i know im late but a wise person once said "moffat was so obsessed with sherlock being the smartest man alive that he changed the plot every time fans figured it out
imo that's really what Moffat is interested in - the idea of someone being the smartest person alive. The best moments of the show use Sherlock Holmes to explore the idea of genius in general: what society expects from Sherlock as a genius, how people like Moriarty use Sherlock's genius to bolster their own egos, how being superhumanly smart both connects Sherlock to and alienates him from the world. If Moffat had focused only on exploring/deconstructing the mythos of the genius detective, we might have actually gotten something good. But instead the show feels the need to have a twisty turny mystery plot that the showrunner couldn't care less about, and is only really there to highlight how clever the main character is. It reminds me of how Zach Snyder's obsession with superheroes as gods basically wrecked Batman vs Superman.
@@lucyw4195 And the concept of 'smartest person alive' falls apart because there's two ways to look at it. The smartest person alive either knows every single fact about everything ever; every battle fought, every product made, every program built, every leader, every equation. In which case they spend so much time researching they have no time to do detective work. This also goes against Sherlock's methodology because he doesn't learn things he won't find useful, like other languages or astronomy. Or, the smartest person alive is never wrong. In which case Sherlock can't be that either because he frequently makes guesses or incorrect hypotheses.
@@BioYuGi No, you’re assuming that the smartest person alive is the smartest a person could be. Smartest person alive only means that the person is smarter than any other person currently alive with whatever definition of smart you want
I remember that episode of What's New, Scooby Doo; the one with the Centaur. In that episode, it still worked because, even though she didn't have enough info to figure it out, the audience did. That show was the last good Scooby Doo show; all the ones after that were just terrible.
@@mcrancher4587 I honestly haven't seen it. I personally dislike when a Scooby-Doo show or film makes some of the monsters real; the one exception of course being Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island, and that one works because they treat it as an exception and the story still has a pretty good mystery.
I wasn't really a fan of Mary but the moment that broke the series for me was her death from a gunshot wound infront of her husband. Her husband who is a combat medic. You know, the sort of person used to treating gunshot wounds.
Myrrh - Yes this was totally weird,. Watson is an army medic and he is known to work especially well under pressure. It is utterly stupid to let her die like this.
Ugh, I know, right? I try to look at it as him knowing just by looking at the wound that there's nothing he can do, except even if that were the case, I would think that considering he's her husband he would stop at nothing to try and save her anyway. Would be just as dramatic, if not more so, if he tried to do SOMETHING and she still died anyway.
I mean if it hits an artery or major organ, theres not much he could have done... some people get shot 7 times and dont die while someone gets shot once in the leg and dies before they reach the hospital. True stroies by the way
Also true however that combat medics have in the past saved people who've been shot in the heart and if an artery is hit, there are things that can be done. It's incredibly serious of course. I mean JFK was alive when he reached hospital. Watson standing by and not even _trying_ anything... It smacked of the utterly ridiculous, particularly given how long she took to die.
I didn't have a problem with the boomerang reveal, but when I first saw it I was still incredulous that with the police searching for the all-important missing murder weapon, it was just down the river next to the body, not even hidden by anyone. If the police had just checked downriver for a weapon, the case would be solved instantly.
To be fair cops get incredibly obvious shit like that wrong all the time. Lizzie Borden got away with literal murder because police didn't bother to check that she threw the axe into the yard next door, if I remember correctly.
I will never get over the “secret good episode” theory. Imagine writing something so bad that even the diehard fans refuse to believe that it could possibly be real, and that there must be a secret good version you’re hiding somewhere. That’s just embarrassing
If I wrote something so bad people thought it was bad on purpose and created conspiracy theories that I was going to release something that would retroactively fix all the problems with it, I would never show my face in public again honestly lol
Cumberbatch Sherlock was my first real exposure to Sherlock Holmes when I was like 12, and so I just took it for granted that the character was a sociopath with a god complex. Fast forward a few years and I happened to catch an episode of the Jeremy Brett series-I believe it was The Dancing Men. There’s a scene that has been burned into my mind where Sherlock is interviewing the cook (Mrs King) about the murder and she is obviously distressed, but Sherlock doesn’t notice because he’s so focused on the case. Watson leans over and whispers in his ear, causing Sherlock to notice her state and ask Mrs. King if she would like to sit down. And then a little while later, Sherlock stops Mrs. King as she is leaving the room to reassure her that her mistress is innocent. I can’t tell you what kind of impact that had on me. It changed my opinion on the character entirely. I know for a fact that if that scene had ever played out in Cumberbatch Sherlock, Watson would have whispered in Sherlock’s ear and Sherlock would have ignored him or said something snide and cruel about how he doesn’t understand how people can be so weak. And then at the end of the scene he probably would have deduced out of thin air that Mrs King was having marital problems, just to drive home how much of an asshole he is.
That little scene from Granada's series does more to explain the characters than a whole season of BBC Sherlock. In a few seconds it tells you that Holmes is kinda cold, almost to the point of rudness, but that he is not heartless and actually cares about people and one of the reasons he respects Watson is because he's his social anchor, in a way. It's those nuances that make for great stories and characters imo.
This scene warms me in so many levels. I remember when I started watching Granada Holmes, it was because of a scene in The Red Headed League where Holmes JUMPS THE COUNCH to reach Watson before he leaves because he wants him to see what's the odd casd he has his hands upon this bad.
I fucking love that scene because it also humanizes him, he's just socially unaware which somewhat aids him in being smart [spotting patterns and all that] but fundamentally he's just a guy who needs watson. who is also _just a guy._ just some guys being dudes
Sherlock was also my first exposure to the Holmes series, and I pretty much got the same vibes as you did. Only after watching this video did I realize that there are better Sherlocks out there.
I had to read the Hound of Baskerville for my gifted English class in 8th grade which was my real exposure to the character and the Guy Ritchie movies were my first film or tv adaptation.
It's kinda counter productive for a hitman to have a "trade mark style". If you have a leave behind patterns of your kills the cops can track you right.
They can tie the murders together and guess they were probably committed by the same person, but that doesn't help them figure out who the person _is._
@@elsie8757 well it still would make way more sense if none of the hits could be linked together because that alone gives you something to go off of like the hitmans current location, info on the person who hired them etc
It would take a lot of skill most hitmen don't have to avoid a trademark style. As humans we often do stuff in a similar way if we do it over and over.
i don't remember the specifics of the episode in question but in (almost certainly undeserved) fairness to whoever wrote that dialogue: in a dramatic fictional world, a hitman with a trademark style would be a good fit for clients who want to send a message
I'm a goldsmith and the thing about the ring in the pink episode is 100% wrong. If you're taking a ring on and off the inside doesn't get bloody polished, it gets scratched and dirty cuz stuff gets to get in there that is otherwise blocked by your damn fingers. The fact that the ring is the way it is actually shows she pretty much never takes it off. Occasionally you get a ring that's dirty on the inside but that's when it's an old guy who's been wearing the ring for 20 years and he's never had it sized so it's too tight and it ends up with the awful crust inside. He wouldn't be able to take it off her hand if that's the case BECAUSE IT'S TOO TIGHT. OK I'm done now, I have to go tell myself I'm not alcoholic while plugging in my phone
Also, even if you did deduce that someone took their ring off often, that doesn't necessarily mean they're an adulterer. Maybe they work in food preparation. Maybe they're a nurse. Maybe they do exercise where jewellery could be a risk, like dance, martial arts, gymnastics.
I guess I’m an adulterer in my dreams because I take my wedding ring off every night (because my fingers get a bit swollen when I sleep which maybe means I should see a doctor 🤔)
brb gonna go write that down so i can one day write a detective story where the detective deduces that someone doesn’t usually take their ring off because it’s clean on the inside.
I'm convinced Moffatt had a real, definite explanation for Sherlock's death the whole time, and then someone theorizing on the Internet happened to nail exactly what he had planned. Then Moffatt found it and said, "If those plebs can figure it out, then IT'S NOT CLEVER ENOUGH. I MUST BE THE CLEVEREST BOY." And into the incinerator it went.
It's funny because the showrunners on Westworld actually admitted they did exactly that when writing season 2. I think George RR Martin said it best... "Before the Internet, one reader could guess the ending you wanna do for your novel, but the other 10,000 wouldn’t know anything and they would be surprised. However, now, those 10,000 people use the Internet and read the right theories. They say: “Oh God, the butler did it!”, to use an example of a mystery novel. Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well in your work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure out the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point to the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."
It was just a throwaway line, but “not everyone bad in the world has to be working for the main villain” is unironically a great rule for worldbuilding
I think it depends. A good example of where this does work is XCOM 2. The whole premise of the game is that you were utterly crushed in the first game. As opposed in other games, where the good guys winning is the canon ending, in XCOM, you canonically lose in the first game. And when I say "lose" I mean complete subjugation of the human race by aliens. The XCOM organisation is beaten in two months, and all governments have either surrendered or were violently subdued. It's not a matter of humanity maybe having a chance, ADVENT won. In every sense of the word. They control everything. Now, you're tasked with waging a guerilla war against them. No more waiting for the aliens to attack you, XCOM is now on the offensive, liberating humanity. In this kind of universe, where the bad guys literally control everything, every aspect of the government on Earth, an omnipresent, omnipotent force to which everything "bad" is tied to it, I think is a beneficial aspect of the story. Obviously, for a more personal conflict like that in Sherlock this makes little sense, but as with every other trope it depends on the context you use it in.
That‘s way OG Sherlock Holmes series is amazing. Nearly every villain/antagonist is completely independent and has a goal on their own. I still love Moriarty in many adaptions, but I always get annoyed when Irene Adler works for (or is 🙄) Moriarty, they never even met in canon! I swear, if I ever create a Holmes adaption, Adler and Moriarty will be enemies!
This was kinda the lore in the GDR, btw. (Socialist, east Germany) Imperialism caused people to do crime. Imperialism is the end Gegner. Well... somehow there were still crimes in socialism, who would have thought.
It hurts how Moffat seems to think that being 'smart' means being unpredictable. Intelligence has nothing to do with predictability. Oftentimes, creating a 'smart' plan means creating an inevitable one, entirely independent of whether or not the subject knows the plan or not. That's not even beginning on the fact that he thinks 'smart people' are just human encyclopedias. Like, no, I'm pretty sure every 'smart' person I know doesn't read obscure Wikipedia articles for fun and memorize the dictionary every Saturday.
the "human encyclopedia" bit is so dumb because he doesn't even stick with it. like, it's possible. according to other comments in the book canon sherlock is literally just a smart guy who studies a lot. since we never see him studying in the show we could assume he just has a near photographic memory and read stuff years ago and remembers it, which would kinda work the same way. in the bbc show HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE EARTH GOES ROUND THE SUN. BECAUSE IT COULD NEVER BE RELEVANT TO A CASE. HOW. JUST HOW??? THEN AS A "GOTCHA" KNOWLEDGE OF SOME OBSCURE METEOR IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE IN THAT SAME EPISODE. BUT HOW THE HELL WOULD HE KNOW THAT IF HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE EARTH IT??????????
@bellchime3078 i know but it doesn't make sense with bbc!sherlock. they're not the same character. if they can change the waterfall that sherlock falls off of in the book to a building in the show, they can update this fact to one that most everyday modern people would know, but isn't so in your face, such as not knowing what reddit is. it's physically impossible to not know the earth goes around the sun in the 21st century. it's like not knowing what grass is, or that 2+2=4. if nothing else he must surely have heard it used in a rhetorical question of some sort
@@ريحانة-و8ك That's what i like about the original Holmes: he wasn't a know-it-all 'Master of all trades' genius type of guy, no; he was just a guy deeply obsessed with his line of work. Sherlock is not your typical genius; He is just efficient. A complete opposite to his brother Mycroft, who is smarter than him, but is too lazy in doing anything meaningful. Compare that to BBC Sherlock: where his intellect is all over the place. I can only describe it as a strange, patchwork of knowledge, that itself isn't Self-consistant.
@@ريحانة-و8كthat specific solar system bit leads me to the concerning belief that it’s not impossible moffat, when thinking of smart people, chose to think of Elon musk
"Moffat should just write pilot episodes for the rest of his life then hand the rest of the series to other writers" After watching Dracula, this still applies tbh
I would argue that Deadpool, despite being a good Marvel movie, has the lowest value because there is basically no wisdom to be gleaned from it, other than, perhaps, if you love some one for who they are you will be able to overlook their outward ugliness? Or, if someone is a psychopathic dick head you are not righteous for sparing their life, even if you are killing them for vengeance? Meh. A lot of 12 year old language and humor. Doctor Strange introduced a Western audience to some basic Eastern themes, that of seeking out the guru; shedding materialism and ego in favor or wisdom and spirituality; self-sacrifice for the good of the whole world; merging intellect, science, and spirit; understanding mind as the source of magic. Doctor Strange gives us a lot to contemplate, and gives a new lens through which to view ourselves and our cultural context. Also, after I saw it and appreciated it I changed a lot as a person in a positive way. But we all have our own perspectives.
Fuck it one more complaint: Moriarty's genius in this show seems to manifest purely in that he's got a third of the population of London hired as snipers
Rowan Atkinson heh, if you say you're a genius and you have a few million people behind you with rifles pointing at the person you're telling it to; they're not going to disagree 😂
Yeeeeeeaaah, in a country with such restrictive gun laws, in which a common person is only allowed a shotgun and/or a hunting rifle and use, sale, and ownership laws are strict even for airsoft or _imitation_ guns, I'd have thought there'd be a _lot_ smaller market for hired snipers willing to tote their high-powered man-killing rifles into a highly-secured, heavy-surveillance major urban center and point said extremely loud guns at residential buildings. I don't follow UK news much, so a Brit's going to have to fill me in: was there some kind of... incredibly weird recent recession or scandal or something resulting in the Army having to dump a hundred snipers _so_ fast they didn't have time to take their guns back, or is it just _really_ easy to convince a London Metropolitan cop you just bumped into in the park that the high-powered military-caliber sniper rifle you've got strapped to your back is for _literal_ snipe hunting?
The Rache vs. Rachel twist feels like Moffet read the book as a kid saw the word "Rache" and went "Oh, they were writing Rachel" and then the twist that it was writing in German made him feel dumb so when he was in control of the story he said "I'm not the dumb one, that twist was dumb!"
Well the idea was to subvert expectations for script not to follow the source material so the audience could be invested in the mistery once again. I mean writing RACHE with your fingernails in your very last moments would be also stupid af
Yesterday I read a Sherlock Holmes short story where a guy says his new wife has been seen feasting on their baby but of course vampires don't exist and she would never do that, so he asks Sherlock to investigate. Sherlock absolutely doesn't believe in vampires, but he also says that his methods aren't perfect, that they are very good and he is very clever but he also might make a mistake. At the end, he explains the woman was saving the baby from the poison of a weapon she brought from her country, and that the culprit is the guy's first son he had from his first wife. What really hit me is that Sherlock understands why the woman didn't say anything: the guy would have never believed her is she said his older son, whom he adores, wanted to kill his newborn son, and he wouldn't have understood that she was applying the knowledge of her native country to save their baby and was no vampire at all. Sherlock actually understands a person's line of thought and empathizes with her. My reaction upon reading this was "Moffat's Sherlock would have never done that, he wouldn't have admitted his method still might fail and he would have never tried to understand someone else".
Sherlock Holmes is generally a lot more endearing in book form. They seem to really dial back his eccentricities, insecurities, expressiveness and overall humanity for TV and movies. Unfortunate as these traits are what make the character likeable. Being 'smart' and 'good at solving crimes,' aren't traits that the audience is going to form an emotional connection with, turns out.
@@wayward203 Yeah, I was surprised at how much of an insufferable genius canon Sherlock Holmes WASN'T. I honestly think this is tv adapters just going "Oh, genius? Must be an ass, Hollywood teaches us you can't be smart and likeable at the same time".
the one redeeming quality of the final problem (bbc version) is that john watson is finally relatable to the audience: -shouts a lot -unconscious at least twice -rather be drowning
that's why i liked the books better, even the Robert downy jr. movies... Watson in general serves a purpose and even contributes to the story...he is not Sherlock's sidekick he is his partner. In this series they set Sherlock up to be so perfect and able to figure out or think ahead in every situation that when they try and have something for Watson to do it feels forced...i mean if Sherlock can out think himself out of this, and or get out of that, whenever Watson must help him, it feels contrived or like the writers have to go out of their way to write away Sherlock's enhanced abilities to give the "gimp" a chance to play.
@@mckenzie.latham91 Even for medical clues. He has to remind Watson that it takes time for signs of tetanus to show. In the first Watson is only there because Sherlock wants to force Watson on the police. (His name doesn't matter, he only matters because Sherlock wants him there. "Why am I here?" "to make a point"). Later, even though Watson couldn't recognize possible signs of pregnancy, he could tell the difference between a dead man and a living person. In the "best name speech" we're supposed to be touched when Sherlock mentions that. I'll bet there are lots of people who can tell that - you don't need medical training.
every time i fumble plugging in my phone charger im haunted by that scene in the first ep where sherlock uses a beat up phone port to reason that someone is an alcoholic
you know Sherlock reasons on the balance of probability which is where a lot of his deductions come from. an alcoholic with an unsteady hand making the scratches is the most likely scenario not the only one .
when i fumble with my phone charger it's because it's a micro-USB and I always manage to attempt to shove it into my phone the wrong way up. Every time.
Alternate scene idea: Sherlock: "Most major companies outsource their security to third parties. In fact, there might be three major companies in that field... someone with your resources could easily find or create a vulnerability in all three." Moriarty: "...Very Clever Mr. Holme-" Sherlock: "And the biggest vulnerability in any piece of security is a person. One person in one company, one calls, one kill order... I don't know what you gave them or who you threatened to get to them, but that's the code... a kill order. If they don't follow through on what you ask, you follow through on every threat you made against them. Who needs a defence when you have the whole Jury held hostage..." Moriarty: "...And how utterly brilliant you are Mr Holmes!"
@@spongecakes1986 Global system crash back in July. Basically, Crowdstrike is a company that makes security programs for large corporations, used in places like supermarket checkouts, banks, the stock market, emergency services, etc. They botched an update that caused all windows systems that received the update to go into a bluescreen loop. Turn on, load windows, bluescreen of death, reboot. Endlessly. The only way to fix it was hope that the system could stay operational long enough to download the fix, or manually delete the problem file from the system directory on each individual computer. Estimated impact: 8.5 million computers bricked until the fix could be applied. Estimated damage: At least $10 billion USD. All because one company forget to verify that their code worked -_-
because of this goddamn show every time i try to plug my phone into my charger and can't do it on the first try i imagine sherlock bursting through my window and calling me an alcoholic
I'd bet everything I own that Moffat had an explanation for Sherlock's death, but then someone figured it out on Tumblr, and out of spite, he threw it out.
100%, I firmly believe JJ did the same for Episode 9 of StarWars. People had made so many predictions about how it would happen, even the most critical haters of the sequels made good guesses for what could happen, everybody joked that "the emperor will be back" in an ironic "imagine if they did that how awful would that be", and they did indeed do that. ONLY because I bet someone predicted the original idea they had so they just HAD to go in a stupidly obvious not so obvious way.
@@partypete2542To be fair, when the second part of your trilogy trashes most of the overarching plot strands and seems to go out of its way to leave you without any reasonable contender for 'main trilogy villain', what the fuck else are you supposed to do?
@@weiss_cream Kylo Ren was not set up as having the capability and maturity to lead the First Order. He was not shown to have the sort of raw power that would have made him feel truly threatening. He's been ridiculed repeatedly, he's been outsmarted, and he's been beaten in combat several times throughout the movies. He's been shown to have crises of faith and, if anything, was set up with just enough nuance for a potential redemption (which they'd have had to throw out the window in the third movie if they'd attempted a villain arc). Don't get me wrong, that sort of character might have made a perfectly suitable villain in other stories, and I actually appreciated the writers' attempt to give him some nuance and humanity, but if you compare him to Star Wars' other Big Bads, he would have been an incredibly anticlimactic choice to finish off the sequel trilogy.
@@verenabecker2724 eh, Kylo was losing his mind basically, that could have been an excellent setup for him going over the threshold, fully giving in to the dark side and just going psycho after everyone, killing his underlings in gory ways right there if they contradict him, making everyone in FO terrified as fuck, and then coming after resistance with unified FO just hell-bent on total genocide of anyone in his way. Sure, there was potential for him to go either way, I'm not denying that, but it definitely wasn't too late to make him a full blown villain.
I’m Aussie and have thrown (and caught) boomerangs. They do spin, but you also need to throw them at the right angle, into the right wind. However, the boomerang shown in Sherlock is not the type that can be thrown and caught. It is a tourist version. Just something you buy to display. Otherwise known as a painted stick. Thank you for your money, tourists.
Yeah? A friend of mine brought a painted one from Australia, and that thing flew really well. We threw it at the beach and it ended up getting lost in a field like 20m behind us
the tourist ones are meant to be mounted on walls, so the back half is completely flat so it can sit flush on the wall. they look like a real boomerang cut in half. you can see this in the Sherlock episode, it has the flat back half for wall mounting lol. I guess you can glue two of them together and maybe make a regular boomerang? shit wouldn’t work though lol.
Yeah, and they often *are* weapons, in fact that is one of their biggest purposes, across all the nations that make them . Just like. Not that one. That's a pretty stick.
Doyle: Sherlock is a smart guy who can occasionally come off as a bit cold or rude but is generally good and takes on cases because he enjoys helping people Moffat: I zoned out but I heard cold and rude so that works for me, let’s make it his entire personality
Yeah, I always imagined Holmes as being a polite, slightly condescending guy who is just extremely smart and perceptive and reads a lot of books. I guess the modern version of that is "Sheldon Cooper, with superpowers".
I read some of the stories first, then I ran into a couple of adaptations that back up how I felt about book-Holmes. I enjoyed Sherlock at the time as a fun and slightly silly thing, but Sherlock himself is my least-favourite because he's so cruel.
I would sell my soul for the unedited footage of the Hounds of Baskerville Mind Palace scene. Just Cumberband waving his hands around wildly without context, ending with him snapping his head back three times like his soul was executed in the Astral Plane.
