After the badness that was "Scandal" my enjoyment of the show flipped from unironic enjoyment of the mystery and characters into "What bullshit are they going to do now?" For that reason I actually kinda like The Abominable Bride.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lttp: Sherlock - This show is great, but the finale of season 3 is where it got bad
- Thread starter AuthenticM
- Start date
After the badness that was "Scandal" my enjoyment of the show flipped from unironic enjoyment of the mystery and characters into "What bullshit are they going to do now?" For that reason I actually kinda like The Abominable Bride.
That special represents everything wrong with Sherlock
Ok hyperbolic bit still I was enjoying the episode till they dragged and turned out to be a useless meta plot to tell us shit that could have been done in season 3 and how the mystery doesn't matter
It's Moffat trying to be clever than he actually is and being too ambitious without the chops
He did want to be surrounded by psychos.
The whole series opens with him choosing to live with a maniac because he hates his boring peaceful life after the war. And not for any patriotic, morally upstanding reasons - he just liked being at war.
Season 2, Episode 1 is the most well written episode of the series.
So.... no?
Season 3 premiere.
tonysidaway
Member
When people rage about how "bad" Doctor Who Series 6 was, when they find The Empty Hearse to be "Moffat trying to be clever", I feel as if they probably wandered into these shows in error. This is the kind of writer Moffat is, it's why his Jekyll was such a breath of fresh air, and it's part of the reason he's been winning major awards throughout a long career. Right down to the two Primetime Emmies for Sherlock.
People who don't like it are welcome to try watching a different show.
For the Doyle purist, the Jeremy Brett oeuvre is unmatched, and I could not recommend it more highly. Watch it even if, like me, you did enjoy Sherlock.
People who don't like it are welcome to try watching a different show.
For the Doyle purist, the Jeremy Brett oeuvre is unmatched, and I could not recommend it more highly. Watch it even if, like me, you did enjoy Sherlock.
linko9
Member
First two seasons were really exciting; it felt very fresh, and really felt like they were setting up for something great.
Seasons 3 and 4 were so absolutely, embarrassingly abysmal that they tarnished my opinion of the first two seasons. I can't look back at those first two without seeing premonitions of the dumpster fire that was to come. Season 3 was just lazy in its terribleness, but season 4 went full on with the X-men superhuman intellect bullshit without any attempt to anchor it in reality, and furthermore without any interesting cases or plotlines. Really disappointing.
Seasons 3 and 4 were so absolutely, embarrassingly abysmal that they tarnished my opinion of the first two seasons. I can't look back at those first two without seeing premonitions of the dumpster fire that was to come. Season 3 was just lazy in its terribleness, but season 4 went full on with the X-men superhuman intellect bullshit without any attempt to anchor it in reality, and furthermore without any interesting cases or plotlines. Really disappointing.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, I only joke about it because it's way too long for what it says. lol
I still think the only reason it became a hit was because suddenly people discovered that British people made TV shows too.
Nah it was awesome. This series was never too serious and its strength is the fact that every season was different, every episode could turn thing upside down, there's more depth in the best episodes than in a whole season of some lesser shows.
Yes the fourth season was a big dip in quality, but the first three are some of the best TV ever produced.
APZonerunner
Member
Jekyll starts amazing and descends into an absolutely mad, rambling, lost narrative in the 5th and 6th episodes imo. There are few shows that have held such incredible potential and had such an amazing start only to absolutely, positively faceplant so spectacularly. It's just bizarre towards the end
I think Sherlock had a similar thing going on where it started out as something really interesting but quickly became a victim of its own success. My big issue with what happens to the show later on is that we're not encouraged to work things out with Holmes - there's no following along because the show is shot and edited in such a way that it (usually) doesn't give you clues to slowly dissect and work out alongside Holmes (even if he is a step ahead) - rather, you follow along tensely as things develop and then Holmes explains them, usually in some flashy mind palace sequence, and, er, that's that. Sherlock has always been like this right since series one, but it's an aspect of the series that has worsened as it found massive success and began to indulge itself more than they'd ever have dared in the earlier series'.
