John Watson

[Arcadia]

I think some people might argue that Holmes was the Bond of his time. He didn't just have cases, after all, he had adventures, and they could be pretty action packed. He may not have had a license to kill but to a degree, he was above the law. And he was very cool and very popular and very extraordinary.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the canon to really speak to that point, so I'll take your word for it -- and it makes sense. But even so, that's not what this version of Sherlock was about ... at least, not to me. That's one of the many things I liked about it; he wasn't Mr. Macho Man, boinking all the girls and gunning down the bad guys.

 

I'm not sure precisely why I find Bond so objectionable ... when I was younger, I enjoyed the films well enough. (Never the books, though.) But sometime during the Pierce Brosnan era I started to find them laughable, and even somewhat offensive. Not because of Brosnan, who I like very much as an actor, but the attitudes those movies embody about casual sex, mass destruction, and killing ... the older I get, the less patience I have with being flippant about such things. Maybe that's part of it; the attitudes in Bond movies were too old school for my taste? Hmm, maybe. I suspect there's more to it, though ... something to do with all the testosterone I sense oozing out of the film reels.... :P

[J.P.]

Bond tends to offend my intelligence. Definitively more than Sherlock. At least the BBC one. Not sure about ACD

[Arcadia]

I suspect that's another way of saying the same thing. ;)

[Van Buren Supernova]

Yah, actually I always wondering, and don't think I have read explanations that convince me, what is this James Bond thingy anyway? Other than Mary's stuff, what are the rest?

 

Adventure, but that is Sherlock on Sherlock's scale. I don't see significant addition to Sherlock we have in S4 compared to S1-3. And as mentioned, it is canon. Sherlock is capable of a lot of things in a book that enable him of a lot of physical agilities and skills if he is up for those. And I don't remember seeing too much of those, I actually want to see him kicking more asses.

 

Aston Martin, helicopter? That's Mrs.Hudson and it's meant to be funny and over the top, but the accused Bond was locked up in the trunk.

The Sheringford? Let me admit that I actually like them moving from case to case quite a lot, although it is quite predictable and I'd want more audience can play along, but it is still Sherlock.

 

Mary's stuff, yea..not a fan. But the complain is about Sherlock being Bond, which I don't see.

To be honest, I got that as well when I saw the trailer with cars and helicopters, but again, it's not him and it is not even that significant.

 

So, enlighten me please, because I read it mentioned over and over again it's driving me nuts. It gets me wondering if it's just opinion repeated from somewhere, and the more it's mentioned, the more it is believed without proper reasons? So.. enlighten me please.

 

And sorry John, we are talking about Sherly again. :p

[T.o.b.y]

That's poor John's fate...

 

I am not really the right person to answer your question because I didn't see the new episodes as particularly Bond-y either, but I think one example is the fight at the pool (Sherlock vs A.J.). Another is the Baker Street explosion. And then there's Sherlock killing Magnussen and not being tried by a regular court but a secret little meeting of civil servants and being let off the hook in the end because he's, well, Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

Well, I don't mean that Sherlock has become Bond, exactly; I mean the addition of the kind of dark humor and preposterous action pieces that Bond films are known for. Such as:

 

Being blown out the window in TFP.

 

Prolonged fight in a pool with a trained assassin in T6T.

 

Gunplay with Sherlock, Mary and same assassin in same episode.

 

Mary's former occupation.

 

Somehow managing to land on a boat in the middle of nowhere in a storm in TFP.

 

Every scene that Moriarty is in, in TFP.

 

Stuff like that. Does that help?

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

Ah, Toby was quicker than me. But yeah, Lady Smallwood is a bit of a Bond-ian character too, isn't she? Tough but a lady.

