HA! I knew it!

[rabid1st]

A friend has seen Sherlock and was telling me a bit about it. I'd talked it up for them, but they said..."It seemed very shallow. Like the writer was just showing off how 'cool' the character was supposed to be. Mostly, I thought Sherlock was boring and childish."

And I said, "Hmmm! I usually love it. I wonder if Moff wrote that one, because he certainly has that problem when writing The Doctor."

So, I toddled off to Wikipedia...and sure enough...Stephen Moffatt tackles Irene Adler (probably poorly, I bet, making her super sexy and yet not very clever in the end). I doubt the fanbase will notice, of course, because we are all very excited by this return. But there it is from the lips of someone not at all invested in any of this...the Moff-Muppet syndrome strikes again. Trying to be too cute, too clever and putting people off his characters. I will let you all know what I think of it soon as I watch it.

I see Gatiss is tackling Hound of the Baskervilles, a personal fave. I'm glad to see that. Gives me something to look forward to if Scandal truly is a bust.

Comments

[hoegh.livejournal.com]

Hmmm! Interesting.

I admit, as much as I find it very, very interesting and important, I've never been good at recognizing different writers' styles within shows. So I didn't give it any thought. And haven't talked to anybody who hadn't seen the first season.

But (No spoilers! apart from speculation on what you mentioned) I do see what that critique is about in this ep. I mostly enjoyed it, apart from a few major details, but if I think about how it would be if the whole show had been along the same lines... Yeah, I probably wouldn't have fallen so much in love with it. Childish is the key word, I think. Or maybe immature for the subject matter and audience?. ('Childish' always makes me think 'WTF is inherently wrong with children? :) )

Hm, I want to make another comment, but that might be going into spoiler territory. I'm sure you'll lol at certain points when you get to watch it, though.

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

My reaction was similar, though I know of people whose opinions I respect who found it a fascinatingly rich exploration of Sherlock's relationships. As I mentioned in a post a few days ago, I was actually struck by the resemblances between SiB and Girl in the Fireplace. You'll see what I mean. It's another of Moff's textbook enigmatic women.

[nightbeast.livejournal.com]

The most interesting hype over here (non-spoilery) was pre-watershed nudity. But, of course, the newspaper commenting had a picture of the nudity in question, and I'm pretty sure all paper editions are pre-watershed, too.

Visually I find this series of Sherlock intriguing. It does indeed look pretty from a photographer's perspective. I shall wait until you've seen it to discuss the emotional aspects.

[auntiesuze.livejournal.com]

Just throwing in my $0.02 here - it really is a *beautiful* episode. The DP did an amazing job.

[auntiesuze.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, you could definitely feel the Moff's hand on this one. On the whole I liked the episode (hell, I was just glad that it's finally back on the air) - it had some really funny lines, wonderful exploration of Sherlock's "heart" (he cares far more than he lets on), great shout-outs to the original stories, and Martin Freeman's acting was unparalleled. And Mrs. Hudson is my new hero. :)

But...and with a Moffatt episode there's always a "but"!...there were plot holes you could drive a truck through, questionable handling of the Irene character (not as bad as it could have been, but let's just say that I was less than impressed with the ending given that Irene Adler is supposed to be the one woman who beat Sherlock Holmes), and, sadly, some overacting by Benedict Cumberbatch (which I'm shocked at, since he was pitch perfect the 1st go around - I have to wonder if it was a [poor] decision of the director). It's the last that probably caused your friend to find Sherlock childish. I loved the sibling rivalry between he and Mycroft, but it just got pushed a *little* too far.

And believe me, the fanbase noticed. There have been some pretty heated debates about how Irene was characterized, as well as her relationship with Sherlock.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the episode, there were just a lot of little things that rang false. Not to mention that the editor needs a smack upside the head for managing to allow John to don his coat twice (in one shot, then the next) in one scene. Bad editor!

I think Hound will be quite good. Gatiss has reworked the premise considerably to make it properly scary and I'm always a fan of Russell Tovey. Gatiss is a big horror nut, so I expect he'll do it justice.