One thing I think the BBC show is missing is that in the books, Sherlock ADORES giving lengthy explanations of his thought process to Watson and the police. The Adventure of the Empty Room literally spends several pages with him going into extreme detail about how he survived Reichenbach. He isn't just a genius. He is a genius who loves to teach others about his process. In that way, we the readers are invited into the story and are encouraged to try to solve the mysteries alongside him. BBC Sherlock just wants to look smarter than everyone else, so he acts like an asshole and keeps his thoughts to himself.
Sorry, know this comment is a month old, but I'm actually going to make the show potentially look worse by pointing at the second Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie, Game of Shadows. Er, spoilers, ahead, if you haven't seen those movies, they're worth the watches, espeeeeecially that second one. . . . So, near the end of the second movie, everything is set up, and there's only one final thing that can be dealt with. One final mystery to be solved with deductive reasoning, but Holmes can't do it. He instead has to deal with Moriarty, distracting the doctor with a game of chess, taking both of them out of the 'game'. In his place, Watson stepped up, Holmes' final piece to play, and Watson actually gets a chance to use the deductive reasoning and logic that he's gleaned from being at Holmes' side for so long. And Watson actually succeeds! He even does so in an unusual way, making a small scene to induce a specific reaction, and it's super cool to watch him employ what he's learned. This Sherlock? Watson would be screwed, and the bad guy would get his win every time.
heaven forbid artists have their own interpretation. if everyone followed your nonsense logic we wouldnt have heath ledgers joker. but if you think the bbc series is shit you clearly have shit tastes
Exactly! The original Holmes loves a good infodump, ESPECIALLY when the one being infodumped to is Watson. Holmes LIVES off of Watson's admiration of him
@@adamlouis3725Ah yes, the BBC series is totally not awful with its Joker-ripoff of a main villain, faked death that mocks the audience for wanting to know how it happened, and Sherlock solving stuff through thin air. Oh, and having a sister that was never even mentioned until the final episode.
I hate to say it but that’s because the tv version is doing that visually while the written one does it through narrative as that is the best way to explain it. The show is more interested in the significance and semiotics of each object rather then the actual “real” object.
Blue Life literally: “man wouldn’t it be cool if Sherlock and Mycroft had a secret sister that they didn’t tell anyone about bc she was a criminal” I still lowkey feel like Moffat stole from me...
between jenny nicholson, dan olson and harry's recent videos, i think we're approaching peak video essay (as far as incredibly long and detailed productions)
I think one of the biggest issues is that Moffat sees himself as Sherlock, not Watson. The majority of the audience and myself view ourselves as inserts to Watson as the normal but not stupid person, but due to Moffat's mid-life crisis he thinks he is Sherlock and that screws up the whole structure.
There's a moment in the novels where Holmes bought 2 tickets to John's favourite play as an apology for using him in exposing a criminal. John notes that Holmes dislikes this particular play, and Holmes agrees but says something like it will be worth it to see you enjoy it. I cannot ever imagine Cumberbatch's Holmes doing something thoughtful for Watson like this.
Yeah almost every other interpretation of holmes even something like the RDJ films shows that Sherlock does have a heart he just has difficulty expressing a lot of emotion like in those films where Sherlock acts like a dick to mary cause he thinks that if he gets married they won't be friends anymore. Like sure he's an ass sometimes but he isn't a sociopath
@@joshuawright4198 That’s because Sherlock is meant to be high functioning autistic but in this series he is portrayed as a high functioning sociopath which changes his character completely.
@@sukiosartchannel3689 Yeah I found that change kind of offensive to autistic people since that just creates more stigma as Sherlock Holmes is one of the best pieces of Asd representation
I remember reading a piece of a Sherlock Holmes during a test once. It was about someone asking Sherlock how he was such a good detective. Sherlock gestured to a nearby set of stairs and asked the person how many there were, and if he had ever counted them before. The person didn't know, and he had never counted. Sherlock said, without pause, that there were 47 steps and essentially explained that the key to being a good detective is to always notice details, no matter how small or insignificant. This, I believe, is the essence of Sherlock. Not to be smart and know things others don't, but to be perceptive and notice when things are out of place. He could always refer back to books or articles if he needed to know something, but the key to Sherlock's keenness was noticing that there was something peculiar. Something that had changed, which thereby meant something that had been tampered with; thereby a clue.
Isn't that the gimmick in the Series too, though? I mean this video her eis right about almost all of what it says (Except that Sherlock is meant to be a mystery but a sci-fantasy comedy-drama and that the original texts gave you the possibility to guess together with Sherlock) But it's the very defining gimmick (more so then the "mind palace") hat Sherlock sees stuff and that his brother is maybe even smarter then him.
Noticing details and inferring are the two cornerstones of Sherlock's shtick, I believe. Of course how to do the latter reliably is probably harder than training your perception.
@@QuintarFarenor Yh, he usually only knows stuff that are of importance. He didnt even remember that the Earth revolves around the sun or something. I forgot specifically what he said.
Sounds like classic "let's get everyone to watch every episode by drip feeding a storyline" as opposed to "let's get everyone to watch every episode by making compelling episodes"
I actually love shows that are mainly episodic but slowly build up to the real main storyline every episode. Of course, that only works when the individual episodes are good. Some shows don't even draw attention to the mystery or story it's building to until it either comes to full fruition or it's already been going awhile. The first episode of Mystery Inc. ends with an obvious mystery that's slowly built up throughout the season, with more to be resolved for season two. Steven Universe's first episode shows them fighting a giant centipede monster, and doesn't reveal that it's connected to the main plot of fighting the Homeworld gems until long after, when they reveal that what they'd been fighting were corrupted gems the whole time. Both shows have their issues, but I think they're great examples of how to properly set up a season or even series long mystery while being mainly episodic.
@@lavendelchen arthur conan doyle, the writer of Holmes, really hated that he was known almost exclusively for his Sherlock Holmes stories. He wrote tons of other stuff, I think it was mostly historical fiction or something, and he resented that people focused so intently on his pulpy crime fiction really ticked him off, and he came to resent the fans of the series for basically forcing him to write more Sherlock. A quote from him goes something like "If people only remember me as the writer of Sherlock Holmes, then I will have failed."
@@lavendelchen He also literally killed Sherlock just to put an end to it and force people to stop making him write it, so that he could focus on the stories he actually wanted to tell. Those stories never seemed to work out, and he very reluctantly brought Sherlock back a DECADE later because people wouldn't stop hounding him anyway.
“how did you find me?” “i’m sherlock holmes” it’s poetic how well that line encapsulates how poorly moffat understood the point of sherlock as a character
I agree entirely. Moffat makes Sherlock this all knowing being and its just such a good way to totally ruin what makes Sherlock Sherlock. Its almost like he made the series without even reading the books and instead based the show on cliff notes or some shit.
@@Pixiesfairiedust yeah i would be wholly unsurprised if it turned out he made the series without reading the books and just going off of his impression of the cultural figure who most ppl remember simply as “a cool smart detective guy”
It's basically like when you're young and your parents tell you something or to do something without explaining/elaborating why. You don't understand and so naturally ask them and the response is "because I said so" or "because I'm your mum/dad". It's just to shut people up without having to really answer and it doesn't help the person you're telling to understand. That's essentially what the showrunners did on Sherlock - treated their audience like children, feeding them hyper-specific details when they wanted to show they were smart, then handwaving them away when they couldn't explain their own logic. The main difference is that parents don't know the answers to everything in the world, but someone in charge of a series should be able to answer their own questions and explain the logic of a world they themselves created (their adaptation of the novels).
@@MatthewDevil It is even worse, because he clearly read the books, because he writes in so many "references" to the books that make no sense. He thinks he can do better. He cannot, 9 times out of 10.
"This ring is removed often meaning she must be sleeping with other men *constantly* " This just in, according to the writers of Sherlock, most people don't regularly remove their rings when doing things like: sleeping, bathing, swimming, yard work, exercise, applying lotion, etc!
It was more that she kept all her other jewelry clean... But not the wedding ring. Granted, those clean pieces could just be new. But... Yeah that's how he got the unhappy marriage thing. She take VERY good care of her jewelry. But not her wedding ring, for some reason. Ergo, unhappily married.
@@AnxietyRat right though! it doesn't make much sense because there are sooo many other reasons. Maybe the other jewellery is new? maybe she doesn't like cleaning sentiment things because it loses the sentience? (have met people like that) MAYBE, she is in an unhappy marriage, and prefers not to wear the ring because of that, not because she's having an affair. They try to many times to make something out of nothing :/
@@AnxietyRat But couldn't that also be explained by her wearing her wedding ring on a regular basis compared to her other jewelry, so it gets worn and dirty more often than she cleans her jewelry?? All in all I agree with UsernameNotFound that it's a way too insignificant a detail for Sherlock to conclude the victim was an adulterer.
@@AnxietyRat The show should be call "How to misunderstand deduction and induction logic". Sherlock is a bad scientist in the late 2000's BBC iteration, is hard to believe that a character defined by his understanding and talent to use inductive logic within the literature canon is no different that a conspiracy thinker in this version.
The thing that always struck me about the original Holmes' stories is that Holmes doesn't see himself as some kind of super genius. He attributes all his skill to extensive, unending study and application, and there were many times he failed in cases and desired Watson to record such cases so that Watson's readers wouldn't think he was this omniscient-thinking person.
Yes, so true! I also really don't get why most adaptations describe him as socially incompetent or downright rude. He was a very pleasant person in the books and could be incredibly charming. He even recognized his mistakes and prejudices, for example towards women and changed his behavior accordingly. It's really frustrating ^^'
@@adityagoel5746 Yeah, he does. In the words of Holmes himself, he was beaten four times. Here are some of the stories where he either fails or draws a lot of wrong conclusions, hope this helps. A Scandal of Bohemia: he fails his mission and is beaten by Irene Adler and in turn learns to respect women's intellect. The Adventure of Yellow Face: he gets overconfident, makes a lot of wrong deductions and asks Watson to remind him of this case if he ever was to get too cocky. The Five Orange Pips: It is among the two cases where Holmes’s client dies and the criminals are never brought to justice. The Adventure of Engineer’s thumb: Again one of the few cases where the Holmes failed to catch the criminals. The Valley of Fear: Holmes investigates a supposed murder and draws a lot of wrong conclusions.
@@cecilie... u r wrong in scandel in bohemia beats irene adler and secures the pictures and gives them to the king then the king gives him a gift In 5 pips his client dies i agree but he solves the case
@@adityagoel5746 You might wanna read the story again cause that is just not what happens. Holmes finds a photo of Irene Adler in an evening dress and a letter addressed to him that was left by her for him to find. She goes on marrying for love, leaving England and taking the incriminating picture with her for insurance. She wins in every sense of the word and Holmes asks the king to let him keep her photograph as a reminder of her intelligence and because he is humbled.
“The worst thing a franchise ending can do is make you feel kind of stupid and embarrassed for being so excited about it in the first place.” - Jenny Nicholson
@@lumun9658 I'm so glad I decided to read the books back when season 3 aired. It was 100% the only thing that stopped me from kicking a hole in my TV out of despair and feeling like I'd wasted so much time. Fuck D&D man
Secret good episode open: Sherlock has a virtual reality helmet removed from his head. There stands James Moriarty alive and well. He reveals it is actually the 22nd century and introduces robot Watson.
Unfortunately it ends with Robot Watson ripping off his suit and revealing he was Sherlock's secret sexy kung-fu dominatrix sister in disguise before being killed by a boomerang that's in love with Sherlock.
Add in another complaint that they gave Watson a disability due to a war injury just to make it a joke and have him 'will himself' out of a seirous injury really implying that if you need to use a cane its because you just didnt try to be uninjured enough.
There's something funny to me about how there's *Psych,* a show where the main character fakes having psychic powers but actually is just really good at noticing small details and putting 2 and 2 together, and then there's *Sherlock,* a show where this dude is seemingly very good at noticing details but honestly might actually be psychic with how many times he makes wild accusations that are somehow correct.
This show’s Moriarty really is the culmination of every misunderstanding of the original character to date. A century of public obsession with Professor Moriarty as Homes’ “intellectual equal” has obscured why he was such a tough nut to crack. Sherlock Holmes didn’t spend years fighting with Moriarty because the Professor was a supervillain, it’s because he’s a mob boss. He never does anything himself, and is surrounded by underlings who will happily take the fall for him. Moriarty doesn’t spend his time breaking into the Tower of London while dancing to Clockwork Orange music. He mostly just sits around collecting his take from a web of petty crooks. If anything ever actually does require a personal touch, he just has Moran do it. He’s a villain whose primary strength is red tape. That’s why taking down Professor Moriarty took Sherlock Holmes’ whole career.
Good point, but in the books, Moriarty did come out of the woodworks when exceptionally frustrated. Once to threaten Sherlock, then again to try to kill him. Clearly he felt some matters should be handled personally.
@@pablovonpablo2590 Yeah but 2 times over dozens of stories is hardly the same as what happens in the show and other adaptations where he becomes completely central to everything.
@@MoonShadowWolfe That description makes me think of The Wire tbh. You might be right that it doesn't make for popular TV, but it sure can make for great TV.
Something most people don't know about the original Sherlock Holmes stories: Holmes isn't a mega genius. He's a smart, well read, well practiced, and astute man. He even states that his brother is FAR more intelligent than he is, but Mycroft is a lazy layabout who prefers desk work. How these character traits are lost on writers is baffling to me.
It's pretty notable that as the series goes on, Watson starts being familiar enough with Holmes methods that he can also start making deductions about the clients that come through the door. What Holmes does is entirely teachable to someone of sufficient intelligence, it's not just being so "smart" that he's beyond everyone else. There's actual techniques involved, and somehow this gets ignored in favour of "big brain man too smart".
Imo most of the fun of sherlock holmes is precisely that hes kind of just a normal guy. smart! but not some psychic einstein. the only trait that sets him apart is that he /pays attention/ in a world where most people gloss over details, and that lets him connect seemingly disparate pieces of information. it gives you the feeling that if you just thought of things the right way you could do it too, so the audience is in almost friendly competition with sherlock as you try to piece together the information you're given faster than he does.
I'm not sure where this quote is from and someone probably already commented it on this video, but it's probably more applicable here than anywhere: "Stupid people trying to understand complicated problems will often come to the conclusion that the solution is magic."
There's even one story where he makes a completely wrong deduction and tells Watson "If I ever start to get too overconfident remind me of this case Watson"
The absolute funniest anime Sherlock Holmes moment for me is in Black Butler. One arc, the main characters (aristocrat and demon butler) host a party inviting a bunch of London socialites, including a young Arthur Conan Doyle. A whole bunch of murdering happens and the demon butler disguises himself as a clergyman named JEREMY RATHBONE (looking exactly like Jeremy Brett). Eventually they solved the murders via such logic and deductions that inspired Conan Doyle to write his first Sherlock Holmes stories with the character based on the disguised demon. It also explains why, despite being one of the fathers of the detective genre, Doyle was so superstitious.
There's something else to dislike about the Sherlock show - why is he portrayed as a relentless, selfish asshole? In the books he was like a teacher, explaining to Watson how he arrived at his conclusions and deductions and interacting with everyone he met in a kindly way. Hell, it's usually the policemen like Lestrade and Stanley Hopkins who are more sure of themselves. Holmes rarely insults anyone and doesn't take advantage of Watson's friendship with him. I have no idea why Freeman's Watson continues to hang around with probably the most intolerable human on the planet. I swear if they weren't housemates, Watson would never want to see Sherlock ever again
I recently watched the 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles adaptation with Basil Rathbone. In the original story, Sherlock realizes that the killer is a long-lost descendant of the wealthy Baskerville family, who is trying to murder the only other living heir so that he can reveal his own relation and claim the inheritance for himself. The killer doesn't share the family name, and even his own step-sister is not aware of his relation, but Sherlock deduces it because his eyes bear an uncanny resemblance to the eyes of an old ancestor whose painting hangs in the estate. However, despite the fact that he is almost certain who the killer is, Sherlock understands that he doesn't have a shred of hard evidence, and would not be able to get a conviction if he revealed his suspicions. So, he makes the difficult choice of gambling with the life of Sir Henry (the potential victim) by allowing the killer the chance to strike again, because he knows the only way to prove his case will be to catch the killer red-handed. This is a choice that clearly weighs on him, but he knows that if he can't catch the killer right now while he has the chance, Sir Henry will live under the shadow of imminent death for the rest of his life. When the killer is finally caught, Sherlock apologizes to Sir Henry, both for risking his life, and for deceiving him into believing earlier that he was no longer in danger, which he did to ensure the killer would be bold in making his move. If Moffat's Sherlock had adapted the original plot instead of changing it to a secret government facility and all that shit, Sherlock would have risked Sir Henry's life regardless of whether it was necessary, because he was bored. Instead of apologizing to Sir Henry, he would have acted like Sir Henry owed HIM an apology for requiring his attention. Then he would have called the killer's step-sister a fucking idiot for not realizing his relation to the Baskervilles.
i read a post once observing how there’s this trend of smart asshole characters (sherlock, rick sanchez, etc) and the unpleasant people who watch those shows will think the reason other people don’t like them must be because they are also very ✨intellectual✨. it’s definitely a harmful archetype
The series is like a modern take on Sherlock Holmes. You can tell that by the first episode's title, "A Study in Pink", instead of the original "A Study in Scarlet", because nowdays women's trademark color is pink, not red. Back then, a "smarty pants" was considered annoying. But in modern times, inteligence is something praised, and even attractive. So in order to make Sherlock lonely, they had to make him a bit of an asshole. He gets frustrated that no one understands him and starts hating everyone, but in reality he feels really lonely and wants someone to like him. (Yes, I like this series, and you can't change my taste)
THANK YOU. This has always been the main reason why I was never able to like the show - that's not Sherlock. AT ALL. Book Sherlock is socially awkward, driven by reason, and clearly doesn't understand emotions the same way most people do; but he's empathetic, dedicated, and always does his best to help people even if he doesn't quite understand them. Moffat writes the character as this cynical, arrogant asshole and it's just so fucking wrong. And god, oh god, don't even get me started on Irene.
People shit a lot on the RDJ movies for portraying Sherlock as excessively quirky, and while I agree it's somewhat overdone, I still much prefer that Sherlock to BBC's version.
I just rewatched the whole scene. Sherlock does not deduce that she is a serial adulterer just by looking at the ring. The woman's jewelry is all clean except for the wedding ring, which is pretty old (+10 years). Therefore he comes to the conclusion that she is unhappily married, since she does not clean the ring regularly like her other pieces. I personally think that this in fact does make sense. However, you may be right that taking of a ring regularly is not necessarily a sign of adultery, yet taking all other things into consideration the conclusion Sherlock comes to is not that unrealistic as you want it to be. Edit: Later in this scene he explains that, judging from her fingernails, she does not work with her hands so taking off the ring must have another reason.
@@carloschell986 My favorite part of Sherlock Holmes adaptations is when they make Sherlock treat his best, really _only_ friend like complete shit and a total buffoon instead of an intelligent, capable doctor who was in the Queen's army during at least one war. Cause like, he was autistic or something, and us autistic people don't understand emotions so we treat everyone around us like crap! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Yaaaaaay, so progressive!
@@Shenaldracdude I hate 99% of autism representation in media. I'm not even autistic (as far as I know) but I just feel bad for y'all, because I know most of you guys are awesome :)
One thing of note - Irene is *not* bisexual. In the show, John says 'I'm not gay,' and Irene replies, 'well, I am,' in a conversation about how John feels about Sherlock. The implication is meant to be that if Irene, a lesbian, can fall in love with Sherlock, why not John, a straight man? It's queerbaiting and also weirdly bi erasure/lesbophobia. It certainly isn't presented as though Irene is exploring her sexuality and just so happens to be attracted to Sherlock despite previously identifying as a lesbian, it's treated like she *is* a lesbian, but Sherlock is just so unbelievably attractive that she can't help how she feels. Of course a woman who has only ever been attracted to women would fall for Sherlock. It's Sherlock! And of course John never actually develops feelings for Sherlock in any way that goes beyond subtext, gay jokes, and ridiculous levels of queerbaiting. So the conversation exists only to display how amazingly special and wonderful Sherlock is.
On the other hand, some people in the LGBT community who are attracted to the same gender but not _exclusively,_ such as bisexuals and pansexuals, still choose to call themselves "gay", I guess for like, simplicity's sake? Sometimes? So she might be bi after all.
@@Tay-wj9eti am extremely confident the writers don't know the difference between any lgbt identity, and thought that bi really does fit under the umbrella of "the gay".
@@unflexian I mean, maybe? It just seemed to me that the conversation between John and Irene was about how John can't be in love with Sherlock because he's 'not gay,' whereas Irene *is.* Regardless, Irene's sexuality (and her entire character) was terribly written and represented.
Yeah there's this weird trend pop culture has developed over the last several years of assuming that being a genius gives you a free pass to be a complete dick to everyone around you
@@elsie8757 isnt that because they play with the idea of "im an intellectual genius not a social conventions genius" which in turn dangerously aproaches the autistic spectrum coded characters? PS: and also bad portrayed autistuc spectrum coded characters?
@@PutoMedicoBrujo I'd argue that Sherlock, even in his most original incarnations, was always coded autistic, so I don't think attempting to invoke that coding intentionally is why "dickbag sherlock" is so common these days. Rather, I think it's just pandering to the same fantasy as characters like Dr. House or Tony Stark. The whole "I can treat people however the hell I want, and they'll just have to deal with it because I'm so goddamned good at what I do that I can tell it like it is!" thing that got old fast, but people seem to engage with highly.
More and more nerds working in entertainment, writing "Nerdie Sue" characters they wish they could be in real life : "smarter" than everybody else so people should just bow down and respect them. "Fear my superior intellect, Respect me !" lol.
the reason he's supposed to be mean is something to do with the sir Arthur Conan Doyles family there's something about him not being allowed to be nice henry cavils Sherlocks is getting sued for being too considerate
I keep wondering about Moffat's reaction to the Secret Fourth Episode theory. Imagine you're a showrunner for a widely praised tv show, you release a new season, the critics immediately turn on you and start talking about how terrible it is. and then the fans rush to your defense... by insisting the season is SO bad it MUST BE FAKE and don't worry, the actual good episodes will totally come out any minute now. I cannot imagine a more humiliating fan reaction. The fact that Moffat seemed to think the fanbase was beneath him is the cherry on the schadenfreude sundae.
