"BBC Sherlock" articles & other miscellany

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think anybody else would just call it their imagination. :D

[Arcadia]

PBS has nominated TLD to be a candidate for an Emmy. http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/sherlock-the-lying-detective-pbs-2017-emmys/

 

I don't think it stands a chance, which is too bad for me, :p because I think it's actually better than HLV, which won one. But I suspect it will be completely overlooked, cuz that's just how these things seem to go. Hope I'm wrong. Anyway, congrats, or something! :d

[Arcadia]

That's the reason why I posted the link.

CAM had a Mind Palace. Sherlock has a Mind… Mind? :P

 

I think anybody else would just call it their imagination. :D

 

Well, it's someone's imagination, alright. This probably doesn't need to be said, but just in case ... everyone realizes the "mind palace" scenes aren't literal depictions of what's happening inside Sherlock's brain, right? They're a cinematic representation of an idea. That's one reason this show wins awards ... it uses images to transmit ideas, not simply tell us what's happening, like a newsreel. The deduction scene on the street in TLD ... the one where Sherlock demonstrates to Faith how he knew so much just from looking at her piece of paper ... that's the same kind of thing. A representation, in visuals, of a thought process. That scene alone should win some kind of award, it was one of the most imaginative pieces of storytelling I remember seeing on television.

[gerry]

TLD was a lot better than HLV. I'm really surprised that HLV won an award to be honest.

[Arcadia]

It won seven, if you count the ones for Ben and Martin. But I assume you're critiquing the script? Or more specifically, the plot? Awards for writing aren't usually given for which story is being told, they're usually given for how the story is told. For all it's plot oddities, the HLV script is beautifully constructed ... inventively non-linear, well paced, clever dialog, and the whole mind palace thing is a fabulous display of imagination. Whether it makes logical sense or not is often beside the point, when you're judging artistic quality. Seems weird, but often true. Especially for fantasy fiction like Sherlock, maybe not quite as much for a gritty cop show.

 

I'm surprised it won only because Hollywood tends to favor shows that "say" something about society. Although a lot of people took CAM to be a poke at Rupert Murdoch, which would probably appeal to a lot of Hollywood types.

[Carol the Dabbler]

PBS has nominated TLD to be a candidate for an Emmy. http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/sherlock-the-lying-detective-pbs-2017-emmys/

 

I don't think it stands a chance, which is too bad for me, :P because I think it's actually better than HLV, which won one. But I suspect it will be completely overlooked, cuz that's just how these things seem to go. Hope I'm wrong. Anyway, congrats, or something! :D

 

Somehow I was thinking they'd submit TFP, which would have been a big mistake in my opinion.  But of course not, 'cause the one Moffat wrote was TLD, and they always submit the one Moffat wrote.  :P

 

... everyone realizes the "mind palace" scenes aren't literal depictions of what's happening inside Sherlock's brain, right? They're a cinematic representation of an idea. That's one reason this show wins awards ... it uses images to transmit ideas, not simply tell us what's happening....

 

Depends on what you mean by literal.  I take those scenes to be what Sherlock would do if he were explaining his deduction to someone else, though what's actually going on in his head is presumably a very short-hand version.  Then again, some of those scenes may be Sherlock explaining his deduction to himself, in which case it may not be quite so shorthand.  (I'm thinking there of the times when he surprises himself with the deduction, but I'm too sleepy right now to think of a good example.)

 

TLD was a lot better than HLV. I'm really surprised that HLV won an award to be honest.

 

(Well, first of all, HLV was submitted because that was the one Moffat wrote.)  Regardless of the actual rules, I suspect most of the voters were thinking of HLV as representing S3 overall (because S3 as a whole was not eligible for nomination).  Also, I suspect that S3 won all those Emmys because everyone had been so impressed by S1 and S2 -- but in general the new kid on the block hardly ever wins an Emmy, so they waited till S3 and then awarded Sherlock a bunch of cumulative Emmys, so to speak.

[sfmpco]

Of the three episodes form S4, I think it was right to choose  TLD for Emmy selection, regardless of whether or not Moffat wrote it.  It was a much more cohesive and complex episode, and it also stands out for BC too.  Did he get nominated?

[gerry]

Also, I suspect that S3 won all those Emmys because everyone had been so impressed by S1 and S2 -- but in general the new kid on the block hardly ever wins an Emmy, so they waited till S3 and then awarded Sherlock a bunch of cumulative Emmys, so to speak.