I'm not an enormous fan of Elementary either, but this is one thing Elementary does better than Sherlock: it actually reads like a detective show, with the same sort of encouragement of the audience and drip-feeding of information that engages the audience and asks them to basically be an active participant in the mystery. This is a key thing that's also present in how Doyle's books are written, too. In Sherlock, too often the audience is ultimately passive, waiting for the god of mysteries to explain how it all ties together in a flashy and impressive sequence. In this regard Sherlock isn't much of an actual detective show, but I fear that when you strip the Holmes stories of that... he's actually not all that remarkable a character, and that is where the cracks begin to show in this show.
Rosvoja Torilla
Member
I've seen the series only once and can't really pinpoint where the decline starts, but I know it's there. In retrospect tho I can say I enjoyed season 1, 2 and 3 at the time. But S4 is just plain bad and there's no hiding from it. The show has always been quirky or "stupid", but the latest season just goes on a whole new route of absurdity. Doesn't really feel like Sherlock anymore.
Why is everyone rating season two so low? First episode of season 2 (Scandal in Belgravia) was probably the best out of the whole series. I do admit that the second episode of that season (House of Baskerville) was quite terrible, but not not enough to put it lower than season 3. I found season one to be a bit off, especially the second episode about the Chinese numbers, those are absolutely not Chinese numbers used in daily life and felt very shoved in, almost as though exoticised purely for dramatic effect.
S4E2 is surprisingly one of the very good Sherlock episodes, the last episode is completely crazy and dumb but nonetheless it was entertaining to watch just because of the characters
but I'm also one of those guys that really like Hound of Baskerville despite how nonsensical it is
but I'm also one of those guys that really like Hound of Baskerville despite how nonsensical it is
tonysidaway
Member
This kind of commentary is very ably satirized by Anderson's response in The Empty Hearse, so I'll forebear further comment.
It's a common complaint by inattentive readers, that this or that screen representation of Holmes omits this "puzzle" element. Reading the original tales, though, is more like watching a magic show full of misdirection. The very first episode telegraphs the show's understanding of Doyle, and playfully tweaks his nose: "No, she was leaving an angry note in German." The reader will recognise the reference if they care about that sort of thing.
Holmes is the thinking man as hero, and habitually Doyle pulls some rabbit out of a hat that the reader could not possibly have known from the writing. They're really not the crossword puzzle mysteries of popular misconception. This is one thing Moffat and Gatiss get right.
tonysidaway
Member
Yes, bad bad Moffat intruding into Holmes canon with this made-up Moriarty chap. Obviously just a dimwitted attempt to transplant The Master from Doctor Who. Well spotted.
Its been long time since Ive read the books so i dont know how much presence Moriarty has in the books but when you look at Jeremy Brett's sherlock which I assume is faithful adaptation only 2 episode out of first two season(12episode) is about Moriarty in new sherlock though we always have Moriarty or someone else who pulling the strings
APZonerunner
Member
For the record, I think the first episode is one of the finest pieces of TV ever filmed in terms of a mission statement for the show, and stuff like the rache line is a large part of why. There's only really one scene I don't really feel that first episode lands and it's Holmes & Watson's exchange in the restaurant before they chase the cab; weirdly, this bit was stronger in the unaired pilot (which can be found on the DVD!), but hey ho. I fundamentally disagree about (most, but not all) of the Doyle stories; they're layered, complex works and the stuff that isn't plainly telegraphed is apparent in a clever ohhh way on a subsequent reread, but I digress - we obviously won't agree on this.
See, this is the thing - my opinion is more that the show just meanders off away from this too much, too far, it morphs into a bit of a caricature of the mission set out in the first series and strengthened in the second, best exemplified in some of the worst excess of Series 3 and 4. The "puzzle" element is a symptom of a greater problem, basically, which is to say: when the show was stronger, and tighter (in the first two series') the puzzle element isn't keenly missed. Later, it is.
