• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

HBomberguy: "Sherlock (the BBC show) Is Garbage, And Here's Why"

eot

Banned
So, I'm an hour in now and I typically like this guy's stuff. This is not a bad video by any means, but I feel like he could have gotten his point across in at least half the time. It's like he thought of 15 fun things to say about one scene and instead of choosing the best one he insists of saying all of them. So many points get repeated at nauseum.
His editing makes this thing still fun to watch but this really didn't need to be 110 minutes long

That's true of all his other long videos as well
 

dlauv

Member
It's a good superhero drama tv series. From what I understand, the books weren't too far off.

Many take umbrage with the faux-deductive inductive or abductive reasoning. I don't. Functioning at probability opens more doors for mistakes for the protagonists, and Sherlock isn't always right. Makes for more interesting tv.

Outside of Hannibal season 1 and True Detective season 1 -- other superhero dramas -- I'm not sure which are better "detective" shows. I liked Broadchurch, Luther, Happy Valley, and Midsomer Murders, but they certainly weren't as fun or interesting to watch, even if they're more inclusive to the audience, mechanically. Luther's first mystery really annoyed me though.

Edit: Actually, I don't know why I said Happy Valley. I seem to remember there being a mystery, but maybe I'm getting wires crossed.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
It's a good superhero drama tv series. From what I understand, the books weren't too far off.

Many take umbrage with the faux-deductive inductive or abductive reasoning. I don't. Functioning at probability opens more doors for mistakes for the protagonists, and Sherlock isn't always right.

Outside of Hannibal season 1 and True Detective season 1 -- other superhero dramas -- I'm not sure which are better "detective" shows. I liked Broadchurch, Luther, Happy Valley, and Midsomer Murders, but they certainly weren't as fun or interesting to watch, even if they're more inclusive to the audience, mechanically. Luther's first mystery really annoyed me though.

Edit: Actually, I don't know why I said Happy Valley. I seem to remember there being a mystery, but maybe I'm getting wires crossed.

Superhero?
 

dlauv

Member
Superhero?

Sherlock, Moriarty, Will Graham, and Hannibal are basically superheroes and supervillains in these shows. They have powers, means and skills beyond human capability or reason. Cohle probably isn't at that level, but he's a bit OTT with his synesthesia.
 

Kneefoil

Member
Agree
  • Moffat is better at writing single episodes than being a showrunner.
  • Moffat's shows often think they are more clever than they actually are. Applies to Doctor Who, too; not just for Sherlock.
  • Stories revolve too much around the titular character. This, too, applies to Doctor Who as well.
  • The show is too obsessed with Moriarty, whose character was ruined in this adaptation.
  • Adler's depiction isn't as good as it should've been either.
  • Watson is not doing enough.
  • Too much happening off screen/not enough information given to the viewers.
  • Series 4 is easily the worst of the show.
  • The show has some bad abrupt resolutions to interesting/suspenseful situations.
Disagree
  • Every episode needing to be standalone because the original works were standalone.
Mixed
  • The big budget is appreciated for the most part and enables Sherlock to have great presentation, but other times it feels like the money was put in the wrong place (as was exemplified with the wedding photo shot in the video).

I still like the show despite all of that. There really are only maybe three episodes that I don't like, although many of the other episodes have some stuff that I don't like in them too.

Jeremy Brett's the best Sherlock, anyway.
 
It's a good superhero drama tv series. From what I understand, the books weren't too far off.

Many take umbrage with the faux-deductive inductive or abductive reasoning. I don't. Functioning at probability opens more doors for mistakes for the protagonists, and Sherlock isn't always right. Makes for more interesting tv.

Outside of Hannibal season 1 and True Detective season 1 -- other superhero dramas -- I'm not sure which are better "detective" shows. I liked Broadchurch, Luther, Happy Valley, and Midsomer Murders, but they certainly weren't as fun or interesting to watch, even if they're more inclusive to the audience, mechanically. Luther's first mystery really annoyed me though.

Edit: Actually, I don't know why I said Happy Valley. I seem to remember there being a mystery, but maybe I'm getting wires crossed.

At no point in any of the source material did Sherlock resemble a superhero. His deductions weren't based on magic and being able to effectively read minds. It was logical interplay of factors introduced throughout the story in order to form a rational and informed conclusion.
 

dlauv

Member
At no point in any of the source material did Sherlock resemble a superhero. His deductions weren't based on magic and being able to effectively read minds. It was logical interplay of factors introduced throughout the story in order to form a rational and informed conclusion.