I like the idea of this because if you isolate HLV it really wasn't a great Sherlock episode, certainly not if you consider the entire series run. Then again when you see what wins Emmys and Oscars, I often wonder what the voters see. Artistic types and critics often like works for different reasons than what the general population would find entertaining like remember when the English Patient was getting nominated/winning all those awards?

[Arcadia]

 

PBS has nominated TLD to be a candidate for an Emmy. http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/sherlock-the-lying-detective-pbs-2017-emmys/

 

I don't think it stands a chance, which is too bad for me, :P because I think it's actually better than HLV, which won one. But I suspect it will be completely overlooked, cuz that's just how these things seem to go. Hope I'm wrong. Anyway, congrats, or something! :D

 

Somehow I was thinking they'd submit TFP, which would have been a big mistake in my opinion.  But of course not, 'cause the one Moffat wrote was TLD, and they always submit the one Moffat wrote.  :P

 

Could that possibly be because they think he's the better writer?

 

 

... everyone realizes the "mind palace" scenes aren't literal depictions of what's happening inside Sherlock's brain, right? They're a cinematic representation of an idea. That's one reason this show wins awards ... it uses images to transmit ideas, not simply tell us what's happening....

 

Depends on what you mean by literal.

 

I mean, I don't think in HLV that Sherlock is actually having conversations with Molly and Anderson and Mycroft in his head, I think it's just a creative way of showing how the mind makes connections between things in a moment of crisis. A visual representation of how an intuitive leap feels, but not what it actually is.

 

 

TLD was a lot better than HLV. I'm really surprised that HLV won an award to be honest.

 

(Well, first of all, HLV was submitted because that was the one Moffat wrote.)  Regardless of the actual rules, I suspect most of the voters were thinking of HLV as representing S3 overall (because S3 as a whole was not eligible for nomination).  Also, I suspect that S3 won all those Emmys because everyone had been so impressed by S1 and S2 -- but in general the new kid on the block hardly ever wins an Emmy, so they waited till S3 and then awarded Sherlock a bunch of cumulative Emmys, so to speak.

 

 

Actually, according to the announcement, it's PBS that decided which episode to submit, not Moffat or Hartswood or the Academy. So whoever the powers that be are at PBS, they're the ones who thought HLV and TLD had/have the best chance of winning.

 

I agree the cumulative effect of all three series was probably a factor in the voter's decision ... I read somewhere that a lot of the voters have never seen the shows they're voting on, and just go with the crowd.

 

Of the three episodes form S4, I think it was right to choose  TLD for Emmy selection, regardless of whether or not Moffat wrote it.  It was a much more cohesive and complex episode, and it also stands out for BC too.  Did he get nominated?

 

I'm not sure how that works, sfmpco ... the article I linked to mentions which actors are eligible, but does that mean they've been nominated? The nominees that are announced on TV ... are they the only nominees, or are they just the finalists? Don't know.

 

The impression I get is that PBS submitted the work they wanted judged, and the Academy takes it from there. But I could be wrong.

 

 

Also, I suspect that S3 won all those Emmys because everyone had been so impressed by S1 and S2 -- but in general the new kid on the block hardly ever wins an Emmy, so they waited till S3 and then awarded Sherlock a bunch of cumulative Emmys, so to speak.

I like the idea of this because if you isolate HLV it really wasn't a great Sherlock episode, certainly not if you consider the entire series run. Then again when you see what wins Emmys and Oscars, I often wonder what the voters see. Artistic types and critics often like works for different reasons than what the general population would find entertaining ....

 

 

EXACTLY. "Artistic types" (like me, so pardon me while I bristle at the term ) tend to judge art on artistic grounds, not on mass popularity. That's their job. They're the ones who have spent years of their lives learning their craft from the inside out, instead of just looking at it from the outside. That's why they get to vote and the general public doesn't. Also they're the ones who pay their membership dues. :P

[gerry]

I didn't mean artistic type as a derogatory term or description. I'm a CPA. As accountants we are typically analytical, logical type A personalities. That isn't true of every single person but is generally true of the profession. I'd imagine Hollywood, musicians and New York broadway encompass many artistic creative type personalities that just look at things differently than the general population. I just have a hard time grasping what they see when voting on awards which is why I don't pay much attention to them not to mention so much of it is subjective rather than objective interpretations. And let's be honest I feel like there's an oversaturation of award shows for the entertainment industry between the oscars, golden globes, emmys, sag awards, people's choice, etc. and this doesn't count all of the different music awards.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Seeing as how there seems to be only that one website saying anything about TLD with regard to the Emmys, I would say that it has clearly not been nominated, because that would be news.  In fact, what the article says is that the episode has been submitted for consideration.  (Nominees are then chosen from what's been submitted.)
 