[wickedgillie.livejournal.com]

I gather you missed all of the spoilery rage against Moffat calling him a misogynist and Moffat getting butt-hurt against The Guardian, calling their review slanderous.

Personally I liked it, but more for the acting and the cinematography than Moffat's text, although some of it was quite good. I definitely preferred it to the Who Christmas special.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I think Moff has no right to be butt-hurt for being called a misogynist. If the leather gauntlet fits, you know? It is not a coincidence that his women are so completely lacking in anything approaching feminine power that it is alarming. I actually thought that was because he was gay and so he had a very limited experience of women. But...that's not the case...so...I have no idea why he can't write women. He simply can't. Every women he's ever written...expect, perhaps, Sally Sparrow, has been either a mother figure or a variation on the whore (I do count River as one of those, though she is more focused on the Doctor, she's still a "bad girl" and so she can be fascinating without being a true threat to her fixations emotional life).

The simple truth is Moff seems unable to conceive of a female character that has her own internal motivation. River lives for those stolen moments with the Doctor...ditto Reinette...Amy is a little child at heart...and lives to impress the Doctor. Nancy lived for her son/brother. This is why his Sherlock worked so well in the first season, because the only women in it were ciphers like the morgue worker and John's dates. Read: Unimportant characters.

[wickedgillie.livejournal.com]

You very much have him perfectly pegged. That said, I still think you might be pleasantly surprised by this episode. If you think about it for too long, the feminist rage comes out, but I thought the performances were outstanding and it was overall very satisfying to experience.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

I did enjoy the episode, but I think that I find the modern tendency of these annoying nerd (read as virgin until they were married...if they married women at all) writers is to make the "powerful" women subservient to the men and to make sure that any "power" is only in the sexual arena. Here, I blame not only Moff, but RTD for Rose as well, because in the end, her wishes/plans were swept aside by the Doctor's paternal insistent on giving her a life that he chose for her...and suddenly it was all about sex...in Rose's case having a sexual partner/aging with her Doctor.

Basically, I liked John in the episode, but not much else. I didn't admire Irene, who seemed very shallow and unfocused to me. I felt it diminished Sherlock as much as Irene was diminished, myself, leaving him prey to feminine wiles which he then rejected until she begged. Beaten he was a better man, in my eyes, but, of course, Moff couldn't see that.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Oh, and YES! I have missed all of the spoilers. I kept well away from Sherlock sites for the last few months. I didn't even know it was due to come back until a week or so ago when Kes told me. I will probably find a way to watch it...as I am excited about HotB...my favorite Holmes story.

[soophelia.livejournal.com]

I haven't watched The Hound of Baskervilles yet, but I HATED 'Scandal.' I raged for over a week with my fellow Sherlock fans. Some fans hated it (like me) for various reasons and others loved it (and thought Moffat was a genius/didn't understand why we had a problem with his writing of women/glbt characters).

Here are some thoughts on why I hated it:

Read this


And to sum it all up: This drawing does it nicely.

To see people supporting Moffat and saying that we're "overreacting" and "seeing sexism" everywhere, makes me sick. (Moffat stans said the same thing when people were upset about River Song or the way Moffat treated Amy).

I only watched Sherlock because of Mark Gatiss and I'll continue to do so (unless Moffat takes over everything). I would never watch anything written solely by Moffat.

And don't even get me started on Benedict's and Mark's recent remarks about slash, female writers and Sherlock/John's relationship :/

*Or Russell's "women didn't watch sci-fi" remarks and I made it palatable for women to watch" :|
(My childhood disproves that theory, Russell). Sorry for the ranting.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for both of those links. I have watched the episode at this point, but I don't have a lot to say about it. I do feel that they degraded the character of Irene Adler, making her a silly whore rather than a clever and forward thinking woman. I think that Moff leaped to the whore conclusion because those are the only women he sees as powerful...those that use their sexuality as a weapon. Perhaps he feels helpless in the face of sex and thinks ruthless fetish women are the only power players. To me, he does read like a compensating misogynist.