Oh. Well, I have the books and the power's out currently, so it's a good time to give them a shot.
 
I started watching the video, and I remember someone asking why HBomb was talking about Jekyll. And it seems pretty clear that it's because the video's not just about Sherlock, but also about Moffat to make a greater point about the show and his work on it.
 

Lyng

Member
After watching Jonny Lee Miller's Sherlock I cant stand the others. He is just so much more interesting.
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
The stuff he's saying about how Dr. Who and Sherlock are about the Dr and Sherlock is a problem with a lot of things now. You could say the same things about the recent James Bond and Star Trek reboots. They've become more about trying to link everything into one overarching plot than self contained stories where James Bond fights a bad guy or the Enterprise explores a new planet (the last Stat Trek movie was a welcome exception).
 

UCBooties

Member
Some episodes of Sherlock are great and others are fucking appalling. Sherlock should be simple. A mystery happens, seemingly impossible events take place or else deduction seems impossible but clues are found along the way which only Sherlock (and occasionally, the more switched on viewer) takes notice of. At the end of each show, the mystery is revealed and the solution should make perfect sense in hindsight, ideally such that it could be solved by the viewer, albeit that this should not be easy.

A meta-narrative, stretching across the series is acceptable as long as follows those same rules. Characterisations, acting and style are all important but secondary to plot, which is the star of the show. There are enough mysteries in the source material to adapt so this should be possible, even if the writers find Doyle a tough act to follow.

Sometimes we get that with Sherlock and that's when the show works. But often the mystery is resolved by way of deus ex machina or is marginalised (or in some cases, is not even present) by a more prosaic action-adventure main plot pitched somewhere around Dr Who with some James Bond thrown in.

Dr Who, which involves many of the same people, has similar problems with the MacGuffin (the fact that the Doctor can go anywhere in time or space to find adventures) frequently mistaken for the actual purpose of the show.

However, when Sherlock works it works very well. The Guy Ritchie films (or at least the first one which I have seen) are not really anything to do with Holmes on anything but a purely superficial level.

I think it is worth pointing out that the first Ritchie film actually adheres to your formula for a good Holmes story.

There are a number of seemingly supernatural occurrences. Time and care are taken on the establishing and examining the various crime scenes, and when a detail is noticed by Sherlock it is also signposted to the viewer. The explanation of the supernatural events is consistent with the evidence collected and treated as a climax of the story.

The film presents its mysteries as something with narrative weight and draws the viewer along through the investigation.
 

Kin5290

Member
I think it is worth pointing out that the first Ritchie film actually adheres to your formula for a good Holmes story.

There are a number of seemingly supernatural occurrences. Time and care are taken on the establishing and examining the various crime scenes, and when a detail is noticed by Sherlock it is also signposted to the viewer. The explanation of the supernatural events is consistent with the evidence collected and treated as a climax of the story.

The film presents its mysteries as something with narrative weight and draws the viewer along through the investigation.
This. The first Ritchie film is good and a by the numbers Sherlock Holmes story, plus fight scenes.
 

Blackage

Member
This is a very entertaining video, I kept it on in the background while I did other things.

His outrage is pretty hilarious and genuine.

I do agree with him about Sherlock not explaining anything and Sherlock solving everything via intelligence magic that doesn't really make sense 99% of the time.
 
That "superhero" show description is exactly right. Sherlock's a sort of a very British Superman, who's power is being so very smarter than anyone else. It's not a mystery show, you're not supposed to be able to reach the same conclusion as him, you're supposed to watch this superhero solve stuff using his powers.
 
Finally managed to get through this and it was very well thought out.

As a Doctor Who fan who never really paid a lot of attention to who the show runner and writers were, it did offer an explanation for why I haven't liked the last few seasons. I did actually love the first season he did with Matt Smith becoming the doctor, even if it was focused on the Doctor a lot of the time, I liked the overarching plot of the season, the new companions were great, and I thought there was a decent balance of standalone episodes with threads leading to the season long plot thread.

But after the first Matt Smith season I think the constant cliffhangers did get to be too much. I honestly can't remember what happened in the last few seasons and I even put off watching this recent season for a long time because I had finally lost interest in it (thankfully this season has been a big improvement). Not saying Doctor Who was perfect before Moffat fully took over, but I sure remember the seasons and episodes a lot more back then.