Regardless of them saying that PBS had made the submission, I suspect that's merely because, as a British program, Sherlock is eligible for the Emmys only because it also runs on PBS, so they must do the official submission.  However, I strongly suspect that they don't do the deciding, they're told by the BBC, which I even more strongly suspect is told by Hartswood.
 

PBS has nominated TLD to be a candidate for an Emmy. http://www.goldderby.com/article/2017/sherlock-the-lying-detective-pbs-2017-emmys/

Somehow I was thinking they'd submit TFP, which would have been a big mistake in my opinion.  But of course not, 'cause the one Moffat wrote was TLD, and they always submit the one Moffat wrote.  :P

Could that possibly be because they think he's the better writer?

Well, it's four for four now, so that pretty well rules out random chance.

 

It seems to me that there are several possibilities as to why it's always the Moffat episode that's submitted for award consideration.  They apparently hash out the basic plots between the two of them, then somehow decide who's gonna write what.  So does Moffat always assign himself to write the strongest plot?  Or do they draw slips of paper from a hat and Moffat is such a superior writer that he makes a better episode out of whatever he's drawn?  I kinda suspect the former, because I get the feeling that although all co-creators are equal, some are more equal than others.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if that news article was anything more than sheer extrapolation.  Of course they'd submit TLD, because they always submit the Moffat episode.  So does that website really have the inside scoop?  Dunno.
 
They certainly don't seem to have an understanding of the situation, in any case.
 

As in years past, PBS’s “Sherlock” series is once again trying its luck in the race for Best TV Movie by submitting only one of its three telefilms for Emmy consideration. [....]  By sticking to this savvy strategy, that means the other two “Sherlock” episodes [...] are thus ineligible for Emmy consideration.

Nobody connected with Sherlock chose that "strategy."  It's merely the only way they can submit anything for Emmy consideration.  The logical choice, miniseries, is not open to them because it's defined as having at least (near as I recall) four episodes.

[Arcadia]

I didn't mean artistic type as a derogatory term or description. I'm a CPA. As accountants we are typically analytical, logical type A personalities. That isn't true of every single person but is generally true of the profession. I'd imagine Hollywood, musicians and New York broadway encompass many artistic creative type personalities that just look at things differently than the general population. I just have a hard time grasping what they see when voting on awards which is why I don't pay much attention to them not to mention so much of it is subjective rather than objective interpretations.

 

Well, again ... exactly. I mean, I wouldn't expect the general public to have much knowledge of, or interest in, accounting. So if I were in charge of judging ledger books, I wouldn't ask just anyone to be judges, I'd ask accountants to be judges. And I'd be just as mystified by how they arrived at the winners, since to me, they'd all look pretty much alike.

 

And let's be honest I feel like there's an oversaturation of award shows for the entertainment industry between the oscars, golden globes, emmys, sag awards, people's choice, etc. and this doesn't count all of the different music awards.

You won't get any argument from me there. Or rather, they can have all the awards ceremonies they like, but why do they all have to be broadcast? (I know, I know ... because they sell. Sigh.)

 

It seems to me that there are several possibilities as to why it's always the Moffat episode that's submitted for award consideration.  They apparently hash out the basic plots between the two of them, then somehow decide who's gonna write what.  So does Moffat always assign himself to write the strongest plot?  Or do they draw slips of paper from a hat and Moffat is such a superior writer that he makes a better episode out of whatever he's drawn?  I kinda suspect the former, because I get the feeling that although all co-creators are equal, some are more equal than others.

 

​And I kinda suspect the latter. I wish mid0nz had finished her blog on the subject, I could cite it for reasons. As it is, I only have my gut to go on, which isn't much.

 

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if that news article was anything more than sheer extrapolation.  Of course they'd submit TLD, because they always submit the Moffat episode.  So does that website really have the inside scoop?  Dunno.

 

They certainly don't seem to have an understanding of the situation, in any case.

 

As in years past, PBS’s “Sherlock” series is once again trying its luck in the race for Best TV Movie by submitting only one of its three telefilms for Emmy consideration. [....]  By sticking to this savvy strategy, that means the other two “Sherlock” episodes [...] are thus ineligible for Emmy consideration.

Nobody connected with Sherlock chose that "strategy."  It's merely the only way they can submit anything for Emmy consideration.  The logical choice, miniseries, is not open to them because it's defined as having at least (near as I recall) four episodes.

