Took me awhile, but I found an older post where somebody said this:
They maintain they are writing a show about a detective, not a detective show. If you just want the cases this might not be the adaption for you.
And I agree. You can see the evolution of the characters and their relationships throughout each of the three series thus far. Sherlock has so much more depth to him now than he did at the very beginning. I think that the core values, as you put it, are very much still there
because they've put so much emphasis on character growth. Yes, there's action, but it's not relentless and besides which, the old stories had their share of action as well.
Do I think that they've put a lot of focus on Moriarty? Yes, absolutely, but he's a great character, and anyway, his time is basically up now. As for Mary, I think it's only fair that she make a more significant appearance, for a few reasons. 1) In the originals, John went through women like Sherlock went through drugs. If translated more faithfully, Watson would be considerably closer to James Bond. 2) There were very few main characters who were women. Even Mrs Hudson could not be considered to have as large a role as she has on screen. To have a modern Sherlock Holmes, you need to realistically have some female characters. 3) She is likely going to play a rather large part in John's story and development, which I think is essential at this point.
As for the originals being 'thrilling', though many of them were very good, a great many of them contain a lot of filler. ACD was known for going off on a tangent. Not only that, some of his stories are downright unacceptable for a faithful adaptation in this modern era. Certain changes absolutely have to be made. You must consider that.
--
Why don't you take a pill, bake a cake, go read the encyclopaedia.
reply
share
defcon79
8 years ago
You don't need to have major female characters to have a 'modern' show.
Thinking like that, and trying to be too clever and self referential, is absolutely the reason why the show is going down the wrong path.
We don't need to know more about John other than the fact that he's a sidekick. If you think everyone needs to be explored, why not have an episode dedicated to Lestrade's parents or Mrs.Hudson's husbands?
Mary is irrelevant. She's been in nearly every episode, and a major part, since she was introduced, its ridiculous.
If you want a 'modern' take, i.e. a PC show where all genders and races and weirdnesses must be accommodated, watch Elementary. I mean, why not make Sherlock himself a woman next time?
reply
share
bakerstreetdozen
8 years ago
You don't need to have major female characters to have a 'modern' show.
Major? Maybe not, but it's unrealistic to have none at all, just as it wouldn't work to have a story with no men, particularly as the story is set in a diverse area.
We don't need to know more about John other than the fact that he's a sidekick.
But he's not just a sidekick, and he has never been just a sidekick. Character development is a good thing. Do you really want to watch a bunch of two-dimensional idiots running round who you care nothing about? Perhaps you do, and that's why you dislike where the show is going.
--
Why don't you take a pill, bake a cake, go read the encyclopaedia.
reply
share
yoav-07984
8 years ago
And besides they need more characters for various reasons. For example, in victorian era Sherlock could do all the basic chemistry he needed in his lab at 221b.
Modern chemistry requires much more than a homemade lab, hence why Molly was created.
A show just about Watson and Sherlock would get very boring, very fast. We need those extra character to make ot entertaining.
And even in the episodes in which Mary is around, she got just as much role as Mrs Hudson/Molly (a bit more than Lestrade) except for in CAM, where her true identity was the major plot point.
reply
share