That's one of the funniest coping mechanisms I've ever heard. I wasn't aware of this theory during Season 4 because I just completely lost interest and quit reading any of the updates. This is freaking hilarious. I've seen many fanboys cope with terrible movies / shows but this one takes the cake.
@@One.Zero.One101 To be fair, the show did this previously - where they would provide an explanation for something in line with the original books - and then say - "Haha suckers, you actually believed that dumb explanation. This is the correct explanation." Eg - the plot about Moriarty finding a secret code to hack into all computers, and then saying - lol no, that's such a cliche, it's not true. Or there were moments which you think are real - and then are revealed as fake scenarios happening in a dream or someone's imagination. Or them implying Moriarty is back, only to reveal - nah. So the die-hard fans probably thought the showrunners were intentionally giving them a bad ending - and then will reveal it to be a - "haha suckers !!! that was just a dream in Watson's head" - or something like that. Only problem with this being - they genuinely believed there was some deep 4D chess going on, rather than recognizing these - "subverting expectations" - as cheap soap-opera-ish gimmicks from the get-go.
I recall the game Metal Gear Solid V had a very similar fan reaction. The second chapter is generally agreed to be a poorly cobbled together mess of padding culminating in rehashed content - likely stemming from production issues, and the director and the publisher having a big falling-out - but the fans were expecting much more, so there was plenty of speculation about how the "real" chapter two and three were going to be added as post-launch content, with people coming up with all sorts of stuff from datamining, developer art and other unreleased content. There was a fun bunch of players thinking a patch was going to release on 9/11 anniversary, because you can see a picture of WTC in some of the unreleased material. The other side of the most ardent fan base went into the exact opposite direction of cope by claiming the second chapter was bad on purpose and "subverted expectations".
I can't believe you forgot to mention the infamous 'scratch marks around the phone, She must be an alcoholic' scene that lives in the minds of every person scrabbling to plug in their phone forever more.
THIS oh my god. Every time I plug my phone in or, even better, when I come home and I don't manage to fit my key in the keyhole on the first try, I think of this bullshit and me being diagnosed as an alcoholic 😂
In the original story, the item is a pocket watch which has deep *gouges* near the keyhole where it's wound, as well as several sets of pawnbroker's marks. Holmes surmises from both of those clues put together (as well as others that tell him the owner's age, class, occupation etc) that the owner must have had a drinking habit, because a gentleman of that era would generally take care when winding his expensive/heirloom watch. Still a leap of logic - there are other possibilities! - but not quite as ludicrous as "scratches around the port of your phone mean you're an alcoholic" like Moffatt's Sherlock proclaims.
I don't blame Moffat for that. I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan but if you've read the original stories, a lot of pastiches, watched many adaptions, etc you start to realise pretty quickly that many of Sherlocks deductions are absolute, complete and utter nonsense as observations but they sound like they're not in the moment because they go past quickly most of the time and you don't think about them beyond "that's clever" and move on with the narrative. About the only thing I can say is that it's a particularly obvious nonsense observation. But the canon is full of them. And I've always thought Sherlock was garbage. I have no interest in defending Moffat.
@@medes5597 The core concept of deductive reasoning is a sham. The sad part is, most people have been sold on it by the likes of Sherlock Holmes, and it's used routinely in actual courts of law to bamboozle juries into convicting without _valid_ evidence.
I cannot express how sinister and awesome the "Do you like drugs Mr. Holmes? ... Most people would have passed out by now" bit really is and what a shame that it's not the Sherlock episode that we got...
Moffat unwillingness to show a more vulnerable and therefore interesting side of Sherlock is one the most frustrating things about the show. Sherlock is more like a superhero in the 2010 BBC version that an actual human being.
@@pphyjynx8217 that’s the thing, it’s not even a good super hero story, it’s the kind of superhero a child comes up with. “This is mr smart man, he’s super super smart and always wins and no one can ever beat him”
God this makes me so, so sad too. That first episode was BEAUTIFUL, both in construction and aesthetic. It makes a lot more sense and I adore it. Its so painfully sumptuous, dark, glorious. God that's sad. And the taxi driver so so so so so so much better as a villain on his own than it being fucking moriarty, which cheapens the wonderful acting, absolutely sinister delivery, and fantastic portrayal of the actor who plays the taxi driver. Ugh.
I feel like the joke of "Oh I just slipped a tracker on you" would have actually worked and be really funny if the rest of the series involved him actually using reasoning to solve anything.
Agreed! As a one-off it would have been really funny, but at that point it was just another instance of the show not bothering to write a smart solution for something.
Wasn't there a similar scene in the original SH stories? I remember there was one instance where Sherlock would make some educated guesses based on the client's appreance before delivering the punchline of seeing some sort of card off the tray with info about that client. It was funny.
1:00:53 "Sherlock gains a grudging respect for her, not in a romantic way, but because he appreciates that he's been outsmarted." THIS. THIS IS EXACTLY IT. I don't understand why every single adaptation of this story ever just doesn't seem to get that. Sherlock got outplayed for the first and really only time in his life. He doesn't keep a picture of her around and calls her "The Woman" because he's somehow in love with Irene after seeing her twice, it's because he respects her a great deal and likes to remind himself that he's not an infalible genius and can't underestimate anyone. On that note, fuck the "I am Sherlocked" scene.
You do realize, The Woman, was already a shady name given to Adler, *before* Sherlock even entered her realm right? I'm not shit posting. I agree with most of what you had to say. But this one thing I don't.
And also THE SERIES MADE HER LOOSE. THATS NOT THE POINT. SHERLOCK WAS SEXIST, WE CAN SEE THAT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT MARY IN THE SIGN OF THE FOUR, BUT IRENE LITERALLY GAVE HIM A SLAP IN THE FACE. HE TASTED REALITY. AND HE ACCEPTED IT.
Every adaptation makes her into the femme fatale the King of Bohemia claimed she was. Except... that's exactly the opposite of the point. That's the TWIST. She was an intelligent, independent woman who wanted her own life, and the King was the one who couldn't let her go and kept harassing her. It's basically a feminist story to begin with, and every adaptation gets it bass-ackwards.
Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the kind of media people want to consume. People don't really seem to display much interest in the idea of a totally celibate potentially asexual protagonist. They (at least in the eyes of creators) *want* romantic interests, and if said romantic interest is in the "flirting with the enemy" category, it's even better. Even if Sherlock as a character in these adaptations doesn't progress beyond simple flirting or being flirted with, the point is that the "ship tease" potential still has to be there because (again, in the eyes of the creators) that's what people want. And since there's a distinct lack of significant female partners for Sherlock to at least have the potential to be partnered up with - Mary is taken by John and no incarnation of Sherlock would be that much of a dick; Mrs Hudson is "unequal" to him both in intelligence and societal standing - that dubious honour kind of has to go to Irene Adler by default, which is only exacerbated by the fact that Irene is one of very few who has canonically beaten Sherlock which, to a lot of modern thinking, means that of course he's going to be attracted to her. It's also arguably a product of the "Lolita Idea" whereby a story or character is consistently misinterpreted in popular culture thanks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the original work (Delores - or 'Lolita' - has an image in pop culture of being a teenage seductress who goes out of her way to bewitch older men and is therefore the predator; in the original story, despite being told from the man's point of view, she is unquestionably the victim of a man who is trying to justify his paedophilic nature by painting the normal everyday actions of a young girl in a sexualised manner). Irene Adler is the same. At some point since the original story's publication, someone (probably without even reading said story) came to the conclusion that she was a femme fatale type, exactly what the King in the story tried to paint her as and entirely missed the point that she's just an ordinary woman wanting to live her life in peace. That femme fatale image then gradually became more and more popular until it replaced the original image of the character in the minds of the general public.
Warning: long rant. Yeah, I remember Sherlock being the way because he was SO damn dedicated to detective work. He'd spend days not eating or drinking in his work or maybe spend several days in disguise, setting up a completely different identity for the sake of a case. He wrote articles on identifying cigarette ashes and advised Watson and investigators to read up on historical cases.That was why it was believable when he had the "Baker street irregulars" or could believably charm a woman into an engagement, because he was completely dedicated to everything related to crime. This Sherlock just internalizes a lot of Holmes' hard earned knowledge and effort into the "Sherlock scan", which feels like his innate ability. He also internalizes what was previously a motive into just a character trait, like him not having too many friends or any interest in romance due to his freakish obsession with cases, to quirks or his own social hangups/awkwardness. So it doesn't make sense why he has a 'homeless network' when he's such an overbearing dick to people, when the OG would go to any trouble for the sake of being a better detective. And it doesn't make sense when he's able to trick a girl into a relationship because he couldn't trick his best friend into liking him.
@@jodhod1498 Elementary does all of these aspects way better imo. He is dedicated to his work and frequently doesn't sleep or eat while focused on a case, his Irregulars have been repurposed as a collection of acquaintances with greater expertise than he has in various subjects that he consults when needed, he begs for favors from hackers and does humiliating things to himself in order to get their help. He also has written those same treatises on cigarette ashes and similar things, and makes Watson read them as part of teaching her how best to help him; it's implied that the articles are mainly seen as a joke by the few other people who know about them but they clearly provide evidence in many cases. Also, in making him an addict they took a very realistic path with it; it's explained that he started as a way to improve his abilities on cases, but then turned to stronger drugs and more drugs to provide effects, started to rely on them to cope with existence, and eventually became unable to continue with his work because of them- this eventually pushed him to recovery and eventually sobriety, which he maintains with a great deal of struggle and which is never shown to become easy, he's still consistently afraid he'll become unable to continue his work to the level he desires without drugs, *or if he returns to drugs*. The catch-22 is very realistic and creates a dilemma he struggles with several times throughout the show.
And why should we assume that the Sherlock in the show is not learned? He obviously acquired knowledge to be where he is. I mean you wouldn't question a real life prodigy, but since it's TV you don't wanna believe.
45:27 "You don't really think a couple of lines of Computer code are gonna crash the world?" is so much funnier after that whole Cloudstrike thing literally putting half the world on halt due to a bad update.
I feel like the whole thing of Moriarty being into Holmes _could_ have been done well, and probably is in many fanfics of many iterations of Holmes. Problem is, it's... not. Off the top of my head, the concept could go like: Moriarty incidentally catches wind of one of Holmes' cases, or he takes down of of his smaller enterprises. He starts looking into Holmes, and hey, here's a kindred spirit intelligent enough to match wits with, so he leads him into a seemingly unsolvable case, and Holmes solves it. Then he starts becoming obsessed with Holmes, and starts going on a crime spree with his connections to watch him work his magic. Holmes, of course, relishes being presented with massive challenges, but at some point comes to the realisation that he's putting his own enjoyment ahead of true justice by stopping short of fully tracking him down. There. Put some mild flirting from Moriarty, maybe some hesitancy from Holmes if you fully want to play into it, and you've painted Moriarty as someone who simultaneously has a relatable goal, impressing his crush, but is still a villain willing to play games with people's lives to accomplish that goal. Not necessarily perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the hamfisted shit we got.
this would actually make much more sense, to be honest i didnt even realize moriarty was actually into holmes cause all the queerbaiting already desensitized me to the point that i actually thought the show was kinda making fun of him
Just wanted to add that, during the boomerang scene, if Sherlock literally just cordoned off the area and gave it a thorough search he would have found the boomerang anyway without all the silly theatrics. Not only does Sherlock solve mysteries in ways the viewer can never really understand, he also does so in spite of logical courses of actions.
I mean surely the police could have found the boomerang with a thorough enough search? Or the autopsy could have found evidence that suggested the presence of a boomerang? Like maybe they couldn't solve it as fast as Super Genius Sherlock but it wouldn't be that hard a mystery if the police just knuckled down and investigated the scene.
“My god, this mans been killed with blunt force trauma to the head! Clear the scene officers!” “Captain? Maybe this bloody boomerang lying 20 feet from the corpse has something to do with it?” “Hmm. Probably not. Keep searching lads!”
I think the show points out in countless ways how the Holmes brothers are addicted to showing off their brilliant minds to everyone else. He can't just perform a grid search, he has to abduct the conclusion from his environment. It is displayed in episode 1 at the end, as he could have just walked away or called someone, but he had to show off. It is part of this Sherlock's character, and a flaw that is consistently exploited by his enemies to varying degrees of success, and which ruins his various relationships with other people.
ABBA used to write songs especially for markets where they’d had a fledgling hit. Maybe Sherlock was enjoying some ratings success in the antipodes so yeah, chuck a boomerang into the mix.
same I can't stand most movies if I've seen them even one time before but I regularly rewatch hours long videos about why some old game or something is bad.
As a left handed person myself, I HATE it everytime someone goes: "It couldn't have been him, he was/is lefthanded!" 1. (Not really relevant to Sherlock as the hands are reversed but still) Many older lefthanded people were raised right handed as the science behind it was wonky at best back then. Usually, when they grow older, they will use their dominant hand to do whatever new skills they aquire. It is entirely possible for someone to write with your right hand, and then shoot or punch or stab or whatever with your left hand. 2. I gotta ask: Are righthanded people completely useless with their left? Or do they just expect us lefties to be? In Sherlock, the man they are analysing apparently committed suicide. Let's assume that was actually the truth. What, would the showrunners expect the guy to miss his own head if he didn't use his dominant hand? Do people really think that lefties would be like: "I wanna die... good bye cruel wor- nah that feels weird, better use my other hand. There, much better"
So let me get this straight... a man whose career has proven his best writing is single one-off stories and not overarching plots, gets a series of one-off stories and decides to make them into an overarching plot. Moffat really doesn’t know his limitations, does he
This is literally the truest thing ever known to man, Moffat passed up an opportunity to make a better show that would’ve utilised his best skill but he’s too busy writing a story about his Benedict cumberbatch self-insert
But then he wouldn't get a million pats on the back by people who wouldn't know good writing if it discovered a safe room by deducing it from a sloped floor. Fuck all the people who enabled him.
I feel kinda sorry for him: just because you're doing the original job well enough to earn a promotion doesn't mean you'll be able to handle the added responsibilities after that promotion. And most workplaces aren't set up to handle that kind of self-discovery. Almost everyone seems to agree that he's a good writer but a lousy show-runner.
I just remembered the lead Sherlock's death theorist in the show, Anderson, had legitimate trauma from thinking he could have driven Sherlock to suicide and it's played off as a joke
That guy bothered me so much and this comment really puts it into perspective for me, like they never needed that episode and they still decided to write that joke and that episode
Moriarty: "You don't really think a few little lines of computer code are going to crash the planet, do you?" Crowdstrike: "And I took that personally."
In medicine there’s a popular saying: “when you hear hooves, think Horses, not zebras” The idea being if you have x y and z symptoms, go for the more common diagnosis and not the rare one. This show is all zebras, not horses and when we hear a neigh we’re like” oh it’s a horse” but no Sherlock is like,” actually it’s a platypus because I did some mining off screen you see, and I found tracks (that you couldn’t possibly know about) and my friend who is a zoologist said “a platypus? Yea, that’s about right” so there.
@@thefernprince That's a common misconception Occams Razor is the simplest answer actually it's the answer with the least underlying assumptions. Horses and zebras are equally simple, but it most situations there would be more assumptions involved in justifying the presence of zebras than horses. Here's another example A. Egyptians built the pyramids B. aliens built the pyramids. Both are simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence but they have different numbers of assumptions for A 1. Egyptians had the desire to build the pyramids 2. Egyptians had the material to build the pyramids 3. Egyptians had the knowledge to build the pyramids 4 Egyptians had the skill and labour to build the pyramids. Now for option B 1. aliens exist 2. aliens are intelligent 3.aliens are capable of interstellar travel 4.aliens decided to visit earth 5. aliens decided to interfere with Egyptian culture 6. aliens had the desire to build pyramids 7.aliens had the material to build pyramids 8. aliens had the knowledge to build pyramids 9. aliens had the skill, labour or sci fi technology to build the pyramids 10. After building the pyramids the aliens left or went into hiding.
contents! i - the story of steven moffat, 3:06 ii - overarching plot, 7:17 iii - Sherlock: the all important übermensch, 27:18 iv - Moriarty, 39:29 v - aesthetics (how to waste license payer money), 47:10 vi - John Watson, 55:11 vii - Mary Watson, 56:58 viii - Irene Adler, 58:16 ix, kill me - *the scene* , 1:04:19 x - literally everything about series four, 1:08:58 brief interlude - secret good fourth episode of series four, 1:09:18 - 1:13:50 xi - contempt, 1:34:25 xii, conclusion - 1:45:59
Honestly that’s a small nitpick, i mean, it’s not like it affects anything in the story, it’s just a creative way to express his thought process. It’s not far fetch he’s reminding the papers he spent time reading, and thinking them over more to try come up with a conclusion. I understand if it might stretch someone’s suspension of disbelieve, but i find it another creative way to show his ‘mind palace’ in the original setting without re-using the same effects.
@@jeom3808 Yeahhh it doesn't come off as him moving through his "mind palace," or showing his thought process in a visual way for the benefit of the audience (which the floating images and words would've achieved without him waving his arms around), or even "it's boring to watch a guy standing still for an extended period of time so let's have something happen," it comes across as a guy doing the worst vogue ever.
Imma do time stamps since they don't exist and also cause I'm watching this like the 6th time and thus am an expert on this. 0:00 Prologue 2:42 Intro (Evangelion reference ) 3:07 Who is Steven William Moffat and why is he so gaad (good + bad) 7:14 Why Moffat does not understand Sherlock 10:34 MOORIIARTYYYYYY (guys it's called foreshadowing and its smart) 14:35 Moffat and Jekyll 19:28 Thesis Start 27:14 Mofat's special boi Sherlock and why that does not work 39:29 Moriaty (the foreshadowing pays) 47:06 The Style over the substance 55:10 The travesty of this adaptation and Side characters 1:04:16 THE SCENE and why the story actually sucks. 1:08:54 The 404 and the conspiracy 1:26:00 Stupid ending episode 1:34:27 Why is it ACTUALLY like this? 1:40:47 Conclusion (yes I plagiarized this timestamp from Hbomb ) This exercise of timestamp making made me pay more attention to Hbomb's video. I finally watched a complete Hbomb video rather than just having it play in my ears and like, this is different and even more engaging. I wanna do this with even more of his videos, it's actually like experiencing these videos for the first time.
I enjoyed this show in a light, “turn off your brain” sort of way until the end of the second season. The mystery of how Sherlock faked his death seemed to prove that the writers were far more clever than I ever thought possible. I couldn’t figure out a theory of my own that made sense and I read quite a few online, some fairly clever, but still nothing that fit. I had such high hopes for season three. Then not only did they NOT have an answer, they told me I was stupid for thinking about it. That soured me completely.
A lot of people missed the point there, though. It was a reflection of the Reichenbach Falls...Moriarty and Sherlock fall to their deaths...but due to fan insistence he writes more stories and never adequately explains how Sherlock is back...Moffat isn't insulting you...he is reflecting the original history of the character.
@@vincentalbanese9443 You know... Anthony Horowitz actually took up the issue of that inconsistency and wrote a novel on it, named 'Moriarty'. It's about an American detective and the Scotland Yard trying to put together the pieces of what happened at the falls. It's fucking brilliant and one of the few Holmes pastiches I genuinely loved. If you still have questions about the whole Reichenbach thing, you might want to read it. It reads like a thriller in the middle, but trust me, it's worth it.
Same here - I can't remember when I stopped watching, but that was the point when I started questioning WHY I was watching. The non-explanation of Sherlock's non-death and "crazy theorists" shtick was all so meta and fixated on the fans. The show started to feel like an Instagram account where the point was looking cool and getting fan engagement, not creating something memorable.
@@vincentalbanese9443 So you're saying that it's okay that they allegedly stayed true to the part that Sir Arthur didn't bother to explain, but basically shitted over all canon outside of that? I think you're giving them too much credit for it
@@vincentalbanese9443 the original writer doesn't have an overarching story, capping off one story that is completely disconnected from others except one with a cliffhanger and then continuing on like nothing happened doesn't affect anything or the audience experience...because there was never a promise of overarching consistency. Moffet did give expectation of an overarching storyline; he is in effect capping off a chapter in a story with a big ass cliffhanger and then insulting you in the very next chapter for wondering wtf happened
Moriarty in the books: cool, businesslike Machievellian badass. Master criminal, leader of a criminal empire thay went undetected for years and mathematics proffessor, who doesnt really care if Holmes lives or dies as long as he stays out of his way. Moriarty in Sherlock: *"IM DA JOKAH BABYYYY!!!"*
Add to the fact that Moriarty was never actually seen by anyone in the books, he is only described by Holmes, that too only twice or thrice. He's that good. And here in the TV series Moriarty might as well pay Mrs. Hudson rent for all the screentime he gets.
@@20footlongburmesepython yo if you want to see an actual awesome portrayal of Moriarty that is book accurate and still entertaining, you should read Moriarty by Anthony Horowitz. Horowitz was actually commissioned by the Conan-Doyle estate to write it so its technically canon and it does justice to the character in a way that Deadpool Moriarty in Sherlock just doesnt.
@@angusmarch1066 I've read it! And it's awesome! I've been recommending the book to anyone who's told me they wished they could find more Sherlock Holmes material than is available in canon. In fact, I've read The House of Silk as well, but I feel Moriarty was _way_ better. Glad to see someone who loves it as much as i do! Also, Deadpool Moriarty? I'm dying of laughter right now.
@@20footlongburmesepython hell yeah man. Such a good story. Moriarty was more badass and 5head in that book than in any single moment in Sherlock. I dont want to spoil it for anyone else reading this comment, but between us who read it, we both know that Moffat's version could never pull the shit that Horowitz's Moriarty pulled off pretty much without a hitch. He would go full Joker and start cackling midway through his plan and give his own game away.
