BBC's "Sherlock" Series

[Shennifer]

I gather that it was different in the Final Problem.

Only entirely.
In the book there is no plot to discredit Holmes, Moriarty simply wants to kill him. Sherlock escapes successive assassins until he finally meets up with Moriarty himself, they fight on a cliff, and both go over.

He did want to kill Sherlock; he just wanted to discredit him too. (But I get your point, and I appreciate your passion for the original story)

And I'm curious as to your thoughts on the rest of them.

As Holmes stories? They were fine. Some, like Hounds, even great. I don’t care about them that way really, because they’re just passing cases, you can take or leave them. If they change some ideas to put their own spin on it, that’s up to them. But The Final Problem is a cornerstone story, an extreme liberty like destroying Sherlock Holmes’ reputation is totally out of line.

gotcha. I've read other people's opinions about how they didn't like some of the other episodes compared to the original stories (like the Scandal in Belgravia episode), so I wondered if you felt the same way. clearly you don't but I still thought I'd ask.

[bookworm]

Just found this:

Moffat felt that he and co-creator Gatiss had outdone Conan Doyle in their version of Holmes' fall

That makes me angry. It’s so arrogantly short sighted. On the surface, yes they did outdo the original. By far. They took the literal downfall and made it include a metaphorical one. However, that’s exactly why it was terrible! Doyle could have done that too if he wanted to, but he didn’t. As I said, it was not meant to be the end of Sherlock’s reputation, only of his life.

[Aeva]

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, bookworm. Having read "The Final Problem," I actually found Moffat's expansion of the story (to include the metaphorical fall) to to be an excellent adaptation. With all the slander and libel that flies around in this modern world, I think destroying Sherlock's reputation (and thus his legacy) was appropriate.

[bookworm]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m taking issue with.
I agree it was a reasonable reimagining. As I said, if this were any other detective show I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. The problem with this reimagining of this story isn’t the new circumstances of the situation, but the situation itself. Sherlock Holmes is the single most iconic and sacred detective figure in literary history. To destroy his reputation like this is pretty much sacrilege.
So the problem isn’t what they did, but who they did it to. This villainous plot is an idea worthy of Moriarty, indeed; but no writer is worthy enough to make it actually become reality.

[Amethystic]

What, is there some sort of scale of worthiness that a writer must score upon in order to be allowed to explore themselves creatively?

[bookworm]

Uh, yeah. If the character is this iconic, you don’t do something so bold the actual creator wouldn’t do it.

[Amethystic]

Well 1.) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is dead, so we can't exactly ask him for his opinion, and 2.) Sherlock as a series is a lot of things, but I hardly think everything about it pre-Reichenbach would've gotten the Doyle stamp of approval. And I mean, my goodness, Sherlock Holmes and company have been re-interpreted and re-imagined so many times, at least this is one of the better interpretations. At the end of the day, Sherlock Holmes now belongs to the public domain; nobody gets to call the shots regarding how his character is used and abused, all we can do is enjoy (or grimace at) all the crazy new Sherlockian lore as best we can.

[Aeva]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m taking issue with.
I agree it was a reasonable reimagining. As I said, if this were any other detective show I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. The problem with this reimagining of this story isn’t the new circumstances of the situation, but the situation itself. Sherlock Holmes is the single most iconic and sacred detective figure in literary history. To destroy his reputation like this is pretty much sacrilege.
So the problem isn’t what they did, but who they did it to. This villainous plot is an idea worthy of Moriarty, indeed; but no writer is worthy enough to make it actually become reality.

Ahh, I see. I still disagree generally (as you probably deduced I would lol), but I understand what you're saying.

...I suppose that's not entirely helpful for a discussion. More specifically, I disagree with this statement that you made:

If the character is this iconic, you don’t do something so bold the actual creator wouldn’t do it.

I do feel that being bold can definitely backfire, especially when you are dealing with a figure like Sherlock Holmes. The Reichenbach Fall could have easily gone very wrong; however, I still believe that, in this case, Moffat's courage to do something like this worked out for the best. His bold story was inventive, clever, and worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle, imho. I just happened to glance at that smiley, and I thought it was appropriate. xD

[Shennifer]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I’m taking issue with.
I agree it was a reasonable reimagining. As I said, if this were any other detective show I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. The problem with this reimagining of this story isn’t the new circumstances of the situation, but the situation itself. Sherlock Holmes is the single most iconic and sacred detective figure in literary history. To destroy his reputation like this is pretty much sacrilege.
So the problem isn’t what they did, but who they did it to. This villainous plot is an idea worthy of Moriarty, indeed; but no writer is worthy enough to make it actually become reality.

Ahh, I see. I still disagree generally (as you probably deduced I would lol), but I understand what you're saying.

...I suppose that's not entirely helpful for a discussion. More specifically, I disagree with this statement that you made:

If the character is this iconic, you don’t do something so bold the actual creator wouldn’t do it.

I do feel that being bold can definitely backfire, especially when you are dealing with a figure like Sherlock Holmes. The Reichenbach Fall could have easily gone very wrong; however, I still believe that, in this case, Moffat's courage to do something like this worked out for the best. His bold story was inventive, clever, and worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle, imho. I just happened to glance at that smiley, and I thought it was appropriate. xD

I rewatched this episode today, and it was brilliant and feels-inducing as usual
and it was written by Steve Thompson, not Moffat (though I'm sure he influenced it)

Off topic: It's funny how I love this show created by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat when I don't generally like how Moffat wrote the 11th Doctor and some of the characters surrounding him

[bookworm]

I do feel that being bold can definitely backfire, especially when you are dealing with a figure like Sherlock Holmes. The Reichenbach Fall could have easily gone very wrong; however, I still believe that, in this case, Moffat's courage to do something like this worked out for the best. His bold story was inventive, clever, and worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle, imho.

Fair enough, as long as you can understand my angle.

I just happened to glance at that smiley, and I thought it was appropriate. xD

It was indeed, nicely done.

[Shennifer]

bookworm, I know you said that the rest of the episodes aren't as important as this one but I'm still curious about your thoughts on them (particularly on Scandal because that episode seems to get a lot of heat from people about how it was different from the original)

[bookworm]

I'll get back to you on that.
In the meantime, look what I just stumbled across:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/

That is so awesome!

Edit:

Woah, there's a whole list of them!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018ttw ... disclaimer

[Termite]

...bookworm, I am literally sitting here alternating between squees/shocked silence.

OHMIGOSHICAN'TEVENTHISISSOAAAAAGH!

[Shennifer]

I knew about the John Watson blog, but not about the rest

[Aeva]

I do feel that being bold can definitely backfire, especially when you are dealing with a figure like Sherlock Holmes. The Reichenbach Fall could have easily gone very wrong; however, I still believe that, in this case, Moffat's courage to do something like this worked out for the best. His bold story was inventive, clever, and worthy of Arthur Conan Doyle, imho.

Fair enough, as long as you can understand my angle.

I definitely do understand your angle. ^_^

And I will love you forever for posting those websites.

[bookworm]

I cannot process the amazingness of this.

[Sparrow]

Series three Sherlock teaser.


John. Mustache. WHY.

[Shennifer]

Series three Sherlock teaser.


John. Mustache. WHY.

I saw that a few hours ago *squee*

I don't mind the mustache, actually. I've gotten used to it from pictures I've seen.

[bookworm]

Because of this intriguing article I will have to rewatch the finale. Apparently the answer is there somewhere.

[Shennifer]

Because of this intriguing article I will have to rewatch the finale. Apparently the answer is there somewhere.

I've seen a bunch of theories about the finale, but there's no telling which one is the most accurate.