Side Effects (aka Collateral Damage) of "Sherlock"

[gerry]

I have trouble feeling sorry for them.  They went into the industry intending to entertain people and have profited quite well off the same people you’re claiming they’re tired of.  Isn’t that like biting the hand that feeds you? Do actors/writers deserve stalkers and other people that are intrusive of their personal life?  Of course not but the general public will have opinions on the product they are trying to sell and if they’re willing to do interviews about said product, people will have opinions on that too.  It’s human nature.  I highly doubt they care what people think anyway.  Either way, if it bothered them that much they wouldn’t do the different Sherlock conventions across the world but I’m sure they make too much money off of them to pass it up.  

[Arcadia]

I don't think it's about feeling sorry for them. For me, it's about treating them with at least a modicum of decency and respect, like any other human being. A lot of people in the fandom don't, from what I've been able to see, and think it's okay simply because the people they're dumping on are ... famous? Successful? In the public eye? Whatever drives people to refer to someone they've never met as if they were dirt. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it very attractive, imo. I tend to be more impressed by people who maintain some level of respect for creatives, even if they don't like what the creatives do. Especially then, actually. But that's just me, YMMV.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Not just you. I agree with what you said.

I don't agree with some of the things they do, but the creativity is their own. I don't think and I don't want them to think that they owe it to the 'fans' to make a show to their needs.

If they did that in the first place, I strongly doubt I would be interested in Sherlock on the first place.

Reasonable criticism is good, but threatened and treated disrespectfully are not.

[T.o.b.y]

I knew nothing about anybody on the creative team behind Sherlock before I started watching the show. I knew about Dr Who but had never watched it (and still haven't, it doesn't seem like my cup of tea). When I first watched interviews with the writers, I found that Mr Moffat got on my nerves a bit but most of the time, I found his comments about the show and the source material interesting and I thought he said a few very nice things to and about fans in general. 

I was very surprised when I found out that many people who watch his shows are so angry with and offended by him. I guess I just don't get it.

As for his scripts, the only writing of his that I am familiar with is Sherlock and I must say, I consider A Study in Pink, Scandal in Belgravia and His Last Vow to be among the best written episodes, if not the best written. Of course it is hard to say objectively what good or bad writing is. But that's my perspective. 

[gerry]

7 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I don't think it's about feeling sorry for them. For me, it's about treating them with at least a modicum of decency and respect, like any other human being. A lot of people in the fandom don't, from what I've been able to see, and think it's okay simply because the people they're dumping on are ... famous? Successful? In the public eye? Whatever drives people to refer to someone they've never met as if they were dirt. Just because it's human nature doesn't make it very attractive, imo. I tend to be more impressed by people who maintain some level of respect for creatives, even if they don't like what the creatives do. Especially then, actually. But that's just me, YMMV.

Are you talking about the obnoxious people on social media that say things on the internet they’d likely never say in person or the obsessive/delusional fans doing writing campaigns or die hard fans that go to the conventions or the general fans watching the show?  You seem to be lumping them all in as fandom that critiicize the show/Moffat but I’m not sure one subset of people is representative of the whole and I’d be very suprised if the writers and producers view it that way.   I think the reason for the show ending is far more likely due to the actors not wanting to do it anymore or the writers thinking there’s no more story to tell than Moffat or Gatiss being so turned off by delusional fans doing writing campaigns or online people personally attacking them.  If that’s why shows end, there would be no show on tv as I’m sure every single show has a similar subset of people.  The writers could easily dismiss any rantings of delusional or obnoxious fans as “get a life”.  I’d imagine they are the easiest subset of fans to dismiss.  It’s the rational criticisms like they aren’t good at writing women that I’m sure would hit the mark because they probably know on some level the criticism is warranted and there’s ample examples in their writing to support the criticism..

[Arcadia]

14 minutes ago, gerry said:

Are you talking about the obnoxious people on social media that say things on the internet they’d likely never say in person or the obsessive/delusional fans doing writing campaigns or die hard fans that go to the conventions or the general fans watching the show?  

My last few posts are all connected, starting here: 

Short version: some people.

Oh drat, still getting the hang of the new software; if you're seeing a picture of my post, instead of just a plain text link, click on "Arcadia replied to a topic", and that will take you to the post I'm referencing,. If you click somewhere else you end up ... well, somewhere else.  

[gerry]

If you think it’s only some people then I’m not sure how you can extrapolate that to a major reason why moffat and Gatiss ended Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

Just putting myself in their shoes. I did say that's how I would react. Moftiss may be made of sterner stuff than I, I don't know.

[J.P.]