You know, thinking back on it; the matrix-style wedding photography may have been a pretty cool technique for hiding information in plain sight; like, someone smuggling something or doing something weird or heinous in the background, and you don't notice it the first time around. Alternatively, it could be a cool way to show the chaos of something drastic, and how sherlock can intepret it all; like if sherlock was witness to a shooting or some other horrible event.
That's what I thought! I poured over the wedding photo because surely there was a detail in there tying it all together, otherwise why include it at all... nope, it's just because it's bad and they had a lot of money.
That's how Guy Ritchie would've handled it, like the scene at the restaurant in the first film where he just kind of looks around the dining room and sees everything that's going on, from one waiter straightening another's uniform to another who's casually stealing dinnerware. It's a good scene that shows how Holmes can't turn his observations off and just sort of lets them flow over him. In Sherlock they're just kind of there for reasons.
Reminds me how A Series of Unfortunate Events is an actually good story that keeps giving you hints like "It's gonna get good, we swear" and then it actually does get good.
A thought always comes back to me about this series: If you stripped away the name and the trappings of Sherlock Holmes, and let the rest play, would anyone think BBC Sherlock is as smart as Moffat says he is? Or is it all in the lore surrounding Sherlock that this show uses as sheep's clothing?
I think pop culture has taught us that smart=cold, arrogant, monotone, and rude. See Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and Zuckerberg in The Social Network. Intelligence is never equated with kindness, benevolence,warmth, and grace. Smart people are seen as “other” in movies and TV, and it’s weird. I can’t think of a single depiction of someone with genius IQ who isn’t tortured or socially awkward or a jerk.
@@hothotheat3000 Not to mention that Big Bang theory plays on a lot of awful sterotypes, writers did not know the difference between nerd and geek, there is a lot of misogyny, references for sake of references....and somehow people say "wow, this is about me". If you really find yourself in this kind of show, please keep your distance and don,t whine about nerds being mistreated if you like this shitshow and consider it to be pro-nerd.
I remember being maddened in the second episode when Sherlock didn't recognise a fairly common Chinese counting system that I recognised instantly just from playing fucking online mahjong. Sherlock thinking about a whole bunch of things is blatantly *was not* really irritated me. Like they had him thinking about a bunch of writing systems that it wasn't remotely like. There was an episode later that I had a similar moment of "but why don't they see this blatantly obvious solution?" and it just... he's supposed to be super intelligent and knowledgeable, so why did he not *know* this shit.
Having your character being “smarter than the audience” doesn’t make the audience too stupid to understand, it makes the writer too stupid to write a good story.
Right on the money. The best thing is when a small number of people in the audience can piece it all together and feel smart, or theories are made and turns out to be TRUE. A smart character is always best when it's at 'peak normal human smartness', rather than 'solves it outside the visual narrative - cuz it was botox!' bullshit. Moffat works the best when he is SUPPORTING someone else in writing, not a main writer for something! He needs to be filtered and nitpicked so the BAD ideas aren't brought along, only the cool things.... like say the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who.
Someone please write Sherlock but he jumps to these wild conclusions only to be proven completely off base from the much more reasonable reality of the case
I remember reading an old greentext that said that Sherlocks writing sucks because the writers dont know how to tell the difference between smart people and actual wizards
Thinking about it, it's kind of surprising how many authors (everyone from Ayn Rand to Mark Millar to Terry Pratchett) write "super intelligent" as "they read the authors notes and know everything that's going to happen in the story", resulting in bland ciphers who just suck all their tension out of the story whenever they appear. How do they know this? They're smart. Why didn't their opponents just do or say [blindingly obvious thing]? They're smart. Why does the entire planet appear to follow their script? They're smart. If they actually had the super-power to predict the future, they'd be more plausible.
@@paulgibbon5991 Can add Steven Erikson to that list. He has a character called Tehol Beddict who operates in exactly the same way. We're continually told he's one of the most intelligent people alive, but he never does anything smart, nor explains anything, he's just always right because the plot says he is. Like a lot of this kind of character he's also smug, rude and condescending. And it's repeatedly made clear that he possesses no magical or divine abilities despite both being common among other characters in the books.
@@aaronwebb1548 Not Paul but Lord Vetinari operates this way, and it gets worse as the books go on and Vetinari gets hyped more and more with less and less explanation of how he's managing stuff beyond handwaves about being a "master of diplomacy and deception" (we basically never see him do either). Of course being a Pratchett character he's a lot more fun that these types usually are.
Every time I see any references to BBC Sherlock, I think about that one time I tried to explain queerbaiting to my sister, and I was fully prepared to need to have a long, drawn out explanation, but then I said “you watched Sherlock right?” and she said “…oh I get it” and the conversation ended
@@NerveUnderscore in no particular order: queerbaiting, "it's only downhill from season 2", bury your gays, making fun of fans in the show, and "romantic" characters who are really just possessive/toxic/cruel are probably my top 5 red flags
@@alexander_markovski Oh, yeah. I'm with you with all of them. Except for the horrible character IF the writers show that the bitch IS a bitch and should get a spoon of their own medicine at some point in the show (even if they are in a romantic relationship of some sorts, you know like showing that this relationship is toxic amd should not be romanticized)
Thinking back to when I was a huge fan of Sherlock only reminds me of how insecure, arrogant, approval-seeking, and stuck up in my own ass I was as a teen. Sherlock caters to those egotistical desires I had during puberty, like being in control of the situation at all times and never having to feel dumb and insufficient, but rather making everyone else feel bad about themselves by showing them just how smart and special I was. I honestly love it when characters have lots of repressed feelings and arrogant traits because that usually implies that they have a lot of work to do and will probably break at some point and have massive character growth throughout the story, staying relatable all the while. But nuh-uh, not with Sherlock. He is obviously already perfect. At every point in the show where there could have been some self-reflection and growth, it just turned out Sherlock was right all along. And it's frustrating. Because as much as we learn to pretend to be someone for whatever reason, no matter how massive our egos are and how deeply hidden our insecurities are, we just want to relate to characters. We want vulnerability. And an untouchable character who's untouchable for no other reason than "he's just so cool and perfect and sexy and smart" is just that. Untouchable. Unrelatable.
This is a very articulate summation of everything I found annoying about Sherlock and the people who passionately defended him. He was just so smug and awful and never wanted to change. Fans were just worshipping an obvious power fantasy; a character who is never wrong and is so misunderstood by all the normies around him 🙄. Good for you for growing out of the cringey, egotistical attitude!
An interesting fact about Sherlock Holmes is that Arthur Conan Doyle actually hates Sherlock. When he killed him off in the books his fans sent him letters, begging him to bring back Sherlock. Which is the exact reason why he had Sherlock killed in the first place. Because he was sick of everyone obsessing over him and overshadowing the other pieces he was working on, such as his history books and other novels.
Someone who recognized that pool house where Moriarty confronts Sherlock realized that the exit he took doesn't actually leave the building it's a dead end. His theory was that he didn't come back and threaten them because he's crazy. But because he made a stupid mistake and would rather they think he's nuts than realize he just marched into a dead end
Well that really isn't a criticism. The audience isn't supposed to know the architecture of the real life building where the show was shot and judge it based on that. We are just to know that of the fictional place showed on screen. Two different things. I think this one is an overdone nitpick
@@Problemsolver434 No, this comment is a joke. Having Moriarty leave the scene, enter it again to do the same thing he did the first time, then leave again because “hE’s CrAzY” is bad writing..
@@guccifer764 Yeah I agree. That is bad writing. But going as far to look for the architecture of the place where the scene was shot is an unnecessary criticism. It's not even a criticism. It's a pointless nit pick
@@Problemsolver434 its a comedic observation explicitly based on the fact that most people wouldnt be familiar with the set. its just a goofy coincidence that the "exit" being a dead end would also necessitate moriarity coming back into the room whether he intended to or not.
So I checked the batshit crazy 1999 cartoon set in the 22nd century ; you can find most episodes on TH-cam. There's this dialogue in the second episode between Sherlock and Beth, the (lady) descendant of Lestrade, and it makes Moffat's decade younger take on Adler look even more pathetic : Beth : "New Scotland Yard would like to retain you as a consultant !" 😀 Sherlock : "Superb ! Send my new cases over straight away." 😃 B. : "Uh no. You'll be working under me." 😏 S. : "You ? Boulderdash ! What sort of a world has this become ?" 😵 B. : "A better one ! For women..." 😉 S. : "... And men ?" 🥺 Robot Watson (aka the coolest character) : "That rather depends on the man, wouldn't you say ?" 🧐 S. : "Touché, Watson." 😔 And it seems like afterwards Sherlock does the deducing thing while Beth brings the street smarts and Watson the sheer awesomeness. And all three respect and value each other and it's cool and Moriarty's main henchman is a mutant homeless geneticist with a French accent
@@halfmettlealchemist8076 To be frank the investigation is often bonkers and the pacing is all over the place. The characters and voice actors do some heavy lifting, but if you're expecting a good detective show, you're not quite gonna get it. On the plus side, it must be mentionned that Sherlock ditched his violin for A FRIKKIN MINIATURE KEYTAR
Season 5 opens with John Watson waking up in a military hospital, having hallucinated the whole show up until this point... he sits up and his doctor is played by Benedict Cumberbatch who’s character is called Dr Moriarty.
The ring thing really encapsulates how the show wants to be so clever and fails miserably. So Sherlock deduces the woman is an adulter because the ring is dirty on the outside but clean on the inside, meaning she takes off her ring a lot.... but.... All rings are cleaner on the inside because that's the part against the finger, the outside rubs against clothes, is exposed to a lot of stuff. If you're one of those people that don't take it off very often it's expossed to soap, cleaning products, etc.... so his deduction there reaches an unprecedented level of bullshitery.
If you watch the episode you find out it's also because the rest of her jewelry is polished and the ring is not. It's possible she makes an exception and doesn't polish the ring for other reasons, but it gives credence to the idea she cares less about it. As shown, the affair inference still doesn't really make sense, but the idea her marriage is in trouble has some merit.
@@cousinmajin I sometimes think of it now when I take my ring off when I put cream / grease on my hands every time I wash them because I have atopic ecsema and that's a good way to keep my skin relatively healthy, and no one wants grease all over their ring.
My immediate thought, when watching the show was that I fidget with my ring all the time, taking it on and off or twisting it around as something of a calming mechanism. It's also more dirty because I wear it all the time. My other jewelry doesn't suffer nearly as much wear. And while I might polish some of my necklaces occasionally, I forget about the ring I wear it all the time. It isn't because I consider it less important at all. I forget because it's almost a part of me.
Every time I put my phone charger in and miss the hole I think about how he called her an alcoholic cos of the scratches around the port hole and I'm like "man Sherlock was fucking stupid"
I know I'm about 3 years late, but Irene actually specifies that she's gay, but still in love with Sherlock. How did anyone think that's a good idea. Its a weird trend Moffat has with his lesbian characters. That they have a weird straight moment or story. In his run of doctor who the doctor randomly kissed a leabian character, who was in a relationship.
Bruh, I've recently decided to watch modern Doctor Who (starting with the Ninth Doctor) Yes, I do realise that after Peter Capaldi's doctor quality will go down (as I saw some of those episodes) But the fact that I will have to be on a lookout for such moment in the show? This doesn't bring confidence
@@inactive9550 Does Moffat not know the difference between gay and bi? That's terrible unless the term gay applies to bi in England. Or are Sherlock's Mary Sue powers strong enough to change a person's sexuality?
Its kind of crazy Moffat decided to make Moriarty use explosives and that kind of terrorism in so many episodes, seeing that he casted an Irish person in the early 2010s
What is the story behind Irish people and explosives? I sometimes see mentions of it, like some common stereotype, but I don’t actually know what it is about. Can someone explain it to me? 😅
Its a question that any competent producer should ask before hiring any sort of person to work on something. Unfortunately, they care more about money and shock value than about making good stories, so they no longer ask that. Kathleen Kennedy is a prime example of that.
44:15 "So fascinated by Sherlock that he'll kill himself to see what he does" The single sentence that brings out the contradictory and stupid nature of the scene got an audible laugh out of me
For a super genius, this version's Moriarty sure is terrible at planning ahead isn't he! Its a shame this show changes the understandable, ' you've ruined my life so I'm taking you down with me' motivation to... this absurdity.
Also the fact that they made this version an unhinged psycho and a bit of a goofball. Canon Moriarty is so scary because he is completely aware of all the evils he's doing.
Sherlock isn't to make the "best show". Its to make the most successful show. You _NEED_ to setup things right away today in a show to get attention and make things don't wander off. Moriatory at the end of e1 means the villian is still mysterious and a worthy contender to S. Also the show (season 1) is just brilliant for all reasons. Every episode had people being interested for the next one. It was such a different vibe then anything and BOTH... actors became world-famous after it ended. You simply cannot make a better show
The two main problems I have with Sherlock are the fact that his eyesight is too damn good and that the writers assume that all evidence/clues can be seen visually. Sherlock could easily be defeated by a winter coat.
Zombie NinjaToast Your coat is red, means you're trying to hide the color of blood, means you're the killer, CASE CLOSED. Hell yea, totally deduced the crap out of that
I think Moffat looked at Batman and Joker, and thought Moriarty being crazy ‘like Joker’ would be a hit. He thought chaos would make his bad writing better. He never understood Joker. Because Batman is called the world’s greatest detective, he must’ve wanted to steal the dynamic of Batman and Joker. He even says ‘[because] I’m Sherlock Holmes’ to Mary*.
i know im late but a wise person once said "moffat was so obsessed with sherlock being the smartest man alive that he changed the plot every time fans figured it out
imo that's really what Moffat is interested in - the idea of someone being the smartest person alive. The best moments of the show use Sherlock Holmes to explore the idea of genius in general: what society expects from Sherlock as a genius, how people like Moriarty use Sherlock's genius to bolster their own egos, how being superhumanly smart both connects Sherlock to and alienates him from the world.
If Moffat had focused only on exploring/deconstructing the mythos of the genius detective, we might have actually gotten something good. But instead the show feels the need to have a twisty turny mystery plot that the showrunner couldn't care less about, and is only really there to highlight how clever the main character is. It reminds me of how Zach Snyder's obsession with superheroes as gods basically wrecked Batman vs Superman.
@@lucyw4195 And the concept of 'smartest person alive' falls apart because there's two ways to look at it. The smartest person alive either knows every single fact about everything ever; every battle fought, every product made, every program built, every leader, every equation. In which case they spend so much time researching they have no time to do detective work. This also goes against Sherlock's methodology because he doesn't learn things he won't find useful, like other languages or astronomy.
Or, the smartest person alive is never wrong. In which case Sherlock can't be that either because he frequently makes guesses or incorrect hypotheses.
@@BioYuGi No, you’re assuming that the smartest person alive is the smartest a person could be. Smartest person alive only means that the person is smarter than any other person currently alive with whatever definition of smart you want
I now wonder if he started a trend. Considering, well. *Whispers in GoT*
I honestly really hate when writers do that, like wow your viewers guessed your twist that you left clues for, like what else do you want?
This reminded me there was a Scooby Doo episode where Velma straight up gets annoyed because the villain winds up being someone they never even met.
she should get annoyed with that asshole Fred ordering her around all the time
I remember that episode of What's New, Scooby Doo; the one with the Centaur. In that episode, it still worked because, even though she didn't have enough info to figure it out, the audience did.
That show was the last good Scooby Doo show; all the ones after that were just terrible.
@@matthewmuir8884 Mystery Inc was good
@@mcrancher4587 I honestly haven't seen it. I personally dislike when a Scooby-Doo show or film makes some of the monsters real; the one exception of course being Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island, and that one works because they treat it as an exception and the story still has a pretty good mystery.
@@matthewmuir8884 The freak of crystal cove?
I wasn't really a fan of Mary but the moment that broke the series for me was her death from a gunshot wound infront of her husband. Her husband who is a combat medic. You know, the sort of person used to treating gunshot wounds.
Myrrh - Yes this was totally weird,. Watson is an army medic and he is known to work especially well under pressure. It is utterly stupid to let her die like this.
Ugh, I know, right? I try to look at it as him knowing just by looking at the wound that there's nothing he can do, except even if that were the case, I would think that considering he's her husband he would stop at nothing to try and save her anyway. Would be just as dramatic, if not more so, if he tried to do SOMETHING and she still died anyway.
She's also superhuman enough to walk in front of a speeding bullet but not superhuman enough to not die from it.
I mean if it hits an artery or major organ, theres not much he could have done... some people get shot 7 times and dont die while someone gets shot once in the leg and dies before they reach the hospital. True stroies by the way
Also true however that combat medics have in the past saved people who've been shot in the heart and if an artery is hit, there are things that can be done. It's incredibly serious of course. I mean JFK was alive when he reached hospital. Watson standing by and not even _trying_ anything... It smacked of the utterly ridiculous, particularly given how long she took to die.
I didn't have a problem with the boomerang reveal, but when I first saw it I was still incredulous that with the police searching for the all-important missing murder weapon, it was just down the river next to the body, not even hidden by anyone. If the police had just checked downriver for a weapon, the case would be solved instantly.
Honestly that's probably the most realistic part
To be fair cops get incredibly obvious shit like that wrong all the time. Lizzie Borden got away with literal murder because police didn't bother to check that she threw the axe into the yard next door, if I remember correctly.
Ah yes. Very clever. However, you seem to forget one simple fact.. they're British police
@@quaggalicious 🤣
realistic portrayal of cops tbh
I will never get over the “secret good episode” theory. Imagine writing something so bad that even the diehard fans refuse to believe that it could possibly be real, and that there must be a secret good version you’re hiding somewhere. That’s just embarrassing
The Sherlock Snyder cut.
@@rusted_ursa Beautiful reference
If I wrote something so bad people thought it was bad on purpose and created conspiracy theories that I was going to release something that would retroactively fix all the problems with it, I would never show my face in public again honestly lol
I'd evaporate into thin air like I was Thanos snapped if that happened to me 😂
didn1t that also happen to supernatural?
Cumberbatch Sherlock was my first real exposure to Sherlock Holmes when I was like 12, and so I just took it for granted that the character was a sociopath with a god complex. Fast forward a few years and I happened to catch an episode of the Jeremy Brett series-I believe it was The Dancing Men. There’s a scene that has been burned into my mind where Sherlock is interviewing the cook (Mrs King) about the murder and she is obviously distressed, but Sherlock doesn’t notice because he’s so focused on the case. Watson leans over and whispers in his ear, causing Sherlock to notice her state and ask Mrs. King if she would like to sit down. And then a little while later, Sherlock stops Mrs. King as she is leaving the room to reassure her that her mistress is innocent.
I can’t tell you what kind of impact that had on me. It changed my opinion on the character entirely. I know for a fact that if that scene had ever played out in Cumberbatch Sherlock, Watson would have whispered in Sherlock’s ear and Sherlock would have ignored him or said something snide and cruel about how he doesn’t understand how people can be so weak. And then at the end of the scene he probably would have deduced out of thin air that Mrs King was having marital problems, just to drive home how much of an asshole he is.
That little scene from Granada's series does more to explain the characters than a whole season of BBC Sherlock. In a few seconds it tells you that Holmes is kinda cold, almost to the point of rudness, but that he is not heartless and actually cares about people and one of the reasons he respects Watson is because he's his social anchor, in a way. It's those nuances that make for great stories and characters imo.
This scene warms me in so many levels. I remember when I started watching Granada Holmes, it was because of a scene in The Red Headed League where Holmes JUMPS THE COUNCH to reach Watson before he leaves because he wants him to see what's the odd casd he has his hands upon this bad.
I fucking love that scene because it also humanizes him, he's just socially unaware which somewhat aids him in being smart [spotting patterns and all that] but fundamentally he's just a guy who needs watson. who is also _just a guy._ just some guys being dudes
Sherlock was also my first exposure to the Holmes series, and I pretty much got the same vibes as you did. Only after watching this video did I realize that there are better Sherlocks out there.
I had to read the Hound of Baskerville for my gifted English class in 8th grade which was my real exposure to the character and the Guy Ritchie movies were my first film or tv adaptation.
Season 5 reveals that moriarty was the boomerang
Would have had thounsands of likes if it was just eariler :^)
Made me spit my coffee out. Hahahaha
Irene Adler was Sherlock's sister
Maybe the real boomerang were the Moriarty's we've made along the way
@@Mystical_youtube we can only hope
It's kinda counter productive for a hitman to have a "trade mark style". If you have a leave behind patterns of your kills the cops can track you right.
They can tie the murders together and guess they were probably committed by the same person, but that doesn't help them figure out who the person _is._
@@elsie8757 well it still would make way more sense if none of the hits could be linked together because that alone gives you something to go off of like the hitmans current location, info on the person who hired them etc
It would take a lot of skill most hitmen don't have to avoid a trademark style. As humans we often do stuff in a similar way if we do it over and over.
And thats how Kira aroused suspicion in the first place
i don't remember the specifics of the episode in question but in (almost certainly undeserved) fairness to whoever wrote that dialogue: in a dramatic fictional world, a hitman with a trademark style would be a good fit for clients who want to send a message
I'm a goldsmith and the thing about the ring in the pink episode is 100% wrong. If you're taking a ring on and off the inside doesn't get bloody polished, it gets scratched and dirty cuz stuff gets to get in there that is otherwise blocked by your damn fingers. The fact that the ring is the way it is actually shows she pretty much never takes it off. Occasionally you get a ring that's dirty on the inside but that's when it's an old guy who's been wearing the ring for 20 years and he's never had it sized so it's too tight and it ends up with the awful crust inside. He wouldn't be able to take it off her hand if that's the case BECAUSE IT'S TOO TIGHT. OK I'm done now, I have to go tell myself I'm not alcoholic while plugging in my phone
Also, even if you did deduce that someone took their ring off often, that doesn't necessarily mean they're an adulterer. Maybe they work in food preparation. Maybe they're a nurse. Maybe they do exercise where jewellery could be a risk, like dance, martial arts, gymnastics.
I could've deduced you are a goldsmith because your profile picture says 'G'.
I guess I’m an adulterer in my dreams because I take my wedding ring off every night (because my fingers get a bit swollen when I sleep which maybe means I should see a doctor 🤔)
@@GG-yb3gs or a mechanic, i wear rings but take them off to work because the risk of having a finger ripped off is too real to ignore haha
brb gonna go write that down so i can one day write a detective story where the detective deduces that someone doesn’t usually take their ring off because it’s clean on the inside.
