"BBC Sherlock" articles & other miscellany

[besleybean]

Sigh...

As a 57 year old Brit , I grew up with the Rathbone films and the Jeremy Brett series...

Been there and done that darling, loved them all.

[Inge l-w]

Oh dear! Forties, here, and I actually got to Rathbone after the Granada series. 

Surely, you cannot have loved them all, there were highs and lows the size of hurricane waves!

[besleybean]

Well as this is a BBC Forum...

Who cares?!

[Caya]

Well strictly speaking, we do have this lovely "Other Versions" subforum: https://www.sherlockforum.com/forum/forum/35-other-versions/ so it's not BBC only. And we've always happily welcomed any Sherlock fan, whether they prefer BBC (Johnlock or PlatonicFriends flavour), Granada, or those who think Gene Wilder was killing it as Sigerson, for that matter. It's all good.

[besleybean]

Well I was judging by the picture at the top of the forum...

as well as my personal preferences.

[Arcadia]

I just happened to turn on this documentary on TV called "Showrunners: The Art of Running a TV Show". Moffat's not in it (at least so far) but those of you who are interested in how shows get made, and what the job of running a show (like Sherlock) can be like, might get something out of it. The only online link I could find was to this panel where they are discussing this documentary, but they have a clip of a few scenes so you can get a taste of it.

I perked up mostly because both JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon are among the people interviewed, for what that's worth. That, and early on in the show, someone says that the quitting rate for showrunners is 100%, because it's such an all-consuming job.... hmmm......

[Carol the Dabbler]

20 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

someone says that the quitting rate for showrunners is 100%, because it's such an all-consuming job.... hmmm......

The quitting rate for any job is 100%    eventually.  I would take that as more of a description of how hard the job is, rather than a prescription of what necessarily happens.

If you're concerned about Mr. Moffat's involvement in Sherlock, remember that when he quit Doctor Who, he announced that he was going to quit, while he was still actively involved in the show, and then he did quit, right on schedule.  With Sherlock, he's been saying that there will probably be more episodes sooner or later, so he just might be telling the truth there as well.

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

The quitting rate for any job is 100%    eventually.  I would take that as more of a description of how hard the job is, rather than a prescription of what necessarily happens.

Yeah, I couldn't think of the phrase I wanted at the time, which was "burn-out rate". I should probably go back and change it. Although the end result is the same … it's a taxing job!

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

If you're concerned about Mr. Moffat's involvement in Sherlock, remember that when he quit Doctor Who, he announced that he was going to quit, while he was still actively involved in the show, and then he did quit, right on schedule.  With Sherlock, he's been saying that there will probably be more episodes sooner or later, so he just might be telling the truth there as well.

Actually, I was thinking more how much invective is lobbed at him concerning the show. These guys in the documentary were all talking about how much their various shows meant to them … and how hard it was when the public (or whoever) bashed it. Or them.

[J.P.]

Okay, ths is a bit of a different article, but still…

Turn a Halloween decoration into great Sherlock merch with few marker streaks.
https://www.firebox.com/Pennywise-Balloon-Lamp/p9188

[Arcadia]

New York Times has named Sherlock the 2nd best international show of the last decade. I can't access the actual article so I don't know what came in #1, but I'm sure we'll all agree to hate whatever it was.  

Here's where (indirectly) I got the info from (hope this works, I'm never sure about tumblr): https://notagarroter.tumblr.com/post/189786048555/the-30-best-international-tv-shows-of-the-decade   There's a short blurb.

[Carol the Dabbler]

#1 is an Israeli political thriller called Prisoners of War.  I'd heard of a few of the others (Broadchurch is #27), but have seen none except Sherlock.

[J.P.]

It's behind the paywall.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, J.P. said:

It's behind the paywall.

Television, here in the US at least, started out with commercials but no monetary fees. Then came cable, with stuff (mostly theatrical movies at first) that you couldn't get on broadcast TV, for a flat monthly fee but with no commercials.  Then they invented home video tape and discs, so that for a one-time fee you could have a particular show or movie in perpetuity.  We bitched about the commercials and the fees, of course, but we were well aware that if you can get something for nothing, that's generally about what it's worth.

Then came the internet, which eventually spawned streaming television.  Unlike cable, you need to pay a separate fee for each channel, which somehow seems unfair.  But it occurs to me that I didn't feel cheated back in the 90's, when I subscribed to three different gardening magazines.  It never occurred to me to be upset because Organic Gardening didn't also include all the articles published in National Gardening or The Kitchen Garden.  On the contrary, I was ecstatic to have three top-quality magazines to read.  Of course they only charged $20-30 for an entire year.

So I'm wondering whether the streaming channels might be today's equivalent of my late lamented magazines.  What do they charge, compared to cable or satellite TV?

[J.P.]

I meant the article, sorry.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, I see! 

Hopefully my remarks are still relevant to this topic, even though kind of an unintentional non sequitur.

[Arcadia]

Actually, since what's behind the paywall is a magazine, you're right on topic. Sort of. Maybe. Never mind.  

And come to think of it … how'd you find out what #1 was, Dabbler? You have a subscription to the Times? 

(I almost wish I did, seems like half the news links I click on are from the NY Times. Then I have to bother to google another source, phooey. )

[Carol the Dabbler]

49 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

how'd you find out what #1 was, Dabbler? You have a subscription to the Times?