I still think that Sherlock is (like he says) a fun show to watch and not really think about too much, but agree that the final season was just trash. I even liked that they never explained his death in season 3, I thought it was a pretty funny thing to do. If they had explained it, it would have just been your typical random BS that's always the explanation for everything on the show, haha. :)
 

Azzanadra

Member
Finally finished the video, found myself laughing at and enjoying most of it. I haven't seen s4 yet, but now I don't think I ever will if its that bad.

I don't think the video itself is too long, its not just a review of Sherlock but a dissection of the life and career of Steven Moffat and a comparison involving the OG Sherlock stories. Plus nothing was boring, even when he talked about Dr Who or Jekyll, I was laughing my ass off.
 

border

Member
I still think that Sherlock is (like he says) a fun show to watch and not really think about too much, but agree that the final season was just trash. I even liked that they never explained his death in season 3, I thought it was a pretty funny thing to do. If they had explained it, it would have just been your typical random BS that's always the explanation for everything on the show, haha. :)

I only watched through the end of Season 2. Moriarty shoots himself, Sherlock takes a dive off of a multi-story building. They really never explained how he cheated death? Or are you talking about another fake death in Season 3?
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Finally managed to get through this and it was very well thought out.

As a Doctor Who fan who never really paid a lot of attention to who the show runner and writers were, it did offer an explanation for why I haven't liked the last few seasons. I did actually love the first season he did with Matt Smith becoming the doctor, even if it was focused on the Doctor a lot of the time, I liked the overarching plot of the season, the new companions were great, and I thought there was a decent balance of standalone episodes with threads leading to the season long plot thread.

Moffat's first season of Doctor Who is great (with the exception of those two dreadful lizardmen episodes) and you expect the questions raised during it will be answered in the next, but they never are - they're replaced by new questions, which are in turn replaced by new questions, which are in turn replaced by new questions, which...
 
My son emailed this video to me a couple of months ago. I watched about eight minutes of it, and the guy clearly needs help in compressing his thoughts to a level where the decision to make a video presentation rather than a written essay is even remotely sensible.

I asked my son if this guy ever gets to the point, and we discussed this some more, during which it emerged that the guy drones on like this for about two hours.

Two hours.

That is just colossally bad. Inconsiderate and appallingy lazy. Does he even provide a transcript?
 

silvon

Member
My son emailed this video to me a couple of months ago. I watched about eight minutes of it, and the guy clearly needs help in compressing his thoughts to a level where the decision to make a video presentation rather than a written essay is even remotely sensible.

I asked my son if this guy ever gets to the point, and we discussed this some more, during which it emerged that the guy drones on like this for about two hours.

Two hours.

That is just colossally bad. Inconsiderate and appallingy lazy. Does he even provide a transcript?

Well, content creators usually get more money for longer videos...
 
I only watched through the end of Season 2. Moriarty shoots himself, Sherlock takes a dive off of a multi-story building. They really never explained how he cheated death?

Sherlock is shown purportedly revealing the truth to Anderson, who had blamed himself for driving the great detective to suicide and, stricken with remorse, had spent the intervening years regaling Greg Lestrade with all kinds of fanciful theories on how Sherlock had somehow faked his death. Anderson is not impressed by Sherlock's version, and goes on to point out flaws. Then abruptly Anderson appears to be quite alone, leaving the possibility that his addled mind had dreamt up the whole interlude.

I loved the audacity, but that was the point at which nobody could remain under the illusion that Sherlock is a whodunit series of any kind. It's basically a superhero story, a modern fairytale just like Jekyll and Doctor Who.
 

ShirAhava

Plays with kids toys, in the adult gaming world
I only watched through the end of Season 2. Moriarty shoots himself, Sherlock takes a dive off of a multi-story building.

The show was never really good again after that point...I wish I had stopped watching.
 

Oddish1

Member
My son emailed this video to me a couple of months ago. I watched about eight minutes of it, and the guy clearly needs help in compressing his thoughts to a level where the decision to make a video presentation rather than a written essay is even remotely sensible.

I asked my son if this guy ever gets to the point, and we discussed this some more, during which it emerged that the guy drones on like this for about two hours.

Two hours.

That is just colossally bad. Inconsiderate and appallingy lazy. Does he even provide a transcript?