 

I was puzzled by that, because I was under the same impression ... Sherlock is in the movie category simply because that's the only one it qualifies for.

 

The Emmys website says nominations are in July, so this is definitely just a submission process at this time. It also says the show's "team" is responsible for submissions, which doesn't tell us much.

[J.P.]

Memories of Eos, the violin coach for Sherlock S4

 

http://earthobservingsystem.tumblr.com/post/160060043442/sherlock-four

[Arcadia]

This maybe was posted before? Worldwide, Sherlock is Netflix's most streamed show. Amazing, really. https://www.timeout.com/usa/blog/this-map-highlights-the-most-popular-shows-on-netflix-in-91-countries-050817

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I'm not too surprised. What I was surprised by is how much Friends is still enjoyed and that it was top in several countries.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Friends is a pretty unique and beautifully-constructed show (at least in part -- they kinda got desperate for story arcs later on, and the quality suffered, I think).

 

I'm glad to hear that Sherlock is doing so well on Netflix.  Speaking of which I've been meaning to post this:  The May crop of new items on Netflix includes Series 4 of Sherlock (May 15), plus Doctor Strange (May 30).

[Arcadia]

I was surprised by Friends too, because I tried to get into it several times (because I thought I should) but I never could.

[Carol the Dabbler]

What part of the show's run were you trying to watch? I'd definitely recommend starting at the very beginning. And if that don't do it for ya, then it's just not your kinda show.

[Arcadia]

Oh gosh. I know I tried to watch it when it first came out, then at other times because I kept hearing how great it was. But yeah, I think it's just not my thing. Most comedies aren't.

 

Comedies I've liked:

Dick Van Dyke (although parts of it make me cringe, now ... he's soooo male chauvinistic sometimes!)

Andy Griffith

Mary Tyler Moore (but I got tired of it towards the end)

WKRP

Home Improvement

Mork ... not always funny, but I loved Robin. Still miss him.

The one with Paul Reiser and Helen What's-er-name

The first Cosby show

Fresh Prince

The Wonder Years

Family Ties

 

In other words, the sweet ones.

 

Is the kooky waitress from Friends? I liked her.

[gerry]

You mean Mad About You? I watched that one too. Yes Lisa Kudrow played twins, Ursula on MAY and Phoebe on Friends.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh gosh. I know I tried to watch it when it first came out, then at other times because I kept hearing how great it was. But yeah, I think it's just not my thing. Most comedies aren't.  Come visit me and I'll play you a couple of what I think are the funniest episodes.  But maybe Friends is simply your Seinfeld (which I never could get into).

 

Comedies I've liked:

Dick Van Dyke (although parts of it make me cringe, now ... he's soooo male chauvinistic sometimes!)

... and then there's The Twizzle.  :P  But bearing in mind that the show aired over fifty years ago, it's still damned good.

Andy Griffith

... come visit me and I'll take you to the Mayberry Cafe, where episodes of the show run constantly.

Mary Tyler Moore (but I got tired of it towards the end)

... yeah, I thought it got a little sappy.

WKRP

... come visit me and I'll take you to see the fountain that's in the opening credits (and the rest of Cincinnati too, if you like).

Home Improvement

... my favorite character is Al.

Mork ... not always funny, but I loved Robin. Still miss him.

... have you seen Night at the Museum?  I was amazed to see him play someone besides himself, and very well, too.  I bought only the first season DVD of Mork, 'cause after that they tried to "fix" the show and it lost its charm.

The one with Paul Reiser and Helen What's-er-name

... as gerry said, that's Mad About You.  I loved it too, other than the occasional "very special episode."  I was especially fond of the dogwalker (Hank Azaria).

The first Cosby show

... hardly ever saw it.  Dunno why, just didn't, even though I liked his albums.

Fresh Prince

... think I maybe saw that one once or twice.  As you might have guessed, it did not make a strong impression.

The Wonder Years

... I remember the title, but not even sure which show that was!

Family Ties

... yup, another favorite of mine.  I really like a lot of Michael J. Fox's movies as well.

 

In other words, the sweet ones.

... how about Leave it to Beaver?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

The Wonder Years took place during the late 60s into the 70s with the family that had 1 daughter and 2 sons. The show revolved around the younger son, Kevin Arnold, played by Fred Savage.

[gerry]

Speaking of Hank Azaria, I adored him as Phoebe's scientist boyfriend on Friends too. He's a very likeable talented actor.

[Arcadia]

I loved him in The Birdcage, he almost stole the show. I didn't realize he was on Friends, that's a surprise.