Sherlock is Garbage, and Here's Why (OR: Why Steven Moffat Shouldn't Run Shows) [Hbomberguy] - General

I watched only a few episodes of the first season of Sherlock. I can't say I was unbiased going into it, being a big fan of the books and having seen the "smart people written by idiots" greentext before, but it really failed to keep me interested The cab driver episode was insultingly stupid. Sherlock is supposed to border on supernaturally intelligent, yet the show lets the audience figure out the villain before he does. There's no bigger failure in an investigative narrative than having your mystery not actually be a mystery

The best Sherlock Holmes I ever watch was the one with this dude. [IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/04/b0/0404b089cb450acc461c06834e691f7c.jpg[/IMG]

I figured this out after season 2 lmao Stopped watching too.

I was never crazy about the writing but I think the show itself had good style.

[QUOTE=Reds;52380801][IMG]https://i.redd.it/41j63kp60s8y.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] tbh even though I always think the way detectives in shows 'detect' is unbelievably stupid its fun to just see what absolutely obscene thing sherlock pulls out of his arse

I will never stop hating Moffat for what he did to doctor who, he took a show that was built around episodic adventures and turned it into pretentious bullshit with a convoluted overarching story that seemed to only appeal to pseudointellectual guardian readers.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52384066]I will never stop hating Moffat for what he did to doctor who, he took a show that was built around episodic adventures and turned it into pretentious bullshit with a convoluted overarching story that seemed to only appeal to pseudointellectual guardian readers.[/QUOTE] Honestly, of all the things Moffat has done to Doctor Who, the only thing that [b]really[/b] irks me is his repeated use of the "love conquers all" trope. A lot of the other things he's done to it I could certainly live without, but I could at least [b]tolerate[/b] most all of what he did. But the first time he used that "love conquers all" cliche, I was already a bit "this is a bit dumb even for Moffat Who". And then he did it again. And again. And [b]again[/b]. My only other [b]really[/b] big issue with Moffat Who is something that this video touches on I believe, and that's his chronic inability to resolve storylines. Or, more specifically, his tendency to resolve storylines with [b]more[/b] storylines. What's the resolution to the Crack in time? Oh, it's the Silence! What's the resolution to the Silence? Oh, it's the Question that will be asked! What's the resolution to the Question? Why, it's the Doctor's name, of course! And what is the Doctor's name, exactly? Well, err, uhh... [b]LOOK! A NEW STORYLINE![/b] I don't have any inherent issues with any one of these stories. The Crack could be an interesting arch. The Silence could be an interesting arch. The Question could be an interesting arch. Even the mystery of the Doctor's name could be an interesting arch. But when you Moffat them and just string them together into a chain so long it gets tangled up in itself and basically becomes a Silly-string orgy, it's just too much for me. I stand by Hbomberguy's opinion that Moffat can be a great storyteller and can have really interesting ideas. He just needs to put in a tight box to [b]tell[/b] his ideas. Otherwise, they just become debaucherous orgies of story arcs, with no absolute resolutions in sight.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52384066]I will never stop hating Moffat for what he did to doctor who, he took a show that was built around episodic adventures and turned it into pretentious bullshit with a convoluted overarching story that seemed to only appeal to pseudointellectual guardian readers.[/QUOTE] I liked the plot, i just thought it got a little corny

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52384102]Honestly, of all the things Moffat has done to Doctor Who, the only thing that [b]really[/b] irks me is his repeated use of the "love conquers all" trope. A lot of the other things he's done to it I could certainly live without, but I could at least [b]tolerate[/b] most all of what he did. But the first time he used that "love conquers all" cliche, I was already a bit "this is a bit dumb even for Moffat Who". And then he did it again. And again. And [b]again[/b]. My only other [b]really[/b] big issue with Moffat Who is something that this video touches on I believe, and that's his chronic inability to resolve storylines. Or, more specifically, his tendency to resolve storylines with [b]more[/b] storylines. What's the resolution to the Crack in time? Oh, it's the Silence! What's the resolution to the Silence? Oh, it's the Question that will be asked! What's the resolution to the Question? Why, it's the Doctor's name, of course! And what is the Doctor's name, exactly? Well, err, uhh... [b]LOOK! A NEW STORYLINE![/b] I don't have any inherent issues with any one of these stories. The Crack could be an interesting arch. The Silence could be an interesting arch. The Question could be an interesting arch. Even the mystery of the Doctor's name could be an interesting arch. But when you Moffat them and just string them together into a chain so long it gets tangled up in itself and basically becomes a Silly-string orgy, it's just too much for me. I stand by Hbomberguy's opinion that Moffat can be a great storyteller and can have really interesting ideas. He just needs to put in a tight box to [b]tell[/b] his ideas. Otherwise, they just become debaucherous orgies of story arcs, with no absolute resolutions in sight.[/QUOTE] He brings in love conquers all because he creates these big complicated threats and then realises he has no fucking clue how to resolve them sensibly, mostly because he's thick. RTD did the same at the end of series 3 and it was awful, but moffat apparently still hasn't learned how awful this trope is.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52384123]He brings in love conquers all because he creates these big complicated threats and then realises he has no fucking clue how to resolve them sensibly, mostly because he's thick. RTD did the same at the end of series 3 and it was awful, but moffat apparently still hasn't learned how awful this trope is.[/QUOTE] Only thing i don't like about it is if it's used out of laziness

So what I'm getting from this video is [sp]Moriarty from Sherlock is like Jigsaw from Saw in that he planned a bunch of shit out for after he died. Only with Jigsaw actually planned things out a little more properly and Saw actually tries to explain things.[/sp] Am i close or am i wrong?

