I don't like BBC's Sherlock

I'm sorry, fans of the show. I don't mean to incite hatred, but I've had it pushed on me many times.

Many times I have tried to give it a chance, but it's so... How can I put this politely..

Does anyone get an effeminate vibe from Sherlock and Watson? I have nothing against that, but it's not my sort of thing.
If people want to make a show about Sherlock Holmes that portrays him as gay, I have no problem with it if it's done tastefully and subtlety.

But it's not. Peter Lorre in the Maltese Falcon was less obvious a gunsel, and he went down on a cane. That's saying something.
As a person who's confident in their sexuality, I'm not frightened by the show's really overt tones of homosexuality between Watson and Sherlock, but I do not care to watch it. Elementary did the relationship between Watson and Holmes much better, and they even made Watson a woman. Without any of the sexual tension, even.

If they can make a show with a female Watson, and Holmes can refrain from hitting on her, why can't BBC's Sherlock refrain from making sort of fruity passes at Watson?

Furthermore, Benedict Cumberbatch comes across as incredibly smug. Unlikeably smug. Now, I'm not the humblest myself..
But I feel I must speak my opinion. I hate the actor in nearly everything he does. Star Trek Into Darkness was no exception. I hated his Kahn, and felt that Javier Bardem would have been a much better choice.

Does anyone agree with me that there's something wrong with BBC's Sherlock? Am I just taking crazy pills, anti-thorazine?

Let me reiterate that I have nothing against the LGBT community. Just Benedict Cumberbatch, and his awful show.

reply to post by Grifter42


Please don't take this the wrong way.

But I have notified the authorities and they will be by shortly. You don't need to pack anything. All meds and a long-sleeved coat will be provided. You are obviously suffering from extreme mental fatigue.

Sherlock is probably one of the best written, best acted shows on today.

Now take some deep breaths and relax. Is the black SUV there yet?

Two things you can do about this first world dilemma you are finding yourself in.

1. Stop watching it, if it annoys you. [I don't like it at all but for different reasons than yours, so I am not watching it]

2. Complain to those that can take on board what you are saying [or not], i.e the BBC complaints department.
www.bbc.co.uk...


Also, has it occured to you that there may be people who actually 'like' watching it the way it is portrayed? There could be some gay/straight/ bi-people who think "neat, at last something that is enjoyable"? You are not the only person watching the BBC you know

reply to post by beezzer


Leave the poor guy alone, he is just shocked for finding out, after 24 years, that Douglas Quaid was actually trapped on a Rekall failed vacation to mars

reply to post by Grifter42


Ok im not sure If I have droped a few IQ points over the years but homosexual references in Sherlock? Im really confused as I have just recently watched the last episode of the 3rd season and have watched the precursor seasons and cant find any real reference to homosexuality between Sherlock and Watson as a charachter. What I do see is the cohabitation of two men who do 'care' for one another in the sence of any other duo caring for thier 'work' partner. Such as Batman and Robin for example... Now with that show as a kid I saw more homosexual cliches' than I think i should have (waiting for my Black SUV now )

Also with how Benedict Cumberbatch acts in his character for Sherlock is some how more on the 'blankness of human emotion' which when you think of it, ends up appearing as homosexual remarks such as cases where Sherlock would make quips' as they tend to be cheeky and in many ways thought of as flirtatious, yet the character is void of most emotions so it is only in the mind of the viewer what they depict from that. (Im not implying anything HONESTLY) Just, I cant see any reference in BBC's Sherlock with the characters and many of my friends do not either, as far as I am aware anyway. Thanks for the thread as I now want to get back home and rewatch some episodes to see if I just was too slow to realise

Indigent
reply to post by beezzer

 

Leave the poor guy alone, he is just shocked for finding out, after 24 years, that Douglas Quaid was actually trapped on a Rekall failed vacation to mars

Hey, that's an example of a good film. With layers and philosophy. A movie starring Arnold Schwartzenegger based on a story by Phillip K. Dick can't go wrong.