Nope -- but I apparently hadn't used up my quota. Some publications allow so-many free accesses per month.  Others may allow only a few, total, or none at all.  In any case, I assume they use cookies to keep track.

All I did was click on the link in the item you linked to -- which may have succeeded merely because I was on my tablet, which I rarely use to go online, so my count was probably still zero.  You might try deleting your Times cookie, if you can find it (or perhaps them).

[Arcadia]

Hm, I hadn't thought of that, good one!

[J.P.]

Okay, this is brilliant!

 

[bedelia1984]

I find a lot to disagree with in this article, on our Sherlock, anyway, I haven't seen 'Elementary'.

Sherlock and Toxic Masculinity

I find 'toxic' to be one of those contemporary buzzwords that is often over-used, and though at times I have found the show's overall writing in terms of its depiction of women iffy, I don't think Sherlock is a good example of toxic masculinity at all over all. I would be curious what others think if anyone reads it.

Edited December 17, 2020 by bedelia1984
typo

[Carol the Dabbler]

Nice to see that you're still around, Bedelia!

I started reading that article but it's so judgmental (about nearly everything) that I couldn't bring myself to finish it.

I find it more informative to read articles that start by thinking something looks intriguing, and then continue by exploring it to find out what's inside.  I don't get that feeling from this piece -- it seems to start with "what's wrong here" and continues by saying "now let's prove it's wrong."  Furthermore, the author makes broad statements without (at least in the part that I read) providing any examples.  I'm all in favor of psychoanalyzing Sherlock Holmes, but not when it's done by a kangaroo court -- or in such deadly earnest.

I'm a little short on sleep today, so I may be somewhat over-reacting, but I don't think I'd change my mind very much if I could bring myself to read it again tomorrow.

1 hour ago, bedelia1984 said:

I don't think Sherlock is a good example of toxic masculinity at all over all.

I think that article is a far better example of toxic journalism than Sherlock is of toxic masculinity.

 

[bedelia1984]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Nice to see that you're still around, Bedelia!

I started reading that article but it's so judgmental (about nearly everything) that I couldn't bring myself to finish it.

I find it more informative to read articles that start by thinking something looks intriguing, and then continue by exploring them to find out what's inside.  I don't get that feeling from this piece -- it seems to start with "what's wrong here" and continues by saying "now let's prove it's wrong."  Furthermore, the author makes broad statements without (at least in the part that I read) providing any examples.  I'm all in favor of psychoanalyzing Sherlock Holmes, but not when it's done by a kangaroo court -- or in such deadly earnest.

Great to see you and the forum still going strong Carol! Hope you are keeping well these days.

 Really miss Sherlock this year, it would have been amazing to see a a new special, even.

I don't know why my phone recommended this piece to me- the mention of Sherlock I suppose, but more fool me for reading it! As you say, it starts with an obvious agenda and is written to prove a point, skewing everything to fit that. Added to which, I just don't see how they could equate Benedict Cumberbatch's layered performance as portraying such a one-note quality as I understand toxic masculinity- in fact there are times when the script might sit on the page as sexist but he plays things with far more complexity. Misguided as some of the show's efforts towards feminism are, also, surely they should get some credit for at least trying.

I also dislike using Conan Doyle's line about holding cold reason above all else (I think that's from the original, anyway) as some proof the Original Holmes was the somehow a toxic masculine type- there are women who favour reason too. It's annoying when a piece supposed to challenge stereotypes is so chock full of them.

Anyway, clearly I am bereft of more high quality content. Interesting the author discusses the Asperger's theory in a more balanced way, but I guess that isn't the idea being sold in the article.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, bedelia1984 said:

It's annoying when a piece supposed to challenge stereotypes is so chock full of them.

 

On the other hand, I don't think the author's main intent was to challenge stereotypes.  Judging by the portion that I read, their primary intention was to prove that Sherlock Holmes (in all his incarnations) was/is a toxic male, and any challenge to stereotypes was basically a byproduct.

I seriously doubt that they are aware of the stereotypes that they're promoting, simply because to them only certain stereotypes count.  For example, if a woman has a stereotypical view of men in general or a black person has a stereotypical view of white people in general, those aren't really stereotypes, because they're supposedly justified.  My view is that all generalizations are overgeneralizations. and are therefore stereotypes.  These can sometimes be helpful tools, but are all too easily overused.

 

[T.o.b.y]

Oh Lord... I'm late to the, um, can you even call this a party? But whatever. I just read that article and it seemed to me as if the author never really watched Sherlock.

First of all, BBC Sherlock certainly does not let the main character's attitude go "unchallenged", in fact, a massive point is made of him being a huge dick and as the story progresses, the disadvantages of that and the effects on himself as well as literally everyone else he cares for become more and more apparent until in the end, it's the stereotypically "feminine" values that Sherlock learns to embrace like love and compassion and making room for feelings in general that win the day, not Mycroft's "iceman" brain-cult.

Secondly, "masculinity" is about the last word I would associate with this particular portrayal. I always feel as if the show would work just as well if the main character was female. This Sherlock comes across as very androgynous to me, that's one reason why I find him appealing I guess.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good points, Tobe!