« Arg! (A Short Rant About Contemporary Theatre Commentary) | Main | Mike Daisey Bait »

July 07, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mac Rogers

Moffat's written several episodes of Doctor Who - The Girl in the Fireplace, Blink, The Emoty Child - that in my view are superb and contain no fan service. (Blink has one little fleck, I guess, toward the end.) Season Five of Nu-DW is interesting to me because it works both as fan service and as a deeper meditation on carrying the loves of childhood into adulthood. With regard to Sherlock, I don't know Doyle, so I didn't register the references.


What did you think of "Sherlock" Mac?

Mac Rogers

In one sense I liked it better than you, in that I had never understood that it would be anything other than a slick, well-made entertainment (which I regard as an achievement, since most of what is out there are hulking, clumsy, exhausting entertainments), so my expectations were in a different place. (Actually, now I think about it, I still haven't read anything arguing that it's some kind of major artwork. Is there a particular review you're responding to here?)

In another sense I liked it less, because while I liked eps 1 and 3, I thought the second episode was crappy. It's fine to have a few crappy episodes in a 22-ep season - well not *fine,* but I think unavoidable - but going 2 for 3 suggests Moffat may have been spread a little to think for quality control. Actually, what are the examples of showrunners successfully running more than 1 show at once (creatively speaking)?


No idea on the show runner question! I guess for me I was just trying to pry beyond the clever in jokes to see if there was much there, and was disappointed when I found out that no, there isn't, it's just kind of fun. In a way, I agree with you, the second episode is crap. Both for it's politics and for the fact that there's too much Sherlock in it (Anne actually shouted at the TV "MORE MARTIN FREEMAN!" halfway through). Yet that didn't distract form me... liking-but-not-loving... the other two.


I think the intertexuality is meant for fans- yes, it is fan service- but with an emphasis on what's truly awesome about Sherlock and why he endures: there are plenty of period pieces with swooshy capes, and Queen Victoria, and murder mysteries that are not being remade as a high-profile mini-series for BBC, but who Sherlock is- this dude who's kind of a dick but through his mind power can run circles around all authority figures- is a kind of timeless wish fulfillment, and the resetting of the show (with those references) reminds us of that. My girlfriend had no desire to be like (or with) Basil Rathbone's Sherlock, but she sure as hell wanted to be like (or with) Benedict Cumberpatch's. Which, I think, opens the character up to a new wave of interest/fandom.

I wish it did a bit more exploration about what it means that this archetype is still something we're fascinated by/yearning to be, but I don't know if that was the point...

Or at least, that's how I felt after the first episode. The second and third, not so much...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05

  • eXTReMe Tracker