I'm convinced Moffatt had a real, definite explanation for Sherlock's death the whole time, and then someone theorizing on the Internet happened to nail exactly what he had planned. Then Moffatt found it and said, "If those plebs can figure it out, then IT'S NOT CLEVER ENOUGH. I MUST BE THE CLEVEREST BOY." And into the incinerator it went.
I'm 100% sure you're right.
Careful! If he sees this he's going to come up with a new explanation and tweet it just to prove you wrong
It's funny because the showrunners on Westworld actually admitted they did exactly that when writing season 2. I think George RR Martin said it best...
"Before the Internet, one reader could guess the ending you wanna do for your novel, but the other 10,000 wouldn’t know anything and they would be surprised. However, now, those 10,000 people use the Internet and read the right theories. They say: “Oh God, the butler did it!”, to use an example of a mystery novel. Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well in your work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure out the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point to the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."
@@McSuperfly101 I was thinking of this exact quote
Same thing probably happenned with Game Of Thrones and D&D ;D
It was just a throwaway line, but “not everyone bad in the world has to be working for the main villain” is unironically a great rule for worldbuilding
honestly its better that way, in worldbuilding i dont think even half of the villains in a story should be related to the 'big bad'
i think one of the greatest examples of this is Hama in Avatar
I think it depends. A good example of where this does work is XCOM 2.
The whole premise of the game is that you were utterly crushed in the first game. As opposed in other games, where the good guys winning is the canon ending, in XCOM, you canonically lose in the first game. And when I say "lose" I mean complete subjugation of the human race by aliens. The XCOM organisation is beaten in two months, and all governments have either surrendered or were violently subdued.
It's not a matter of humanity maybe having a chance, ADVENT won. In every sense of the word. They control everything. Now, you're tasked with waging a guerilla war against them. No more waiting for the aliens to attack you, XCOM is now on the offensive, liberating humanity.
In this kind of universe, where the bad guys literally control everything, every aspect of the government on Earth, an omnipresent, omnipotent force to which everything "bad" is tied to it, I think is a beneficial aspect of the story.
Obviously, for a more personal conflict like that in Sherlock this makes little sense, but as with every other trope it depends on the context you use it in.
That‘s way OG Sherlock Holmes series is amazing. Nearly every villain/antagonist is completely independent and has a goal on their own. I still love Moriarty in many adaptions, but I always get annoyed when Irene Adler works for (or is 🙄) Moriarty, they never even met in canon! I swear, if I ever create a Holmes adaption, Adler and Moriarty will be enemies!
This was kinda the lore in the GDR, btw. (Socialist, east Germany)
Imperialism caused people to do crime. Imperialism is the end Gegner.
Well... somehow there were still crimes in socialism, who would have thought.
It hurts how Moffat seems to think that being 'smart' means being unpredictable.
Intelligence has nothing to do with predictability. Oftentimes, creating a 'smart' plan means creating an inevitable one, entirely independent of whether or not the subject knows the plan or not.
That's not even beginning on the fact that he thinks 'smart people' are just human encyclopedias. Like, no, I'm pretty sure every 'smart' person I know doesn't read obscure Wikipedia articles for fun and memorize the dictionary every Saturday.
the "human encyclopedia" bit is so dumb because he doesn't even stick with it. like, it's possible. according to other comments in the book canon sherlock is literally just a smart guy who studies a lot. since we never see him studying in the show we could assume he just has a near photographic memory and read stuff years ago and remembers it, which would kinda work the same way.
in the bbc show HE DOESN'T KNOW THAT THE EARTH GOES ROUND THE SUN. BECAUSE IT COULD NEVER BE RELEVANT TO A CASE. HOW. JUST HOW???
THEN AS A "GOTCHA" KNOWLEDGE OF SOME OBSCURE METEOR IS RELEVANT TO THE CASE IN THAT SAME EPISODE. BUT HOW THE HELL WOULD HE KNOW THAT IF HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHERE EARTH IT??????????
@bellchime3078 i know but it doesn't make sense with bbc!sherlock. they're not the same character. if they can change the waterfall that sherlock falls off of in the book to a building in the show, they can update this fact to one that most everyday modern people would know, but isn't so in your face, such as not knowing what reddit is. it's physically impossible to not know the earth goes around the sun in the 21st century. it's like not knowing what grass is, or that 2+2=4. if nothing else he must surely have heard it used in a rhetorical question of some sort
@@ريحانة-و8ك That's what i like about the original Holmes: he wasn't a know-it-all 'Master of all trades' genius type of guy, no; he was just a guy deeply obsessed with his line of work. Sherlock is not your typical genius; He is just efficient. A complete opposite to his brother Mycroft, who is smarter than him, but is too lazy in doing anything meaningful.
Compare that to BBC Sherlock: where his intellect is all over the place. I can only describe it as a strange, patchwork of knowledge, that itself isn't Self-consistant.
he doesn’t know about the Earth stuff in books either.
@@ريحانة-و8كthat specific solar system bit leads me to the concerning belief that it’s not impossible moffat, when thinking of smart people, chose to think of Elon musk
"Moffat should just write pilot episodes for the rest of his life then hand the rest of the series to other writers"
After watching Dracula, this still applies tbh
Agreed.
Georgia
Even the pilot for Dracula wasn’t that good.
@@matthewmuir8884
Oh hell yeah, love that show.
@@matthewmuir8884 That show is better than Moffat's.
@@matthewmuir8884 Yeah, don't. I got bored partway thru, it has some entertaining performances but its probably not worth the headspace.
Season 4 turned Sherlock into a literal demigod, so I can't wait for Season 5 when he leads the Avengers.
Marcus Nicholsen did you mean Doctor Strange?
SadTransHedgehogs
Hands down the worst Marvel movie. Yes, the pun is intended
Leannan thought dr. strange wasn’t the worst and liked it personally but ok we all have our opinions
I would argue that Deadpool, despite being a good Marvel movie, has the lowest value because there is basically no wisdom to be gleaned from it, other than, perhaps, if you love some one for who they are you will be able to overlook their outward ugliness? Or, if someone is a psychopathic dick head you are not righteous for sparing their life, even if you are killing them for vengeance? Meh. A lot of 12 year old language and humor.
Doctor Strange introduced a Western audience to some basic Eastern themes, that of seeking out the guru; shedding materialism and ego in favor or wisdom and spirituality; self-sacrifice for the good of the whole world; merging intellect, science, and spirit; understanding mind as the source of magic. Doctor Strange gives us a lot to contemplate, and gives a new lens through which to view ourselves and our cultural context.
Also, after I saw it and appreciated it I changed a lot as a person in a positive way. But we all have our own perspectives.
We're gonna ignore Thor dark world then?(or hulk 2008 if that counts)
Fuck it one more complaint: Moriarty's genius in this show seems to manifest purely in that he's got a third of the population of London hired as snipers
Rowan Atkinson heh, if you say you're a genius and you have a few million people behind you with rifles pointing at the person you're telling it to; they're not going to disagree 😂
Hahahah
So many Snipers, holy shit.
Rowan Atkinson lmao
Yeeeeeeaaah, in a country with such restrictive gun laws, in which a common person is only allowed a shotgun and/or a hunting rifle and use, sale, and ownership laws are strict even for airsoft or _imitation_ guns, I'd have thought there'd be a _lot_ smaller market for hired snipers willing to tote their high-powered man-killing rifles into a highly-secured, heavy-surveillance major urban center and point said extremely loud guns at residential buildings. I don't follow UK news much, so a Brit's going to have to fill me in: was there some kind of... incredibly weird recent recession or scandal or something resulting in the Army having to dump a hundred snipers _so_ fast they didn't have time to take their guns back, or is it just _really_ easy to convince a London Metropolitan cop you just bumped into in the park that the high-powered military-caliber sniper rifle you've got strapped to your back is for _literal_ snipe hunting?
The Rache vs. Rachel twist feels like Moffet read the book as a kid saw the word "Rache" and went "Oh, they were writing Rachel" and then the twist that it was writing in German made him feel dumb so when he was in control of the story he said "I'm not the dumb one, that twist was dumb!"
Wouldn't be surprised if that what's really happened
Well the idea was to subvert expectations for script not to follow the source material so the audience could be invested in the mistery once again.
I mean writing RACHE with your fingernails in your very last moments would be also stupid af
I recall Elementary having a better subversion when it tackled that one.
@@xenadonau8356yeah, but they could have had it be something else that didn't feel like they were failing to one up the og twist.
I'm pretty sure that passage spited me to become proficient in as many languages as I can
Yesterday I read a Sherlock Holmes short story where a guy says his new wife has been seen feasting on their baby but of course vampires don't exist and she would never do that, so he asks Sherlock to investigate. Sherlock absolutely doesn't believe in vampires, but he also says that his methods aren't perfect, that they are very good and he is very clever but he also might make a mistake. At the end, he explains the woman was saving the baby from the poison of a weapon she brought from her country, and that the culprit is the guy's first son he had from his first wife.
What really hit me is that Sherlock understands why the woman didn't say anything: the guy would have never believed her is she said his older son, whom he adores, wanted to kill his newborn son, and he wouldn't have understood that she was applying the knowledge of her native country to save their baby and was no vampire at all. Sherlock actually understands a person's line of thought and empathizes with her.
My reaction upon reading this was "Moffat's Sherlock would have never done that, he wouldn't have admitted his method still might fail and he would have never tried to understand someone else".
KyrieFortune link please?
Sherlock Holmes is generally a lot more endearing in book form. They seem to really dial back his eccentricities, insecurities, expressiveness and overall humanity for TV and movies. Unfortunate as these traits are what make the character likeable. Being 'smart' and 'good at solving crimes,' aren't traits that the audience is going to form an emotional connection with, turns out.
@@wayward203 Yeah, I was surprised at how much of an insufferable genius canon Sherlock Holmes WASN'T. I honestly think this is tv adapters just going "Oh, genius? Must be an ass, Hollywood teaches us you can't be smart and likeable at the same time".
@@antonioscendrategattico2302 I still love the part in the one story where Watson gets hurt and Holmes freaks out.
Elementary is actually really great at depicting this side of him
the one redeeming quality of the final problem (bbc version) is that john watson is finally relatable to the audience:
-shouts a lot
-unconscious at least twice
-rather be drowning
Also, he yells at Sherlock a lot and calls on his BS. He was the only reason I watched half the time.
that's why i liked the books better, even the Robert downy jr. movies...
Watson in general serves a purpose and even contributes to the story...he is not Sherlock's sidekick he is his partner.
In this series they set Sherlock up to be so perfect and able to figure out or think ahead in every situation that when they try and have something for Watson to do it feels forced...i mean if Sherlock can out think himself out of this, and or get out of that, whenever Watson must help him, it feels contrived or like the writers have to go out of their way to write away Sherlock's enhanced abilities to give the "gimp" a chance to play.
@@mckenzie.latham91 it's because Watson is the reader's point of view. He's meant to be the person that asks the questions you have.
Lm
@@mckenzie.latham91 Even for medical clues. He has to remind Watson that it takes time for signs of tetanus to show. In the first Watson is only there because Sherlock wants to force Watson on the police. (His name doesn't matter, he only matters because Sherlock wants him there. "Why am I here?" "to make a point"). Later, even though Watson couldn't recognize possible signs of pregnancy, he could tell the difference between a dead man and a living person. In the "best name speech" we're supposed to be touched when Sherlock mentions that. I'll bet there are lots of people who can tell that - you don't need medical training.
every time i fumble plugging in my phone charger im haunted by that scene in the first ep where sherlock uses a beat up phone port to reason that someone is an alcoholic
you know Sherlock reasons on the balance of probability which is where a lot of his deductions come from. an alcoholic with an unsteady hand making the scratches is the most likely scenario not the only one .
No. No, it's not the most likely scenario.
when i fumble with my phone charger it's because it's a micro-USB and I always manage to attempt to shove it into my phone the wrong way up. Every time.
Teddy McKrell SAME! lmao 😂
Teddy McKrell this is real this is me
45:28 "you don't think a couple of lines of computer code will send the world crashing down" hits different after the cloudstrike stuff
I thought the same thing exactly!!! Spot on!
A good day to be an unemployed SysAdmin, I got to avoid that entire mess :P
Alternate scene idea:
Sherlock: "Most major companies outsource their security to third parties. In fact, there might be three major companies in that field... someone with your resources could easily find or create a vulnerability in all three."
Moriarty: "...Very Clever Mr. Holme-"
Sherlock: "And the biggest vulnerability in any piece of security is a person. One person in one company, one calls, one kill order... I don't know what you gave them or who you threatened to get to them, but that's the code... a kill order. If they don't follow through on what you ask, you follow through on every threat you made against them. Who needs a defence when you have the whole Jury held hostage..."
Moriarty: "...And how utterly brilliant you are Mr Holmes!"
I'm somehow not in the loop what the hell happened
@@spongecakes1986 Global system crash back in July.
Basically, Crowdstrike is a company that makes security programs for large corporations, used in places like supermarket checkouts, banks, the stock market, emergency services, etc. They botched an update that caused all windows systems that received the update to go into a bluescreen loop. Turn on, load windows, bluescreen of death, reboot. Endlessly. The only way to fix it was hope that the system could stay operational long enough to download the fix, or manually delete the problem file from the system directory on each individual computer.
Estimated impact: 8.5 million computers bricked until the fix could be applied.
Estimated damage: At least $10 billion USD.
All because one company forget to verify that their code worked -_-
because of this goddamn show every time i try to plug my phone into my charger and can't do it on the first try i imagine sherlock bursting through my window and calling me an alcoholic
YES, i cant stop thinking about that!!
@@karin3114 it’s literally engraved into my brain
LOL
I thought about this last night. Glad I’m not the only one.
For me it's everytime I try and unlock my door in the dark.
I'd bet everything I own that Moffat had an explanation for Sherlock's death, but then someone figured it out on Tumblr, and out of spite, he threw it out.
100%, I firmly believe JJ did the same for Episode 9 of StarWars. People had made so many predictions about how it would happen, even the most critical haters of the sequels made good guesses for what could happen, everybody joked that "the emperor will be back" in an ironic "imagine if they did that how awful would that be", and they did indeed do that. ONLY because I bet someone predicted the original idea they had so they just HAD to go in a stupidly obvious not so obvious way.
@@partypete2542To be fair, when the second part of your trilogy trashes most of the overarching plot strands and seems to go out of its way to leave you without any reasonable contender for 'main trilogy villain', what the fuck else are you supposed to do?
@@verenabecker2724It literally set Kylo up as the big bad, did you actually watch the movie or did you just watch angry ranting people on youtube?
@@weiss_cream Kylo Ren was not set up as having the capability and maturity to lead the First Order. He was not shown to have the sort of raw power that would have made him feel truly threatening. He's been ridiculed repeatedly, he's been outsmarted, and he's been beaten in combat several times throughout the movies. He's been shown to have crises of faith and, if anything, was set up with just enough nuance for a potential redemption (which they'd have had to throw out the window in the third movie if they'd attempted a villain arc). Don't get me wrong, that sort of character might have made a perfectly suitable villain in other stories, and I actually appreciated the writers' attempt to give him some nuance and humanity, but if you compare him to Star Wars' other Big Bads, he would have been an incredibly anticlimactic choice to finish off the sequel trilogy.
@@verenabecker2724 eh, Kylo was losing his mind basically, that could have been an excellent setup for him going over the threshold, fully giving in to the dark side and just going psycho after everyone, killing his underlings in gory ways right there if they contradict him, making everyone in FO terrified as fuck, and then coming after resistance with unified FO just hell-bent on total genocide of anyone in his way. Sure, there was potential for him to go either way, I'm not denying that, but it definitely wasn't too late to make him a full blown villain.
I’m Aussie and have thrown (and caught) boomerangs.
They do spin, but you also need to throw them at the right angle, into the right wind.
However, the boomerang shown in Sherlock is not the type that can be thrown and caught.
It is a tourist version. Just something you buy to display. Otherwise known as a painted stick.
Thank you for your money, tourists.
Yeah? A friend of mine brought a painted one from Australia, and that thing flew really well. We threw it at the beach and it ended up getting lost in a field like 20m behind us
@@sophovot5079they can be painted and still be able to be work as a boomerang, its not like the paint cancels out the aerodynamics of the boomerang
the tourist ones are meant to be mounted on walls, so the back half is completely flat so it can sit flush on the wall. they look like a real boomerang cut in half. you can see this in the Sherlock episode, it has the flat back half for wall mounting lol. I guess you can glue two of them together and maybe make a regular boomerang? shit wouldn’t work though lol.
Yeah, and they often *are* weapons, in fact that is one of their biggest purposes, across all the nations that make them . Just like. Not that one. That's a pretty stick.
Yeah, brag about boomerangs... so special
Doyle: Sherlock is a smart guy who can occasionally come off as a bit cold or rude but is generally good and takes on cases because he enjoys helping people
Moffat: I zoned out but I heard cold and rude so that works for me, let’s make it his entire personality
Yeah, I always imagined Holmes as being a polite, slightly condescending guy who is just extremely smart and perceptive and reads a lot of books. I guess the modern version of that is "Sheldon Cooper, with superpowers".
I read some of the stories first, then I ran into a couple of adaptations that back up how I felt about book-Holmes. I enjoyed Sherlock at the time as a fun and slightly silly thing, but Sherlock himself is my least-favourite because he's so cruel.
It's indeed just Sheldon from BigBang but detective
@@owenleal idk if i’d consider Sheldon Cooper only slightly condescending
I would sell my soul for the unedited footage of the Hounds of Baskerville Mind Palace scene. Just Cumberband waving his hands around wildly without context, ending with him snapping his head back three times like his soul was executed in the Astral Plane.
Thank you for this mental image
"you ain't nothin"
He does the same thing as dr strange in infinity war
now i want it too
I know we don't know each other but I love you
One thing I think the BBC show is missing is that in the books, Sherlock ADORES giving lengthy explanations of his thought process to Watson and the police. The Adventure of the Empty Room literally spends several pages with him going into extreme detail about how he survived Reichenbach. He isn't just a genius. He is a genius who loves to teach others about his process. In that way, we the readers are invited into the story and are encouraged to try to solve the mysteries alongside him.
BBC Sherlock just wants to look smarter than everyone else, so he acts like an asshole and keeps his thoughts to himself.
Sorry, know this comment is a month old, but I'm actually going to make the show potentially look worse by pointing at the second Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie, Game of Shadows. Er, spoilers, ahead, if you haven't seen those movies, they're worth the watches, espeeeeecially that second one.
.
.
.
So, near the end of the second movie, everything is set up, and there's only one final thing that can be dealt with. One final mystery to be solved with deductive reasoning, but Holmes can't do it. He instead has to deal with Moriarty, distracting the doctor with a game of chess, taking both of them out of the 'game'. In his place, Watson stepped up, Holmes' final piece to play, and Watson actually gets a chance to use the deductive reasoning and logic that he's gleaned from being at Holmes' side for so long. And Watson actually succeeds! He even does so in an unusual way, making a small scene to induce a specific reaction, and it's super cool to watch him employ what he's learned.
This Sherlock? Watson would be screwed, and the bad guy would get his win every time.
heaven forbid artists have their own interpretation. if everyone followed your nonsense logic we wouldnt have heath ledgers joker. but if you think the bbc series is shit you clearly have shit tastes
Exactly! The original Holmes loves a good infodump, ESPECIALLY when the one being infodumped to is Watson. Holmes LIVES off of Watson's admiration of him
@@adamlouis3725Ah yes, the BBC series is totally not awful with its Joker-ripoff of a main villain, faked death that mocks the audience for wanting to know how it happened, and Sherlock solving stuff through thin air. Oh, and having a sister that was never even mentioned until the final episode.
I hate to say it but that’s because the tv version is doing that visually while the written one does it through narrative as that is the best way to explain it. The show is more interested in the significance and semiotics of each object rather then the actual “real” object.
After season two I wrote a fanfic where Sherlock had a secret sister, but at least in my story Sherlock actually knew his sister existed.
Out of curiosity, how did you come to that idea?
Blue Life literally: “man wouldn’t it be cool if Sherlock and Mycroft had a secret sister that they didn’t tell anyone about bc she was a criminal” I still lowkey feel like Moffat stole from me...
@@aHamBroth honestly that sounds like a better story than most of Sherlock. Out of morbid curiosity could you drop a link?
@@aHamBroth That idea sounds very interesting, and I'd like to second the request for a link.
Blue Life I may regret this, and please remember I was 16/17 when I wrote it, but here ya go: m.fanfiction.net/s/10154072/1/Another-Holmes
Best quote from this video: "when I start making shorter videos every month I'll start breaking these up" yeah how's that comin
At this point, "I'll make shorter and better episodes soon, I promise" is a recurring meme that hbomb is in on, I feel, lmao.
between jenny nicholson, dan olson and harry's recent videos, i think we're approaching peak video essay (as far as incredibly long and detailed productions)
I think one of the biggest issues is that Moffat sees himself as Sherlock, not Watson. The majority of the audience and myself view ourselves as inserts to Watson as the normal but not stupid person, but due to Moffat's mid-life crisis he thinks he is Sherlock and that screws up the whole structure.
Oooh, yes, so true!
TinyTeacup He has the same problem with doctor who and the companion.
Everybody wants to be batman, nobody wants to be robin.
the question here should be: how long will he continue to have his mid-life crisis?
nihilistic telephone
Well, he's only 55, and given how life expectancy is increasing all the time...oh dear it could go on for a while
There's a moment in the novels where Holmes bought 2 tickets to John's favourite play as an apology for using him in exposing a criminal. John notes that Holmes dislikes this particular play, and Holmes agrees but says something like it will be worth it to see you enjoy it. I cannot ever imagine Cumberbatch's Holmes doing something thoughtful for Watson like this.