Mofftiss were called liars each time they stated Johnlock won't be the endgame. They were called liars for distracting us from spoilers. I remember someone calling them liars because they said TAB would be a bubble of its own.
Some other people call Steven evil in a nice way, because he's such good button pusher in his writing - he's responsible for buckets and buckets of fans' tears.

5 hours ago, gerry said:

If you think it’s only some people then I’m not sure how you can extrapolate that to a major reason why moffat and Gatiss ended Sherlock.

Because when those some people sign official petition to remove Mark from the LGBT Switch Board patrons list or flood BBC with protest mails - this is more than just obnoxious people on internet. When uninvolved parties get harassed because of you, "get a life" answer is not a solution anymore.

And I haven't read anything on that yet but I bet my pants Mofftiss didn't only got nasty comments on Twitter. Their fanmail addresses are visible to everyone.

I know about one case Amanda got a threatening posts (like with an image of a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire) that she reported to the police. I also know that even Loo got a lot of nasty comments about how Molly turned out in S4.

PS, if you want to have some insight into the craziness, try the hashtag #norbury on Twitter. It's still alive.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, I forgot about the threats. That would be the best reason for shutting it down, wouldn't it? You'd think they'd say so, if that were the case ... it would be more helpful than the limbo we're in. Or maybe, if that were the case, mentioning it would stir things up even more? Don't know. What a world.

[T.o.b.y]

My personal and very uneducated guess on why they stopped making Sherlock is that it was simply becoming impossible to get the cast together. Possibly the two leads had also become too expensive. 

I doubt harassment by fans had much to do with it because that seems to be a very common phenomenon, unfortunately, but has not lead to the cancelation of any series yet, not that I know of, anyway. 

But what do I know. 

[Arcadia]

Well ... that's the simplest explanation, in some ways. I know that's what they say. But here's the thing ... if you want to get your cast together, you start booking them now, not waiting for some mythical date in the future when everyone "just happens" to be free. That's the part that's never made sense to me.

Then again, I know nothing about how the TV/movie industry handles such things, maybe that's a no-no in their world. It just seems terribly ... inefficient.  (And this is coming from one of the most inefficient planners on the planet; me! )

[J.P.]

I don't say it's the only reason, but it might be a factor in their decision. With the other difficulties growing bigger and bigger - at some point the effort to make it happen might be just to much, and it might happen faster if you are tired of people being vicious because of what you are doing.

Arcadia, this is what I wonder as well. Maybe it has to do with the financing by BBC. I believe to remember that they decide yearly (or other quite short period of time) which shows to pay for. Maybe Hartswood cannot book the actors without the financial side being cleared? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hikari]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 4:38 PM, Arcadia said:

Yep, I'm well aware of the simmering animosity many people exhibit towards Mr. Moffat. I always figure it's a lucky thing that he is, apparently, a better sport than I am ... if I were subjected to the abuse he is, I would take all my toys and go home, and there would have been no more Sherlock after the first season.  

My animosity isn't really at a low simmer . . . more a full boil after S4.  But I thought Moffat and Gatiss were pretty golden up til S3 for the majority of viewers, weren't they?

It's not that I believe catering to the fans is the primary and only job of a showrunner.  The fans certainly know what they like, but what they like isn't always in the best interests of the program.  As lenient as the Beeb is compared to their American counterparts, full-on hardcore gay sex between the 221B flatmates was never going to happen.  As much as we'd lurve to see Bendi drifting around the flat in the altogether.

My issue with Mr. Moffat (and to a lesser degree Mr. Gatiss, who I think was dragged along, rather than a fully enthusiastic participant in some of this) is that according to his professed love for and lifelong study/expertise of the Canon, his updated show turned out to be a much different animal than he said he wanted to make, circa 2010.  He did not say at the outset that he wanted Sherlock in the 21st century to become a 'Trainspotting Meets Spooks Meets James Bond' mish-mash.  If they had hewed closer to their stated goals and formula throughout as they did with their highly successful launch of 'ASiP', they would have been more along the lines of what they marketed themselves as in the beginning.  "Sherlock" became a wildly uneven product as to quality or coherence, because I think Moffat either lost sight of his original creative vision or just got bored and said Fluck it, let's take the p!$$ as hard as we can and see what the reaction is.  My opinion.

[gerry]

6 hours ago, J.P. said:

PS, if you want to have some insight into the craziness, try the hashtag #norbury on Twitter. It's still alive.

I’m sure there’s all sorts of craziness but craziness exists across all TV fandoms.   Growing up I saw how much craziness was in daytime soap fandoms.  There are actors that have stalkers too.  Unfortunately there’s a certainty that being in the industry requires dealing with paparazzi and a certain percentage of fans where the line between reality and fiction is blurred.  It’s also not limited to entertainment.  Look what happened to tennis player Monica Seles?  However, if everybody based decisions on the craziness they deal with they’d never work.

