]

Even if Mary didn't know who was her former boss, there is no way Mycroft didn't know about Mary's past, being the one who had hired AGRA.

 

I too disagree with that point.  AGRA were a shady bunch -- which is presumably why they used an acronym.  Even if they were hired "on Mycroft's watch" (though apparently Lady Smallwood was the one who actually communicated with them), that doesn't necessarily mean that he (or Lady Smallwood, for that matter) knew their individual names.  And even if he/she/they did know their names, they wouldn't necessarily know that Rosamund Mary Somebody-or-Other had re-emerged as Mary Morstan.

 

Not saying they didn't, either, of course, just that I don't see how we can be at all certain, either way.