And as to what Hecate said, I fully acknowledge that some people may like it that way. I am not one of them. And this is the rant board, is it not? This is fairly rant-like.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a homophobe. I enjoy the works of Bret Easton Ellis, Chuck Palahniuk. Freddy Mercury was one of the greatest musicians to ever live. People are born that way. There is nothing wrong with being gay.

There IS something wrong with Sherlock, though. It waves it's sexuality around far too much. And in doing so, it alienates an audience that might otherwise watch it.

Hopefully, I have not offended anyone, that is not my intention.

I don't like it much either, I can take it or leave it, but my missus loves it....

What I tend to do though if I don't like a certain TV programme, is not watch it...

Remember, it is each to their own, we all have different tastes...

But have you seen that Musketeers TV programme that is on Sunday evenings on BBC1?

Now that is a load of poop on a stick, but I am not going to harp on about it, I am just not gonna watch it again...

A majority of TV is pretty crap today anyway, better to stick the radio on, or my favourite is to go down the pub have a couple of pints and a chin wag.........

davethebear
I don't like it much either, I can take it or leave it, but my missus loves it....

Remember, it is each to their own, we all have different tastes...

A majority of TV is pretty crap today anyway, better to stick the radio on, or my favourite is to go down the pub have a couple of pints and a chin wag.........

Well said. Most television today IS crap. A nice bit of music and a drink or two is much better.

I know this whole thing is apropos of nothing, but a friend of mine really likes the show, so it's on my mind.

So, to vent my annoyance at the lack of quality, I figured I'd share my musings with you folks.

I don't watch the show, so i don't really care, lol.

I do think Benedict Cumberbatch is a good actor though. Have you seen him play Julian Assange in the Fifth Estate? Pretty damn good i must say so myself.

reply to post by Grifter42


You don't get it because it's british.

It's alright.

There's plenty of other awful shows out there to watch.

You can leave the good ones to us.

reply to post by Grifter42


"Mycroft opens doors" ?
My Craft?

I liked how things were going till sometime around season two, then I don't know why but the absurdity levels kept escalating and the character development seems off a little.

Don't get me wrong I think the cast is great and has potential, good score and filmography overall.
A lot could be done with it as a show, but the last few episodes this season have me going ?????
And not in the good way like the first half was doing more consistently.

But I guess I am bias because I have been fond of almost all attempts to cover these novels that I have watched so far, I still have more on the list I'll get around to watching. No film adaptations I have seen so far have been close to perfect, but none were garbage by any means either.
It's give and take.

Oh and by the way, I totally was convinced Sherlock was straight - but completely 'aloof' so to speak.
I figured the references to homosexuality were just clever jokes by the writers.
It's all fiction and anything they leave ambiguous is up to the imagination.
The show does have some serious heavy references centering around that topic so I can totally see how you could interpret it that way on multiple occasions.

Watson is effing married now. To a woman. Please tell me this somehow fits into your "gay detectives" theory.

reply to post by beezzer


Totally agree. I do not even own a TV.. I know shocking eh.? I love Sherlock. I stream every episode off the pbs website as well as Nova and Frontline. Does it really matter what his sexual preference is? Maybe not every British character has to be like James Bond. I love how they made Sherlock dealing with what we would consider to be modern times and situations. Everyone is entitled to an opinion however. I think it is the best show on TV.

reply to post by Grifter42




I think you may have some deeply suppressed feelings that you're not fully aware of or aren't being honest about.
It's ok, don't worry about it.

Watch something else.

reply to post by Grifter42


my advice : get over it , it is only a TV show

reply to post by Grifter42


Ok...

First of all, the relationship between Holmes and Watson is supposed to be deep. The stories by Arthur Conan Doyle were written in a time where a proper friendship, such as Holmes and Watson have, was not a reason to assume homosexuality, but a perfectly natural companionship, formed in their particular case, from the need for excitement that both parties had, in Holmes's case because of his general state of mind, and in Watson's due to his life after the war seeming somewhat tame in comparison to his military service. Two unique states of mind, united by circumstance and a need for adventure and distraction. We are not talking about a love story here, just two human beings with sympathetic symptoms of their various psychosis and mental illnesses, finding purpose and supporting one another in their efforts to stave off total atrophy of the mind.

