Sherlock Is Garbage, And Here's Why
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2017
- Why is Sherlock so bad? Harris Bomberguy is on the case!
This version of the video has been slightly edited to get around the BBC's automatic video-blocking stuff.
My Twitter: / hbomberguy
My Patreon: / hbomb
CREDITS:
Written by Harris Bomberguy and Sara Ghaleb
Voiced + Edited by Harris Bomberguy
Music:
The Usual Incompetech
The Final Fantasy Mystic Quest OST (it's a good game, shut up, I will destroy you)
Passions Hi-Fi - Ігри
I can't believe you forgot to mention the infamous 'scratch marks around the phone, She must be an alcoholic' scene that lives in the minds of every person scrabbling to plug in their phone forever more.
So true! 😭
THIS oh my god. Every time I plug my phone in or, even better, when I come home and I don't manage to fit my key in the keyhole on the first try, I think of this bullshit and me being diagnosed as an alcoholic 😂
In the original story, the item is a pocket watch which has deep *gouges* near the keyhole where it's wound, as well as several sets of pawnbroker's marks. Holmes surmises from both of those clues put together (as well as others that tell him the owner's age, class, occupation etc) that the owner must have had a drinking habit, because a gentleman of that era would generally take care when winding his expensive/heirloom watch. Still a leap of logic - there are other possibilities! - but not quite as ludicrous as "scratches around the port of your phone mean you're an alcoholic" like Moffatt's Sherlock proclaims.
I don't blame Moffat for that. I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan but if you've read the original stories, a lot of pastiches, watched many adaptions, etc you start to realise pretty quickly that many of Sherlocks deductions are absolute, complete and utter nonsense as observations but they sound like they're not in the moment because they go past quickly most of the time and you don't think about them beyond "that's clever" and move on with the narrative.
About the only thing I can say is that it's a particularly obvious nonsense observation. But the canon is full of them.
And I've always thought Sherlock was garbage. I have no interest in defending Moffat.
@@medes5597 The core concept of deductive reasoning is a sham. The sad part is, most people have been sold on it by the likes of Sherlock Holmes, and it's used routinely in actual courts of law to bamboozle juries into convicting without _valid_ evidence.
Every time I struggle to plug my phone in in the dark, I think about how BBC’s Sherlock would think I’m an alcoholic
omfg, i literally died when i heard him say that
Me toooooo 🤣
i mean i am an alcoholic and i never struggled with the phone plug so....yeah i´m happy
Holy shit, I think about that every time I swear.
I haven't drank a drippy drop of alcohol for the better part of a decade and my hands are Shakey as shit.
I will never get over the “secret good episode” theory. Imagine writing something so bad that even the diehard fans refuse to believe that it could possibly be real, and that there must be a secret good version you’re hiding somewhere. That’s just embarrassing
The Sherlock Snyder cut.
@@rusted_ursa Beautiful reference
If I wrote something so bad people thought it was bad on purpose and created conspiracy theories that I was going to release something that would retroactively fix all the problems with it, I would never show my face in public again honestly lol
I'd evaporate into thin air like I was Thanos snapped if that happened to me 😂
didn1t that also happen to supernatural?
Oddly enough, Tommy Tallarico was the first American hired to work on Sherlock.
His mother is very proud.
he actually worked hand and hand with Moffat for years!!
Although his Sherlock poster does make him need to pee at night
He was on BBC's Cribs
wow. the more you know! that guy seems to have done everything!
I don't understand how modern sherlock got so mean. He was, at worst, a rather awkward guy with a drug problem.
Yeah there's this weird trend pop culture has developed over the last several years of assuming that being a genius gives you a free pass to be a complete dick to everyone around you
@@elsie8757 isnt that because they play with the idea of "im an intellectual genius not a social conventions genius" which in turn dangerously aproaches the autistic spectrum coded characters?
PS: and also bad portrayed autistuc spectrum coded characters?
@@PutoMedicoBrujo I'd argue that Sherlock, even in his most original incarnations, was always coded autistic, so I don't think attempting to invoke that coding intentionally is why "dickbag sherlock" is so common these days.
Rather, I think it's just pandering to the same fantasy as characters like Dr. House or Tony Stark. The whole "I can treat people however the hell I want, and they'll just have to deal with it because I'm so goddamned good at what I do that I can tell it like it is!" thing that got old fast, but people seem to engage with highly.
More and more nerds working in entertainment, writing "Nerdie Sue" characters they wish they could be in real life : "smarter" than everybody else so people should just bow down and respect them. "Fear my superior intellect, Respect me !" lol.
the reason he's supposed to be mean is something to do with the sir Arthur Conan Doyles family there's something about him not being allowed to be nice henry cavils Sherlocks is getting sued for being too considerate
Season 5 reveals that moriarty was the boomerang
Would have had thounsands of likes if it was just eariler :^)
Made me spit my coffee out. Hahahaha
Irene Adler was Sherlock's sister
Maybe the real boomerang were the Moriarty's we've made along the way
@@Mystical_youtube we can only hope
I'm a goldsmith and the thing about the ring in the pink episode is 100% wrong. If you're taking a ring on and off the inside doesn't get bloody polished, it gets scratched and dirty cuz stuff gets to get in there that is otherwise blocked by your damn fingers. The fact that the ring is the way it is actually shows she pretty much never takes it off. Occasionally you get a ring that's dirty on the inside but that's when it's an old guy who's been wearing the ring for 20 years and he's never had it sized so it's too tight and it ends up with the awful crust inside. He wouldn't be able to take it off her hand if that's the case BECAUSE IT'S TOO TIGHT. OK I'm done now, I have to go tell myself I'm not alcoholic while plugging in my phone
Also, even if you did deduce that someone took their ring off often, that doesn't necessarily mean they're an adulterer. Maybe they work in food preparation. Maybe they're a nurse. Maybe they do exercise where jewellery could be a risk, like dance, martial arts, gymnastics.
I could've deduced you are a goldsmith because your profile picture says 'G'.
I guess I’m an adulterer in my dreams because I take my wedding ring off every night (because my fingers get a bit swollen when I sleep which maybe means I should see a doctor 🤔)
@@GG-yb3gs or a mechanic, i wear rings but take them off to work because the risk of having a finger ripped off is too real to ignore haha
brb gonna go write that down so i can one day write a detective story where the detective deduces that someone doesn’t usually take their ring off because it’s clean on the inside.
The Rache vs. Rachel twist feels like Moffet read the book as a kid saw the word "Rache" and went "Oh, they were writing Rachel" and then the twist that it was writing in German made him feel dumb so when he was in control of the story he said "I'm not the dumb one, that twist was dumb!"
Wouldn't be surprised if that what's really happened
Well the idea was to subvert expectations for script not to follow the source material so the audience could be invested in the mistery once again.
I mean writing RACHE with your fingernails in your very last moments would be also stupid af
I recall Elementary having a better subversion when it tackled that one.
@@xenadonau8356yeah, but they could have had it be something else that didn't feel like they were failing to one up the og twist.
I'm pretty sure that passage spited me to become proficient in as many languages as I can
This reminded me there was a Scooby Doo episode where Velma straight up gets annoyed because the villain winds up being someone they never even met.
she should get annoyed with that asshole Fred ordering her around all the time
I remember that episode of What's New, Scooby Doo; the one with the Centaur. In that episode, it still worked because, even though she didn't have enough info to figure it out, the audience did.
That show was the last good Scooby Doo show; all the ones after that were just terrible.
@@matthewmuir8884 Mystery Inc was good
@@mcrancher4587 I honestly haven't seen it. I personally dislike when a Scooby-Doo show or film makes some of the monsters real; the one exception of course being Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island, and that one works because they treat it as an exception and the story still has a pretty good mystery.
@@matthewmuir8884 The freak of crystal cove?
Canon Sherlock Holmes: *exists*
Moffat: Those books can't stop me because I can't read
Like most other adaptations ? Come on...
@@Nik6644 Watch the video mate
Hart
@@Nik6644His is the worst adaptation I have seen yet though. And HBomberguy explains why very ably.
He can, he is just too fucking lazy and arrogant to do so
I’m Aussie and have thrown (and caught) boomerangs.
They do spin, but you also need to throw them at the right angle, into the right wind.
However, the boomerang shown in Sherlock is not the type that can be thrown and caught.
It is a tourist version. Just something you buy to display. Otherwise known as a painted stick.
Thank you for your money, tourists.
Yeah? A friend of mine brought a painted one from Australia, and that thing flew really well. We threw it at the beach and it ended up getting lost in a field like 20m behind us
@@sophovot5079they can be painted and still be able to be work as a boomerang, its not like the paint cancels out the aerodynamics of the boomerang
the tourist ones are meant to be mounted on walls, so the back half is completely flat so it can sit flush on the wall. they look like a real boomerang cut in half. you can see this in the Sherlock episode, it has the flat back half for wall mounting lol. I guess you can glue two of them together and maybe make a regular boomerang? shit wouldn’t work though lol.