[Artemis]

The high-speed fancy car/helicopter chase in TLD was giving me distinct Bond-esque vibes, despite being Mrs. Hudson's and not Sherlock's (although they wanted us to think it was Sherlock at first). I'm not complaining about it though, just adding it to the list of Bond feels.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Arcadia, I think I went off of Bond well before you.  I remember being disappointed when Brosnan didn't get the role the first time he was under consideration, and kinda losing interest at that point, then upon further reflection deciding that I really didn't like the Connery movies (the only ones I've ever seen) anyhow.  I had watched them because I was going to a lot of movies back then, and they were Big Movies.  I guess I enjoyed them at the time, but then I ruined it all by actually thinking about them!

 

I don't think that recent Sherlock episodes actually have any of the aspects that I dislike the most about Bond movies -- the amorality, the way women are portrayed, and maybe some other things that I'm too sleepy to think of right now.  But S3 and S4 did have enough of the Bond look and feel that they felt like foreign territory.  I think that's what I object to, they aren't quite the show that I've loved from "We'll start with the riding crop."

 

Added:  And I agree with Arcadia, it's not that we think Sherlock himself had become Bond (may not have expressed myself clearly, but never meant that at all), but rather than the show had become something of a Bond movie.

[Pseudonym]

I never liked or 'got' the Bond movies, though the last two are okay where he seems a little bit less indestructible (though of course he is).

[Arcadia]

The high-speed fancy car/helicopter chase in TLD was giving me distinct Bond-esque vibes, despite being Mrs. Hudson's and not Sherlock's (although they wanted us to think it was Sherlock at first). I'm not complaining about it though, just adding it to the list of Bond feels.

 

That worked for me for the same reason that a lot of Sherlock works for me ... they made a joke out of it.

 

Arcadia, I think I went off of Bond well before you.  I remember being disappointed when Brosnan didn't get the role the first time he was under consideration, and kinda losing interest at that point, then upon further reflection deciding that I really didn't like the Connery movies (the only ones I've ever seen) anyhow.  I had watched them because I was going to a lot of movies back then, and they were Big Movies.  I guess I enjoyed them at the time, but then I ruined it all by actually thinking about them!

 

I don't think that recent Sherlock episodes actually have any of the aspects that I dislike the most about Bond movies -- the amorality, the way women are portrayed, and maybe some other things that I'm too sleepy to think of right now.  But S3 and S4 did have enough of the Bond look and feel that they felt like foreign territory.  I think that's what I object to, they aren't quite the show that I've loved from "We'll start with the riding crop."

 

Added:  And I agree with Arcadia, it's not that we think Sherlock himself had become Bond (may not have expressed myself clearly, but never meant that at all), but rather than the show had become something of a Bond movie.

 

Yeah, I doubt if I could stand any of the versions any more ... my tastes have changed. For the better, of course.

 

I'll ask you the same question VBS did, only this time about S3 ... what did you find Bondian about it? I didn't get that vibe at all. Maybe the Serbian scene at the beginning, a bit, but right now that's all I can come up with.

 

I never liked or 'got' the Bond movies, though the last two are okay where he seems a little bit less indestructible (though of course he is).

 

I had hopes for the Daniel Craig version because I heard so many gushing reviews about them. But when I finally got a chance to see one on TV ... nope, too world-weary and nihilistic for my taste. I'm afraid my preferences theses days run more to something like Penguins of Madagascar. :cookie:

 

ETA ... another reason the Bond and Holmes universes don't overlap for me ... Bond never had a sidekick, did he? Always the lone wolf. I think of Holmes as the original "buddy cop" franchise. After all, where would he be without his blogger?

 

And now we are back on topic. :d

[Pseudonym]

Where as I'm at an age where I love a bit of violence and nihilism. ;) I didn't like the first ones he did, and I can't say I'm particularly a fan of the last ones, I just didn't mind them. 

 

I'm guessing assassin!Mary was part of the Bond criticism of season 3. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think so -- at least it sure as heck wasn't Sherlock Holmes!

 

I don't think I'm the one who came up with the Bond analogy, but to me Series 3 and 4 had a distinctly different feel from the first two. Empty Hearse started out kind of silly, but the distinctly non-Sherlockian music tipped me off that it was a parody of some sort of "action" movie -- maybe Bond.