This bears out for certain episodes in the later series' too - The Lying Detective is a really great stand-alone story that bears many of the hallmarks of the series at its best. And the show still has wonderful character work - The Sign of Three in particular is choc-full of wonderful character stuff delivered brilliantly.
As for Jekyll, look - I love aspects of that show and I've probably watched it twenty or thirty times, but no amount of suggestion that I'm simply inattentive or not clever enough is going to convince me that the direction that show goes in is properly telegraphed or, well, good. It's downhill for me once Paterson Joseph's delicious scenery-chewing antagonist bites, it basically. It's proto-Sherlock, though, and that goes for both the good and the bad.
To come back to your original point, by the way... you mentioned series 6 of Doctor Who, and here's what I'd say about that - it's not bad... it's just a bit of a mess. It has some terrific ideas and some classic stories, but it's all over the shop in a way that no other series is other than perhaps Series 1 where they didn't know WTF they were making. This is, as is well documented, more down to production troubles than scripts, but I think the same sort of semantics can be applied to Sherlock in the end - it's not dog shit as the internet hyperbole might suggest, it just sort of loses its way, imo.
When one villain is behind everything, there's no more mystery. Or whatever mystery there is it doesn't even matter in the big scheme. As somebody else wrote in another post this is indeed a super hero movie, some kind of Marvel's Sherlock where Sherlock is part of X men. It's fine that you like it that way, that doesn't mean that the people who don't like it don't understand it.
They fucked up when they killed off Moriarty, since then the show has been clamouring for a similarly interesting villain and they went back to the well of "oh is he back or isn't he" a few too many times. The standout antagonists or deuteragonists of each season since have been subversions of Holmes and I fear that approach wore itself out with repetition.
I thought Adler worked really well in the context of the show, up until her introduction Sherlock had been portrayed as somewhat asexual and disinterested in the opposite or same sex.
Magnusson had potential, good moments and an interesting subversion of Sherlock's mental capacities, but the Mary thing, oh God the Mary thing.
Euros, well what the fuck was Euros? From her introduction where she played Sherlock in an interesting and subtle way to the finale where she was turned into a low tier Hopkins Hannibal impersonation, that was just bad wasn't it?
I'm generally a fan of Moffat but yeah I was pretty surprised by how bad season 4 turned out.
I thought Adler worked really well in the context of the show, up until her introduction Sherlock had been portrayed as somewhat asexual and disinterested in the opposite or same sex.
Magnusson had potential, good moments and an interesting subversion of Sherlock's mental capacities, but the Mary thing, oh God the Mary thing.
Euros, well what the fuck was Euros? From her introduction where she played Sherlock in an interesting and subtle way to the finale where she was turned into a low tier Hopkins Hannibal impersonation, that was just bad wasn't it?
I'm generally a fan of Moffat but yeah I was pretty surprised by how bad season 4 turned out.
Randy Lanzarote
Member
Season 1 was fantastic and got me into the Sherlock universe.
Season 2 was.... mixed. They cocked up Hounds, that should have been a warning sign.
I can't really remember Season 3 other than Sherlock murdering Scandinavian Rupert Murdoch.
Season 4.... that finale. It was like Moffatt and Gatiss wrote themselves into a corner and thought "Balls to it, we're not making anymore" so just had magic ending where everyone lived happily ever after.
Season 2 was.... mixed. They cocked up Hounds, that should have been a warning sign.
I can't really remember Season 3 other than Sherlock murdering Scandinavian Rupert Murdoch.
Season 4.... that finale. It was like Moffatt and Gatiss wrote themselves into a corner and thought "Balls to it, we're not making anymore" so just had magic ending where everyone lived happily ever after.
JonnyDBrit
Member
For me, I'm admittedly of the view that Season 1 and 2 are flawed - long felt that way, but HBomberGuy's video helped me crystallise what was particularly wrong with it - but strong performances, touches of novelty, and an air of greater mystery allow the show to sort of carry itself along with the momentum.