Aww that’s sweet
Yeah almost every other interpretation of holmes even something like the RDJ films shows that Sherlock does have a heart he just has difficulty expressing a lot of emotion like in those films where Sherlock acts like a dick to mary cause he thinks that if he gets married they won't be friends anymore. Like sure he's an ass sometimes but he isn't a sociopath
@@joshuawright4198 plus, RDJ's Holmes has the "discombobulate" scene, which is fucking gold
@@joshuawright4198 That’s because Sherlock is meant to be high functioning autistic but in this series he is portrayed as a high functioning sociopath which changes his character completely.
@@sukiosartchannel3689 Yeah I found that change kind of offensive to autistic people since that just creates more stigma as Sherlock Holmes is one of the best pieces of Asd representation
I remember reading a piece of a Sherlock Holmes during a test once. It was about someone asking Sherlock how he was such a good detective. Sherlock gestured to a nearby set of stairs and asked the person how many there were, and if he had ever counted them before. The person didn't know, and he had never counted. Sherlock said, without pause, that there were 47 steps and essentially explained that the key to being a good detective is to always notice details, no matter how small or insignificant. This, I believe, is the essence of Sherlock. Not to be smart and know things others don't, but to be perceptive and notice when things are out of place. He could always refer back to books or articles if he needed to know something, but the key to Sherlock's keenness was noticing that there was something peculiar. Something that had changed, which thereby meant something that had been tampered with; thereby a clue.
Isn't that the gimmick in the Series too, though? I mean this video her eis right about almost all of what it says (Except that Sherlock is meant to be a mystery but a sci-fantasy comedy-drama and that the original texts gave you the possibility to guess together with Sherlock) But it's the very defining gimmick (more so then the "mind palace") hat Sherlock sees stuff and that his brother is maybe even smarter then him.
Noticing details and inferring are the two cornerstones of Sherlock's shtick, I believe.
Of course how to do the latter reliably is probably harder than training your perception.
@@QuintarFarenor Yh, he usually only knows stuff that are of importance. He didnt even remember that the Earth revolves around the sun or something. I forgot specifically what he said.
He was talking Watson, and it was one of the stories in which Watson was already married and was visiting Sherlock after quite a while.
@@niteshprabhu6791 Huh, thanks for the info.
Sounds like classic "let's get everyone to watch every episode by drip feeding a storyline" as opposed to "let's get everyone to watch every episode by making compelling episodes"
I actually love shows that are mainly episodic but slowly build up to the real main storyline every episode. Of course, that only works when the individual episodes are good. Some shows don't even draw attention to the mystery or story it's building to until it either comes to full fruition or it's already been going awhile. The first episode of Mystery Inc. ends with an obvious mystery that's slowly built up throughout the season, with more to be resolved for season two. Steven Universe's first episode shows them fighting a giant centipede monster, and doesn't reveal that it's connected to the main plot of fighting the Homeworld gems until long after, when they reveal that what they'd been fighting were corrupted gems the whole time. Both shows have their issues, but I think they're great examples of how to properly set up a season or even series long mystery while being mainly episodic.
I mean, in Moffat’s defense, hating his fans is probably the only thing about Doyle’s legacy he got right
underrated comment
Wow that's gold buddy
what's the tea sis I wanna know
@@lavendelchen arthur conan doyle, the writer of Holmes, really hated that he was known almost exclusively for his Sherlock Holmes stories. He wrote tons of other stuff, I think it was mostly historical fiction or something, and he resented that people focused so intently on his pulpy crime fiction really ticked him off, and he came to resent the fans of the series for basically forcing him to write more Sherlock. A quote from him goes something like "If people only remember me as the writer of Sherlock Holmes, then I will have failed."
@@lavendelchen He also literally killed Sherlock just to put an end to it and force people to stop making him write it, so that he could focus on the stories he actually wanted to tell. Those stories never seemed to work out, and he very reluctantly brought Sherlock back a DECADE later because people wouldn't stop hounding him anyway.
“how did you find me?” “i’m sherlock holmes”
it’s poetic how well that line encapsulates how poorly moffat understood the point of sherlock as a character
I agree entirely. Moffat makes Sherlock this all knowing being and its just such a good way to totally ruin what makes Sherlock Sherlock. Its almost like he made the series without even reading the books and instead based the show on cliff notes or some shit.
@@Pixiesfairiedust yeah i would be wholly unsurprised if it turned out he made the series without reading the books and just going off of his impression of the cultural figure who most ppl remember simply as “a cool smart detective guy”
It would make sense not to tell HER. The "I'm Sherlock Holmes" is dumb though
It's basically like when you're young and your parents tell you something or to do something without explaining/elaborating why. You don't understand and so naturally ask them and the response is "because I said so" or "because I'm your mum/dad". It's just to shut people up without having to really answer and it doesn't help the person you're telling to understand.
That's essentially what the showrunners did on Sherlock - treated their audience like children, feeding them hyper-specific details when they wanted to show they were smart, then handwaving them away when they couldn't explain their own logic. The main difference is that parents don't know the answers to everything in the world, but someone in charge of a series should be able to answer their own questions and explain the logic of a world they themselves created (their adaptation of the novels).
@@MatthewDevil It is even worse, because he clearly read the books, because he writes in so many "references" to the books that make no sense. He thinks he can do better. He cannot, 9 times out of 10.
"This ring is removed often meaning she must be sleeping with other men *constantly* " This just in, according to the writers of Sherlock, most people don't regularly remove their rings when doing things like: sleeping, bathing, swimming, yard work, exercise, applying lotion, etc!
It was more that she kept all her other jewelry clean... But not the wedding ring. Granted, those clean pieces could just be new. But... Yeah that's how he got the unhappy marriage thing. She take VERY good care of her jewelry. But not her wedding ring, for some reason. Ergo, unhappily married.
@@AnxietyRat right though! it doesn't make much sense because there are sooo many other reasons. Maybe the other jewellery is new? maybe she doesn't like cleaning sentiment things because it loses the sentience? (have met people like that) MAYBE, she is in an unhappy marriage, and prefers not to wear the ring because of that, not because she's having an affair.
They try to many times to make something out of nothing :/
@@AnxietyRat But couldn't that also be explained by her wearing her wedding ring on a regular basis compared to her other jewelry, so it gets worn and dirty more often than she cleans her jewelry??
All in all I agree with UsernameNotFound that it's a way too insignificant a detail for Sherlock to conclude the victim was an adulterer.
@@AnxietyRat
The show should be call "How to misunderstand deduction and induction logic".
Sherlock is a bad scientist in the late 2000's BBC iteration, is hard to believe that a character defined by his understanding and talent to use inductive logic within the literature canon is no different that a conspiracy thinker in this version.
She takes her ring off a lot... She must make a lot of hamburger and doesn't want to get raw meat under her ring.
Dude, every time this pops up in my recommended feed, I read the thumbnail as "Sherlock is Cabbage", without fail. My brain is broken dawg.
I'm laughing at this way more than I should
the good ending
he was actually just a cabbage the entire time
Sherlock cabbagepatch
"I will conclude given this information that you have commited a money laundering scheme" - Sherlock Holmes
@@otisheggem8103 what?
The thing that always struck me about the original Holmes' stories is that Holmes doesn't see himself as some kind of super genius. He attributes all his skill to extensive, unending study and application, and there were many times he failed in cases and desired Watson to record such cases so that Watson's readers wouldn't think he was this omniscient-thinking person.
Yes, so true! I also really don't get why most adaptations describe him as socially incompetent or downright rude. He was a very pleasant person in the books and could be incredibly charming. He even recognized his mistakes and prejudices, for example towards women and changed his behavior accordingly. It's really frustrating ^^'
Which cases did he fail
No he dis not fail ONCE in the books
@@adityagoel5746 Yeah, he does. In the words of Holmes himself, he was beaten four times. Here are some of the stories where he either fails or draws a lot of wrong conclusions, hope this helps.
A Scandal of Bohemia: he fails his mission and is beaten by Irene Adler and in turn learns to respect women's intellect.
The Adventure of Yellow Face: he gets overconfident, makes a lot of wrong deductions and asks Watson to remind him of this case if he ever was to get too cocky.
The Five Orange Pips: It is among the two cases where Holmes’s client dies and the criminals are never brought to justice.
The Adventure of Engineer’s thumb: Again one of the few cases where the Holmes failed to catch the criminals.
The Valley of Fear: Holmes investigates a supposed murder and draws a lot of wrong conclusions.
@@cecilie... u r wrong in scandel in bohemia beats irene adler and secures the pictures and gives them to the king then the king gives him a gift
In 5 pips his client dies i agree but he solves the case
@@adityagoel5746 You might wanna read the story again cause that is just not what happens. Holmes finds a photo of Irene Adler in an evening dress and a letter addressed to him that was left by her for him to find. She goes on marrying for love, leaving England and taking the incriminating picture with her for insurance. She wins in every sense of the word and Holmes asks the king to let him keep her photograph as a reminder of her intelligence and because he is humbled.
“The worst thing a franchise ending can do is make you feel kind of stupid and embarrassed for being so excited about it in the first place.” - Jenny Nicholson
she's a literal queen
"HELLO THERE!" -Obi Wan Kenobi
Game of thrones has entered the chat
I hate her so much. She got me addicted to long form video essays. Okay I don’t hate her. I kinda love her tbh
@@lumun9658 I'm so glad I decided to read the books back when season 3 aired. It was 100% the only thing that stopped me from kicking a hole in my TV out of despair and feeling like I'd wasted so much time. Fuck D&D man
Secret good episode open:
Sherlock has a virtual reality helmet removed from his head. There stands James Moriarty alive and well. He reveals it is actually the 22nd century and introduces robot Watson.
The good ending
So *that's* what happens if you choose the green balloon.
And then Sherlock has to team up with his canadian great great great great great grand niece Shirley to solve crime
M I’ll l I’ll ll M m Mmudi m I’ll m ml m m m m m . Mm m m m m m I’m m l l C l m.
Unfortunately it ends with Robot Watson ripping off his suit and revealing he was Sherlock's secret sexy kung-fu dominatrix sister in disguise before being killed by a boomerang that's in love with Sherlock.
Add in another complaint that they gave Watson a disability due to a war injury just to make it a joke and have him 'will himself' out of a seirous injury really implying that if you need to use a cane its because you just didnt try to be uninjured enough.
There's something funny to me about how there's *Psych,* a show where the main character fakes having psychic powers but actually is just really good at noticing small details and putting 2 and 2 together, and then there's *Sherlock,* a show where this dude is seemingly very good at noticing details but honestly might actually be psychic with how many times he makes wild accusations that are somehow correct.
well, you see, Psych knew not to be absolutely insufferable
I KNOW, YOU KNOW. THAT I'M NOT TELLING THE TRUTH!
Psych is unironically a better Holmes adaptation than Sherlock.
Mentalist honestly felt more sherlock for me too. Felt more believable for me to exist , while sherlock feels more fantasy.
Lol, that's true. Also Psych is pretty good and fun, for those who don't know.
This show’s Moriarty really is the culmination of every misunderstanding of the original character to date. A century of public obsession with Professor Moriarty as Homes’ “intellectual equal” has obscured why he was such a tough nut to crack. Sherlock Holmes didn’t spend years fighting with Moriarty because the Professor was a supervillain, it’s because he’s a mob boss. He never does anything himself, and is surrounded by underlings who will happily take the fall for him. Moriarty doesn’t spend his time breaking into the Tower of London while dancing to Clockwork Orange music. He mostly just sits around collecting his take from a web of petty crooks. If anything ever actually does require a personal touch, he just has Moran do it. He’s a villain whose primary strength is red tape. That’s why taking down Professor Moriarty took Sherlock Holmes’ whole career.
Which is weird because clearly all Sherlock had to do was use a boomeran-
Good point, but in the books, Moriarty did come out of the woodworks when exceptionally frustrated. Once to threaten Sherlock, then again to try to kill him. Clearly he felt some matters should be handled personally.
@@pablovonpablo2590 Yeah but 2 times over dozens of stories is hardly the same as what happens in the show and other adaptations where he becomes completely central to everything.
That's, eh, too close to reality for comfort. May not have made popular TV.
@@MoonShadowWolfe That description makes me think of The Wire tbh. You might be right that it doesn't make for popular TV, but it sure can make for great TV.
Something most people don't know about the original Sherlock Holmes stories:
Holmes isn't a mega genius. He's a smart, well read, well practiced, and astute man. He even states that his brother is FAR more intelligent than he is, but Mycroft is a lazy layabout who prefers desk work.
How these character traits are lost on writers is baffling to me.
It's pretty notable that as the series goes on, Watson starts being familiar enough with Holmes methods that he can also start making deductions about the clients that come through the door. What Holmes does is entirely teachable to someone of sufficient intelligence, it's not just being so "smart" that he's beyond everyone else. There's actual techniques involved, and somehow this gets ignored in favour of "big brain man too smart".
We know he's not a mega genius because he's addicted to cocaine
Imo most of the fun of sherlock holmes is precisely that hes kind of just a normal guy. smart! but not some psychic einstein. the only trait that sets him apart is that he /pays attention/ in a world where most people gloss over details, and that lets him connect seemingly disparate pieces of information. it gives you the feeling that if you just thought of things the right way you could do it too, so the audience is in almost friendly competition with sherlock as you try to piece together the information you're given faster than he does.
I'm not sure where this quote is from and someone probably already commented it on this video, but it's probably more applicable here than anywhere:
"Stupid people trying to understand complicated problems will often come to the conclusion that the solution is magic."
There's even one story where he makes a completely wrong deduction and tells Watson "If I ever start to get too overconfident remind me of this case Watson"
The absolute funniest anime Sherlock Holmes moment for me is in Black Butler. One arc, the main characters (aristocrat and demon butler) host a party inviting a bunch of London socialites, including a young Arthur Conan Doyle. A whole bunch of murdering happens and the demon butler disguises himself as a clergyman named JEREMY RATHBONE (looking exactly like Jeremy Brett). Eventually they solved the murders via such logic and deductions that inspired Conan Doyle to write his first Sherlock Holmes stories with the character based on the disguised demon. It also explains why, despite being one of the fathers of the detective genre, Doyle was so superstitious.
There's something else to dislike about the Sherlock show - why is he portrayed as a relentless, selfish asshole? In the books he was like a teacher, explaining to Watson how he arrived at his conclusions and deductions and interacting with everyone he met in a kindly way. Hell, it's usually the policemen like Lestrade and Stanley Hopkins who are more sure of themselves. Holmes rarely insults anyone and doesn't take advantage of Watson's friendship with him. I have no idea why Freeman's Watson continues to hang around with probably the most intolerable human on the planet. I swear if they weren't housemates, Watson would never want to see Sherlock ever again
I recently watched the 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles adaptation with Basil Rathbone. In the original story, Sherlock realizes that the killer is a long-lost descendant of the wealthy Baskerville family, who is trying to murder the only other living heir so that he can reveal his own relation and claim the inheritance for himself. The killer doesn't share the family name, and even his own step-sister is not aware of his relation, but Sherlock deduces it because his eyes bear an uncanny resemblance to the eyes of an old ancestor whose painting hangs in the estate. However, despite the fact that he is almost certain who the killer is, Sherlock understands that he doesn't have a shred of hard evidence, and would not be able to get a conviction if he revealed his suspicions. So, he makes the difficult choice of gambling with the life of Sir Henry (the potential victim) by allowing the killer the chance to strike again, because he knows the only way to prove his case will be to catch the killer red-handed. This is a choice that clearly weighs on him, but he knows that if he can't catch the killer right now while he has the chance, Sir Henry will live under the shadow of imminent death for the rest of his life. When the killer is finally caught, Sherlock apologizes to Sir Henry, both for risking his life, and for deceiving him into believing earlier that he was no longer in danger, which he did to ensure the killer would be bold in making his move.
If Moffat's Sherlock had adapted the original plot instead of changing it to a secret government facility and all that shit, Sherlock would have risked Sir Henry's life regardless of whether it was necessary, because he was bored. Instead of apologizing to Sir Henry, he would have acted like Sir Henry owed HIM an apology for requiring his attention. Then he would have called the killer's step-sister a fucking idiot for not realizing his relation to the Baskervilles.
i read a post once observing how there’s this trend of smart asshole characters (sherlock, rick sanchez, etc) and the unpleasant people who watch those shows will think the reason other people don’t like them must be because they are also very ✨intellectual✨. it’s definitely a harmful archetype
The series is like a modern take on Sherlock Holmes. You can tell that by the first episode's title, "A Study in Pink", instead of the original "A Study in Scarlet", because nowdays women's trademark color is pink, not red.
Back then, a "smarty pants" was considered annoying. But in modern times, inteligence is something praised, and even attractive. So in order to make Sherlock lonely, they had to make him a bit of an asshole. He gets frustrated that no one understands him and starts hating everyone, but in reality he feels really lonely and wants someone to like him. (Yes, I like this series, and you can't change my taste)
THANK YOU. This has always been the main reason why I was never able to like the show - that's not Sherlock. AT ALL. Book Sherlock is socially awkward, driven by reason, and clearly doesn't understand emotions the same way most people do; but he's empathetic, dedicated, and always does his best to help people even if he doesn't quite understand them. Moffat writes the character as this cynical, arrogant asshole and it's just so fucking wrong. And god, oh god, don't even get me started on Irene.
People shit a lot on the RDJ movies for portraying Sherlock as excessively quirky, and while I agree it's somewhat overdone, I still much prefer that Sherlock to BBC's version.
As someone who regularly removes his wedding ring to clean house I'd hate to see what Sherlock would think of me.
Clean people are all serial adulterers. That's just basic common sense.
I feel the question is why would you even care about the opinion of someone who is as much of an ass as this Sherlock is.
you're cheating with the swiffer
I'll be honest, that swifter bit made me snort peppermint tea all over my notebook.
I just rewatched the whole scene.
Sherlock does not deduce that she is a serial adulterer just by looking at the ring. The woman's jewelry is all clean except for the wedding ring, which is pretty old (+10 years).
Therefore he comes to the conclusion that she is unhappily married, since she does not clean the ring regularly like her other pieces. I personally think that this in fact does make sense.
However, you may be right that taking of a ring regularly is not necessarily a sign of adultery, yet taking all other things into consideration the conclusion Sherlock comes to is not that unrealistic as you want it to be.
Edit: Later in this scene he explains that, judging from her fingernails, she does not work with her hands so taking off the ring must have another reason.
It's quite funny that John Watson is meant to be the POV character for the audience, yet he ALSO gets almost nothing to do, just like the viewers.
And gets abused constantly. Just like the audience.
@@carloschell986 My favorite part of Sherlock Holmes adaptations is when they make Sherlock treat his best, really _only_ friend like complete shit and a total buffoon instead of an intelligent, capable doctor who was in the Queen's army during at least one war.
Cause like, he was autistic or something, and us autistic people don't understand emotions so we treat everyone around us like crap! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Yaaaaaay, so progressive!
@@Shenaldracdude I hate 99% of autism representation in media. I'm not even autistic (as far as I know) but I just feel bad for y'all, because I know most of you guys are awesome :)
@@Cam_Can_Play Thanks :)
@@Cam_Can_Play Thank you, as an autist I‘m really happy to read this^^
One thing of note - Irene is *not* bisexual. In the show, John says 'I'm not gay,' and Irene replies, 'well, I am,' in a conversation about how John feels about Sherlock. The implication is meant to be that if Irene, a lesbian, can fall in love with Sherlock, why not John, a straight man? It's queerbaiting and also weirdly bi erasure/lesbophobia. It certainly isn't presented as though Irene is exploring her sexuality and just so happens to be attracted to Sherlock despite previously identifying as a lesbian, it's treated like she *is* a lesbian, but Sherlock is just so unbelievably attractive that she can't help how she feels. Of course a woman who has only ever been attracted to women would fall for Sherlock. It's Sherlock! And of course John never actually develops feelings for Sherlock in any way that goes beyond subtext, gay jokes, and ridiculous levels of queerbaiting. So the conversation exists only to display how amazingly special and wonderful Sherlock is.
On the other hand, some people in the LGBT community who are attracted to the same gender but not _exclusively,_ such as bisexuals and pansexuals, still choose to call themselves "gay", I guess for like, simplicity's sake? Sometimes? So she might be bi after all.
@@elsie8757 I would agree with that but I am extremely confident Sherlock's writers are incapable of any kind of nuance.
@@Tay-wj9eti am extremely confident the writers don't know the difference between any lgbt identity, and thought that bi really does fit under the umbrella of "the gay".
@@unflexian I mean, maybe? It just seemed to me that the conversation between John and Irene was about how John can't be in love with Sherlock because he's 'not gay,' whereas Irene *is.* Regardless, Irene's sexuality (and her entire character) was terribly written and represented.
@@Tay-wj9et yup
I don't understand how modern sherlock got so mean. He was, at worst, a rather awkward guy with a drug problem.
Yeah there's this weird trend pop culture has developed over the last several years of assuming that being a genius gives you a free pass to be a complete dick to everyone around you
@@elsie8757 isnt that because they play with the idea of "im an intellectual genius not a social conventions genius" which in turn dangerously aproaches the autistic spectrum coded characters?
PS: and also bad portrayed autistuc spectrum coded characters?
@@PutoMedicoBrujo I'd argue that Sherlock, even in his most original incarnations, was always coded autistic, so I don't think attempting to invoke that coding intentionally is why "dickbag sherlock" is so common these days.
Rather, I think it's just pandering to the same fantasy as characters like Dr. House or Tony Stark. The whole "I can treat people however the hell I want, and they'll just have to deal with it because I'm so goddamned good at what I do that I can tell it like it is!" thing that got old fast, but people seem to engage with highly.
More and more nerds working in entertainment, writing "Nerdie Sue" characters they wish they could be in real life : "smarter" than everybody else so people should just bow down and respect them. "Fear my superior intellect, Respect me !" lol.
the reason he's supposed to be mean is something to do with the sir Arthur Conan Doyles family there's something about him not being allowed to be nice henry cavils Sherlocks is getting sued for being too considerate
I keep wondering about Moffat's reaction to the Secret Fourth Episode theory. Imagine you're a showrunner for a widely praised tv show, you release a new season, the critics immediately turn on you and start talking about how terrible it is. and then the fans rush to your defense... by insisting the season is SO bad it MUST BE FAKE and don't worry, the actual good episodes will totally come out any minute now. I cannot imagine a more humiliating fan reaction. The fact that Moffat seemed to think the fanbase was beneath him is the cherry on the schadenfreude sundae.