Yeah, and they often *are* weapons, in fact that is one of their biggest purposes, across all the nations that make them . Just like. Not that one. That's a pretty stick.
Yeah, brag about boomerangs... so special
Making Sherlock into an extra special super genius boy is especially stupid when you remember that in A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock tells Watson that he doesn't know if the Earth revolves around the sun or not and he doesn't care because it's not relevant to his work. Like, ok girl.
I feel like they made it as some sort of quirk/quirky thing instead of an actual flaw
I'm pretty sure Sherlock not knowing about the solar system is in the original stories tho
@@StackACat yep, it's in like the first chapter of A Study in Scarlet
The show at least acknowledged that early on. In the third episode, Sherlock argues with John about this bc he was offended that John described him as “surprisingly ignorant” in his blog.
It seemed like a nice way to show that he’s still a flawed character and that he doesn’t actually know everything in the world. But that went away pretty quickly when the show made it illegal to make him wrong about anything.
That's canon in the novels. Really.
I'd bet everything I own that Moffat had an explanation for Sherlock's death, but then someone figured it out on Tumblr, and out of spite, he threw it out.
100%, I firmly believe JJ did the same for Episode 9 of StarWars. People had made so many predictions about how it would happen, even the most critical haters of the sequels made good guesses for what could happen, everybody joked that "the emperor will be back" in an ironic "imagine if they did that how awful would that be", and they did indeed do that. ONLY because I bet someone predicted the original idea they had so they just HAD to go in a stupidly obvious not so obvious way.
@@partypete2542To be fair, when the second part of your trilogy trashes most of the overarching plot strands and seems to go out of its way to leave you without any reasonable contender for 'main trilogy villain', what the fuck else are you supposed to do?
@@verenabecker2724It literally set Kylo up as the big bad, did you actually watch the movie or did you just watch angry ranting people on youtube?
@@weiss_cream Kylo Ren was not set up as having the capability and maturity to lead the First Order. He was not shown to have the sort of raw power that would have made him feel truly threatening. He's been ridiculed repeatedly, he's been outsmarted, and he's been beaten in combat several times throughout the movies. He's been shown to have crises of faith and, if anything, was set up with just enough nuance for a potential redemption (which they'd have had to throw out the window in the third movie if they'd attempted a villain arc). Don't get me wrong, that sort of character might have made a perfectly suitable villain in other stories, and I actually appreciated the writers' attempt to give him some nuance and humanity, but if you compare him to Star Wars' other Big Bads, he would have been an incredibly anticlimactic choice to finish off the sequel trilogy.
@@verenabecker2724 eh, Kylo was losing his mind basically, that could have been an excellent setup for him going over the threshold, fully giving in to the dark side and just going psycho after everyone, killing his underlings in gory ways right there if they contradict him, making everyone in FO terrified as fuck, and then coming after resistance with unified FO just hell-bent on total genocide of anyone in his way. Sure, there was potential for him to go either way, I'm not denying that, but it definitely wasn't too late to make him a full blown villain.
“The worst thing a franchise ending can do is make you feel kind of stupid and embarrassed for being so excited about it in the first place.” - Jenny Nicholson
she's a literal queen
"HELLO THERE!" -Obi Wan Kenobi
Game of thrones has entered the chat
I hate her so much. She got me addicted to long form video essays. Okay I don’t hate her. I kinda love her tbh
@@lumun9658 I'm so glad I decided to read the books back when season 3 aired. It was 100% the only thing that stopped me from kicking a hole in my TV out of despair and feeling like I'd wasted so much time. Fuck D&D man
sherlock holmes contracted a prion disease from the head in his fridge and the rest of the series is from his perspective as holes are eaten through his brain
Honestly that would explain that 3rd season, and that 4th season that should never have existed in the first place.
nah, it was a Gas Leak
@@galaxychill9578 just like the gas leak year in Community... Except it was more like four years in Sherlock.
@@antarctic2community fan spotted
The boomerang scene was bad, but I thought "The Scene" was going to be the Sher-locked moment. Which still gives me acid reflux to this day.
wait what scene... actually, maybe I don't want to know lol
@@berpfuluWell you get to know anyway!
Irene has her cell phone locked and Sherlock needs something or other on it. The lock screen message is, " I am _ _ _ _ locked," with the four blanks being for the password. Sherlock reads Irene's pulse or something to figure out she's in love with him and he figures out the password is, "Sher," to spell, "I am Sherlocked."
EDIT: TL;DR it's stupid
@@morthostalisint1720 oh wow that's so stupid oml lol 🤦♂️🤦♂️
Just imagine if he did all of that ... only to find out that wasn't the solution. That yes, maybe she was in love with him, but she had still chosen just about any other password for the phone. Just think about how incredibly stupid Sherlock would look in that moment.
@@sreyarthakrishna6195 That would be absolutely amazing. We need an edit of that.
Your criticism of Moriarty's motivation completely fails to account for the fact that we live in a society.
bottom text
we live in
we live
Juanita Perez del Campo unfortunately
Moriarty was a gamer trying to rise up
So basically, Sherlock is written as omniscient rather than smart because the writers aren't clever enough to write clever characters?
It's kinda sad that I fell for that early on, watching season 1 back then
@@CATDHD same I completely fell for the promise first season. Really glad I didn't waste my time beyond that.
Yup hit it on the nail.
How can you be omniscient and have a smarter brother? "More omniscient"? Doesn't seem very...cromulant...
EIGHTH SCREAMS: PARADOX!
The ring thing really encapsulates how the show wants to be so clever and fails miserably. So Sherlock deduces the woman is an adulter because the ring is dirty on the outside but clean on the inside, meaning she takes off her ring a lot.... but.... All rings are cleaner on the inside because that's the part against the finger, the outside rubs against clothes, is exposed to a lot of stuff. If you're one of those people that don't take it off very often it's expossed to soap, cleaning products, etc.... so his deduction there reaches an unprecedented level of bullshitery.
Not to mention that taking off your ring often just means... that you take it off often for any number of reasons lol.
If you watch the episode you find out it's also because the rest of her jewelry is polished and the ring is not. It's possible she makes an exception and doesn't polish the ring for other reasons, but it gives credence to the idea she cares less about it.
As shown, the affair inference still doesn't really make sense, but the idea her marriage is in trouble has some merit.
@@cousinmajin I sometimes think of it now when I take my ring off when I put cream / grease on my hands every time I wash them because I have atopic ecsema and that's a good way to keep my skin relatively healthy, and no one wants grease all over their ring.
My immediate thought, when watching the show was that I fidget with my ring all the time, taking it on and off or twisting it around as something of a calming mechanism. It's also more dirty because I wear it all the time. My other jewelry doesn't suffer nearly as much wear. And while I might polish some of my necklaces occasionally, I forget about the ring I wear it all the time. It isn't because I consider it less important at all. I forget because it's almost a part of me.
Every time I put my phone charger in and miss the hole I think about how he called her an alcoholic cos of the scratches around the port hole and I'm like "man Sherlock was fucking stupid"
The thing about “we made Moriarty loud and chaotic and super duper gay because that’s scarier!!!” is especially annoying as an enjoyer of the Guy Ritchie movies (which are, as you say, fun, silly romps). Because Jared Harris plays Moriarty with this quiet, reserved menace that’s actually unsettling. He threatens John and Mary so casually you know he does that shit five days a week, you know?
And then you get the scene where he does go big, where he’s singing opera while torturing Holmes, and it’s actually pretty fucking unpleasant. I love Andrew Scott, I think he did a good job with what he was given, but saying the villain can only be scary if he’s constantly screaming or whatever shows a stunning lack of imagination.
Hannibal Lecter isn’t one of the best loved villains for nothing.
Jared Harris is legit my favorite portrayal of Moriarty, like, he's genuinely intimidating, I love the guy ritchie movies
RIGHT?!?! Could you imagine Jared Harris as Moriarty here? He could very well have redeemed the whole thing in my eyes. He certainly did with the Guy Ritchie adaptations
That chess match and mind battle fight had me on the edge of my seat. And it even has my favourite ending quip from Sherlock. "Discover check and incidentally, mate." and my favourite Moriarty line, "War will come, I just want to be the one who owns the bandages and bullets".
Jared Harris is very good. Lane Pryce was excellent.
There's a stunning lack of logic there. From that's scarier to the only way to be scary in one leap in the open. Really?
I'll never forget how someone once described this show as "How stupid people think smart people think."
That is also what I say about the Big Bang Theory.
I tend to find that it's stupid people who say things like that.
@@austinweaver5649it could be the ladder
@@William-the-Guy it's suppose to be a funny sitcom.
@@bern9642 A funny sitcom whose target audience is stupid people, making jokes about what they imagine it might be like to be smart. imho.
i know im late but a wise person once said "moffat was so obsessed with sherlock being the smartest man alive that he changed the plot every time fans figured it out
imo that's really what Moffat is interested in - the idea of someone being the smartest person alive. The best moments of the show use Sherlock Holmes to explore the idea of genius in general: what society expects from Sherlock as a genius, how people like Moriarty use Sherlock's genius to bolster their own egos, how being superhumanly smart both connects Sherlock to and alienates him from the world.