But then Season 3 begins to readily, actively indulge in the series' worst habits - often stemming from Sherlock just being able to do/know things because he's Sherlock Holmes - and the illusion as to the long term plotting has been somewhat shattered by Moriarty's death, depriving the series of one of its major fallbacks. Especially if one had simultaneously grown familiar with Moffat's other main work at the time - Doctor Who - and so had grown similarly frustrated by his promises of something major and interesting and failing to fucking deliver repeatedly.
Moffat really isn't as smart of a writer as he thinks he is, and unfortunately being placed in charge of two of the most important icons in British culture just didn't do him any favours - though to be honest I wonder how much Gatiss affected things too, since he gave himself one of most notable roles in the franchise.
But then Season 3 begins to readily, actively indulge in the series' worst habits - often stemming from Sherlock just being able to do/know things because he's Sherlock Holmes - and the illusion as to the long term plotting has been somewhat shattered by Moriarty's death, depriving the series of one of its major fallbacks. Especially if one had simultaneously grown familiar with Moffat's other main work at the time - Doctor Who - and so had grown similarly frustrated by his promises of something major and interesting and failing to fucking deliver repeatedly.
Moffat really isn't as smart of a writer as he thinks he is, and unfortunately being placed in charge of two of the most important icons in British culture just didn't do him any favours - though to be honest I wonder how much Gatiss affected things too, since he gave himself one of most notable roles in the franchise.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The series has never been interested in legit mysteries, instead it's basically a show where you're supposed to appreciate the spectacle of how "clever" Sherlock is and enjoy character interaction. While I like some of the characters, Sherlock himself is not one of them and I find the "cleverness" to just be obnoxious.
It's just not a show for me.
It's just not a show for me.
I really liked series 1 and 2 but 3 is some of the worst TV I've ever watched.
4 was a mixed bag for me, the last episode is without a doubt unadultered shit but I didn't mind the first two episodes as much. They were fine. Not as good as the first two series but not as bad as 3.
4 was a mixed bag for me, the last episode is without a doubt unadultered shit but I didn't mind the first two episodes as much. They were fine. Not as good as the first two series but not as bad as 3.
Bony Manifesto
Member
Of all the examples to use, you used Columbo there?
I like the character. And it's a classic show.
Season 4 was a complete mess. I wa shocked at how lazy and stupid everything was. First two seasons were great and the third season was okay even with some annoying stuff. But man, the last was so bad that it left a bad taste in my mouth. I hope they never continue this franchise as is.
PsychoSoldier
Banned
I still think the key problem season 3 onward is that instead of the main characters and side characters' enhancing the mysteries, it became all about them and basically little else.
When Sherlock works I think it's because you not only get to see his process but also the way he bounces off new people. Making so much of the show about Watson and Mary really limited that.
When Sherlock works I think it's because you not only get to see his process but also the way he bounces off new people. Making so much of the show about Watson and Mary really limited that.
tonysidaway
Member
Yes, that true as far as it goes. Moriarty looms much larger in derivative works, perhaps because the struggle against this arch-enemy is so compelling.
Jeremy Brett's portrayal is probably as close to the text as anyone could ask for. But the writing in Sherlock is avowedly based on the principle that "everything is canon, so you can raid from any adaptation" (Moffat, interview with Michael Leader, 2010.) Of these the Basil Rathbone films are perhaps most notable. After the first two of those films which were set in the late Victorian era, the remaining films were all in a contemporary setting, and this directly inspired Moffat and Gatiss (same interview as above). A notable feature of this series is the repeated appearance of Professor Moriarty, who was played successively by three different actors. Each time, Moriarty appears to die.
Bony Manifesto
Member
Oh it's a great show, no doubt. It's just it's a show that very deliberately subverts the format by revealing exactly who committed the murder and how they did it in the opening sequence, leaving the rest of the show observing how Columbo deduces what you already know. So it does exactly what you say you don't like about Sherlock!
tonysidaway
Member
My point in the above is that some who don't understand it are criticising it for not being something that exists only in their imagination. A straw-Sherlock.