 

Sign of Three was OK, very sweet, with an interesting (though not entirely plausible) case. Not really Bondish.

 

But Last Vow. Again, not sure Bond is a perfect analogy, but not Sherlock Holmes. I think the part that bothered me the most wasn't even that Mary turns out to be an ex hired gun, but that -- despite Moftiss's vigorous assertions to the contrary -- at that point she really does mess up the Sherlock-and-John dynamic. She out-Sherlocks Sherlock, so John is the odd one out. That gets even worse in Six Thatchers, of course. (I need to mention that I didn't realize exactly what was bothering me till I read a blog recently -- and I meant to post a link, but must have been interrupted.)

[Artemis]

^ I would like to see that link!

[Arcadia]

I think if I'd seen Mary in action in S3 (other than shooting Sherlock, of course) I'd be more inclined to agree. As it is, I don't know, I just come at S3 from a different direction, for some reason. Partly, I think, because Sherlock himself seems so vulnerable in that one. I get all protective.

[Boton]

I think some people might argue that Holmes was the Bond of his time. He didn't just have cases, after all, he had adventures, and they could be pretty action packed. He may not have had a license to kill but to a degree, he was above the law. And he was very cool and very popular and very extraordinary.

 

I think this is true to a degree.  And I don't mind a bit of conflation between Bond and Sherlock, so long as he doesn't solve *everything* with a gun battle.  I mean, I have no problem with guns, and I have no problem with what has been done thus far in Sherlock (minus John shooting the cabbie).  But my ideal Sherlock-with-a-gun moment is the pool scene, where it didn't have to come to shooting, but you sure as heck knew that Sherlock could handle a gun if needed.  (Well, other than the whole head-scratching thing, which is just wrong.)

 

 

 something to do with all the testosterone I sense oozing out of the film reels.... :P

 

I'm the opposite - I think that's why I like Bond.  I like a good romp that focuses on men and manliness and lots of testosterone.  Too much sensitivity and feminine heroines bores me.

 

Plus, both Sherlock and all the Bond iterations look so good in a tux.  The world needs more men in tuxes.

 

Where as I'm at an age where I love a bit of violence and nihilism. ;)

 

Seconded.  I like a good helping of violence and nihilism.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

^ I would like to see that link!

I'll see if I can find it -- probably not till later in the week.

[Arcadia]

Wait until you children reach our age  :xmas2:  and see how much you like nihilism then!

 

I don't think the opposite of Bond is femininity and sensitivity, I think it's more like brains vs. brawn. And like Irene, it's the brains I find sexy. That and the tux. :d

 

Srsly, to be fair, I don't think it's really the hormones or the guns or the attitudes that I find boring ... it's the bombast. The faster-louder-bigger and increasing implausibility of it all, for no reason other than to top the previous project. And yes, I'm looking at you, Peter Jackson. I don't think Sherlock's gone that far yet, but S4 was moving in that direction, and Bond got there years ago, imo. Maybe the Daniel Craig versions have pulled back from that a bit, I don't know. The scenes I saw reminded me enough of the old Bond to lose interest pretty quickly.

[Van Buren Supernova]

That's poor John's fate...

I am not really the right person to answer your question because I didn't see the new episodes as particularly Bond-y either, but I think one example is the fight at the pool (Sherlock vs A.J.). Another is the Baker Street explosion. And then there's Sherlock killing Magnussen and not being tried by a regular court but a secret little meeting of civil servants and being let off the hook in the end because he's, well, Sherlock.

  

Well, I don't mean that Sherlock has become Bond, exactly; I mean the addition of the kind of dark humor and preposterous action pieces that Bond films are known for. Such as:

 

Being blown out the window in TFP.

 

Prolonged fight in a pool with a trained assassin in T6T.

 

Gunplay with Sherlock, Mary and same assassin in same episode.

 

Mary's former occupation.

 

Somehow managing to land on a boat in the middle of nowhere in a storm in TFP.

 

Every scene that Moriarty is in, in TFP.