If Moffat had focused only on exploring/deconstructing the mythos of the genius detective, we might have actually gotten something good. But instead the show feels the need to have a twisty turny mystery plot that the showrunner couldn't care less about, and is only really there to highlight how clever the main character is. It reminds me of how Zach Snyder's obsession with superheroes as gods basically wrecked Batman vs Superman.
@@lucyw4195 And the concept of 'smartest person alive' falls apart because there's two ways to look at it. The smartest person alive either knows every single fact about everything ever; every battle fought, every product made, every program built, every leader, every equation. In which case they spend so much time researching they have no time to do detective work. This also goes against Sherlock's methodology because he doesn't learn things he won't find useful, like other languages or astronomy.
Or, the smartest person alive is never wrong. In which case Sherlock can't be that either because he frequently makes guesses or incorrect hypotheses.
@@BioYuGi No, you’re assuming that the smartest person alive is the smartest a person could be. Smartest person alive only means that the person is smarter than any other person currently alive with whatever definition of smart you want
I now wonder if he started a trend. Considering, well. *Whispers in GoT*
I honestly really hate when writers do that, like wow your viewers guessed your twist that you left clues for, like what else do you want?
I personally believe that The Great Mouse Detective is a better representation of Sherlock Holmes than Sherlock.
I agree. 💀
RATIGAN, OH RATIGAN
Omfg I was thinking that too and was going to keep a comment about it!🤣😭💀
@@mortuaryerror You're tops and that's that!
*AND* it's better gay representation!
I love that a big part of this is HB begging the BBC to stop giving Moffat iconic characters from the British literature canon.. then after this came out they gave him a three part show of Dracula win which he completely messed it up by adding a secret organization that solely exists to capture Dracula in the modern world.
It’s a tragedy because Dracula is one of my favorite franchises 😢
For me, that show was an interesting example of how Moffat is sometimes capable of writing something meaningful or interesting. Dracula was fucking awful from the get-go because of this need to modernize him, insincerely queer code him (of course), and make him 'cool' by making him talk like a dumb prick. But I was genuinely moved by the story of Jonathan. The pain he felt at seeing such cruel evil and being unable to stop it. The determination he had to still believe in a good world and good people despite Dracula's torture, despite the fact that he couldn't ever win. The scene on the roof of the castle during sunrise was poignant, Dracula claiming superiority while cowering in shadows.
And then Jonathan exploded or something so the real 'cool' good guy character, Van Helsing, could show up and also talk like a dumb prick.
Wait doesn't a secret group of people hunting Dracula already exists? Yknow, Van Helsing? It's not even original (not even mentioning Castlevania)
IMDB mentions that he's going to make a TV-show called Jekyll 😅
I assume you're not implying Dracula is a Britsh created property?
Season 4 turned Sherlock into a literal demigod, so I can't wait for Season 5 when he leads the Avengers.
Marcus Nicholsen did you mean Doctor Strange?
SadTransHedgehogs
Hands down the worst Marvel movie. Yes, the pun is intended
Leannan thought dr. strange wasn’t the worst and liked it personally but ok we all have our opinions
I would argue that Deadpool, despite being a good Marvel movie, has the lowest value because there is basically no wisdom to be gleaned from it, other than, perhaps, if you love some one for who they are you will be able to overlook their outward ugliness? Or, if someone is a psychopathic dick head you are not righteous for sparing their life, even if you are killing them for vengeance? Meh. A lot of 12 year old language and humor.
Doctor Strange introduced a Western audience to some basic Eastern themes, that of seeking out the guru; shedding materialism and ego in favor or wisdom and spirituality; self-sacrifice for the good of the whole world; merging intellect, science, and spirit; understanding mind as the source of magic. Doctor Strange gives us a lot to contemplate, and gives a new lens through which to view ourselves and our cultural context.
Also, after I saw it and appreciated it I changed a lot as a person in a positive way. But we all have our own perspectives.
We're gonna ignore Thor dark world then?(or hulk 2008 if that counts)
because of this goddamn show every time i try to plug my phone into my charger and can't do it on the first try i imagine sherlock bursting through my window and calling me an alcoholic
YES, i cant stop thinking about that!!
@@karin3114 it’s literally engraved into my brain
LOL
I thought about this last night. Glad I’m not the only one.
For me it's everytime I try and unlock my door in the dark.
hi harris bomberguy! i've watched this video dozens of times- it was my go-to to calm down from panic attacks for many years. i just had a baby and my hands are often full, and i guess since youtube knows i love this video it gets autoplayed a lot. my baby falls asleep as soon as he hears your voice. something about the way you scream at steven moffat really calms this kid down. thank you ^^
I’m always pleased to read new comments every time I boomerang 🪃 over to this video and I’m extra glad to read a kind story like this one.
Good luck out there and I hope you get to sleep well sooner rather than later.
❤ Your baby and I use the same sound to fall asleep to
glad to know there's no age requirements to using hbomb video essays to fall asleep :,)
that baby's gonna grow up to be moffat's finest hater let's go 💪💪💪
I've been using Harris voice to chill and listen as a background to relax for 3 months now listening to his long format videos on repeat. Literally same.
Sherlock's sister being revealed by Moriarty is honestly a wasted opportunity. If they had been revealed to have been married, his death would have left the door open for her to be Moriarty after taking his name.
As someone who regularly removes his wedding ring to clean house I'd hate to see what Sherlock would think of me.
Clean people are all serial adulterers. That's just basic common sense.
I feel the question is why would you even care about the opinion of someone who is as much of an ass as this Sherlock is.
you're cheating with the swiffer
I'll be honest, that swifter bit made me snort peppermint tea all over my notebook.
I just rewatched the whole scene.
Sherlock does not deduce that she is a serial adulterer just by looking at the ring. The woman's jewelry is all clean except for the wedding ring, which is pretty old (+10 years).
Therefore he comes to the conclusion that she is unhappily married, since she does not clean the ring regularly like her other pieces. I personally think that this in fact does make sense.
However, you may be right that taking of a ring regularly is not necessarily a sign of adultery, yet taking all other things into consideration the conclusion Sherlock comes to is not that unrealistic as you want it to be.
Edit: Later in this scene he explains that, judging from her fingernails, she does not work with her hands so taking off the ring must have another reason.
It was just a throwaway line, but “not everyone bad in the world has to be working for the main villain” is unironically a great rule for worldbuilding
honestly its better that way, in worldbuilding i dont think even half of the villains in a story should be related to the 'big bad'
i think one of the greatest examples of this is Hama in Avatar
I think it depends. A good example of where this does work is XCOM 2.
The whole premise of the game is that you were utterly crushed in the first game. As opposed in other games, where the good guys winning is the canon ending, in XCOM, you canonically lose in the first game. And when I say "lose" I mean complete subjugation of the human race by aliens. The XCOM organisation is beaten in two months, and all governments have either surrendered or were violently subdued.
It's not a matter of humanity maybe having a chance, ADVENT won. In every sense of the word. They control everything. Now, you're tasked with waging a guerilla war against them. No more waiting for the aliens to attack you, XCOM is now on the offensive, liberating humanity.
In this kind of universe, where the bad guys literally control everything, every aspect of the government on Earth, an omnipresent, omnipotent force to which everything "bad" is tied to it, I think is a beneficial aspect of the story.
Obviously, for a more personal conflict like that in Sherlock this makes little sense, but as with every other trope it depends on the context you use it in.
That‘s way OG Sherlock Holmes series is amazing. Nearly every villain/antagonist is completely independent and has a goal on their own. I still love Moriarty in many adaptions, but I always get annoyed when Irene Adler works for (or is 🙄) Moriarty, they never even met in canon! I swear, if I ever create a Holmes adaption, Adler and Moriarty will be enemies!
This was kinda the lore in the GDR, btw. (Socialist, east Germany)
Imperialism caused people to do crime. Imperialism is the end Gegner.
Well... somehow there were still crimes in socialism, who would have thought.
"Moriarty's definitely dead!"
"How did you figure that one out?"
"Elementary, my dear Watson. I watched him shoot himself in the brain from about six inches away"
"Genius!"
the thing about the boomerang that drives me insane is that apparently “and then the stream washed it away!” the boomerang is very clearly stuck in the mud on the very edge of the stream bank and there is no visible current
I would sell my soul for the unedited footage of the Hounds of Baskerville Mind Palace scene. Just Cumberband waving his hands around wildly without context, ending with him snapping his head back three times like his soul was executed in the Astral Plane.
Thank you for this mental image
"you ain't nothin"
He does the same thing as dr strange in infinity war
now i want it too
I know we don't know each other but I love you
I'm convinced Moffatt had a real, definite explanation for Sherlock's death the whole time, and then someone theorizing on the Internet happened to nail exactly what he had planned. Then Moffatt found it and said, "If those plebs can figure it out, then IT'S NOT CLEVER ENOUGH. I MUST BE THE CLEVEREST BOY." And into the incinerator it went.
