Who are Your Favorite Villains / Antagonists (Series 4)?

[Arcadia]

Oh, I see what you mean. Hm. Yep, you're weird. :p

 

Yeah, if I had to go for most relatable, I'd go for Norbury. She was a great villain, actually, because I never saw her coming.

[Artemis]

I had her pegged early on, for the very fact that she seemed deliberately inconspicuous.  When they showed her at the beginning, I thought, "She's probably gonna end up being the villain."  Then I sorta forgot about it as I got caught up in the episode; but when they started throwing suspicion on Lady Smallwood, I knew it was going to be the secretary.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Same thing happened when I was watching an episode of Monk recently.  There was one character who seemed to have no particular reason for being there, so I announced to Alex that he must be the villain.  But then I got caught up in the story and was taken a bit off guard when I turned out to have been right!

 

I really didn't suspect Norbury, though in hindsight I should have.  Too caught up in the story from the beginning, I guess.

[Arcadia]

Heck, I thought she was there just so Sherlock could blather on about the ice cream.

[T.o.b.y]

I agree on less sadism please. Actually, I would like less villains period and more antagonists who are just people with actually reasonable motivations.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree on less sadism please. Actually, I would like less villains period and more antagonists who are just people with actually reasonable motivations.

 

All of that would be more in line with Conan Doyle's stories, wouldn't it?  Some relatable villains, some simple (once you figure them out) disagreements?

[Arcadia]

 

I really didn't suspect Norbury, though in hindsight I should have.  Too caught up in the story from the beginning, I guess.

 

Also, if you're anything like me, you were hanging around waiting for the Moriarty connection that never appeared. Talk about scarlet rollmops, that was a doozy. I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

 

I've always thought this show owed as much to the fantasy/super hero genre as it did to the mystery/detective one, so I'm not sure I mind the over-the-top villainy. Now would be a good time to reset it, though ... they could show that Sherlock's been humbled enough that he's decided to leave the world class villains to professionals like Mary and Ajay to take care of. ;)

[Doe]

 

Norbury reminded me a bit of the cabbie from ASiP. I liked her as a villain for the fact that her motivations were very human and relatable.

 

Mrs. Norbury has to win as best stealth villain. That's a real life villain -- someone who just cruises along under the radar until the day she's officially had enough, and she destroys lives before you even realize she's capable of it.  And she's a nice update on the ACD Norbury.

 

I have to agree with both of you regarding Vivian Norbury.  To me, she's a genuine villain, and just about the only one in this series.

 

 

... this is supposed to be a show about a detective, not Sadist of the Week.

 

And I think I finally put my finger on what bothers me about Series 3 and 4:  The big baddies are nearly all sadists of one sort or another, the type that simply enjoys making other people suffer, physically and/or emotionally -- in short, the kind of villain that used to twirl his mustache in melodramas.

 

I should clarify that -- I don't think Eurus is actually a sadist, she's more of a entomologist, studying humans as though they were beetles.  But the effect on me is so similar that I'll just lump her in there.  Also, even though Irene is obviously a professional sadist, I do *not* put her in the sadist-villain category.  She only whips people who enjoy that sort of thing, so she's not making anyone suffer in that sense.

 

I never have liked villains who are "bad because they're bad," and sadists come awfully close to that, especially as regards their effect on a story.  They really have no motivation other than liking to hurt people, which strikes me as pathetic rather than interesting.

 

I'm more into those relatable motivations that Artemis mentioned.  Like the cabbie who wanted to leave something for his kids, the gangster who wanted to retrieve what had been stolen from her, and the museum curator who wanted to make a fast 30 million.  Nearly as I recall, relatable villains were more Conan Doyle's cup of tea also -- crafty bank robbers, seekers of revenge, and stepfathers who prevented their stepdaughters from marrying just so they could retain control of their inheritance.

 

I'm hoping for more of that in Series 5.

 

 

A great deduction. I agree with you. 

[Doe]

I think Smith's motive was that it gave him pleasure to kill people, which makes him the creepiest villain to me. And CAM's was to own people, also creepy. I agree, I'm still of two minds ... several minds, really ...  about Eurus' motivations, or if she even had one.

 

In some ways the least believable motivation to me was Moriarty's ... to stave off boredom. But he's still the best villain.

 

but you are not voted Moriarty?

[Arcadia]

No, I voted for Smith. I think Moriarty is the best villian overall, but in Season 4, I liked the battle of wits between Sherlock and Smith the best.

[Doe]

I like Eurus, Magnussen and Moriarty.

 

Eurus is like Hannibal Lecter or John Milton. (She's not that good, of course)

 

Magnussen isn't simple according to Smith.

 

Moriarty is main character. He can come from anywhere at any moment. 

 

consequently I voted Eurus of course  :P

 

p.s. I heard "canonical" for the first time. I am learning new things.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I agree on less sadism please. Actually, I would like less villains period and more antagonists who are just people with actually reasonable motivations.

 

All of that would be more in line with Conan Doyle's stories, wouldn't it?  Some relatable villains, some simple (once you figure them out) disagreements?