As for the slash context...well...yes...it is all a big joke for the ladies. I didn't have much hope of true homoerotic interest depicted in Holmes, because the boys would all be afraid of it. I think that is why women are leading the way in acceptance of the gay...because we are not afraid of it the way straight men are. We are also not afraid of women. Sadly, television is mostly written or controlled by little boys in old men bodies. They still giggle at bodily functions and think that their limited insights are deep and original.

I didn't rage over Sherlock. I just didn't care. I think Hounds of the Baskerville is better. Not only because it has more gay people and fewer women...but also because Sherlock and John do try to work on their feelings and deal with some emotional baggage. The quiet moments between Benedict and Martin are the best.

[asahifirsa.livejournal.com]

Funny, because I thought that the Irene Adler ep was among the best things Moffat has ever written. I thought it was amazing and had all the emotions I did not expect to see. I'm sometimes really surprised how he can write such an amazing Sherlock and cannot pull of the Doctor.

Maybe it's the actors after all? I don't really thing so, but who am I to judge. I just can say that Sherlock works for me and Doctor Who doesn't anymore.

I think the thing that offends me most...

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

...which I thought of just as I pushed send just now...LOL...is...

...that Irene, like Rose or River, is portrayed as a person who is "ALMOST" equal to the fanciful men...but must be MORE devoted than the male and more forgiving and, ultimately, willing to suppress her own ambitions in favor of his. He can never surrender his power or position to her, not even for one case (in Sherlock's case) or for one lifetime (in the case of the Doctor). I do think these modern versions of "powerful" women come off more dependent and pathetic than those written a hundred years earlier, because, in the end, they are only seen as pleasing toys for the men to save or discard as they please.

Rae

Rae

Re: I think the thing that offends me most...

[asahifirsa.livejournal.com]

I can understand the complaints but I saw neither Rose nor Irene as toys or more dependent. They're both strong women and even if they do get saved by a man I don't see that as diminishing their power. I'm pretty sure that there will be a point in time (either portrayed in the TV series or not) where Irene will save Sherlock likewise. As Rose saved the Doctor more than once and vice versa.

I don't think that keeping a count is necessary for equality though. I especially liked that Irene was an equal to Sherlock even though she did not abandon her emotions and feelings. And it took him damn long to guess that code :)

So, what about simply beating him?

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Are we unable to accept that in this day and age?

I see what you mean about it not mattering to you in this case, because she will save him later. But, she beats him in the original text. She escapes on her own with her protection. He doesn't save the day at the end or her. So, why is it that Moff has to put that in there? Why is it that Rose must be tucked away against her will for her own good? It isn't that I feel Rose or Irene isn't strong...well...I do think Irene is a bit of an idiot..but she would have been entertaining enough had I not known her before as a strong and independent woman.

Re: So, what about simply beating him?

[asahifirsa.livejournal.com]

The question is one of interpretation in this case, I think. I do think she beat him. After all he gave her the code she needed for Moriarty because he wanted to impress her. She also beat him when she showed up naked, not giving him any clues whatsoever. I really liked that scene. Of course it's also possible to see it as gratuitous, but somehow I think if Sherlock had been naked to use this tactic no one would have complained?

And the last bit was only to show us that he kept following what she did (probably through his brother even if he did not know) and that he did care about her, i.e. her interest in him wasn't one-sided at all. Whatever she did there must have taken a lot of guts as well and even expecting death she was very brave. I liked that.

I've seen the comic posted in a comment above so that scene can be interpreted completely different as well. I wouldn't have seen what that comic shows in that scene at all unless pointed out. I prefer my interpretation though.

It's probably a bit like people hating Rose and saying she's clingy and selfish yadda yadda. You can see her that way if you choose to, but I can't, not really :)

You're right that Rose didn't really have a choice, that choice was made for her. But we don't know if she accepted it in the end. That story might not be told yet. Besides it shows that the Doctor is not exactly the perfect god character he'd like to be. And that he's a macho. I don't think that HE made a choice without asking HER diminishes her. It only diminishes him. And no, I don't like that ending either and would have preferred another.

Re: I think the thing that offends me most...

[asahifirsa.livejournal.com]

I hope this is your original post? If there was another I did not see it either?

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

How odd...

I do not see my original post to you...which these others are just post scripts to...

Did you get it? Why is it not here?

Rae
is confused.