I also don’t buy the actor schedules as the reason for not doing more seasons.  If they all wanted to do more, they’d find a way because where there’s a will there’s a way.   It’s far more likely there’s enough people that don’t want to anymore so they decided that’s it.  I highly doubt whatever those reasons are have anything to do with fans.

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, J.P. said:

I don't say it's the only reason, but it might be a factor in their decision. With the other difficulties growing bigger and bigger - at some point the effort to make it happen might be just to much, and it might happen faster if you are tired of people being vicious because of what you are doing.

Arcadia, this is what I wonder as well. Maybe it has to do with the financing by BBC. I believe to remember that they decide yearly (or other quite short period of time) which shows to pay for. Maybe Hartswood cannot book the actors without the financial side being cleared? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe ... but it's been stated several times that the Beeb is eager for them to come back. The only official reason that's been given, as far as I can recall, is the scheduling problem.

But I think you and I, JP, have the sense that something is being withheld, am I right? Somewhere they changed from "we're plotting out series 4 and 5" to "we don't have any plans for a 5." It's because they don't address that change that my nasty little mind starts looking for other, less innocent explanations. Urgh. Shut up, brain!

3 hours ago, Hikari said:

My animosity isn't really at a low simmer . . . more a full boil after S4.  But I thought Moffat and Gatiss were pretty golden up til S3 for the majority of viewers, weren't they?

No, my perception is that there's plenty of hostility carried over from people who didn't like the direction he went with Dr. Who. But it's true the Johnlock furor reached critical mass during (after?) S3. But that wasn't just directed at Moffat, it was directed at Gatiss too. I regard that as a slightly different phenomenon, at any rate.

Quote

 

.....

My issue with Mr. Moffat (and to a lesser degree Mr. Gatiss, who I think was dragged along, rather than a fully enthusiastic participant in some of this) is that according to his professed love for and lifelong study/expertise of the Canon, his updated show turned out to be a much different animal than he said he wanted to make, circa 2010.  He did not say at the outset that he wanted Sherlock in the 21st century to become a 'Trainspotting Meets Spooks Meets James Bond' mish-mash.  If they had hewed closer to their stated goals and formula throughout as they did with their highly successful launch of 'ASiP', they would have been more along the lines of what they marketed themselves as in the beginning.  "Sherlock" became a wildly uneven product as to quality or coherence, because I think Moffat either lost sight of his original creative vision or just got bored and said Fluck it, let's take the p!$$ as hard as we can and see what the reaction is.  My opinion.

 

And that's fine. There's a world of difference between "I think so-and-so is lying" and "so-and-so is lying." The latter, unfortunately, became rather overwhelming at some point. At least, for this befuddled little fan.

21 minutes ago, gerry said:

I also don’t buy the actor schedules as the reason for not doing more seasons.  If they all wanted to do more, they’d find a way because where there’s a will there’s a way.   It’s far more likely there’s enough people that don’t want to anymore so they decided that’s it.  I highly doubt whatever those reasons are have anything to do with fans.

Yep, it strains credulity to be told that the only obstacle is scheduling; I guess that's why I have trouble letting it go. Let it go I should, though; I'm not likely to get any other answer. Argh, I can feel hiatus angst settling in already, and it's only been a year ....  

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Well ... that's the simplest explanation, in some ways. I know that's what they say. But here's the thing ... if you want to get your cast together, you start booking them now, not waiting for some mythical date in the future when everyone "just happens" to be free. That's the part that's never made sense to me.

At the risk of repeating myself, I've never bought that explanation either.  My best guess has always been that the Moftisses didn't want to write another series just yet -- which may still be the case.  Nevertheless, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another series or special in a few years (five, maybe?).

4 hours ago, J.P. said:

IArcadia, this is what I wonder as well. Maybe it has to do with the financing by BBC. I believe to remember that they decide yearly (or other quite short period of time) which shows to pay for. Maybe Hartswood cannot book the actors without the financial side being cleared? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Right, the money comes from the BBC, so the show ain't a go till Auntie Beeb says it is.  However, I have the impression that the actors are asked to sign some sort of agreement in principle well ahead of time, meaning that IF the show is made, they will make themselves available.  (Which I'm pretty sure is what got BC in trouble once -- he mentioned that he and MF had agreed to do another series, and of course the press "translated" that as "the BBC has commissioned another series."  At which point the Moftisses chose to throw BC to the sharks and make him apologize for "misleading" the press and the fans -- by telling the literal truth!  Showbiz -- glad I got into software engineering instead.