I'm 100% sure you're right.
Careful! If he sees this he's going to come up with a new explanation and tweet it just to prove you wrong
It's funny because the showrunners on Westworld actually admitted they did exactly that when writing season 2. I think George RR Martin said it best...
"Before the Internet, one reader could guess the ending you wanna do for your novel, but the other 10,000 wouldn’t know anything and they would be surprised. However, now, those 10,000 people use the Internet and read the right theories. They say: “Oh God, the butler did it!”, to use an example of a mystery novel. Then, you think: “I have to change the ending! The maiden would be the criminal!” To my mind that way is a disaster because if you are doing well in your work, the books are full of clues that point to the butler doing it and help you to figure out the butler did it, but if you change the ending to point to the maiden, the clues make no sense anymore; they are wrong or are lies, and I am not a liar."
@@McSuperfly101 I was thinking of this exact quote
Same thing probably happenned with Game Of Thrones and D&D ;D
The "not everyone bad in the world is making for the main bad guy" notion is also really fun to play with in DnD campaigns, as most players have been conditioned to think bad guys are somehow connected to the main antagonist. So to find out a gang of bad guys are totally unrelated to the main threat is a nice change of pace and fun to play with their expectations.
I've always described Moffat's writing as a thin sheet of ice on top of a big lake of slurry. If you just slide over it on your belly, just going along with it, it's a nice and fun ride. But the moment you stop, the moment you sit up and start thinking about the things you're seeing, you break through that thin layer of entertainment, and now you see the shit it's been hiding. Sherlock is very entertaining, as long as you don't ask any of those silly questions like "why?" or "how?" or even just "huh?".
And that was even the case with the popular stuff he wrote, like the Weeping Angels. The moment you start to think about things like "Why don't the characters even try to smash them with hammers?", it falls apart.
Well the Weeping Angels were shown in their second appearance to be able to regenerate from damage so maybe they don't want to waste time
i swear the doctor says something like the stone that they turn into is unbreakable which is why it's the most perfect defence system in the universe or whatever he says
Nah, don't pull "Blink" into this - the angels can't be broken. It's canon.
Actually the angels are never states to be unbreakable, just "quantum locked" (whatever that means) which means that their only alive when your not looking... Which makes me wonder why characters don't try blind firing at them with their eyes closed
To be fair to Moffat on that one, I believe being 'quantum-locked' prevents them from being hurt, since they only exist when they aren't being observed. You can't hurt something that does not exist.
But in later stories, he twisted up the Weeping Angels and their rules so much that they don't make any sense anymore.
I mean, in Moffat’s defense, hating his fans is probably the only thing about Doyle’s legacy he got right
underrated comment
Wow that's gold buddy
what's the tea sis I wanna know
@@lavendelchen arthur conan doyle, the writer of Holmes, really hated that he was known almost exclusively for his Sherlock Holmes stories. He wrote tons of other stuff, I think it was mostly historical fiction or something, and he resented that people focused so intently on his pulpy crime fiction really ticked him off, and he came to resent the fans of the series for basically forcing him to write more Sherlock. A quote from him goes something like "If people only remember me as the writer of Sherlock Holmes, then I will have failed."
@@lavendelchen He also literally killed Sherlock just to put an end to it and force people to stop making him write it, so that he could focus on the stories he actually wanted to tell. Those stories never seemed to work out, and he very reluctantly brought Sherlock back a DECADE later because people wouldn't stop hounding him anyway.
I think one of the biggest issues is that Moffat sees himself as Sherlock, not Watson. The majority of the audience and myself view ourselves as inserts to Watson as the normal but not stupid person, but due to Moffat's mid-life crisis he thinks he is Sherlock and that screws up the whole structure.
Oooh, yes, so true!
TinyTeacup He has the same problem with doctor who and the companion.
Everybody wants to be batman, nobody wants to be robin.
the question here should be: how long will he continue to have his mid-life crisis?
nihilistic telephone
Well, he's only 55, and given how life expectancy is increasing all the time...oh dear it could go on for a while
I think it's good to remember that most of the diehard fans of Sherlock at the time were in their mid-teens. It's easy to say Sherlock was bad in retrospect, but when you're 15 and Moftis keeps responding to your community's theories telling you you're smart, it's hard to reconcile that when they turn around and spit in your face.
The episode where they refused to explain HOW sherlock faked his death was their first irredeemably bad episode if you ask me. They even spent half that episode poking fun at their own fans for caring and wondering about HOW sherlock did what he did. It's so insulting to the audience to actively mock them for caring about the "how". Such a lazy cop-out to never negotiate your way out of the very corner that you wrote yourself into. Compare this laziness to Breaking Bad, where the writers would deliberately write themselves into a corner and then work hard to somehow pull off a convincing escape for Walter White.
It was Sherlock's amazing cinematography, soundtrack, editing, visualization style, and performances that blinded me to its bad writing.
MAYBE MORIARTY WAS WORKING FOR THE BOOMERANG-
the government got to him before he could finish his comment. damn shame, i have a hunch he was onto somethi-
@@deceptivelysmallman wait a mo, what were you about to say? I'm getting a feeling there's something to all this we've been miss-
@@shoepixie I think I've finally figured it ou-
Oh no! I must warn everyone about the boomera-
Oh god, they're all disappearing! I must tell everyone, it's the boomera-
After season two I wrote a fanfic where Sherlock had a secret sister, but at least in my story Sherlock actually knew his sister existed.
Out of curiosity, how did you come to that idea?
Blue Life literally: “man wouldn’t it be cool if Sherlock and Mycroft had a secret sister that they didn’t tell anyone about bc she was a criminal” I still lowkey feel like Moffat stole from me...
@@aHamBroth honestly that sounds like a better story than most of Sherlock. Out of morbid curiosity could you drop a link?
@@aHamBroth That idea sounds very interesting, and I'd like to second the request for a link.
Blue Life I may regret this, and please remember I was 16/17 when I wrote it, but here ya go: m.fanfiction.net/s/10154072/1/Another-Holmes
Moffat is the only man who can make people hate Sherlock almost as much as his own creator.
I love how one of the key jokes of Moffatt’s Doctor Who charity segment ( “we will explain later”) became his core philosophy with everything else he ever wrote
He became his own parody
the one redeeming quality of the final problem (bbc version) is that john watson is finally relatable to the audience:
-shouts a lot
-unconscious at least twice
-rather be drowning
Also, he yells at Sherlock a lot and calls on his BS. He was the only reason I watched half the time.
that's why i liked the books better, even the Robert downy jr. movies...
Watson in general serves a purpose and even contributes to the story...he is not Sherlock's sidekick he is his partner.
In this series they set Sherlock up to be so perfect and able to figure out or think ahead in every situation that when they try and have something for Watson to do it feels forced...i mean if Sherlock can out think himself out of this, and or get out of that, whenever Watson must help him, it feels contrived or like the writers have to go out of their way to write away Sherlock's enhanced abilities to give the "gimp" a chance to play.
@@mckenzie.latham91 it's because Watson is the reader's point of view. He's meant to be the person that asks the questions you have.
Lm
@@mckenzie.latham91 Even for medical clues. He has to remind Watson that it takes time for signs of tetanus to show. In the first Watson is only there because Sherlock wants to force Watson on the police. (His name doesn't matter, he only matters because Sherlock wants him there. "Why am I here?" "to make a point"). Later, even though Watson couldn't recognize possible signs of pregnancy, he could tell the difference between a dead man and a living person. In the "best name speech" we're supposed to be touched when Sherlock mentions that. I'll bet there are lots of people who can tell that - you don't need medical training.
I FIGURED IT OUT!
THIS VIDEO IS SEASON 4 EPISODE 4
It's certainly the right length.
It's actually longer then an episode xd
THAN* ffs why do so many people do that
who cares
Ah, that would explain why it's so shitty
I thought it was stupid how in the first couple seasons he could tell what someone ate for dinner based off the shoes he was wearing but couldn't tell Mary was one of the bad guys later on...
For me, the worst thing about this series is how they are an absolute desert character wise. Didn't notice it that much upon first viewing a couple of episodes, but then, when contrasting it to Elementary it was truly appalling how there's absolutely nothing, nothing going on with the characters.
Sherlock in the novel was intelligent because he learned. Sherlock in the show is smart because he's Sherlock
Warning: long rant.
Yeah, I remember Sherlock being the way because he was SO damn dedicated to detective work. He'd spend days not eating or drinking in his work or maybe spend several days in disguise, setting up a completely different identity for the sake of a case. He wrote articles on identifying cigarette ashes and advised Watson and investigators to read up on historical cases.That was why it was believable when he had the "Baker street irregulars" or could believably charm a woman into an engagement, because he was completely dedicated to everything related to crime. This Sherlock just internalizes a lot of Holmes' hard earned knowledge and effort into the "Sherlock scan", which feels like his innate ability. He also internalizes what was previously a motive into just a character trait, like him not having too many friends or any interest in romance due to his freakish obsession with cases, to quirks or his own social hangups/awkwardness. So it doesn't make sense why he has a 'homeless network' when he's such an overbearing dick to people, when the OG would go to any trouble for the sake of being a better detective.