 

Stuff like that. Does that help?

  

The high-speed fancy car/helicopter chase in TLD was giving me distinct Bond-esque vibes, despite being Mrs. Hudson's and not Sherlock's (although they wanted us to think it was Sherlock at first). I'm not complaining about it though, just adding it to the list of Bond feels.

  

Arcadia, I think I went off of Bond well before you.  I remember being disappointed when Brosnan didn't get the role the first time he was under consideration, and kinda losing interest at that point, then upon further reflection deciding that I really didn't like the Connery movies (the only ones I've ever seen) anyhow.  I had watched them because I was going to a lot of movies back then, and they were Big Movies.  I guess I enjoyed them at the time, but then I ruined it all by actually thinking about them!

 

I don't think that recent Sherlock episodes actually have any of the aspects that I dislike the most about Bond movies -- the amorality, the way women are portrayed, and maybe some other things that I'm too sleepy to think of right now.  But S3 and S4 did have enough of the Bond look and feel that they felt like foreign territory.  I think that's what I object to, they aren't quite the show that I've loved from "We'll start with the riding crop."

 

Added:  And I agree with Arcadia, it's not that we think Sherlock himself had become Bond (may not have expressed myself clearly, but never meant that at all), but rather than the show had become something of a Bond movie.

Thanks for the examples.

The way I see it though, many of the examples still fit Sherlock's universe well, and if it reminds of Bond, I think we are at the time when something always reminds us of something else.

 

I agree with Mary's part, it is exception to me, especially in T6T, although I don't necessary relate her to Bond. Imho, her storyline is very forced in S4, and ruined things in that, beside John's hair :p. To be clear, I am bothered by his hair not only from how it looks, but from how it doesn't, really doesn't, imo, fits into the story.

 

Sherlock's fight in the pool reminds me of TBB sword fight, and actually to me, that is Sherlock. He is probably the most capable detective in physical department that I'm aware of. So the pool fight actually makes sense to me, and it's good old fights, not gun, big bang or jumping from chopper etc.

 

Blown out of window, well, isn't it similar with TGG?

 

Appear from the boat out of nowehere, I'm glad they didn't show where he came from, and the coat is not a good attire in the sea. At all. In that kind of boat and that kind of weather. I agree it's ridiculous in quite similar tone they make in the pilot when he was batman on the rooftop.

 

Not being tried in court, actually makes sense to me remembering who Magnussen, Mycroft and Sherlock are. As much as I don't mind Magnussen's incident, I think his story continuation is not adequate and executed well, it deserves more than just weird court case where Sherlock is borderline annoying.

I still think end of HLV has a lot of emotional impacts and wit's battles that the gun scene is not just another gun scene, so I don't categorize this as bondy, in fact, it's very Sherlock to me. Someone who needs to juggle between his work, his principle, his loved one, and what he believes in as the better way in his field. It's very powerful moment imho, (too bad, they ruin it in S4 by sweeping that aside). There is nothing bondy in there, it is different.

 

With the nature of his work and his capability, all those thing (except Mary and Mrs.Hudson) actually feels canon to me, with the differences of we venturing deeper to what he is, inside his head, especially S1-3.

 

I think Bond idea really hatched from the trailer, as I also thought so back then, and with that idea firmly planted, the rest follows. It doesn't help with Mary storyline.

Outside that, I'm standing by that it's not. I'm typing this in hurry, hope it makes sense for a tiny bit.

[Arcadia]

Thanks for the examples.

The way I see it though, many of the examples still fit Sherlock's universe well, and if it reminds of Bond, I think we are at the time when something always reminds us of something else.

 

I agree with Mary's part, it is exception to me, especially in T6T, although I don't necessary relate her to Bond. Imho, her storyline is very forced in S4, and ruined things in that, beside John's hair :P. To be clear, I am bothered by his hair not only from how it looks, but from how it doesn't, really doesn't, imo, fits into the story.