Why would a longer video mean it's lazy? If anything longer videos would take more work than shorter ones. It's more to write, and film, and edit. It's fine to just not want to watch a long video rather than calling it inconsiderate and lazy.
 
My son emailed this video to me a couple of months ago. I watched about eight minutes of it, and the guy clearly needs help in compressing his thoughts to a level where the decision to make a video presentation rather than a written essay is even remotely sensible.

I asked my son if this guy ever gets to the point, and we discussed this some more, during which it emerged that the guy drones on like this for about two hours.

Two hours.

That is just colossally bad. Inconsiderate and appallingy lazy. Does he even provide a transcript?

You didn't watch the video at all.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I'm guessing my experience of it is the same as most peoples: Loved season 1 and 2, was underwhelmed by season 3, hated season 4 and the special with a passion.
 

zoukka

Member
Why would a longer video mean it's lazy? If anything longer videos would take more work than shorter ones. It's more to write, and film, and edit. It's fine to just not want to watch a long video rather than calling it inconsiderate and lazy.

Nah, shorter videos take much more work. It's easier to just ramble on than to actually write and edit your work to fit a shorter duration.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
At no point in any of the source material did Sherlock resemble a superhero. His deductions weren't based on magic and being able to effectively read minds. It was logical interplay of factors introduced throughout the story in order to form a rational and informed conclusion.

Name an original Sherlock story to which this applies. Because I stopped after the first one, A Study in Scarlet, which wasn't this. Not only did Holmes pull eighteen clues out of his butt at the finale, but halfway through the POV shifted abruptly to give us the entire backstory for the killer, which was not only unnecessary and boring, but outright confusing. I'd grabbed it off Project Gutenberg and was almost convinced I'd gotten a corrupted file or something.

What you're describing sounds great: where can I find it?
 
Why would a longer video mean it's lazy? If anything longer videos would take more work than shorter ones. It's more to write, and film, and edit. It's fine to just not want to watch a long video rather than calling it inconsiderate and lazy.


If the intention is to communicate ideas, length really does become an issue. In education, a college lecturer or schoolteacher who could not organise their material to fit a reasonable length would not be tolerated for long. For a critique of this type, twenty minutes would be enough to present an introductory case along with some examples. If more detail is required, this is better dealt with in a series of talks, organised thematically.

Then again, maybe this particular guy can't be bothered with that, and just likes to drone on and on for hours. Hence my criticism.
 
He actually likes that adaptation and calls the Guy Richie films "fun romps." He starts the video off with them.

They're not bad, each in its own way. In Elementary, CBS has a really decent police procedural approach, with some fine actors. In May this year the show was retained for a future sixth season.

The films are very watchable (and I never thought I'd ever say that about a Guy Ritchie film) costume dramas with two actors with the kind of charismatic personality you need to sustain a film franchise. A third film has been stalled by script problems.

Sit me down in front of a television and ask me which Sherlock Holmes I would like to watch, though, and I'd happily watch any of the episodes of Sherlock.

For the most faithful transcription from page to screen, we have Jeremy Brett, long may he reign as the most authentic Sherlock Holmes.

For really stinkingly bad Holmes, I'd nominate a 2010 straight-to-DVD thing that tied Torchwood's Gareth David-Lloyd as Watson to a rank amateur actor impersonating Holmes. With dinosaurs. You can almost smell the fear as David-Lloyd watches his acting career circling the drain. Apparently it also has Enterprise's Dominic Keating as Sherlock's non-canon evil brother, but I didn't stick with it long enough to see that bit.
 
What you're describing sounds great: where can I find it?

The puzzle novel or whodunnit is mainly a latter-day invention, and actually has a very small audience. Arthur Conan Doyle's sleuth is essentially an avatar for the thinker as hero. The entertainment is in marvelling at Holmes' act of deduction, but this can only be done after the event. You can't compete with him because the whole thing is a conjuring trick, a sleight-of-hand.

In Sherlock, Moffat and Gatiss bring that trick into the twenty-first century. This is the key to nearly every one of the original stories and every single episode of Sherlock, so it surprises me to see fans acting as if there was something not quite right, not sufficiently true to the original. Nothing in Sherlock is more preposterous than the original stories, and the writers are quick to capitalise on that, from "No, she was leaving an angry note in German" onwards.
 
Top Bottom