Added to that we've got a sprinkling of the usual "Writer X [who continues to win many awards for his highly popular work] has got it all wrong, and I as a self-appointed defender of the franchise will proceed to explain exactly how he didn't understand it."
Well that's not exactly what I don't like about Sherlock, it's more that what he deduces doesn't make sense. But otherwise you are right. To an extent Monk does the same thing.
I hope you realise the self-irony of this once you read it again.
tonysidaway
Member
I'm not the one lecturing the writers of a critically acclaimed, internationally successful TV show on where they all screwed up.
linko9
Member
Funny you mention that. I heard that show was supposed to be good, and despite being extremely skeptical about anime, started watching it. Reaction was very similar to how I felt about Sherlock; started out promising, setting up the possibility of a really interesting show, and then just went off the deep end and ruined everything it had set up.
OP sums up my feelings on it pretty well. The extended waits between seasons 2 and 3, then 3 and 4, definitely made the substandard quality of the later seasons stand out even more. Waiting all that time only to then left asking wait, that's it? To be fair though, I can definitely see why some folks just didn't like it from the start.
I haaaaate the guy who played Moriarty, so I wish he would have been killed off sooner. Like, before he ever spoke or did anything.
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
I still can't comprehend how Moriarty killing himself made any sense at all.
I'm not sure I buy the "it was always shit" argument, but I do think that the series always had some systemic flaws, they just became far more obvious and outweighed the good by the latter series. I mean, Season 2 had "Hound of the Baskervilles" in it.
Also, some people just aren't Moffat fans, and that has less to do with any quality of the show and more with people not liking a personal style. I don't like most of what Quentin Tarantino makes, that doesn't mean everything he makes is shit.
It's a final "fuck you"—he dies thinking he's won, and that he's put Sherlock in an unwinnable scenario.
Also, some people just aren't Moffat fans, and that has less to do with any quality of the show and more with people not liking a personal style. I don't like most of what Quentin Tarantino makes, that doesn't mean everything he makes is shit.
It's a final "fuck you"—he dies thinking he's won, and that he's put Sherlock in an unwinnable scenario.
I'm really curious to see why people like that episode so much, given that it was the tipping point for me. It fundamentally misunderstood why Irene Adler is an interesting/iconic character and had one of the worst instances of Detective Mind-Magic in the whole show (The Boomerang did it!)
Yeah this was another warning sign. That episode is so shlocky and cringe-worthy with its depiction of Chinese culture and crime.
Finale of Season 3 had the master blackmailer guy, right? That put me off the show for good.
So this guy has a "mind palace" where he has stored blackmail information on all the rich and powerful people in the world. How the fuck is that supposed to go down:
"Pay me $1,000,000 or I will expose your secret to the world!"
"Oh god, you have the photos??"
"Yes... IN MY MIND!"
"Oh. Okay. Fuck off then"
HOW does this guy think he is going to expose anyone? And if you say that his victims didn't KNOW the shit was all stored in his head - fine. As soon as Sherlock found out it was all in his mind palace, all that shit is worthless. And even if you think killing him is the only recourse - let a black ops team do it. or the Americans! Don't do it right in front of the cops!
So this guy has a "mind palace" where he has stored blackmail information on all the rich and powerful people in the world. How the fuck is that supposed to go down:
"Pay me $1,000,000 or I will expose your secret to the world!"
"Oh god, you have the photos??"
"Yes... IN MY MIND!"
"Oh. Okay. Fuck off then"
HOW does this guy think he is going to expose anyone? And if you say that his victims didn't KNOW the shit was all stored in his head - fine. As soon as Sherlock found out it was all in his mind palace, all that shit is worthless. And even if you think killing him is the only recourse - let a black ops team do it. or the Americans! Don't do it right in front of the cops!
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
When did Moriarty first show up? Thats when I tapped out. Holy fucking overacting Batman. Worst thing I've ever seen.