 

Sherlock's fight in the pool reminds me of TBB sword fight, and actually to me, that is Sherlock. He is probably the most capable detective in physical department that I'm aware of. So the pool fight actually makes sense to me, and it's good old fights, not gun, big bang or jumping from chopper etc.

 

Blown out of window, well, isn't it similar with TGG?

Why no, that was the exact opposite. In TGG Sherlock was blown inwards, in TFP he was blown outwards. Duh. :P

 

I keep laughing about John's hair, because before S4 aired, we were all so worried about Sherlock's hair. (Well ... some of us were worried.) What if he keeps the awful slick back from TAB, oh noes! And then it's John that goes and gets a new do. :D

 

Appear from the boat out of nowehere, I'm glad they didn't show where he came from, and the coat is not a good attire in the sea. At all. In that kind of boat and that kind of weather. I agree it's ridiculous in quite similar tone they make in the pilot when he was batman on the rooftop.

 

Not being tried in court, actually makes sense to me remembering who Magnussen, Mycroft and Sherlock are. As much as I don't mind Magnussen's incident, I think his story continuation is not adequate and executed well, it deserves more than just weird court case where Sherlock is borderline annoying.

I still think end of HLV has a lot of emotional impacts and wit's battles that the gun scene is not just another gun scene, so I don't categorize this as bondy, in fact, it's very Sherlock to me. Someone who needs to juggle between his work, his principle, his loved one, and what he believes in as the better way in his field. It's very powerful moment imho, (too bad, they ruin it in S4 by sweeping that aside). There is nothing bondy in there, it is different.

Oh, I quite agree. HLV ended with Sherlock in tears, I can't imagine Bond ever shedding one. 

 

 

[Hikari]

 

..... The whole season took elements that had previously given us joy and laughter and curdled them into something unrecognizable and nasty. .....

 

And yet I rather respect them for daring to do that. I can't say I "liked" the darkness of S4, but I can appreciate how they took what we found funny before, and presented it from an angle that showed that interpersonal violence really isn't something to laugh at. In other words, they made us think, and I like that, even if I don't particularly like what they made me think about.

 

I think that was rather the point of season 4... That this is a show about the men behind the legend and how they both, being human, just cannot live up to it at all times and under all circumstances. We see Sherlock mess up as a detective and John mess up as a decent human being and then we see them getting over their disappointment in themselves and each other, ditching their mutual hero worship and chosing a more genuine friendship in the end.

 

I certainly don't think that's what Doyle intended, but I like it and I find it fairly original as stories go, too.

 

And that too. They are, in a way, even more heroic for being "just human." Plus it touches on one of my favorite themes; those who have to suffer or struggle tend to be more capable of empathy than those who are always popular or successful ... and for me, empathy is a far nobler trait than being a winner.

 

I won't get into another rant on my hatred of bits a season 4, but I just wanted to pick up on what you said about the window. Why they couldn't have just stuck a cast on one of their arms and a couple of stitches on the other to show there was at least some injury I'll never know. It's not like Sherlock did a whole lot physically in TFP anyway, he could have done a lot of it with a broken arm, and the bits he couldn't wouldn't really matter.

Because they decided to make a James Bond film instead of a Sherlock Holmes film?

 

Am I the only one who can't see any similarities whatsoever between those two characters? Oh, okay, they're both British icons. But how anyone could conflate the farcical bombast of Bond with the cool rationality of Holmes is utterly beyond me.....

 

 

I agree absolutely that empathy under trials is far nobler than being a winner.  When one coasts through life as a winner, he or she never has the opportunity to develop any fortitude of character.  That's why so many shallow celeb types turn into such self-destructive messes once they stop being feted as 'stars'.  Many times even before.

