rabid1st | HA! I knew it!

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

HA! I knew it!

So, what about simply beating him?

Re: So, what about simply beating him?