And it doesn't make sense when he's able to trick a girl into a relationship because he couldn't trick his best friend into liking him.
@@jodhod1498 watch elementary.. its much better
Isn't it established that he's been doing experiments (in his kitchen, no less) in order to have all sorts of information?
@@jodhod1498 Elementary does all of these aspects way better imo. He is dedicated to his work and frequently doesn't sleep or eat while focused on a case, his Irregulars have been repurposed as a collection of acquaintances with greater expertise than he has in various subjects that he consults when needed, he begs for favors from hackers and does humiliating things to himself in order to get their help. He also has written those same treatises on cigarette ashes and similar things, and makes Watson read them as part of teaching her how best to help him; it's implied that the articles are mainly seen as a joke by the few other people who know about them but they clearly provide evidence in many cases.
Also, in making him an addict they took a very realistic path with it; it's explained that he started as a way to improve his abilities on cases, but then turned to stronger drugs and more drugs to provide effects, started to rely on them to cope with existence, and eventually became unable to continue with his work because of them- this eventually pushed him to recovery and eventually sobriety, which he maintains with a great deal of struggle and which is never shown to become easy, he's still consistently afraid he'll become unable to continue his work to the level he desires without drugs, *or if he returns to drugs*. The catch-22 is very realistic and creates a dilemma he struggles with several times throughout the show.
And why should we assume that the Sherlock in the show is not learned? He obviously acquired knowledge to be where he is. I mean you wouldn't question a real life prodigy, but since it's TV you don't wanna believe.
every time i fumble plugging in my phone charger im haunted by that scene in the first ep where sherlock uses a beat up phone port to reason that someone is an alcoholic
you know Sherlock reasons on the balance of probability which is where a lot of his deductions come from. an alcoholic with an unsteady hand making the scratches is the most likely scenario not the only one .
No. No, it's not the most likely scenario.
when i fumble with my phone charger it's because it's a micro-USB and I always manage to attempt to shove it into my phone the wrong way up. Every time.
Teddy McKrell SAME! lmao 😂
Teddy McKrell this is real this is me
Pretty surprised you thought Mary was a good addition in the first place. I thought it was incredibly cheesy and contrived that Watson's GF just happens to be a secret agent to make the show more action packed.
Mary was a good addition when you're looking at the rest of the dumpster fire in front of you
@@Hyena_Heckler Ehh I mean she was the beginning of the full downfall. IMO the wedding episode is the first truly terrible episode.
I liked her as a character. Her history being weirdly contrived is really not so bad when in context to Sherlock and the weird shit he and the other characters get up to.
Just to comment on Mary Watson being cut off seemingly randomly, Amanda Abbington and Martin Freeman actually separated in real life during filming, so those two actors didn't want to meet eachother during the process and I suppose Moffat thought it's easier to have her die instead of carving out her own path while carefully moving through the minefield of keeping those two as part of the main cast who never interact or meet with one another.
Although she does die in the original canon. It's almost a whisper though, barely mentioned. All the stories are recollections of Watson and at one point he mentions "a sorrow" and at another point he's given up his practice and home and moved back into Baker St. I believe she passed away during Sherlock's absence following the Reichenbach Falls incident, so really Sherlock had nothing to do with her passing (we can only infer an illness).
She is a protagonist in the Sign of Four, gets a few brief mentions here and there in some subsequent stories, then never again. They never had children. She was gentle and soft and that's what Watson fell for. Not a former assassin with a whole deceptive backstory.
Amandington is a bit of a reactionary IRL, from what I remember of her Twitter
It's understandable, but also that's why it's generally good casting advice not to cast people in a relationship with each other. Not a hard and fast rule, but it's a good way to prevent drama from affecting the production.
@@acecat2798 I agree with that, also Hbomb's point about Moffat getting to work on shows with his wife and mother-in-law proves how tiny and insular British TV has become seems apt when you think about *how* Martin Freeman's then-wife got cast in the first place... I mean, it's clear he got her the role, right?
So let me get this straight... a man whose career has proven his best writing is single one-off stories and not overarching plots, gets a series of one-off stories and decides to make them into an overarching plot. Moffat really doesn’t know his limitations, does he
This is literally the truest thing ever known to man, Moffat passed up an opportunity to make a better show that would’ve utilised his best skill but he’s too busy writing a story about his Benedict cumberbatch self-insert
But then he wouldn't get a million pats on the back by people who wouldn't know good writing if it discovered a safe room by deducing it from a sloped floor. Fuck all the people who enabled him.
I feel kinda sorry for him: just because you're doing the original job well enough to earn a promotion doesn't mean you'll be able to handle the added responsibilities after that promotion. And most workplaces aren't set up to handle that kind of self-discovery.
Almost everyone seems to agree that he's a good writer but a lousy show-runner.
@@sd-ch2cq yep. Promoted to his position of incompetence, but once he’s there he can’t just be busted down until he chooses to leave.
@@kaitlyn__L The Peter Principle in action
Am I seriously watching an almost 2 hour long video made over 3 years ago dissecting a show that I stopped watching 5 years ago?
You're doggamn right, I am.
Dont worry. I actually came back to watch it again for some reason😂
That's fine, That's just 2020
Indian smh
Same.
Praise the algorithm
I consider myself lucky. I binged the first 4 episodes of Sherlock while wine drunk one evening and had a great time, and then never got around watching the rest. It was a nice relaxing experience.
Yeah, you are lucky 😄
Now tell me why I thought Sherlock was a 50+ episode show this whole time lmao. It only has 15 episodes??? THIS is what the "lock" in superwholock was, a 15-episode show?
Each episode has 1 hour and a half, they’re praticly movies
@@sarabsd. But compared to the other two shows, it’s not remotely as long
It almost feels like, deep down, I knew all this already. I just...didn't want to accept it.
Fuck you, Steve.
Martina Ochsner YEAH! SCREW STEVE!
Yeah, I've been in denial most of the time...
+kucingsalting Same here, and I almost miss it, they say ignorance is bliss
STEVE HOLT
It's quite funny that John Watson is meant to be the POV character for the audience, yet he ALSO gets almost nothing to do, just like the viewers.
And gets abused constantly. Just like the audience.
@@carloschell986 My favorite part of Sherlock Holmes adaptations is when they make Sherlock treat his best, really _only_ friend like complete shit and a total buffoon instead of an intelligent, capable doctor who was in the Queen's army during at least one war.
Cause like, he was autistic or something, and us autistic people don't understand emotions so we treat everyone around us like crap! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Yaaaaaay, so progressive!
@@Shenaldracdude I hate 99% of autism representation in media. I'm not even autistic (as far as I know) but I just feel bad for y'all, because I know most of you guys are awesome :)
@@Cam_Can_Play Thanks :)
@@Cam_Can_Play Thank you, as an autist I‘m really happy to read this^^
Best quote from this video: "when I start making shorter videos every month I'll start breaking these up" yeah how's that comin
'I swear to god I didn't edit this in' was honestly absolutely necessary and I appreciate you including it, because I was on the edge of looking it up because it didn't look like something you'd do but also... lol
“how did you find me?” “i’m sherlock holmes”
it’s poetic how well that line encapsulates how poorly moffat understood the point of sherlock as a character
I agree entirely. Moffat makes Sherlock this all knowing being and its just such a good way to totally ruin what makes Sherlock Sherlock. Its almost like he made the series without even reading the books and instead based the show on cliff notes or some shit.
@@humanperson9480 yeah i would be wholly unsurprised if it turned out he made the series without reading the books and just going off of his impression of the cultural figure who most ppl remember simply as “a cool smart detective guy”
It would make sense not to tell HER. The "I'm Sherlock Holmes" is dumb though
It's basically like when you're young and your parents tell you something or to do something without explaining/elaborating why. You don't understand and so naturally ask them and the response is "because I said so" or "because I'm your mum/dad". It's just to shut people up without having to really answer and it doesn't help the person you're telling to understand.
That's essentially what the showrunners did on Sherlock - treated their audience like children, feeding them hyper-specific details when they wanted to show they were smart, then handwaving them away when they couldn't explain their own logic. The main difference is that parents don't know the answers to everything in the world, but someone in charge of a series should be able to answer their own questions and explain the logic of a world they themselves created (their adaptation of the novels).
@@MatthewDevil It is even worse, because he clearly read the books, because he writes in so many "references" to the books that make no sense. He thinks he can do better. He cannot, 9 times out of 10.
Whoever's responsible for the English subtitles of this 2-hour video deserves a Nobel Prize.
L and LovelyMetalHead, apparently
Pulitzer
@All Flatards Are My Bitches One day I want to win the Nobel prize in knitting.