 

Despite dealing in many grisly crimes perpetrated by morally corrupt people. the Sherlock Holmes adventures of Conan Doyle mostly manage to maintain more lightness of spirit and joie de vivre than the material would seem to lend itself to, because these are, for the most part, not meant to be social commentary upon all the ills of modern society and Empire, such as most modern procedurals go for.  These were, and are *Adventures* . . which is why they remain so popular with young readers despite at times quite adult content.  Most of the Sherlockians I know first read Sherlock Holmes stories as children--8, 9, 10 years old--even though Holmes and Watson indulge in a lot of grown-up Victorian gentleman behavior.  Copious tobacco use and drinking for the both of them; shooting cocaine and visiting drug dens for Sherlock; skirt-chasing (modestly) for John.

 

For three seasons, Mofftiss mostly gave us a bunch of 'Adventures', too . . .high-spirited, humorous, all in good fun--the moments of peril tempered by the knowledge that nothing *really* bad was going to befall our heroes because after all, they had to live to solve crimes and do the bromance thing another day.  Even Sherlock's spectacular swan dive of death was staged.  Season 4 sees the tone veer wildly into the Deadly Serious vein.  Even for a ersatz Bond movie, it's very dark.  The tonal shift was so precipitous, that's what I was not prepared for, not that they weren't within their rights to introduce some darkness.  It just happened so swiftly, I got vertigo.

 

Out of all the Canon, there is only one case I can think of, despite being waist-deep in corpses and evidence of human depravity from many of his other cases that knocked Holmes out of his God of the Mind Palace self-assurance.  (it should be mentioned that not all of Sherlock's cases dealt in solving murders.  A high percentage of them dealt with crimes against property--housebreaking, theft of some aristocrat's bauble or other . . white-collar crime like embezzlement or espionage.  Even a famous case like the one against Charles Augustus Milverton, the worst man in London according to SH, has a setpiece that can only be assessed as comedic, as Holmes and Watson trespass on a private estate, engineer a housebreaking, hide behind some curtains and then have to make a getaway on foot while clambering over high fences and being chased by dogs.  Downey & Law could milk a lot of laughs out of this scenario.  So the nefarious deeds of the human heart were always diluted with gentler/heart-warming/humorous moments as a counterbalance.  The one case that has none of this, and seems to have SH entirely spent and self-doubting at the end of it is "The Cardboard Box".  It is the saddest, and probably the most violent case in all the Canon, dealing with an horrific double murder in a lovers' triangle and preserved body parts being sent through the mails.  At the end of it, Holmes muses to Watson in a dark moment of introspection:

 

"What is the meaning of it, Watson?  What is the purpose of this circle of misery and violence and fear?  It must have a purpose.  Or our universe has no meaning and that is unthinkable?  But what purpose?  That is humanity's great problem, to which reason so far, has no answer."

 

Mofftiss danced with the darkness in S4 and seemed to be prepared to say something profound, and then they dressed Mycroft up like the Gorton's fisherman and shot Sherlock and John out of a pyrotechnic canon.  So I have to take their aspirations to Say Something Meaningful About All This with a grain of salt.  Or four or five.

 

[Boton]

 

Srsly, to be fair, I don't think it's really the hormones or the guns or the attitudes that I find boring ... it's the bombast. The faster-louder-bigger and increasing implausibility of it all, for no reason other than to top the previous project. And yes, I'm looking at you, Peter Jackson. I don't think Sherlock's gone that far yet, but S4 was moving in that direction, and Bond got there years ago, imo. Maybe the Daniel Craig versions have pulled back from that a bit, I don't know. The scenes I saw reminded me enough of the old Bond to lose interest pretty quickly.

 

I get that.  I have to be in a certain sort of "Bond mood," else I don't watch the story arc at all and just watch Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan in a tux or shooting things or making love to beautiful women or trading sexual innuendos.  I couldn't care less about the plot.

 

I didn't watch enough Craig to form a real opinion, but to me it seemed too realistic, and it didn't have enough extremes of fantasy.  It was too gritty, and Bond was not infallible enough for me.  And I say that knowing that he was pretty infallible, but I want Bond to be able to rappel down a mountain with a martini glass in his hand.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree with Mary's part, [....] especially in T6T, although I don't necessary relate her to Bond. Imho, her storyline is very forced in S4, and ruined things in that, beside John's hair :P. To be clear, I am bothered by his hair not only from how it looks, but from how it doesn't, really doesn't, imo, fits into the story.