I wish his reaction was to step down and hand things over to someone else because evidently very few people liked his show at that point.
That's one of the funniest coping mechanisms I've ever heard. I wasn't aware of this theory during Season 4 because I just completely lost interest and quit reading any of the updates. This is freaking hilarious. I've seen many fanboys cope with terrible movies / shows but this one takes the cake.
@@One.Zero.One101 To be fair, the show did this previously - where they would provide an explanation for something in line with the original books - and then say - "Haha suckers, you actually believed that dumb explanation. This is the correct explanation." Eg - the plot about Moriarty finding a secret code to hack into all computers, and then saying - lol no, that's such a cliche, it's not true. Or there were moments which you think are real - and then are revealed as fake scenarios happening in a dream or someone's imagination. Or them implying Moriarty is back, only to reveal - nah.
So the die-hard fans probably thought the showrunners were intentionally giving them a bad ending - and then will reveal it to be a - "haha suckers !!! that was just a dream in Watson's head" - or something like that.
Only problem with this being - they genuinely believed there was some deep 4D chess going on, rather than recognizing these - "subverting expectations" - as cheap soap-opera-ish gimmicks from the get-go.
I recall the game Metal Gear Solid V had a very similar fan reaction. The second chapter is generally agreed to be a poorly cobbled together mess of padding culminating in rehashed content - likely stemming from production issues, and the director and the publisher having a big falling-out - but the fans were expecting much more, so there was plenty of speculation about how the "real" chapter two and three were going to be added as post-launch content, with people coming up with all sorts of stuff from datamining, developer art and other unreleased content. There was a fun bunch of players thinking a patch was going to release on 9/11 anniversary, because you can see a picture of WTC in some of the unreleased material. The other side of the most ardent fan base went into the exact opposite direction of cope by claiming the second chapter was bad on purpose and "subverted expectations".
tbh games are more likely to add stuff nowadays than a tv series@@DaPsykopaatti
I can't believe you forgot to mention the infamous 'scratch marks around the phone, She must be an alcoholic' scene that lives in the minds of every person scrabbling to plug in their phone forever more.
So true! 😭
THIS oh my god. Every time I plug my phone in or, even better, when I come home and I don't manage to fit my key in the keyhole on the first try, I think of this bullshit and me being diagnosed as an alcoholic 😂
In the original story, the item is a pocket watch which has deep *gouges* near the keyhole where it's wound, as well as several sets of pawnbroker's marks. Holmes surmises from both of those clues put together (as well as others that tell him the owner's age, class, occupation etc) that the owner must have had a drinking habit, because a gentleman of that era would generally take care when winding his expensive/heirloom watch. Still a leap of logic - there are other possibilities! - but not quite as ludicrous as "scratches around the port of your phone mean you're an alcoholic" like Moffatt's Sherlock proclaims.
I don't blame Moffat for that. I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan but if you've read the original stories, a lot of pastiches, watched many adaptions, etc you start to realise pretty quickly that many of Sherlocks deductions are absolute, complete and utter nonsense as observations but they sound like they're not in the moment because they go past quickly most of the time and you don't think about them beyond "that's clever" and move on with the narrative.
About the only thing I can say is that it's a particularly obvious nonsense observation. But the canon is full of them.
And I've always thought Sherlock was garbage. I have no interest in defending Moffat.
@@medes5597 The core concept of deductive reasoning is a sham. The sad part is, most people have been sold on it by the likes of Sherlock Holmes, and it's used routinely in actual courts of law to bamboozle juries into convicting without _valid_ evidence.
the amount of money i would pay to make steve moffatt sit in a room and watch this whole video start to finish...
I cannot express how sinister and awesome the "Do you like drugs Mr. Holmes? ... Most people would have passed out by now" bit really is and what a shame that it's not the Sherlock episode that we got...
Moffat unwillingness to show a more vulnerable and therefore interesting side of Sherlock is one the most frustrating things about the show.
Sherlock is more like a superhero in the 2010 BBC version that an actual human being.
@@kirasussane1556 A highly functional superhero..
@@kirasussane1556 most superhero stories show the weakside of their superheroes too.
@@pphyjynx8217 that’s the thing, it’s not even a good super hero story, it’s the kind of superhero a child comes up with. “This is mr smart man, he’s super super smart and always wins and no one can ever beat him”
God this makes me so, so sad too. That first episode was BEAUTIFUL, both in construction and aesthetic. It makes a lot more sense and I adore it. Its so painfully sumptuous, dark, glorious. God that's sad. And the taxi driver so so so so so so much better as a villain on his own than it being fucking moriarty, which cheapens the wonderful acting, absolutely sinister delivery, and fantastic portrayal of the actor who plays the taxi driver. Ugh.
I feel like the joke of "Oh I just slipped a tracker on you" would have actually worked and be really funny if the rest of the series involved him actually using reasoning to solve anything.
I thought the exact same, that joke would have landed so well with the exact same setup if the rest of the show was actually a mystery show
Agreed! As a one-off it would have been really funny, but at that point it was just another instance of the show not bothering to write a smart solution for something.
Moffat's entire bread and butter is moments and scenes that are great in isolation but fall apart when held against the greater whole.
Juxtaposition is incredibly important in misleading the audience before a punchline.
Wasn't there a similar scene in the original SH stories? I remember there was one instance where Sherlock would make some educated guesses based on the client's appreance before delivering the punchline of seeing some sort of card off the tray with info about that client. It was funny.
1:00:53 "Sherlock gains a grudging respect for her, not in a romantic way, but because he appreciates that he's been outsmarted." THIS. THIS IS EXACTLY IT. I don't understand why every single adaptation of this story ever just doesn't seem to get that. Sherlock got outplayed for the first and really only time in his life. He doesn't keep a picture of her around and calls her "The Woman" because he's somehow in love with Irene after seeing her twice, it's because he respects her a great deal and likes to remind himself that he's not an infalible genius and can't underestimate anyone.
On that note, fuck the "I am Sherlocked" scene.
You do realize, The Woman, was already a shady name given to Adler, *before* Sherlock even entered her realm right?
I'm not shit posting. I agree with most of what you had to say. But this one thing I don't.
And also THE SERIES MADE HER LOOSE. THATS NOT THE POINT. SHERLOCK WAS SEXIST, WE CAN SEE THAT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT MARY IN THE SIGN OF THE FOUR, BUT IRENE LITERALLY GAVE HIM A SLAP IN THE FACE. HE TASTED REALITY. AND HE ACCEPTED IT.
Every adaptation makes her into the femme fatale the King of Bohemia claimed she was. Except... that's exactly the opposite of the point. That's the TWIST. She was an intelligent, independent woman who wanted her own life, and the King was the one who couldn't let her go and kept harassing her. It's basically a feminist story to begin with, and every adaptation gets it bass-ackwards.
Personally, I think a lot of it has to do with the kind of media people want to consume. People don't really seem to display much interest in the idea of a totally celibate potentially asexual protagonist. They (at least in the eyes of creators) *want* romantic interests, and if said romantic interest is in the "flirting with the enemy" category, it's even better. Even if Sherlock as a character in these adaptations doesn't progress beyond simple flirting or being flirted with, the point is that the "ship tease" potential still has to be there because (again, in the eyes of the creators) that's what people want. And since there's a distinct lack of significant female partners for Sherlock to at least have the potential to be partnered up with - Mary is taken by John and no incarnation of Sherlock would be that much of a dick; Mrs Hudson is "unequal" to him both in intelligence and societal standing - that dubious honour kind of has to go to Irene Adler by default, which is only exacerbated by the fact that Irene is one of very few who has canonically beaten Sherlock which, to a lot of modern thinking, means that of course he's going to be attracted to her.
It's also arguably a product of the "Lolita Idea" whereby a story or character is consistently misinterpreted in popular culture thanks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the original work (Delores - or 'Lolita' - has an image in pop culture of being a teenage seductress who goes out of her way to bewitch older men and is therefore the predator; in the original story, despite being told from the man's point of view, she is unquestionably the victim of a man who is trying to justify his paedophilic nature by painting the normal everyday actions of a young girl in a sexualised manner). Irene Adler is the same. At some point since the original story's publication, someone (probably without even reading said story) came to the conclusion that she was a femme fatale type, exactly what the King in the story tried to paint her as and entirely missed the point that she's just an ordinary woman wanting to live her life in peace. That femme fatale image then gradually became more and more popular until it replaced the original image of the character in the minds of the general public.
I didn't get that vibe that he had romantic feelings for Irene.
I like how Hbomber reuses the enphasis of "piques" 29:19 in the Plagiarism video later. His mother must be very proud.
He got that idea from Tommy Tallarico!
@@JohnnyTightIips no, it was joey, its always joey
Your criticism of Moriarty's motivation completely fails to account for the fact that we live in a society.
bottom text
we live in
we live
Juanita Perez del Campo unfortunately
Moriarty was a gamer trying to rise up
Sherlock in the novel was intelligent because he learned. Sherlock in the show is smart because he's Sherlock
Warning: long rant.
Yeah, I remember Sherlock being the way because he was SO damn dedicated to detective work. He'd spend days not eating or drinking in his work or maybe spend several days in disguise, setting up a completely different identity for the sake of a case. He wrote articles on identifying cigarette ashes and advised Watson and investigators to read up on historical cases.That was why it was believable when he had the "Baker street irregulars" or could believably charm a woman into an engagement, because he was completely dedicated to everything related to crime. This Sherlock just internalizes a lot of Holmes' hard earned knowledge and effort into the "Sherlock scan", which feels like his innate ability. He also internalizes what was previously a motive into just a character trait, like him not having too many friends or any interest in romance due to his freakish obsession with cases, to quirks or his own social hangups/awkwardness. So it doesn't make sense why he has a 'homeless network' when he's such an overbearing dick to people, when the OG would go to any trouble for the sake of being a better detective.
And it doesn't make sense when he's able to trick a girl into a relationship because he couldn't trick his best friend into liking him.
@@jodhod1498 watch elementary.. its much better
Isn't it established that he's been doing experiments (in his kitchen, no less) in order to have all sorts of information?
@@jodhod1498 Elementary does all of these aspects way better imo. He is dedicated to his work and frequently doesn't sleep or eat while focused on a case, his Irregulars have been repurposed as a collection of acquaintances with greater expertise than he has in various subjects that he consults when needed, he begs for favors from hackers and does humiliating things to himself in order to get their help. He also has written those same treatises on cigarette ashes and similar things, and makes Watson read them as part of teaching her how best to help him; it's implied that the articles are mainly seen as a joke by the few other people who know about them but they clearly provide evidence in many cases.
Also, in making him an addict they took a very realistic path with it; it's explained that he started as a way to improve his abilities on cases, but then turned to stronger drugs and more drugs to provide effects, started to rely on them to cope with existence, and eventually became unable to continue with his work because of them- this eventually pushed him to recovery and eventually sobriety, which he maintains with a great deal of struggle and which is never shown to become easy, he's still consistently afraid he'll become unable to continue his work to the level he desires without drugs, *or if he returns to drugs*. The catch-22 is very realistic and creates a dilemma he struggles with several times throughout the show.
And why should we assume that the Sherlock in the show is not learned? He obviously acquired knowledge to be where he is. I mean you wouldn't question a real life prodigy, but since it's TV you don't wanna believe.
So basically, Sherlock is written as omniscient rather than smart because the writers aren't clever enough to write clever characters?
It's kinda sad that I fell for that early on, watching season 1 back then
@@CATDHD same I completely fell for the promise first season. Really glad I didn't waste my time beyond that.
Yup hit it on the nail.
How can you be omniscient and have a smarter brother? "More omniscient"? Doesn't seem very...cromulant...
EIGHTH SCREAMS: PARADOX!
45:27 "You don't really think a couple of lines of Computer code are gonna crash the world?" is so much funnier after that whole Cloudstrike thing literally putting half the world on halt due to a bad update.
It almost feels like, deep down, I knew all this already. I just...didn't want to accept it.
Fuck you, Steve.
Martina Ochsner YEAH! SCREW STEVE!
Yeah, I've been in denial most of the time...
+kucingsalting Same here, and I almost miss it, they say ignorance is bliss
STEVE HOLT
I FIGURED IT OUT!
THIS VIDEO IS SEASON 4 EPISODE 4
It's certainly the right length.
It's actually longer then an episode xd
THAN* ffs why do so many people do that
who cares
Ah, that would explain why it's so shitty
Every time I struggle to plug my phone in in the dark, I think about how BBC’s Sherlock would think I’m an alcoholic
omfg, i literally died when i heard him say that
Me toooooo 🤣
i mean i am an alcoholic and i never struggled with the phone plug so....yeah i´m happy
Holy shit, I think about that every time I swear.
I haven't drank a drippy drop of alcohol for the better part of a decade and my hands are Shakey as shit.
I feel like the whole thing of Moriarty being into Holmes _could_ have been done well, and probably is in many fanfics of many iterations of Holmes. Problem is, it's... not.
Off the top of my head, the concept could go like:
Moriarty incidentally catches wind of one of Holmes' cases, or he takes down of of his smaller enterprises. He starts looking into Holmes, and hey, here's a kindred spirit intelligent enough to match wits with, so he leads him into a seemingly unsolvable case, and Holmes solves it. Then he starts becoming obsessed with Holmes, and starts going on a crime spree with his connections to watch him work his magic. Holmes, of course, relishes being presented with massive challenges, but at some point comes to the realisation that he's putting his own enjoyment ahead of true justice by stopping short of fully tracking him down.
There. Put some mild flirting from Moriarty, maybe some hesitancy from Holmes if you fully want to play into it, and you've painted Moriarty as someone who simultaneously has a relatable goal, impressing his crush, but is still a villain willing to play games with people's lives to accomplish that goal. Not necessarily perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the hamfisted shit we got.
this would actually make much more sense, to be honest i didnt even realize moriarty was actually into holmes cause all the queerbaiting already desensitized me to the point that i actually thought the show was kinda making fun of him
@bellchime3078 yeah the borderline making fun of queer characters and audiences is very on brand here
@bellchime3078 i actually already watched it, great video really puts these writing choices into perspective
Just wanted to add that, during the boomerang scene, if Sherlock literally just cordoned off the area and gave it a thorough search he would have found the boomerang anyway without all the silly theatrics. Not only does Sherlock solve mysteries in ways the viewer can never really understand, he also does so in spite of logical courses of actions.
I mean surely the police could have found the boomerang with a thorough enough search? Or the autopsy could have found evidence that suggested the presence of a boomerang? Like maybe they couldn't solve it as fast as Super Genius Sherlock but it wouldn't be that hard a mystery if the police just knuckled down and investigated the scene.
“My god, this mans been killed with blunt force trauma to the head! Clear the scene officers!”
“Captain? Maybe this bloody boomerang lying 20 feet from the corpse has something to do with it?”
“Hmm. Probably not. Keep searching lads!”
Like...what evidence could there be of the presence of a boomerang, for fucks sake? 🤦🏻♂️
I think the show points out in countless ways how the Holmes brothers are addicted to showing off their brilliant minds to everyone else. He can't just perform a grid search, he has to abduct the conclusion from his environment. It is displayed in episode 1 at the end, as he could have just walked away or called someone, but he had to show off.
It is part of this Sherlock's character, and a flaw that is consistently exploited by his enemies to varying degrees of success, and which ruins his various relationships with other people.
ABBA used to write songs especially for markets where they’d had a fledgling hit. Maybe Sherlock was enjoying some ratings success in the antipodes so yeah, chuck a boomerang into the mix.
i don't have the attention span to watch films but i have watched an 110 minute long video about the tv show sherlock four times
It’s all in the presentation. Says a lot about films with respect to your particular quirks & tastes.
same.
Seriously! I keep coming back to this
didn’t realize other people do this lmao
same I can't stand most movies if I've seen them even one time before but I regularly rewatch hours long videos about why some old game or something is bad.
Canon Sherlock Holmes: *exists*
Moffat: Those books can't stop me because I can't read
Like most other adaptations ? Come on...
@@Nik6644 Watch the video mate
Hart
@@Nik6644His is the worst adaptation I have seen yet though. And HBomberguy explains why very ably.
He can, he is just too fucking lazy and arrogant to do so
As a left handed person myself, I HATE it everytime someone goes: "It couldn't have been him, he was/is lefthanded!"
1. (Not really relevant to Sherlock as the hands are reversed but still) Many older lefthanded people were raised right handed as the science behind it was wonky at best back then. Usually, when they grow older, they will use their dominant hand to do whatever new skills they aquire. It is entirely possible for someone to write with your right hand, and then shoot or punch or stab or whatever with your left hand.
2. I gotta ask: Are righthanded people completely useless with their left? Or do they just expect us lefties to be? In Sherlock, the man they are analysing apparently committed suicide. Let's assume that was actually the truth. What, would the showrunners expect the guy to miss his own head if he didn't use his dominant hand? Do people really think that lefties would be like: "I wanna die... good bye cruel wor- nah that feels weird, better use my other hand. There, much better"
especially when from what i've heard a lot of lefties are likely to be ambidextrous
So let me get this straight... a man whose career has proven his best writing is single one-off stories and not overarching plots, gets a series of one-off stories and decides to make them into an overarching plot. Moffat really doesn’t know his limitations, does he
This is literally the truest thing ever known to man, Moffat passed up an opportunity to make a better show that would’ve utilised his best skill but he’s too busy writing a story about his Benedict cumberbatch self-insert
But then he wouldn't get a million pats on the back by people who wouldn't know good writing if it discovered a safe room by deducing it from a sloped floor. Fuck all the people who enabled him.
I feel kinda sorry for him: just because you're doing the original job well enough to earn a promotion doesn't mean you'll be able to handle the added responsibilities after that promotion. And most workplaces aren't set up to handle that kind of self-discovery.
Almost everyone seems to agree that he's a good writer but a lousy show-runner.
@@sd-ch2cq yep. Promoted to his position of incompetence, but once he’s there he can’t just be busted down until he chooses to leave.
@@kaitlyn__L The Peter Principle in action
I just remembered the lead Sherlock's death theorist in the show, Anderson, had legitimate trauma from thinking he could have driven Sherlock to suicide and it's played off as a joke
That guy bothered me so much and this comment really puts it into perspective for me, like they never needed that episode and they still decided to write that joke and that episode
And then we did not see him in later episodes.
@@dianamarcekova9615 Seen my comment, i wonder?
The big one?
The thick comment?
@@loturzelrestaurant Yes?
@@dianamarcekova9615 He shows up in s3e3, although it's still weird because it's as if his breakdown never happened.
Whoever's responsible for the English subtitles of this 2-hour video deserves a Nobel Prize.
L and LovelyMetalHead, apparently
Pulitzer
@All Flatards Are My Bitches One day I want to win the Nobel prize in knitting.
They do
@Kay Pompeii its been a month, YOU LIIIIIEEEDDDDDDD
Moriarty: "You don't really think a few little lines of computer code are going to crash the planet, do you?"
Crowdstrike: "And I took that personally."
In medicine there’s a popular saying: “when you hear hooves, think Horses, not zebras” The idea being if you have x y and z symptoms, go for the more common diagnosis and not the rare one. This show is all zebras, not horses and when we hear a neigh we’re like” oh it’s a horse” but no Sherlock is like,” actually it’s a platypus because I did some mining off screen you see, and I found tracks (that you couldn’t possibly know about) and my friend who is a zoologist said “a platypus? Yea, that’s about right” so there.
so basically, occam’s razor, ‘the simplest solution is often the best one’
Sherlock doing "some mining off screen" is the best fucking analogy for what happens in that show
Nailed it
@@thefernprince That's a common misconception Occams Razor is the simplest answer actually it's the answer with the least underlying assumptions. Horses and zebras are equally simple, but it most situations there would be more assumptions involved in justifying the presence of zebras than horses. Here's another example A. Egyptians built the pyramids B. aliens built the pyramids. Both are simple enough to be summed up in a single sentence but they have different numbers of assumptions for A 1. Egyptians had the desire to build the pyramids 2. Egyptians had the material to build the pyramids 3. Egyptians had the knowledge to build the pyramids 4 Egyptians had the skill and labour to build the pyramids. Now for option B 1. aliens exist 2. aliens are intelligent 3.aliens are capable of interstellar travel 4.aliens decided to visit earth 5. aliens decided to interfere with Egyptian culture 6. aliens had the desire to build pyramids 7.aliens had the material to build pyramids 8. aliens had the knowledge to build pyramids 9. aliens had the skill, labour or sci fi technology to build the pyramids 10. After building the pyramids the aliens left or went into hiding.
The zoologist had a triangular face and white lab coat, you see, and he's a platypus expert. Sees one almost daily.
contents!
i - the story of steven moffat, 3:06
ii - overarching plot, 7:17
iii - Sherlock: the all important übermensch, 27:18
iv - Moriarty, 39:29
v - aesthetics (how to waste license payer money), 47:10
vi - John Watson, 55:11
vii - Mary Watson, 56:58
viii - Irene Adler, 58:16
ix, kill me - *the scene* , 1:04:19
x - literally everything about series four, 1:08:58
brief interlude - secret good fourth episode of series four, 1:09:18 - 1:13:50
xi - contempt, 1:34:25
xii, conclusion - 1:45:59
Good job
👍🏼
thx
Mvp of the commetsection
bless you kind stranger
i cannot get over the scene of cumberbatch sitting in a chair waving his hands around with pictures flying past his face
‘His mind palace’ 🙄
Doctor Strange foreshadowing
Honestly that’s a small nitpick, i mean, it’s not like it affects anything in the story, it’s just a creative way to express his thought process.
It’s not far fetch he’s reminding the papers he spent time reading, and thinking them over more to try come up with a conclusion.
I understand if it might stretch someone’s suspension of disbelieve, but i find it another creative way to show his ‘mind palace’ in the original setting without re-using the same effects.
@@jeom3808 i don't think cumberbatch's acting pulls it off imo. he just looks silly waving his hands around
@@jeom3808 Yeahhh it doesn't come off as him moving through his "mind palace," or showing his thought process in a visual way for the benefit of the audience (which the floating images and words would've achieved without him waving his arms around), or even "it's boring to watch a guy standing still for an extended period of time so let's have something happen," it comes across as a guy doing the worst vogue ever.