The reference in the show, to people assuming all manner of things about their friendship, is a nod to, and refuting of, a long held theory on the part of some Holmes fans over the years, who thought that there was more to the story, having read all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but not having read nearly enough of the rest of the literature of the time, nor historical accounts or memoirs from that period either, and therefore lacking context into which to place their theories.

Further more, if you had ever watched Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, not to mention payed attention to the subtle abrasions of Holmes character upon others in the tales in which he features, you would see that Cumberbatch played it a blinder. Holmes is supposed to be the most impossible person to be around. Rude, obnoxious, and not at all modest, made all the more aggravating by being nanometer accurate in most if not all of his observations. Cumberbatch nails that to the wall if you ask me. The only thing is, if you do not like Cumberbatch, then you are crap out of luck when watching the show.

I was very worried by the idea of a modern retelling of the Arthur Conan Doyle MASTERPIECE that is the collected stories of Sherlock Holmes. I was worried that the removal of the style, the mannerisms, the gas lit atmosphere of the 1800s would be a drawback to the show, but the work that has gone into updating the tales of Holmes without making them dreary crime dramas, has been sterling and wonderful, and as a confirmed Holmes fan, I can safely say that these new episodes are everything they could have hoped to be, and the people involved should all be extremely and totally immodestly proud of themselves and their achievement.

grey580
reply to post by Grifter42

 

You don't get it because it's british.

It's alright.

There's plenty of other awful shows out there to watch.

You can leave the good ones to us.

Hey, I like british television. Father Ted is an excellent show, so is Spaced, Dead Set was a great one with a short run..

So was Blackpool. Great show, Blackpool. Stared David Tennant, David Morrissey (AKA The Governor from the Walking Dead), and a bunch of other really good actors. It's a murder mystery that dives into surreal musical numbers occasionally, but it's better than it sounds. The actors really carry it.

blupblup
reply to post by Grifter42

 

I think you may have some deeply suppressed feelings that you're not fully aware of or aren't being honest about.
It's ok, don't worry about it.

Watch something else.

edit on 27/1/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

I'm comfortable with my sexuality. If you're calling me a latent homosexual, I take offense to the accusation. Not because homosexuals are inherently bad or something, we're all occupants on spaceship Earth, mind you. More so because you don't know me. The reason I prefer Elementary to Sherlock is the character traits that Elementary brings to the table. It actually goes into detail about the detective's drug problems, and Watson is his sober companion. I've had substance issues before, and that show really nails the feeling of being a smart person with a troubled past of temptation by chemicals.

TrueBrit
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Further more, if you had ever watched Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, not to mention payed attention to the subtle abrasions of Holmes character upon others in the tales in which he features, you would see that Cumberbatch played it a blinder. Holmes is supposed to be the most impossible person to be around. Rude, obnoxious, and not at all modest, made all the more aggravating by being nanometer accurate in most if not all of his observations. Cumberbatch nails that to the wall if you ask me. The only thing is, if you do not like Cumberbatch, then you are crap out of luck when watching the show.

I was very worried by the idea of a modern retelling of the Arthur Conan Doyle MASTERPIECE that is the collected stories of Sherlock Holmes. I was worried that the removal of the style, the mannerisms, the gas lit atmosphere of the 1800s would be a drawback to the show, but the work that has gone into updating the tales of Holmes without making them dreary crime dramas, has been sterling and wonderful, and as a confirmed Holmes fan, I can safely say that these new episodes are everything they could have hoped to be, and the people involved should all be extremely and totally immodestly proud of themselves and their achievement.

You make some good points. I do not like Cumberbatch, for some reason. He irks me as an actor. Star Trek 2 was a major disappointment to me. If I were casting that movie, I would have chosen Javier Bardem. Who do you picture when you imagine Kahn Noonien Singh? Some extremely English looking guy? I see Ricardo Montalban. And in today's day and age, Javier Bardem would have been the perfect choice to fill his shoes. His performance in No Country for Old Men was amazing, and shows exactly why he'd be great for Kahn.