[.....]

I think Bond idea really hatched from the trailer, as I also thought so back then, and with that idea firmly planted, the rest follows. It doesn't help with Mary storyline.

 

I keep telling myself that the Swoop was Mary's idea, and that she probably had to style his hair every morning, because (as you may be implying) he's simply not a gel-and-mousse kinda guy.  Just as the lip-caterpillar went away as soon as he realized Mary didn't care for it, the Swoop may fade into history as soon as he decides to get on with his life and/or realizes what a pain in the neck it is to maintain.

 

You may be right about the trailer.  Been a while since I saw it.  Also, didn't they set kind of a Bond tone with the how'd-he-do-it scenes early in TEH (especially the music)?   Somebody on some other site said they thought S3 was Bond and S4 was horror. and I'm in no great hurry to argue.

 

Despite dealing in many grisly crimes perpetrated by morally corrupt people. the Sherlock Holmes adventures of Conan Doyle mostly manage to maintain more lightness of spirit and joie de vivre than the material would seem to lend itself to, because these are, for the most part, not meant to be social commentary upon all the ills of modern society and Empire, such as most modern procedurals go for.  These were, and are *Adventures* . . which is why they remain so popular with young readers despite at times quite adult content.  Most of the Sherlockians I know first read Sherlock Holmes stories as children--8, 9, 10 years old--even though Holmes and Watson indulge in a lot of grown-up Victorian gentleman behavior.  Copious tobacco use and drinking for the both of them; shooting cocaine and visiting drug dens for Sherlock; skirt-chasing (modestly) for John.

 

For three seasons, Mofftiss mostly gave us a bunch of 'Adventures', too . . .high-spirited, humorous, all in good fun--the moments of peril tempered by the knowledge that nothing *really* bad was going to befall our heroes because after all, they had to live to solve crimes and do the bromance thing another day.  Even Sherlock's spectacular swan dive of death was staged.  Season 4 sees the tone veer wildly into the Deadly Serious vein.

[....]

The one case that [....] seems to have [canon] SH entirely spent and self-doubting at the end of it is "The Cardboard Box".  It is the saddest, and probably the most violent case in all the Canon, dealing with an horrific double murder in a lovers' triangle and preserved body parts being sent through the mails.  At the end of it, Holmes muses to Watson in a dark moment of introspection:

 

"What is the meaning of it, Watson?  What is the purpose of this circle of misery and violence and fear?  It must have a purpose.  Or our universe has no meaning and that is unthinkable?  But what purpose?  That is humanity's great problem, to which reason so far, has no answer."

 

Mofftiss danced with the darkness in S4 and seemed to be prepared to say something profound, and then they dressed Mycroft up like the Gorton's fisherman and shot Sherlock and John out of a pyrotechnic canon.  So I have to take their aspirations to Say Something Meaningful About All This with a grain of salt.  Or four or five.

 

I have no intention of arguing with you about the sudden descent into Deadly Serious -- except to say that I think it occurred an episode earlier (not counting TAB), in His Last Vow.  Seems to me that's where Sherlock and John's alienation began, in addition to being when we found out Mary wasn't who we had thought.

 

As for the show's failure to make something meaningful of it, please note that (as you said) ACD's Holmes failed as well.  So I guess you could say it's canon.

[Arcadia]

Oh, I think I can get something meaningful out of both S3 and S4. But I agree that it takes some work! S3, it seemed to me, was about the perils of caring; and S4 was about the necessity of caring in order to be fully human. Plus some other stuff, like whether fate exists, and if so, can we avoid it, and if we do, is it worth the cost. And lots of stuff about the nature of love. Why, it's a veritable cornucopia of meanings! I think ...... :p

[J.P.]

 

Why, it's a veritable cornucopia of meanings! I think .....

 

But I have this terrible feeling from time to time that…

 

…it might just be a side effect.