4 hours ago, Hikari said:

As lenient as the Beeb is compared to their American counterparts, full-on hardcore gay sex between the 221B flatmates was never going to happen.  As much as we'd lurve to see Bendi drifting around the flat in the altogether.

It's my understanding that the Johnlockers would have been quite happy with a good bit less than actual sex -- just an acknowledgement that the two characters were in love, demonstrated by the same sort of scenes that are used for straight couples.  Like a kiss maybe.  But that wasn't the Moftisses' concept of the show, so it didn't happen.

By the way, I've been wondering where you got the nickname "Bendi" for Mr. Cumberbatch?  Don't recall seeing it elsewhere.

[Arcadia]

Still doesn't explain why the change from "we're plotting seasons 4 and 5" to "we have no ideas for 5 at the moment".

Annnnd, to get back to the topic title ... see this? ^ THIS is one of the side-effects! This show drives you crazy!!! (Okay, crazier.) You start obsessing over every little crumb of information they toss your way! And whimper when they don't toss enough! I think I should probably go curl up in the "you know you're obsessed with Sherlock when" thread until the fit passes.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Side effect: It makes me curious about things I normally don't care about.

For example, I couldn't care less about this and that uncles and aunties, but if nobody tells me wth is auntie Beeb, I don't think I'd die peacefully now. 

[Arcadia]

 It's a nickname for the BBC. Why it's an auntie and not an uncle, I don't know.

[Janyss]

Well, I've been through the last posts a little, and I realise I'm completely taken aback with the mention of some fans' behaviour. At least I can mention this to my relatives when they charge me with being too much involved in fandoms :)! I assume these people (not a majority, but so dedicated...) tend to mix fiction and reality in a very nasty way (as fiction, being part of our imagination, is ALSO, part of the reality and influences the way we see it). 

And there's one thing I am strongly determined about people telling stories: they. Are. The. Bosses. If Moftiss don't want to tell more Sherlock stories, they just have to stop. If they don't starve anymore for doing it (even if they have bad reasons not to starve anymore), and try to do it anyway, that'll be bad, that's it. Any good writer, screenplayer...will tell you that first, comes starvation of creating something. Besides, they are the ones who decide to tell you or not about their vision of characters and of storyline. One can be angry at it, that's the same.

This said, the creators can't expect any absence of reactions to their choices. They became public personnalities, and there is a price to pay, in the limitations of considering them as human beings. Come on, Mr Moffat, you must have experienced this on a smaller scale when you were a teacher (you certainly have had to be careful with your words, with your interpretation of what you were in charge to teach...). And thus there's no problem questioning (for instance) women's depiction with civilized terms in Sherlock (don't worry, I'm less angry about this now that I've seen last S3 and series 4! No death threats planned!). 

We must admit, anyway, that about Sherlock, the writers deal with something complicated in the very beginning: after all, Conan Doyle in the first place had to deal with angry fans, and even had to surrender!  

[gerry]

2 hours ago, Janyss said:

This said, the creators can't expect any absence of reactions to their choices. They became public personnalities, and there is a price to pay, in the limitations of considering them as human beings.  

Perfectly said and this is why I’m surprised when Moffat is so defensive about what he writes, like he can’t possibly believe the nerve that someone wouldn’t like or critique what he writes.  It’s not a new phenomenon.

[Arcadia]

Fair critiques, sure. When they veer over into attacks on someone's veracity or commitment to their work ... not so much, imo. And "it's poorly written because it isn't what I wanted" isn't a critique either, but that's an awful lot of what gets tossed Moffat's way. He should probably learn to dodge, but then people would call him shifty ... oh, wait.

[gerry]

I’m not talking about the whackadoodle fans who have lost sight of reality.  I’m talking about instances like EW asking about the lack of ILY call follow up.  LB was right... he was annoyed by the mere question and it wasn’t an out of bounds personal attack either so he bristles at reasonable questions too.  He seems to bring a lot of it on himself.

[Janyss]

2 hours ago, gerry said:

Perfectly said and this is why I’m surprised when Moffat is so defensive about what he writes, like he can’t possibly believe the nerve that someone wouldn’t like or critique what he writes.  It’s not a new phenomenon.

I'd tend to say that we teachers are numerous to have issues with criticism ...old job's remembrance? Seriously, I didn't know Moffat was so reluctant with criticism, but I have seen Mark Gatiss's poem-formed answer to a journalist who hadn't enjoyed TFP. Interesting form, but for a quite bad mood... However, I completely understant that they are proud of their creation; all the criticisms are not really interesting and I think Moftiss have respect for the public in the end.