Yes there are open spoilers here, so I’m gonna put in a few blank likes so the mouselook doesn’t present issues:
.
.
.
…
.
.
.
So I have been watching Sherlock on Netflix, and as Mrs. Evil Captor warned me, there was a DISTINCT fall in quality from season 2 to season 3, but I was not prepared for the abysmal mess that was “The Sign of Three.” It was a cloying, maudlin, pathetic exercise, a polar opposite to the crisp, smart, sharp writing that characterized season 1 and season 2. It was as if the show’s creators were ANGRY at the show and wanted to deform and deface it. Or as if the writing team that had produced the first three seasons had been sacked and replaced with the writers for a particularly sappy American sitcom, like “Family Affair.”
Particularly offensive was the way Holmes’ character was mishandled. I thought the original concept of his character as an unlikable high-functioning sociopath with an unusually well maintained Theater of Memory was brilliant, with Dr. Watson as a decent fellow of high intellect who put up with Holmes because he helped get him out of his PTSD after returning from service, also well realized.
In “Sign of the Three” I guess they were trying to “humanize” Holmes, but of course, a large part of the fun of Holmes was seeing him and others struggling with his sociopathy. “Humanizing” Holmes makes him a much less interesting, less fun, character. I can’t see the people who were smart enough to see this potential in the Sherlock Holmes story being dumb enough to “humanize” Holmes. So I am left with three theories, presented in order of plausibility:
Executive Meddling: somebody at the BBC executive suite decided Holmes must be humanized for some reason.
Writing Staff Sacked: for whatever reason, and replaced with hacks.
Purposeful mangling of the character and the show by the creators for some reason.
I am not a follower of the show, I only started watching it a few days ago, but … wow. Just wow. The Sign of Three sucked so hard …
I disliked it intensely at first, but it grew on me. Now I like the dense writing and the way the two seemingly unrelated cases (the shower stabbing, the ghost dater) started linking themselves together in his mind during his speech. I liked the best man speech and the way Sherlock pendulum’d between socially clueless and unintentionally heartfelt.
Loved Mycroft’s treadmill bit.
Loved Sherlock picking a fight with some lout in a pub over how well he “knows ash!”
But I still don’t like the silly idea that you wouldn’t feel a shiv thrust into you just because you’re wearing a tight belt.
Episode 2 was entirely a character episode, and I enjoyed it more than E1 & E3 for that reason. I think S3 went awry in nearly totally sacrificing story for character (kind of what happened with Monk when I stopped watching it).
You can get rid of your Theory #2 - same people writing and producing these as in the first two series (Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (who also plays Mycroft)) have maintained complete control over the run of the series, and will most likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
And I thought that episode was the highlight of the 3rd series, IMHO. For all of the reasons that others above have posted.
I don’t understand this complaint. Or, rather, I understand what you mean, but strongly disagree. I don’t want to watch a show centered on an utterly unlikeable character who never changes, where the only interest is the plot twists and cruel remarks to his friends. I want a character who can grow, whom I can empathize with.
Again I must disagree. The best part of the entire series thus far was Holmes coming to realize, in SoT, that when it comes to emotion and goodness, Watson is right and he is wrong. Holmes isn’t going to get all soft, but he knows that something is wrong with him, that when it comes right down to it Watson (and by extension Lestrade and Molly) are better people than he: something he’d do well to recognize, even if he’s incapable of achieving.
Damning with low praise, IMO. The entire 3rd Season was absolute crap (once again, IMO), and it’s done something I didn’t think possible, made me not care about the 4th Season at all.
I, too, didn’t like it at first. I’ve watched it a couple of times since then, and it’s grown on me. It might not be my favorite episode, but I like it.
I’m excited for the Christmas special and next series, and wish they weren’t so far away. Luckily at my age time is zooming by, so it really won’t be long.
I do think that the 3rd series wasn’t as enjoyable as the first two, but I in no way meant to damn with faint praise - as the great sage Billy Bob Thorton said, “They can’t all be winners, kid.” I think that Sherlock remains a great show, and I’m looking forward to the 4th.
I think that a lot of people (and I am not ascribing this to anyone specific, especially those within this thread) were annoyed to not be given an explanation for the resurrection of Holmes at the beginning of the series, and this has colored (coloured?) their view of the whole show. I had no problem with the lack of explanation - as I said in an earlier thread, Arthur Conan Doyle never satisfactorily explained how his original Sherlock Holmes lived through his ‘fatal’ encounter with Moriarty.
I thought the first two episodes of the series were enjoyable – it’s mainly, sit back and let Holmes and Watson play against each other. The mystery was implausible, the Sherlock-as-best-man had moments that were hilarious but moments that would have been tedious if you were a wedding guest.
I thought the 3rd episode was ludicrous on so many levels: Fatally shoot Holmes on the grounds that he’ll know how to overcome it? I mean, sheeeeesh. And the blackmailer doesn’t have any back-up info? Isn’t Blackmail 101 to have some protection against being killed by victims???
Well in Holmes’ case he might grow by understanding how to work those around him better. He might not FEEL emphathy or love or whatever, but he could fake it, and he could learn to manipulate others into feeling more comfortable around him by attempting to fake those feelings. In fact, the REALLY successful sociopaths are very good at this, they have studied how to say the right thing and do the right thing and people think they are wonderful, except of course when it’s time to backstab and attack people, which they do with complete lack of remorse, doubt or misgivings, because they don’t have those feelings, any more than they ever had the positive feelings they have learned to fake.
Think BTK killer, married, a pillar of his community, a really nice guy by all accounts, and a serial torture-murderer.
Now if we had been given cues throughout that Holmes had been learning to fake emotions and socialize more skillfully through his association with Watson, and the whole wedding thing had been presented as a sort of apotheosis of his newly learned social humbuggery skills, with the same sociopath running the show, that might have been interesting.
But all I saw was Holmes being unrealistically schmaltzed up. Feh.
I do not think Holmes would ever conceive of Watson as being better than him, only different, I don’t buy his words as the best man for an instant.
I think the acting, production, and general character writing of series 3 were great.
I thought the actual mysteries were lousy. Things just didn’t hang together well. Too grandiose and convoluted (and too much action, I think), not enough putting idiosyncratic evidence together to form a coherent solution. I can understand wanting to grow the show, but when you do three episodes a year, I’d really like at LEAST one to stand as a solid “case of the week.”
no one realized the information was not external until Holmes had the conversation with him about mind palaces - that being said - he had to get the information from somewhere - so it still exists externally to some degree
I think that was a throw back to Canon, which was full of shit like that, like a trained venomous snake that can hear. Pay it no mind, folks. It’s just there to fill a gaping hole in the plot.
FWIW, I think Elementary is a superior show these days. Sherlock just seemingly lends himself to procedurals and its a nice twist on things to have Sherlock in NYC after getting clean and Dr. Joan (yes, Joan) Watson being his sober companion.