They do
@Kay Pompeii its been a month, YOU LIIIIIEEEDDDDDDD
I didn't have a problem with the boomerang reveal, but when I first saw it I was still incredulous that with the police searching for the all-important missing murder weapon, it was just down the river next to the body, not even hidden by anyone. If the police had just checked downriver for a weapon, the case would be solved instantly.
Do you know what the funniest thing is? Is that Moffat and Gatiss genuinely believe they're geniuses, and they single-handedly wrote the best Sherlock Holmes adaptation ever. They're convinced Sherlock Holmes was nothing before them, and their "improvements" in the stories somehow award them ownership over the character. Like, they genuinely believe they own Sherlock Holmes. To the point that they view any other adaption as a ripoff and WORSE as a personal attack on their show and the character. The level of delusion of these two showrunners is ASTOUNDING. Moffat and Gatiss think they fixed Sherlock Holmes, like he was nothing before them, like the stories were not massively popular and influential before they created the show. They think it's thanks to them that Sherlock Holmes has his status as a cultural icon. And that's just really sad.
Honestly, this is why I couldn't really get into the Matt Smith era of Doctor Who. It always seemed like Moffat was more interested in glorifying his own writing than putting any care into the Doctor himself or the 50 years worth of lore.
Not sure where they gave off the impression that they believe those things (I don't follow this show or the showrunners), but I bet it doesn't help that the fandom makes it seem like this show is god's gift to viewers. I have never seen this show but references to it were absolutely unavoidable in fandom spaces during its run. I was half convinced it was a love story with the way fans went on and on about sherlock and watson. It was so popular that I was actually surprised to find people disliked it.
@@genericplantlife Pretty sure a lot of that is fandom myth, tbh. Not as sure about Gatiss, but Moffat is far too self-effacing to consider himself a genius at all. I think he gets far too much stick in the Doctor Who and Sherlock world, IMO, when other writers do similar things and get praised for them.
Obviously, YMMV, but I think it was always just the 'cool' thing to hate on Moffat and Gatiss and so people are/were always trying to find the smallest things to make their case, sometimes even if it was contradictory or false. (Like, wow, for example, the amounts of quotes attributed to Moffat that were actually not even things he ever said was A Whole Thing that just got super tiring after a long while. I mean, I'm in no way saying the man is perfect, but I also don't think he's the devil so many people paint him to be).
Gonna need a source for this claim, chief. Pretty sure you hallucinated it. Moffat is a bad writer but he never claimed he owned sherlock or was enraged by other versions.
This sounds like some wild haterism, my friend
Ironically “people always give up after three” pretty much sums up the fourth season
xD
Oooffff....... That hurt right there. I think I just got hit in the head by a fucking boomerang, right there, I felt that.
Im not sure how everyone else feels, but I really enjoyed the baskervilles' episode
I remember reading an old greentext that said that Sherlocks writing sucks because the writers dont know how to tell the difference between smart people and actual wizards
Thinking about it, it's kind of surprising how many authors (everyone from Ayn Rand to Mark Millar to Terry Pratchett) write "super intelligent" as "they read the authors notes and know everything that's going to happen in the story", resulting in bland ciphers who just suck all their tension out of the story whenever they appear. How do they know this? They're smart. Why didn't their opponents just do or say [blindingly obvious thing]? They're smart. Why does the entire planet appear to follow their script? They're smart. If they actually had the super-power to predict the future, they'd be more plausible.
@@paulgibbon5991 Do you happen to have any examples from Pratchett? I'm having trouble thinking of any, but your thesis sounds reasonable.
@@paulgibbon5991 Can add Steven Erikson to that list. He has a character called Tehol Beddict who operates in exactly the same way. We're continually told he's one of the most intelligent people alive, but he never does anything smart, nor explains anything, he's just always right because the plot says he is. Like a lot of this kind of character he's also smug, rude and condescending. And it's repeatedly made clear that he possesses no magical or divine abilities despite both being common among other characters in the books.
@@aaronwebb1548 Not Paul but Lord Vetinari operates this way, and it gets worse as the books go on and Vetinari gets hyped more and more with less and less explanation of how he's managing stuff beyond handwaves about being a "master of diplomacy and deception" (we basically never see him do either). Of course being a Pratchett character he's a lot more fun that these types usually are.
@@alexwatters2411 Excellent example, thank you so much.
HBG videos always suck me in with "wow, I can't wait to see him shit all over this thing", but also always leave me with a feeling of "I can't wait to go and check out these better things!" And I love that.
I can't get over how cringe i was when Elementary was first announced. I kept touting how much better BBC Sherlock was, making fun of Elementary, just to have me... binge Elementary instead 🤣
Elementary and the Enola Holmes movies are my favorite versions of Sherlock.
There's a moment in the novels where Holmes bought 2 tickets to John's favourite play as an apology for using him in exposing a criminal. John notes that Holmes dislikes this particular play, and Holmes agrees but says something like it will be worth it to see you enjoy it. I cannot ever imagine Cumberbatch's Holmes doing something thoughtful for Watson like this.
Aww that’s sweet
Yeah almost every other interpretation of holmes even something like the RDJ films shows that Sherlock does have a heart he just has difficulty expressing a lot of emotion like in those films where Sherlock acts like a dick to mary cause he thinks that if he gets married they won't be friends anymore. Like sure he's an ass sometimes but he isn't a sociopath
@@joshuawright4198 plus, RDJ's Holmes has the "discombobulate" scene, which is fucking gold
@@joshuawright4198 That’s because Sherlock is meant to be high functioning autistic but in this series he is portrayed as a high functioning sociopath which changes his character completely.
@@sukiosartchannel3689 Yeah I found that change kind of offensive to autistic people since that just creates more stigma as Sherlock Holmes is one of the best pieces of Asd representation
Secret good episode open:
Sherlock has a virtual reality helmet removed from his head. There stands James Moriarty alive and well. He reveals it is actually the 22nd century and introduces robot Watson.
The good ending
So *that's* what happens if you choose the green balloon.
And then Sherlock has to team up with his canadian great great great great great grand niece Shirley to solve crime
M I’ll l I’ll ll M m Mmudi m I’ll m ml m m m m m . Mm m m m m m I’m m l l C l m.
Unfortunately it ends with Robot Watson ripping off his suit and revealing he was Sherlock's secret sexy kung-fu dominatrix sister in disguise before being killed by a boomerang that's in love with Sherlock.
I spent a lot of energy (ok maybe not a lot but still) trying to explain why Moffat having an obsession with the Doctor's epic cool badassness ruined Doctor Who and how making him a god that's the center of the universe made him actually a lot less interesting. If you keep repeating over and over how much a character is strong, cool and mysterious, you don't get a strong, cool and mysterious character, you get a Steven Seagal character. You don't want a Steven Seagal character. The only difference with Steven Seagal is that the Doctor is goofy and silly, which makes it somehow cringier.
Dude, every time this pops up in my recommended feed, I read the thumbnail as "Sherlock is Cabbage", without fail. My brain is broken dawg.
I'm laughing at this way more than I should
I keep wondering about Moffat's reaction to the Secret Fourth Episode theory. Imagine you're a showrunner for a widely praised tv show, you release a new season, the critics immediately turn on you and start talking about how terrible it is. and then the fans rush to your defense... by insisting the season is SO bad it MUST BE FAKE and don't worry, the actual good episodes will totally come out any minute now. I cannot imagine a more humiliating fan reaction. The fact that Moffat seemed to think the fanbase was beneath him is the cherry on the schadenfreude sundae.
I wish his reaction was to step down and hand things over to someone else because evidently very few people liked his show at that point.
That's one of the funniest coping mechanisms I've ever heard. I wasn't aware of this theory during Season 4 because I just completely lost interest and quit reading any of the updates. This is freaking hilarious. I've seen many fanboys cope with terrible movies / shows but this one takes the cake.
@@TomCruz54321 To be fair, the show did this previously - where they would provide an explanation for something in line with the original books - and then say - "Haha suckers, you actually believed that dumb explanation. This is the correct explanation." Eg - the plot about Moriarty finding a secret code to hack into all computers, and then saying - lol no, that's such a cliche, it's not true. Or there were moments which you think are real - and then are revealed as fake scenarios happening in a dream or someone's imagination. Or them implying Moriarty is back, only to reveal - nah.
So the die-hard fans probably thought the showrunners were intentionally giving them a bad ending - and then will reveal it to be a - "haha suckers !!! that was just a dream in Watson's head" - or something like that.
Only problem with this being - they genuinely believed there was some deep 4D chess going on, rather than recognizing these - "subverting expectations" - as cheap soap-opera-ish gimmicks from the get-go.
I recall the game Metal Gear Solid V had a very similar fan reaction. The second chapter is generally agreed to be a poorly cobbled together mess of padding culminating in rehashed content - likely stemming from production issues, and the director and the publisher having a big falling-out - but the fans were expecting much more, so there was plenty of speculation about how the "real" chapter two and three were going to be added as post-launch content, with people coming up with all sorts of stuff from datamining, developer art and other unreleased content. There was a fun bunch of players thinking a patch was going to release on 9/11 anniversary, because you can see a picture of WTC in some of the unreleased material. The other side of the most ardent fan base went into the exact opposite direction of cope by claiming the second chapter was bad on purpose and "subverted expectations".
tbh games are more likely to add stuff nowadays than a tv series@@DaPsykopaatti
"This ring is removed often meaning she must be sleeping with other men *constantly* " This just in, according to the writers of Sherlock, most people don't regularly remove their rings when doing things like: sleeping, bathing, swimming, yard work, exercise, applying lotion, etc!