[QUOTE=megafat;52384809]So what I'm getting from this video is [sp]Moriarty from Sherlock is like Jigsaw from Saw in that he planned a bunch of shit out for after he died. Only with Jigsaw actually planned things out a little more properly and Saw actually tries to explain things.[/sp] Am i close or am i wrong?[/QUOTE] Granted I've only seen the first two Saw films, and Saw II's ending turned me off from watching all of the others (I watched them both shortly after the sixth Saw was released), but I think the comparison between [sp]Moriarty and Jigsaw[/sp] is pretty apt. To further expound on your exception, I'd say it's more like [sp]Jigsaw ACTUALLY planned things out in advance; Moriarty just had convenient plot points pop out of thin air with no rhyme or reason.[/sp] Moriarty as portrayed by the actor I greatly enjoyed in Sherlock. I thought he was an amusing individual. Moriarty as a character was a push-over through and through, and the show I feel would have been magnitudes better had the character never existed.

The saw movies had pretty huge mindfuck/detective story potential, [sp]a bit of a ripoff that the entire thing boiled down to jigsaw's apprentice putting together unsolvable traps[/sp]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52384102]Honestly, of all the things Moffat has done to Doctor Who, the only thing that [B]really[/B] irks me is his repeated use of the "love conquers all" trope. A lot of the other things he's done to it I could certainly live without, but I could at least [B]tolerate[/B] most all of what he did. But the first time he used that "love conquers all" cliche, I was already a bit "this is a bit dumb even for Moffat Who". And then he did it again. And again. And [B]again[/B]. My only other [B]really[/B] big issue with Moffat Who is something that this video touches on I believe, and that's his chronic inability to resolve storylines. Or, more specifically, his tendency to resolve storylines with [B]more[/B] storylines. What's the resolution to the Crack in time? Oh, it's the Silence! What's the resolution to the Silence? Oh, it's the Question that will be asked! What's the resolution to the Question? Why, it's the Doctor's name, of course! And what is the Doctor's name, exactly? Well, err, uhh... [B]LOOK! A NEW STORYLINE![/B] I don't have any inherent issues with any one of these stories. The Crack could be an interesting arch. The Silence could be an interesting arch. The Question could be an interesting arch. Even the mystery of the Doctor's name could be an interesting arch. But when you Moffat them and just string them together into a chain so long it gets tangled up in itself and basically becomes a Silly-string orgy, it's just too much for me. I stand by Hbomberguy's opinion that Moffat can be a great storyteller and can have really interesting ideas. He just needs to put in a tight box to [B]tell[/B] his ideas. Otherwise, they just become debaucherous orgies of story arcs, with no absolute resolutions in sight.[/QUOTE] The best part of this is he pretty much stole both methodologies from Chris Claremont, who's been doing the same thing for almost [B]40 years[/B]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52384123]He brings in love conquers all because he creates these big complicated threats and then realises he has no fucking clue how to resolve them sensibly, mostly because he's thick. RTD did the same at the end of series 3 and it was awful, but moffat apparently still hasn't learned how awful this trope is.[/QUOTE] RTD did the same at the end of Series 4 too, don't forget. Donna/Doctor flicked a bunch of switches and suddenly the entire multiverse (UP THE STAKES YES!!!) was saved. But it was okay then becuase that finale had a lot of things in it!!!!!!!!!

That part where Watson uses his off hand to fire a gun which completely contradicts an assumption made in THE NEXT EPISODE fucking blows my mind. I knew something was really, really off about the "not suicide statement due to wrong side" thing before but holy shit those would have been written back to back.

[QUOTE=Chaitin;52382765]The best Sherlock Holmes I ever watch was the one with this dude. [IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/04/04/b0/0404b089cb450acc461c06834e691f7c.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_(1984_TV_series)"]1984[/URL] really were the high point of Sherlock Holmes media after the books

[QUOTE=Zeos;52385784]That part where Watson uses his off hand to fire a gun which completely contradicts an assumption made in THE NEXT EPISODE fucking blows my mind. I knew something was really, really off about the "not suicide statement due to wrong side" thing before but holy shit those would have been written back to back.[/QUOTE] There are so many "clues" like that that Sherlock points out that I immediately think are bullshit. Like I think he figures out that that character is left-handed by noticing which side of a stick of butter he had sliced... and never mind the fact that a butter dish can be turned to face different directions. And [i]more than once[/i] during the show, he deduces that a character must own a small dog because they have dog hair stuck to the cuffs of their pants. As if dog/cat hair doesn't, in reality, get [i]everywhere[/i]

the show may be up its own ass but seasons 1 and 2 are super entertaining IMO, i rewatch them every once in awhile after 3 i lost faith and season 4 was straight garbage, dont even get me started on the "victorian" episode [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Loofiloo;52385900]There are so many "clues" like that that Sherlock points out that I immediately think are bullshit. Like I think he figures out that that character is left-handed by noticing which side of a stick of butter he had sliced... and never mind the fact that a butter dish can be turned to face different directions. And [i]more than once[/i] during the show, he deduces that a character must own a small dog because they have dog hair stuck to the cuffs of their pants. As if dog/cat hair doesn't, in reality, get [i]everywhere[/i][/QUOTE] to be fair the butter thing is one of like 8 things that he points out as evidence for lefthandedness

[QUOTE=usaokay;52382504]The only episode I love and to keep bothering to watch over and over is Hounds of Baskerville. Other than that, everything else was teetering from passable to terrible.[/QUOTE] That ones like the best because it's actually revolving around a case and the Sherlock/Watson dynamic without any sideplot crap dragging it down