Imma do time stamps since they don't exist and also cause I'm watching this like the 6th time and thus am an expert on this.
0:00 Prologue
2:42 Intro (Evangelion reference )
3:07 Who is Steven William Moffat and why is he so gaad (good + bad)
7:14 Why Moffat does not understand Sherlock
10:34 MOORIIARTYYYYYY (guys it's called foreshadowing and its smart)
14:35 Moffat and Jekyll
19:28 Thesis Start
27:14 Mofat's special boi Sherlock and why that does not work
39:29 Moriaty (the foreshadowing pays)
47:06 The Style over the substance
55:10 The travesty of this adaptation and Side characters
1:04:16 THE SCENE and why the story actually sucks.
1:08:54 The 404 and the conspiracy
1:26:00 Stupid ending episode
1:34:27 Why is it ACTUALLY like this?
1:40:47 Conclusion (yes I plagiarized this timestamp from Hbomb )
This exercise of timestamp making made me pay more attention to Hbomb's video. I finally watched a complete Hbomb video rather than just having it play in my ears and like, this is different and even more engaging. I wanna do this with even more of his videos, it's actually like experiencing these videos for the first time.
That's sounds rlly cool, and I'm glad it provides something nice for you! Hope you have a good time doing this w/ more videos (＾▽＾)ﾉ
God bless u bro, doing the Lord's work 🫡
I enjoyed this show in a light, “turn off your brain” sort of way until the end of the second season. The mystery of how Sherlock faked his death seemed to prove that the writers were far more clever than I ever thought possible. I couldn’t figure out a theory of my own that made sense and I read quite a few online, some fairly clever, but still nothing that fit. I had such high hopes for season three. Then not only did they NOT have an answer, they told me I was stupid for thinking about it. That soured me completely.
A lot of people missed the point there, though.
It was a reflection of the Reichenbach Falls...Moriarty and Sherlock fall to their deaths...but due to fan insistence he writes more stories and never adequately explains how Sherlock is back...Moffat isn't insulting you...he is reflecting the original history of the character.
@@vincentalbanese9443 You know... Anthony Horowitz actually took up the issue of that inconsistency and wrote a novel on it, named 'Moriarty'. It's about an American detective and the Scotland Yard trying to put together the pieces of what happened at the falls. It's fucking brilliant and one of the few Holmes pastiches I genuinely loved. If you still have questions about the whole Reichenbach thing, you might want to read it. It reads like a thriller in the middle, but trust me, it's worth it.
Same here - I can't remember when I stopped watching, but that was the point when I started questioning WHY I was watching. The non-explanation of Sherlock's non-death and "crazy theorists" shtick was all so meta and fixated on the fans. The show started to feel like an Instagram account where the point was looking cool and getting fan engagement, not creating something memorable.
@@vincentalbanese9443 So you're saying that it's okay that they allegedly stayed true to the part that Sir Arthur didn't bother to explain, but basically shitted over all canon outside of that? I think you're giving them too much credit for it
@@vincentalbanese9443 the original writer doesn't have an overarching story, capping off one story that is completely disconnected from others except one with a cliffhanger and then continuing on like nothing happened doesn't affect anything or the audience experience...because there was never a promise of overarching consistency.
Moffet did give expectation of an overarching storyline; he is in effect capping off a chapter in a story with a big ass cliffhanger and then insulting you in the very next chapter for wondering wtf happened
Moriarty in the books: cool, businesslike Machievellian badass. Master criminal, leader of a criminal empire thay went undetected for years and mathematics proffessor, who doesnt really care if Holmes lives or dies as long as he stays out of his way.
Moriarty in Sherlock: *"IM DA JOKAH BABYYYY!!!"*
Add to the fact that Moriarty was never actually seen by anyone in the books, he is only described by Holmes, that too only twice or thrice. He's that good. And here in the TV series Moriarty might as well pay Mrs. Hudson rent for all the screentime he gets.
@@20footlongburmesepython yo if you want to see an actual awesome portrayal of Moriarty that is book accurate and still entertaining, you should read Moriarty by Anthony Horowitz. Horowitz was actually commissioned by the Conan-Doyle estate to write it so its technically canon and it does justice to the character in a way that Deadpool Moriarty in Sherlock just doesnt.
@@angusmarch1066 I've read it! And it's awesome! I've been recommending the book to anyone who's told me they wished they could find more Sherlock Holmes material than is available in canon. In fact, I've read The House of Silk as well, but I feel Moriarty was _way_ better. Glad to see someone who loves it as much as i do!
Also, Deadpool Moriarty? I'm dying of laughter right now.
Yeah like I love Andrew Scott as much as anyone else but uh I think I prefer him in HDM.
@@20footlongburmesepython hell yeah man. Such a good story. Moriarty was more badass and 5head in that book than in any single moment in Sherlock. I dont want to spoil it for anyone else reading this comment, but between us who read it, we both know that Moffat's version could never pull the shit that Horowitz's Moriarty pulled off pretty much without a hitch. He would go full Joker and start cackling midway through his plan and give his own game away.
You know, thinking back on it;
the matrix-style wedding photography may have been a pretty cool technique for hiding information in plain sight; like, someone smuggling something or doing something weird or heinous in the background, and you don't notice it the first time around.
Alternatively, it could be a cool way to show the chaos of something drastic, and how sherlock can intepret it all; like if sherlock was witness to a shooting or some other horrible event.
That's what I thought! I poured over the wedding photo because surely there was a detail in there tying it all together, otherwise why include it at all... nope, it's just because it's bad and they had a lot of money.
What a great idea! And what a missed opportunity!
@@tiaaaron3278 welcome to Sherlock
That's how Guy Ritchie would've handled it, like the scene at the restaurant in the first film where he just kind of looks around the dining room and sees everything that's going on, from one waiter straightening another's uniform to another who's casually stealing dinnerware. It's a good scene that shows how Holmes can't turn his observations off and just sort of lets them flow over him.
In Sherlock they're just kind of there for reasons.
@@AJadedLizard I love Ritchie's Sherlock movies.
What a shame he won't be directing the third movie.
Reminds me how A Series of Unfortunate Events is an actually good story that keeps giving you hints like "It's gonna get good, we swear" and then it actually does get good.
Ironically “people always give up after three” pretty much sums up the fourth season
xD
Oooffff....... That hurt right there. I think I just got hit in the head by a fucking boomerang, right there, I felt that.
Im not sure how everyone else feels, but I really enjoyed the baskervilles' episode
A thought always comes back to me about this series: If you stripped away the name and the trappings of Sherlock Holmes, and let the rest play, would anyone think BBC Sherlock is as smart as Moffat says he is? Or is it all in the lore surrounding Sherlock that this show uses as sheep's clothing?
I think you nailed it
Back like a boomerang?
I think pop culture has taught us that smart=cold, arrogant, monotone, and rude. See Sheldon from Big Bang Theory and Zuckerberg in The Social Network. Intelligence is never equated with kindness, benevolence,warmth, and grace. Smart people are seen as “other” in movies and TV, and it’s weird. I can’t think of a single depiction of someone with genius IQ who isn’t tortured or socially awkward or a jerk.
@@hothotheat3000 Not to mention that Big Bang theory plays on a lot of awful sterotypes, writers did not know the difference between nerd and geek, there is a lot of misogyny, references for sake of references....and somehow people say "wow, this is about me". If you really find yourself in this kind of show, please keep your distance and don,t whine about nerds being mistreated if you like this shitshow and consider it to be pro-nerd.
I remember being maddened in the second episode when Sherlock didn't recognise a fairly common Chinese counting system that I recognised instantly just from playing fucking online mahjong. Sherlock thinking about a whole bunch of things is blatantly *was not* really irritated me. Like they had him thinking about a bunch of writing systems that it wasn't remotely like.
There was an episode later that I had a similar moment of "but why don't they see this blatantly obvious solution?" and it just... he's supposed to be super intelligent and knowledgeable, so why did he not *know* this shit.
Having your character being “smarter than the audience” doesn’t make the audience too stupid to understand, it makes the writer too stupid to write a good story.
Right on the money. The best thing is when a small number of people in the audience can piece it all together and feel smart, or theories are made and turns out to be TRUE. A smart character is always best when it's at 'peak normal human smartness', rather than 'solves it outside the visual narrative - cuz it was botox!' bullshit. Moffat works the best when he is SUPPORTING someone else in writing, not a main writer for something! He needs to be filtered and nitpicked so the BAD ideas aren't brought along, only the cool things.... like say the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who.
@@kinagrill he needs to know how long his story gets to last.
Andrew Scott was entirely wasted in the role of Moriarty and I’m so glad he’s getting better work now
My god, it has three different colours of fur on it, they must have three small dogs. Not like, one or two pets with multicoloured coats or anything.
And it would have been so much easier to put different sized paw prints to denote different dogs too
@@loturzelrestaurant see? I told ya he was doing this!
@@loturzelrestaurant ya wouldn't get it mate.
Someone please write Sherlock but he jumps to these wild conclusions only to be proven completely off base from the much more reasonable reality of the case
How to fuck with Sherlock: have a calico cat
I remember reading an old greentext that said that Sherlocks writing sucks because the writers dont know how to tell the difference between smart people and actual wizards
Thinking about it, it's kind of surprising how many authors (everyone from Ayn Rand to Mark Millar to Terry Pratchett) write "super intelligent" as "they read the authors notes and know everything that's going to happen in the story", resulting in bland ciphers who just suck all their tension out of the story whenever they appear. How do they know this? They're smart. Why didn't their opponents just do or say [blindingly obvious thing]? They're smart. Why does the entire planet appear to follow their script? They're smart. If they actually had the super-power to predict the future, they'd be more plausible.
@@paulgibbon5991 Do you happen to have any examples from Pratchett? I'm having trouble thinking of any, but your thesis sounds reasonable.
@@paulgibbon5991 Can add Steven Erikson to that list. He has a character called Tehol Beddict who operates in exactly the same way. We're continually told he's one of the most intelligent people alive, but he never does anything smart, nor explains anything, he's just always right because the plot says he is. Like a lot of this kind of character he's also smug, rude and condescending. And it's repeatedly made clear that he possesses no magical or divine abilities despite both being common among other characters in the books.
@@aaronwebb1548 Not Paul but Lord Vetinari operates this way, and it gets worse as the books go on and Vetinari gets hyped more and more with less and less explanation of how he's managing stuff beyond handwaves about being a "master of diplomacy and deception" (we basically never see him do either). Of course being a Pratchett character he's a lot more fun that these types usually are.
@@alexwatters2411 Excellent example, thank you so much.
Every time I see any references to BBC Sherlock, I think about that one time I tried to explain queerbaiting to my sister, and I was fully prepared to need to have a long, drawn out explanation, but then I said “you watched Sherlock right?” and she said “…oh I get it” and the conversation ended
there are things you don't want your tv show to be the reference for. queerbaiting is certainly up there.
@@alexander_markovski Kinda should be the top 3 in my opinion
@@NerveUnderscore in no particular order: queerbaiting, "it's only downhill from season 2", bury your gays, making fun of fans in the show, and "romantic" characters who are really just possessive/toxic/cruel are probably my top 5 red flags
@@alexander_markovski Oh, yeah. I'm with you with all of them. Except for the horrible character IF the writers show that the bitch IS a bitch and should get a spoon of their own medicine at some point in the show (even if they are in a romantic relationship of some sorts, you know like showing that this relationship is toxic amd should not be romanticized)
@@NerveUnderscoreso what's number 1 and 2?
Thinking back to when I was a huge fan of Sherlock only reminds me of how insecure, arrogant, approval-seeking, and stuck up in my own ass I was as a teen. Sherlock caters to those egotistical desires I had during puberty, like being in control of the situation at all times and never having to feel dumb and insufficient, but rather making everyone else feel bad about themselves by showing them just how smart and special I was. I honestly love it when characters have lots of repressed feelings and arrogant traits because that usually implies that they have a lot of work to do and will probably break at some point and have massive character growth throughout the story, staying relatable all the while. But nuh-uh, not with Sherlock. He is obviously already perfect. At every point in the show where there could have been some self-reflection and growth, it just turned out Sherlock was right all along. And it's frustrating. Because as much as we learn to pretend to be someone for whatever reason, no matter how massive our egos are and how deeply hidden our insecurities are, we just want to relate to characters. We want vulnerability. And an untouchable character who's untouchable for no other reason than "he's just so cool and perfect and sexy and smart" is just that. Untouchable. Unrelatable.
This is a very articulate summation of everything I found annoying about Sherlock and the people who passionately defended him. He was just so smug and awful and never wanted to change. Fans were just worshipping an obvious power fantasy; a character who is never wrong and is so misunderstood by all the normies around him 🙄. Good for you for growing out of the cringey, egotistical attitude!
An interesting fact about Sherlock Holmes is that Arthur Conan Doyle actually hates Sherlock. When he killed him off in the books his fans sent him letters, begging him to bring back Sherlock. Which is the exact reason why he had Sherlock killed in the first place. Because he was sick of everyone obsessing over him and overshadowing the other pieces he was working on, such as his history books and other novels.
His own mother requested that Sherlock be revived!!
I like how you said "hates" as if ACD is still alive xD
@@elsie8757 semantics
@@elsie8757 plot twist: he is
@@Fisinocean *BBC's Sherlock theme*
MAYBE MORIARTY WAS WORKING FOR THE BOOMERANG-
the government got to him before he could finish his comment. damn shame, i have a hunch he was onto somethi-
@@deceptivelysmallman wait a mo, what were you about to say? I'm getting a feeling there's something to all this we've been miss-
@@shoepixie I think I've finally figured it ou-
Oh no! I must warn everyone about the boomera-
Oh god, they're all disappearing! I must tell everyone, it's the boomera-
Someone who recognized that pool house where Moriarty confronts Sherlock realized that the exit he took doesn't actually leave the building it's a dead end. His theory was that he didn't come back and threaten them because he's crazy. But because he made a stupid mistake and would rather they think he's nuts than realize he just marched into a dead end
Well that really isn't a criticism. The audience isn't supposed to know the architecture of the real life building where the show was shot and judge it based on that. We are just to know that of the fictional place showed on screen. Two different things. I think this one is an overdone nitpick
@@Problemsolver434
No, this comment is a joke.
Having Moriarty leave the scene, enter it again to do the same thing he did the first time, then leave again because “hE’s CrAzY” is bad writing..
@@guccifer764 Yeah I agree. That is bad writing. But going as far to look for the architecture of the place where the scene was shot is an unnecessary criticism. It's not even a criticism. It's a pointless nit pick
@@Problemsolver434 its a comedic observation explicitly based on the fact that most people wouldnt be familiar with the set. its just a goofy coincidence that the "exit" being a dead end would also necessitate moriarity coming back into the room whether he intended to or not.
@@Saibellus If that was the intention, then sure
So I checked the batshit crazy 1999 cartoon set in the 22nd century ; you can find most episodes on TH-cam. There's this dialogue in the second episode between Sherlock and Beth, the (lady) descendant of Lestrade, and it makes Moffat's decade younger take on Adler look even more pathetic :
Beth : "New Scotland Yard would like to retain you as a consultant !" 😀
Sherlock : "Superb ! Send my new cases over straight away." 😃
B. : "Uh no. You'll be working under me." 😏
S. : "You ? Boulderdash ! What sort of a world has this become ?" 😵
B. : "A better one ! For women..." 😉
S. : "... And men ?" 🥺
Robot Watson (aka the coolest character) : "That rather depends on the man, wouldn't you say ?" 🧐
S. : "Touché, Watson." 😔
And it seems like afterwards Sherlock does the deducing thing while Beth brings the street smarts and Watson the sheer awesomeness. And all three respect and value each other and it's cool and Moriarty's main henchman is a mutant homeless geneticist with a French accent
I need to watch this show now. This dialogue is peak
@@halfmettlealchemist8076 To be frank the investigation is often bonkers and the pacing is all over the place. The characters and voice actors do some heavy lifting, but if you're expecting a good detective show, you're not quite gonna get it. On the plus side, it must be mentionned that Sherlock ditched his violin for A FRIKKIN MINIATURE KEYTAR
The emojis make this dialogue so much funnier, touche
Season 5 opens with John Watson waking up in a military hospital, having hallucinated the whole show up until this point... he sits up and his doctor is played by Benedict Cumberbatch who’s character is called Dr Moriarty.
I hope this is only a joke xD
This is actually kind of a fascinating idea. Might steal it
BIG BRAIN
And then he has to become Dr Caligari.
none of you fuckboys could get near a va hospital let alone IN one
The ring thing really encapsulates how the show wants to be so clever and fails miserably. So Sherlock deduces the woman is an adulter because the ring is dirty on the outside but clean on the inside, meaning she takes off her ring a lot.... but.... All rings are cleaner on the inside because that's the part against the finger, the outside rubs against clothes, is exposed to a lot of stuff. If you're one of those people that don't take it off very often it's expossed to soap, cleaning products, etc.... so his deduction there reaches an unprecedented level of bullshitery.
Not to mention that taking off your ring often just means... that you take it off often for any number of reasons lol.
If you watch the episode you find out it's also because the rest of her jewelry is polished and the ring is not. It's possible she makes an exception and doesn't polish the ring for other reasons, but it gives credence to the idea she cares less about it.
As shown, the affair inference still doesn't really make sense, but the idea her marriage is in trouble has some merit.
@@cousinmajin I sometimes think of it now when I take my ring off when I put cream / grease on my hands every time I wash them because I have atopic ecsema and that's a good way to keep my skin relatively healthy, and no one wants grease all over their ring.
My immediate thought, when watching the show was that I fidget with my ring all the time, taking it on and off or twisting it around as something of a calming mechanism. It's also more dirty because I wear it all the time. My other jewelry doesn't suffer nearly as much wear. And while I might polish some of my necklaces occasionally, I forget about the ring I wear it all the time. It isn't because I consider it less important at all. I forget because it's almost a part of me.
Every time I put my phone charger in and miss the hole I think about how he called her an alcoholic cos of the scratches around the port hole and I'm like "man Sherlock was fucking stupid"
I know I'm about 3 years late, but Irene actually specifies that she's gay, but still in love with Sherlock.
How did anyone think that's a good idea.
Its a weird trend Moffat has with his lesbian characters. That they have a weird straight moment or story.
In his run of doctor who the doctor randomly kissed a leabian character, who was in a relationship.
Today on ✨what the fck Steve moffat✨
Bruh, I've recently decided to watch modern Doctor Who (starting with the Ninth Doctor)
Yes, I do realise that after Peter Capaldi's doctor quality will go down (as I saw some of those episodes)
But the fact that I will have to be on a lookout for such moment in the show?
This doesn't bring confidence
Did she specifically say she was gay? Maybe she was bi.
@@tiaaaron3278 yes, John said "for the record, I'm not gay. " And then Irene said "well I am. Look at us both."
@@inactive9550 Does Moffat not know the difference between gay and bi? That's terrible unless the term gay applies to bi in England.
Or are Sherlock's Mary Sue powers strong enough to change a person's sexuality?
Its kind of crazy Moffat decided to make Moriarty use explosives and that kind of terrorism in so many episodes, seeing that he casted an Irish person in the early 2010s
same energy as jk rowling making her one irish character always make his spells accidentally explode lmao
@@luiysia Lol, these British writers aren't subtle.
What is the story behind Irish people and explosives? I sometimes see mentions of it, like some common stereotype, but I don’t actually know what it is about. Can someone explain it to me? 😅
@@teolinaandyou1329 It's because of the Irish Republican Army, car explosives, and 'the Troubles' (a period in Ireland and British history).
@@luiysia Rowling didn't make Seamus Finnegan blow things up. That was a movie only invention
“If you hate the source material so much why are you adapting it?” questions I wish we didn’t have to ask so much over these past few years
Its a question that any competent producer should ask before hiring any sort of person to work on something. Unfortunately, they care more about money and shock value than about making good stories, so they no longer ask that. Kathleen Kennedy is a prime example of that.
Thinking of The Witcher like me?
@@Finikyu aye
@@Finikyu I was thinking of The Watch
@@Finikyu Halo...
44:15 "So fascinated by Sherlock that he'll kill himself to see what he does"
The single sentence that brings out the contradictory and stupid nature of the scene got an audible laugh out of me
For a super genius, this version's Moriarty sure is terrible at planning ahead isn't he! Its a shame this show changes the understandable, ' you've ruined my life so I'm taking you down with me' motivation to... this absurdity.
Also the fact that they made this version an unhinged psycho and a bit of a goofball. Canon Moriarty is so scary because he is completely aware of all the evils he's doing.
Sherlock isn't to make the "best show". Its to make the most successful show. You _NEED_ to setup things right away today in a show to get attention and make things don't wander off.
Moriatory at the end of e1 means the villian is still mysterious and a worthy contender to S. Also the show (season 1) is just brilliant for all reasons. Every episode had people being interested for the next one. It was such a different vibe then anything and BOTH... actors became world-famous after it ended.
You simply cannot make a better show
@@somerandomchannel382it’s shit.
They’re hundreds of better Sherlock shows out there.
@@somerandomchannel382 lol, lmao even
The two main problems I have with Sherlock are the fact that his eyesight is too damn good and that the writers assume that all evidence/clues can be seen visually. Sherlock could easily be defeated by a winter coat.
They would probably come up with a bullshit reason how the winter coat tells Sherlock everything he needs to know about you
Zombie NinjaToast your coat had 4 dog hairs on it therefore you must have 4 dogs
Zombie NinjaToast Your coat is red, means you're trying to hide the color of blood, means you're the killer, CASE CLOSED. Hell yea, totally deduced the crap out of that
sherlock's only superpowers are 20/20 vision and the power to fucking l e a p to conclusions
REAL!!
I think Moffat looked at Batman and Joker, and thought Moriarty being crazy ‘like Joker’ would be a hit. He thought chaos would make his bad writing better. He never understood Joker.
Because Batman is called the world’s greatest detective, he must’ve wanted to steal the dynamic of Batman and Joker. He even says ‘[because] I’m Sherlock Holmes’ to Mary*.