It was more that she kept all her other jewelry clean... But not the wedding ring. Granted, those clean pieces could just be new. But... Yeah that's how he got the unhappy marriage thing. She take VERY good care of her jewelry. But not her wedding ring, for some reason. Ergo, unhappily married.
@@AnxietyRat right though! it doesn't make much sense because there are sooo many other reasons. Maybe the other jewellery is new? maybe she doesn't like cleaning sentiment things because it loses the sentience? (have met people like that) MAYBE, she is in an unhappy marriage, and prefers not to wear the ring because of that, not because she's having an affair.
They try to many times to make something out of nothing :/
@@AnxietyRat But couldn't that also be explained by her wearing her wedding ring on a regular basis compared to her other jewelry, so it gets worn and dirty more often than she cleans her jewelry??
All in all I agree with UsernameNotFound that it's a way too insignificant a detail for Sherlock to conclude the victim was an adulterer.
@@AnxietyRat
The show should be call "How to misunderstand deduction and induction logic".
Sherlock is a bad scientist in the late 2000's BBC iteration, is hard to believe that a character defined by his understanding and talent to use inductive logic within the literature canon is no different that a conspiracy thinker in this version.
She takes her ring off a lot... She must make a lot of hamburger and doesn't want to get raw meat under her ring.
Sherlock is written like someone was told to create a detective story based off House. And all they were given from the books was a list of names
I like how Hbomber reuses the enphasis of "piques" 29:19 in the Plagiarism video later. His mother must be very proud.
There's something funny to me about how there's *Psych,* a show where the main character fakes having psychic powers but actually is just really good at noticing small details and putting 2 and 2 together, and then there's *Sherlock,* a show where this dude is seemingly very good at noticing details but honestly might actually be psychic with how many times he makes wild accusations that are somehow correct.
well, you see, Psych knew not to be absolutely insufferable
I KNOW, YOU KNOW. THAT I'M NOT TELLING THE TRUTH!
Psych is unironically a better Holmes adaptation than Sherlock.
Mentalist honestly felt more sherlock for me too. Felt more believable for me to exist , while sherlock feels more fantasy.
Lol, that's true. Also Psych is pretty good and fun, for those who don't know.
I feel like the joke of "Oh I just slipped a tracker on you" would have actually worked and be really funny if the rest of the series involved him actually using reasoning to solve anything.
I thought the exact same, that joke would have landed so well with the exact same setup if the rest of the show was actually a mystery show
Agreed! As a one-off it would have been really funny, but at that point it was just another instance of the show not bothering to write a smart solution for something.
Moffat's entire bread and butter is moments and scenes that are great in isolation but fall apart when held against the greater whole.
Juxtaposition is incredibly important in misleading the audience before a punchline.
Wasn't there a similar scene in the original SH stories? I remember there was one instance where Sherlock would make some educated guesses based on the client's appreance before delivering the punchline of seeing some sort of card off the tray with info about that client. It was funny.
Benedict cumberbatch waving his arms around like he’s conducting an orchestra with his eyes closed is fcking hilarious
"and everyone wishes they were being killed by a fucking boomerang" is iconic
I wasn't really a fan of Mary but the moment that broke the series for me was her death from a gunshot wound infront of her husband. Her husband who is a combat medic. You know, the sort of person used to treating gunshot wounds.
Myrrh - Yes this was totally weird,. Watson is an army medic and he is known to work especially well under pressure. It is utterly stupid to let her die like this.
Ugh, I know, right? I try to look at it as him knowing just by looking at the wound that there's nothing he can do, except even if that were the case, I would think that considering he's her husband he would stop at nothing to try and save her anyway. Would be just as dramatic, if not more so, if he tried to do SOMETHING and she still died anyway.
She's also superhuman enough to walk in front of a speeding bullet but not superhuman enough to not die from it.
I mean if it hits an artery or major organ, theres not much he could have done... some people get shot 7 times and dont die while someone gets shot once in the leg and dies before they reach the hospital. True stroies by the way
Also true however that combat medics have in the past saved people who've been shot in the heart and if an artery is hit, there are things that can be done. It's incredibly serious of course. I mean JFK was alive when he reached hospital. Watson standing by and not even _trying_ anything... It smacked of the utterly ridiculous, particularly given how long she took to die.
I love how Moffat is more sexist than a novel written in the 1800s
😂
So true
Backwards would be more appropriate.
@Richard Tsai Its interesting how concepts get escalated over time. Back then, ankles were as stimulating as T&A is today, and slight visible blood, average by our standards, was hardcore back then.
@@ramenbomberdeluxe4958 and its even more weird when going even further back, voilence was acceptable, like all of the fairy tales with scenes so graphic they would be considered try hard edgy today.
It hurts how Moffat seems to think that being 'smart' means being unpredictable.
Intelligence has nothing to do with predictability. Oftentimes, creating a 'smart' plan means creating an inevitable one, entirely independent of whether or not the subject knows the plan or not.
That's not even beginning on the fact that he thinks 'smart people' are just human encyclopedias. Like, no, I'm pretty sure every 'smart' person I know doesn't read obscure Wikipedia articles for fun and memorize the dictionary every Saturday.
Sounds like classic "let's get everyone to watch every episode by drip feeding a storyline" as opposed to "let's get everyone to watch every episode by making compelling episodes"
I think it's funny how they rub in your face that Sherlock is so smart but the twist is that he forgot a whole member of his family and his whole best friend
Intelligence and memory are mutually exclusive
but fuck is that a retarded twist
I guess this is called a "trauma" or something but I think it's just fake news. sounds a lot more like some fictional garbage than a real illness.
@@gurkenschnitzel5998
No you can have repressed memories of something traumatic. But I doubt that Sherlock would forget he had 3 siblings and not 1 (In the Books there's Sherlock, Mycroft, Eurus, and Enola) Every single one smarter than the previous sibling, the last 2 somehow managed to vanish entirely from the memories of their family and control some crime syndicates i think
@@Neo2266. As far I know, only Sherlock and Mycroft are considered canon, though. Enola is a creation of autor Nancy Springer, not Arthur Conan Doyle. And Eurus... Well. We know who created THAT mess.
had to make room for all the smart.
I cannot express how sinister and awesome the "Do you like drugs Mr. Holmes? ... Most people would have passed out by now" bit really is and what a shame that it's not the Sherlock episode that we got...
Moffat unwillingness to show a more vulnerable and therefore interesting side of Sherlock is one the most frustrating things about the show.
Sherlock is more like a superhero in the 2010 BBC version that an actual human being.
@@kirasussane1556 A highly functional superhero..
@@kirasussane1556 most superhero stories show the weakside of their superheroes too.
@@pphyjynx8217 that’s the thing, it’s not even a good super hero story, it’s the kind of superhero a child comes up with. “This is mr smart man, he’s super super smart and always wins and no one can ever beat him”
God this makes me so, so sad too. That first episode was BEAUTIFUL, both in construction and aesthetic. It makes a lot more sense and I adore it. Its so painfully sumptuous, dark, glorious. God that's sad. And the taxi driver so so so so so so much better as a villain on his own than it being fucking moriarty, which cheapens the wonderful acting, absolutely sinister delivery, and fantastic portrayal of the actor who plays the taxi driver. Ugh.
Worst thing about the boomerang for me, is that's so obviously one of those cheap, painted up, mass produced little novelty ones from the airport gift shops here in Australia. They're designed to be displayed on your wall and they barely work. If it had been some custom made gigantic deadly looking carved boomerang, or maybe a sharpened aluminium one or something, at least that would have been a tiny bit plausible.
my grandad got a sick (like, nauseating, not cool) scar on his back bc his friend threw a bigass metal-edged boomerang and it wound round and hit him in the back lol
@@alicepersson9568 Oh that sounds nasty. Would have been a better idea for the show - just take a real life boomerang injury and copy it.
A good mystery should give you most of the pieces, but not let you easily put them together, until when the hero assembles it in front of you and you go "Ahh, yes, that makes sense!"
Or you could keep the pieces in a backroom, and the guy shows up with it assembled and says "I did that."
Or they can glue the pieces together, regardless of if they fit.
Or say a BOOMERANG DID I-
Yesterday I read a Sherlock Holmes short story where a guy says his new wife has been seen feasting on their baby but of course vampires don't exist and she would never do that, so he asks Sherlock to investigate. Sherlock absolutely doesn't believe in vampires, but he also says that his methods aren't perfect, that they are very good and he is very clever but he also might make a mistake. At the end, he explains the woman was saving the baby from the poison of a weapon she brought from her country, and that the culprit is the guy's first son he had from his first wife.