As to the notion of a modern retelling of the Sherlock Holmes mythology, I was originally against the entire concept as well. Watching Sherlock didn't help. But after a few episodes of Elementary, I came around to the idea. But I don't want this to be about Elementary. No, this is a discussion of what's wrong with Sherlock, the BBC version.

One such problem being how insufferably smug he is. There's loveable smugness, and then there's the smugness that makes you want to punch them in the face. I call it the Simon Cowell-Donald Trump scale.

Cumberbatch falls at about a 6 or 7 on that metric.

reply to post by Grifter42

Sherlock is genius writing and superbly acted. To have a modern telling of the Holmes character in a modern setting without losing the appeal of the original themes is sheer genius. The nod and a wink to the homosexuality is nothing more than a recognition of what most people would think of two men who revel in each others company.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the part perfectly, a man incapable of empathising but perfect at analysing.

If you don't like it don't watch it, no show is perfect for everybody but Sherlock is way way way ahead of the vast majority of TV. Interestingly enough it comes from BBC Wales as does Dr Who and Stephen Moffat has written for both, hence the abstract, multi story, back and forth references which lose a lot of people.

reply to post by Grifter42


I'm surprised nobody else hasn't pointed this out; the homosexual thing is a running gag throughout the show. Its fun watching Watson get uncomfortable when people assume he and Holmes are a couple, especially the way the newspapers always refer to him as an "eligible bachelor" and he just doesn't seem to understand why.

Its just a funny running gag the show has going on because we're all conditioned to think two men living together have GOT to be gay lovers nowadays. Its also funny how the press and all their friends show absolutely no judgement on them as a couple, showing just how far society has come in accepting gay relationships. While society accepts and embraces their relationship, Watson feels uncomfortable being referred to as gay while Holmes seems totally oblivious.

You're supposed to laugh at the gay undertones, not get freaked out.

yorkshirelad
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Sherlock is genius writing and superbly acted. To have a modern telling of the Holmes character in a modern setting without losing the appeal of the original themes is sheer genius. The nod and a wink to the homosexuality is nothing more than a recognition of what most people would think of two men who revel in each others company.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the part perfectly, a man incapable of empathising but perfect at analysing.

If you don't like it don't watch it, no show is perfect for everybody but Sherlock is way way way ahead of the vast majority of TV. Interestingly enough it comes from BBC Wales as does Dr Who and Stephen Moffat has written for both, hence the abstract, multi story, back and forth references which lose a lot of people.

I just don't particularly care for Moffat's writing, or Cumberbatch's acting. I think Johnny Lee Miller does a much better job in portraying a man who's the pinnacle of observation and deduction, a flawed former addict with problems connecting with people.

FortAnthem
reply to post by Grifter42

 

I'm surprised nobody else hasn't pointed this out; the homosexual thing is a running gag throughout the show. Its fun watching Watson get uncomfortable when people assume he and Holmes are a couple, especially the way the newspapers always refer to him as an "eligible bachelor" and he just doesn't seem to understand why.
You're supposed to laugh at the gay undertones, not get freaked out.

You know, if it had been a one off thing, I wouldn't care. I'd still dislike the show because of Cumberbatch, but still..
Running gag or not, it's off-putting. They do not constantly need to put gay undertones in the show. It simply is not tasteful.

In Elementary, Watson is a woman, and more so, played by Lucy Liu. Yet they don't feel the need to have them constantly flirting. Even though a female Watson is slightly unorthodox, I found the lack of hackneyed lines about how they're not lovers to be refreshing.

Not every pair of coworkers on television need to have some barely obscured romantic tension.

"Oh, will they, or won't they?"

Who gives a damn? I didn't care when it was Mulder and Scully, I didn't care when it was J.D. and Elliot from Scrubs, and I didn't care when it was Sherlock and Holmes.

It's not real character development. It's just lazy writing. "We'll throw in a line or two implying they want eachother!"
They're just treading water.

Johnny Lee Miller's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is a genuinely nuanced character with a back story that at the same time does something new while staying true to the original Doyle novels.

Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock just seems to be a smug Mary Sue type, with no character beyond being smug Benedict Cumberbatch.