People Who Voted On This List (1)
The scene with Molly was interesting because it was clear that he didn't want to be cruel because he's shocked when she confronts him but it's the only way he can talk to people. As for the article, it's just the Guardian trolling their readership for page hits. They do this all the time with anything that's perceived to be successful among their demographic. Why do you suppose they employ Julie Bindel and Tanya Gold at all?
What's Hot, What's Trending Now » Art
For their penetrating insights? Trolling the readership makes for page hits. And what do page hits mean? If you have an alternative, I'm open to suggestions. By that logic, criticism of creative works is always pointless. Criticism of incomplete creative works is. Even though episodes of Sherlock are presented as two hour movies, they are still part of a series that is not yet complete. I think a big part of what I'm reacting to is the rush to judgment.
I wonder if that would help define the BNx's better? That there are those out in internet land who have an interest in judging a work not only quickly but intractably for, as Grangousier just pointed out, prizes. I think the second is a little less spot-on than the first, mostly because of the handling of the BDSM elements.
This episode could have been so, so, so amazing. Well, many of the original Holmes stories involve him rescuing a damsel in distress.
What's Hot, What's Trending Now » Art
Sometimes literally finding them in locked towers. The Copper Beeches. The Hound of the Baskervilles. The Speckled Band. The Abbey Grange. The Solitary Cyclist. Charles Augustus Milverton. Sometimes it feels like that's all he does! So that aspect fit the character of Holmes, although not Irene Adler. She was the one who outsmarted Holmes; she should have been able to keep herself alive. Which is the reason that sting ending disappointed me. You'd expect that from Doctor Who Grangousier , that's not really what I'm complaining about.
I'm completely fine with that direction, and like you said, it's a show about sociopaths and could work really well as one. The problem that I'm talking about is that Moffat still seems to be working partially with the first-series portrayal of Sherlock as a sort of amusingly oblivious Asperger's case, and seems to be unwilling to portray him as somebody who is fundamentally Not A Good Person. Instead, we get him as an anti-hero that we're still supposed to be sympathetic towards, plus the previously-mentioned unwillingness to ever have Sherlock be anything less than completely dominant over the rest of the world.
Hmm, I don't know. Of all the rants I've read about Sherlock and Who, most if not all of them have been from people who are or were fans, who were disappointed with the canon for whatever reason and wanted to express it. I know more than a few people who, like andraste's partner , have been loyal fans for a long time, only to come across something they can't agree with and have decided to share that disagreement in an effort to understand it.
I think I'd feel better about your argument if you could provide some examples of BNDs and why you consider them so. It's telling that out of all of Sherlock Holmes's characteristics, Moffat decided to pick the two that, you know. Involve the most scenes of Holmes being smarter than everyone else, and the most scenes of Holmes being mean to other people. Compare the way Sherlock is shot to the Granada production. Interesting that no one's yet brought up Mrs.
Hudson, who is, in Doyle and in every other adaptation I've seen, a one-dimensional utility background character, and who in this episode was shown turning the "dithery helpless elderly woman" stereotype on its head and, granted, to Sherlock's advantage , and displaying resourcefulness, guile, and physical courage.
I'm not crazy about the treatment of Irene Adler here, or of female characters in the series generally, but as a verging-on-elderly woman myself, I do like Mrs. Hudson being given a bit more depth. I don't know, she does risk her life in the Granada adaptation of the Empty House, and Holmes clearly credits her bravery. Again, taken directly from the original stories. Sherlock is generally very well-written and extremely well-cast, well-acted, and well-directed.
Sherlock is generally pretty awesome, flaws and all. My SO and I look forward eagerly to the next episode. Also, getting back to the article: I'd hardly consider Adler to be "proto-feminist" merely by dint of her having outwitted Holmes. She's a part of Sherlock's world, not the other way around. The fact that her character was clever is no more a proto-feminist statement than the character of Puss in Boots was an early example of the animal rights movement.
But Moffat doesn't have to do that deconstruction himself, overtly in the script.
The audience does it for him, when the audience recognizes Sherlock as being callous and cruel. Hand-holding the audience through this process would be tiresome and condescending. Holmes is engaging because he lacks a good portion of what makes us human - not just that he has remarkable abilities, but because he doesn't fit in.
His rabidly antisocial tendencies help make it all the more interesting when he apparently defends Mrs. Hudson, or when he obviously falls for Irene Adler. This isn't new, either.
How to Vote
In 1x01, wasn't he described as being a functional sociopath? In 1x01, wasn't it shown that his passion for solving mysteries almost drove him to an effective suicide, were it not for the intervention of Dr. And wasn't it a surprise when, in 1x03, he's obviously shaken when Watson is threatened? Well, the show is called Sherlock , not 'Locky and Friends. At the end of the day, he ought to be the center of attention. Watson, et al. For example, I don't want episodes where Sherlock apologizes to Mrs.
Hudson for being brusque, tells Dr. Watson that he'll be more considerate from now on of his time and energies, and has a nice, pleasant dinner with his brother where he says that he'd like to bury the hatchet and to recognize the full potential of both their familial relationship and mutual, cooperative respect of one another's professional sphere. He certainly is cruel, unsympathetic, and fairly creepy.
Many people find that interesting. All the various versions of Sherlock Holmes have had him as cold, sarcastic, and bizarre. It makes for interesting stories. To take another angle on it: if you looked at the qualities we would want in our friends, family, fellow citizens of the world, etc. Most people don't want stories about nice, fair reasonable, level-headed people who basically try to get along with people.
We want interesting stories about people who want something but who face obstacles on their path to getting that something. We also don't need hand-holding to learn than we shouldn't act like Sherlock Holmes in real life. A very good point. Telling of what? Moffat's Sherlock is colder than most other Sherlocks, but it's relentlessly interesting, and he isn't really any meaner than House. Contrariwise, Moffat's Eleventh Doctor is usually cuddlier than most other Doctors, except when threatened. They're both just angles on existing characters. I think I saw a different piece of TV While I didn't like the way the ending was shot and how it was sprung on the audience , I saw it more as a case of Adler manipulating Sherlock into rescuing her, as she'd been manipulating him all along.
After all, he got there somehow. The clear implication is that he'd been searching for her for the intervening time despite his feigned indifference to her - she lost her phone full of information, and got a more valuable form of protection in the form of Sherlock's infatuation with her.
- Iditarod Dream (Truly Yours Digital Editions Book 93);
- How to Solve All Your Money Problems Forever: Creating a Positive Flow of Money Into Your Life.
- Top 50 Kindle Fire Game Apps;
- Otherness in Hollywood Cinema.
- Neon Noir - StoryBundle.
- Irene Adler.
- Rick's Other Blogs.