What really hit me is that Sherlock understands why the woman didn't say anything: the guy would have never believed her is she said his older son, whom he adores, wanted to kill his newborn son, and he wouldn't have understood that she was applying the knowledge of her native country to save their baby and was no vampire at all. Sherlock actually understands a person's line of thought and empathizes with her.
My reaction upon reading this was "Moffat's Sherlock would have never done that, he wouldn't have admitted his method still might fail and he would have never tried to understand someone else".
KyrieFortune link please?
@@fukkthisnewupdate8882 I read it on a vampire themed anthology, it's called "The adventure of the Sussex Vampire" and you can read it here gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100291h.html
Sherlock Holmes is generally a lot more endearing in book form. They seem to really dial back his eccentricities, insecurities, expressiveness and overall humanity for TV and movies. Unfortunate as these traits are what make the character likeable. Being 'smart' and 'good at solving crimes,' aren't traits that the audience is going to form an emotional connection with, turns out.
@@wayward203 Yeah, I was surprised at how much of an insufferable genius canon Sherlock Holmes WASN'T. I honestly think this is tv adapters just going "Oh, genius? Must be an ass, Hollywood teaches us you can't be smart and likeable at the same time".
@@antonioscendrategattico2302 I still love the part in the one story where Watson gets hurt and Holmes freaks out.
Fuck it one more complaint: Moriarty's genius in this show seems to manifest purely in that he's got a third of the population of London hired as snipers
Rowan Atkinson heh, if you say you're a genius and you have a few million people behind you with rifles pointing at the person you're telling it to; they're not going to disagree 😂
Hahahah
So many Snipers, holy shit.
Rowan Atkinson lmao
Yeeeeeeaaah, in a country with such restrictive gun laws, in which a common person is only allowed a shotgun and/or a hunting rifle and use, sale, and ownership laws are strict even for airsoft or _imitation_ guns, I'd have thought there'd be a _lot_ smaller market for hired snipers willing to tote their high-powered man-killing rifles into a highly-secured, heavy-surveillance major urban center and point said extremely loud guns at residential buildings. I don't follow UK news much, so a Brit's going to have to fill me in: was there some kind of... incredibly weird recent recession or scandal or something resulting in the Army having to dump a hundred snipers _so_ fast they didn't have time to take their guns back, or is it just _really_ easy to convince a London Metropolitan cop you just bumped into in the park that the high-powered military-caliber sniper rifle you've got strapped to your back is for _literal_ snipe hunting?
I never watched Sherlock because I was an Elementary girlie from day one but damn I didn't expect Sherlock to be such a pile of hot garbage lol. That being said, please go watch Elementary y'all. It's so good. I recently re-watched it for the 5th time or so and it does hold up!
I loved elementary. Sherlock is truly much more likeable.
@@megabradchad8721 It's honestly such a great show. Tbh I started watching it because of Lucy Liu but I stayed because of the great writing and character development. The relationship between Watson and Sherlock was also so refreshing to watch. Also Clyde hehe 🐢
Hello fellow Elementary girlie!! I will keep defending that show until the day I die.
@@indefinitestew6346 Same! It's such a great show but unfortunately not talked about enough. I've watched many crime shows but I don't think any of those could even come close to Elementary.
I genuinely used to watch “Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century” as a kid, to the point that people thought I made up the animated show because it was so niche
Even as a kid I thought it was an absurd premise, but I did watch snippets of episodes. All I remember is that there was something about a lady pretending to be a werewolf(?) but she gave herself away because she had trendy nail polish that got caught on tape.
i don't have the attention span to watch films but i have watched an 110 minute long video about the tv show sherlock four times
It’s all in the presentation. Says a lot about films with respect to your particular quirks & tastes.
same.
Seriously! I keep coming back to this
didn’t realize other people do this lmao
same I can't stand most movies if I've seen them even one time before but I regularly rewatch hours long videos about why some old game or something is bad.
Something most people don't know about the original Sherlock Holmes stories:
Holmes isn't a mega genius. He's a smart, well read, well practiced, and astute man. He even states that his brother is FAR more intelligent than he is, but Mycroft is a lazy layabout who prefers desk work.
How these character traits are lost on writers is baffling to me.
It's pretty notable that as the series goes on, Watson starts being familiar enough with Holmes methods that he can also start making deductions about the clients that come through the door. What Holmes does is entirely teachable to someone of sufficient intelligence, it's not just being so "smart" that he's beyond everyone else. There's actual techniques involved, and somehow this gets ignored in favour of "big brain man too smart".
We know he's not a mega genius because he's addicted to cocaine
Imo most of the fun of sherlock holmes is precisely that hes kind of just a normal guy. smart! but not some psychic einstein. the only trait that sets him apart is that he /pays attention/ in a world where most people gloss over details, and that lets him connect seemingly disparate pieces of information. it gives you the feeling that if you just thought of things the right way you could do it too, so the audience is in almost friendly competition with sherlock as you try to piece together the information you're given faster than he does.
I'm not sure where this quote is from and someone probably already commented it on this video, but it's probably more applicable here than anywhere:
"Stupid people trying to understand complicated problems will often come to the conclusion that the solution is magic."
There's even one story where he makes a completely wrong deduction and tells Watson "If I ever start to get too overconfident remind me of this case Watson"
if a good sherlock adaptation is something that is episodic and contained within its episodes, then, mofatt who is good with writing oneshots, ironically may have been one who could make a good adaptation if he wrote sherlock like he was writing a bunch of oneshots.
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock in such a way that his methods literally influenced the early adoption of forensics. Moffat "it's magical MIND powers!"
Every time I see any references to BBC Sherlock, I think about that one time I tried to explain queerbaiting to my sister, and I was fully prepared to need to have a long, drawn out explanation, but then I said “you watched Sherlock right?” and she said “…oh I get it” and the conversation ended
there are things you don't want your tv show to be the reference for. queerbaiting is certainly up there.
@@alexander_markovski Kinda should be the top 3 in my opinion
@@NerveUnderscore in no particular order: queerbaiting, "it's only downhill from season 2", bury your gays, making fun of fans in the show, and "romantic" characters who are really just possessive/toxic/cruel are probably my top 5 red flags
@@alexander_markovski Oh, yeah. I'm with you with all of them. Except for the horrible character IF the writers show that the bitch IS a bitch and should get a spoon of their own medicine at some point in the show (even if they are in a romantic relationship of some sorts, you know like showing that this relationship is toxic amd should not be romanticized)
@@NerveUnderscoreso what's number 1 and 2?
i cannot get over the scene of cumberbatch sitting in a chair waving his hands around with pictures flying past his face
‘His mind palace’ 🙄
Doctor Strange foreshadowing
Honestly that’s a small nitpick, i mean, it’s not like it affects anything in the story, it’s just a creative way to express his thought process.
It’s not far fetch he’s reminding the papers he spent time reading, and thinking them over more to try come up with a conclusion.
I understand if it might stretch someone’s suspension of disbelieve, but i find it another creative way to show his ‘mind palace’ in the original setting without re-using the same effects.
@@jeom3808 i don't think cumberbatch's acting pulls it off imo. he just looks silly waving his hands around
@@jeom3808 Yeahhh it doesn't come off as him moving through his "mind palace," or showing his thought process in a visual way for the benefit of the audience (which the floating images and words would've achieved without him waving his arms around), or even "it's boring to watch a guy standing still for an extended period of time so let's have something happen," it comes across as a guy doing the worst vogue ever.
Imma do time stamps since they don't exist and also cause I'm watching this like the 6th time and thus am an expert on this.
0:00 Prologue
2:42 Intro (Evangelion reference )
3:07 Who is Steven William Moffat and why is he so gaad (good + bad)
7:14 Why Moffat does not understand Sherlock
10:34 MOORIIARTYYYYYY (guys it's called foreshadowing and its smart)
14:35 Moffat and Jekyll
19:28 Thesis Start
27:14 Mofat's special boi Sherlock and why that does not work
39:29 Moriaty (the foreshadowing pays)
47:06 The Style over the substance
55:10 The travesty of this adaptation and Side characters
1:04:16 THE SCENE and why the story actually sucks.
1:08:54 The 404 and the conspiracy
1:26:00 Stupid ending episode
1:34:27 Why is it ACTUALLY like this?
1:40:47 Conclusion (yes I plagiarized this timestamp from Hbomb )
This exercise of timestamp making made me pay more attention to Hbomb's video. I finally watched a complete Hbomb video rather than just having it play in my ears and like, this is different and even more engaging. I wanna do this with even more of his videos, it's actually like experiencing these videos for the first time.
That's sounds rlly cool, and I'm glad it provides something nice for you! Hope you have a good time doing this w/ more videos (＾▽＾)ﾉ
Doyle: Sherlock is a smart guy who can occasionally come off as a bit cold or rude but is generally good and takes on cases because he enjoys helping people
Moffat: I zoned out but I heard cold and rude so that works for me, let’s make it his entire personality