 

 

Some stories are like that, yes, but there are plenty of just really evil people in Doyle's canon. Moriarty, Milverton, Smith... they're all straight from Doyle. And canon Moriarty isn't even fun like BBC Moriarty is, just really creepy and sinister imo. I think Canon Holmes is more clearly good though so it makes more sense to have the traditional hero / villain dynamic. With Sherlock being such a lovely gray complex character, I wish his antagonists were more realistic as well.

[Arcadia]

I like Eurus, Magnussen and Moriarty.

 

Eurus is like Hannibal Lecter or John Milton. (She's not that good, of course)

 

Magnussen isn't simple according to Smith.

 

Moriarty is main character. He can come from anywhere at any moment. 

 

consequently I voted Eurus of course  :P

 

p.s. I heard "canonical" for the first time. I am learning new things.

 

Somehow I guessed you would vote for Eurus. :D ;)

[Artemis]

I think the relatable, low-key villains have interesting psychology, but I personally prefer watching the self-satisfied evil masterminds.  I like the battle of wits, and I enjoy it more when Sherlock bests them, lol.

 

 

[Arcadia]

In a show like this, I think I agree ... if all the villains were "low-key", as you say, I think it would soon start to feel like Sherlock isn't challenged enough. He's so superhuman himself, occasionally his villains need to be, too.

 

Having said that, did anyone else watch Buffy? My favorite "villians" were the nerds in season 6, who seemed very petty and way out of their league, but managed to wreak some of the worst havoc in the show, because it all became so personal. One minute you're laughing at them for being such idiots and the next you're horrified by what they set in motion. Great stuff. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that on Sherlock. But even season 6 of Buffy ended up with a Big Bad, because a fantasy show that operates on that scale, like Sherlock, sort of requires one. Although the way they defeated the Big Bad was ... unexpected, moving and simply brilliant. Ah, heck, if you lot haven't seen Buffy, you really missed out on some great scripts. I wonder if we could talk Moftiss into letting Joss Whedon write a Sherlock script?

 

Anyway, I think the fantastical aspect of Sherlock is one of the things that makes it seem so unique ... detective shows are usually more associated with "hard-boiled." Which is fine too, but not Sherlock.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Definitely not!  I've read some hard-boiled, but it's never been my favorite genre.  I prefer mystery stories where most of the characters (including the detective) are relatable people, and I don't tend to relate well to the hard-boiled ones.

[Arcadia]

Especially the older ones, they always have such lousy attitudes towards women.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Actually, the only time I've read two entire (huge!) hard-boiled books by the same author, said author was Diane K. Shah (because I had liked her feature articles in The National Observer -- not to be confused with The National Enquirer!). But admittedly those were relatively recent books.

[Artemis]

Mrs. Norbury has to win as best stealth villain.

 

She was a great villain, actually, because I never saw her coming.

 

I was musing on who this would be for me in the series, and actually I think it ends up being Moriarty.  I figured out almost all the other villains before they were revealed, or at least strongly suspected them.  "Jim from IT" raised no red flags with me, in fact I forgot about him as soon as that scene was over.  I didn't even recognize his face at the pool until he told Sherlock who he was.  Much of that was probably due to having a completely different Moriarty already built up in my head.  I wasn't expecting him to be like that at all.  Which I suppose was part of the genius of it, lol.  I was also too busy analyzing Sherlock's interaction with Molly in that scene.  But yeah, "Jim from IT" flew under my radar.

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I just wish they hadn't killed Moriarty so soon. He was the perfect nemesis for Sherlock and I think they were aware of that because they kept finding ways to bring him back. I guess I could say he is my favorite villain of S4, he was around after all, if only as a flashback and some recordings. I loved his little scene at Sherrinford. The music! The swagger! I laughed so hard. At that point at the latest people should have gotten the message that The Final Problem was meant to be fun. They obviously wanted the show to go out with a bang.

[Artemis]

I just wish they hadn't killed Moriarty so soon. He was the perfect nemesis for Sherlock and I think they were aware of that because they kept finding ways to bring him back.

 

I completely agree!

 

 

[Arcadia]

Apparently so do they. At least, according to Mark.

 

And I admire your idea of fun, Toby! :p

[Carol the Dabbler]

I loved his little scene at Sherrinford. The music! The swagger! I laughed so hard. At that point at the latest people should have gotten the message that The Final Problem was meant to be fun.

 

Umm, well, that part of it, anyhow.  But for some reason, I do not share Eurus's idea of fun.

 

I can't offhand think that *any* of their episodes have been unmitigated comedies (though Empty Hearse comes close, in my opinion).

[Van Buren Supernova]

TSoT is fun.

 

Except the end of an era makes it difficult to watch for me.

That is probably the perfect example of Sherlock being vulnerable in subtle way that not many people around him get it. (Biscuits Mr.Hudson!)

 

Anyway, you guys talk about Culverton, beside H.H.Holmes, he actually reminds me of Jimmy Savile. Thoughts?

 

(Oh I haven't voted. Will do)

[Artemis]

TSoT is fun.

 

Except the end of an era makes it difficult to watch for me.

 

Same here.

 

Anyway, you guys talk about Culverton, beside H.H.Holmes, he actually reminds me of Jimmy Savile. Thoughts?

 

I think I read somewhere that they had Savile in mind when they created the Culverton character.