|
Post by Sara on May 1, 2012 21:40:22 GMT -5
That was the impression I got, mainly from this discussion of the episode and Moffat's work (I haven't watched it yet myself, but was accidentally spoiled for it before I saw the article). I've been going back and forth on the overall question of Moffat's sexism or lack thereof. On the one hand, some excellent points are made supporting the contention that he has some sexist tendencies. On the other hand, he brought us River Song, who is made of awesome. So, yeah, I have no idea what to think. You know what irks me? Is the sense that if one complains about it, we're pedantic and living in a fantasy world where we think these characters are real. Which is such a cop-out, because we all consume a vast amount of media, invite it into our heads, and yes, it can have an influence on how we think. Here's where the problem lies, I think, and it's a problem SPN has as well. There are not enough female characters to provide a decent range of representation. I'm not trying to kill the fictional impulse, or dictate what an author should write. But Joss (and it always comes back to Joss) offered a WHOLE RANGE of female characters on Buffy, Firefly, and Dollhouse (Angel, not so much, which is why it sometimes fell prey to some of these issues). If one female character came off as, for instance, man-hungry or looks-obsessed (early Cordelia) it was balanced by another who was book-smart and socially awkward (Willow), or one who is smarter than she thinks, has agency, and kicks ass (Buffy). In shows that are SO male-dominated (SPN, Sherlock), when a female does appear, it is hard for her not to end up a caricature (Bela/Irene as the "femme fatale" or Jo/Molly as the sweet girl who harbors an unrequited crush for the hero [although to SPN's credit, Jo Harville ended up developing beyond that dimension, to some extent]). That's what I find a bit troubling about Moffat's Sherlock: the women that are there come off as shrill (like the female detective, Sally Donovan), motherly (Mrs. Hudson), or sweet (Molly)...but what else are they? (And that's not even getting into the fact that Sherlock's response to Sally was to basically slut-shame her. Yikes.) Does that mean I hate the show? Not at all. The source material has some serious issues as well. (The Sign of Four? Holy CRAP is it racist.) As for River Song...well, that's a WHOLE other story, and this is turning into an epic post. I would probably say that my favorite Moffat-created female character is Sally Sparrow. She took control, she wasn't man-obsessed or defined by a relationship, and she had female friends. I agree: Sally Sparrow is pretty awesome too, for all the reasons you described. And she was the story's hero, while the guy was the sidekick—that was a really nice change of pace for a series in which the main female character is always the sidekick. All I ask is that you not burst my River Song bubble tonight—it's been one of those days already.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 1, 2012 21:50:26 GMT -5
You know what irks me? Is the sense that if one complains about it, we're pedantic and living in a fantasy world where we think these characters are real. Which is such a cop-out, because we all consume a vast amount of media, invite it into our heads, and yes, it can have an influence on how we think. Here's where the problem lies, I think, and it's a problem SPN has as well. There are not enough female characters to provide a decent range of representation. I'm not trying to kill the fictional impulse, or dictate what an author should write. But Joss (and it always comes back to Joss) offered a WHOLE RANGE of female characters on Buffy, Firefly, and Dollhouse (Angel, not so much, which is why it sometimes fell prey to some of these issues). If one female character came off as, for instance, man-hungry or looks-obsessed (early Cordelia) it was balanced by another who was book-smart and socially awkward (Willow), or one who is smarter than she thinks, has agency, and kicks ass (Buffy). In shows that are SO male-dominated (SPN, Sherlock), when a female does appear, it is hard for her not to end up a caricature (Bela/Irene as the "femme fatale" or Jo/Molly as the sweet girl who harbors an unrequited crush for the hero [although to SPN's credit, Jo Harville ended up developing beyond that dimension, to some extent]). That's what I find a bit troubling about Moffat's Sherlock: the women that are there come off as shrill (like the female detective, Sally Donovan), motherly (Mrs. Hudson), or sweet (Molly)...but what else are they? (And that's not even getting into the fact that Sherlock's response to Sally was to basically slut-shame her. Yikes.) Does that mean I hate the show? Not at all. The source material has some serious issues as well. (The Sign of Four? Holy CRAP is it racist.) As for River Song...well, that's a WHOLE other story, and this is turning into an epic post. I would probably say that my favorite Moffat-created female character is Sally Sparrow. She took control, she wasn't man-obsessed or defined by a relationship, and she had female friends. I agree: Sally Sparrow is pretty awesome too, for all the reasons you described. And she was the story's hero, while the guy was the sidekick—that was a really nice change of pace for a series in which the main female character is always the sidekick. All I ask is that you not burst my River Song bubble tonight—it's been one of those days already. Hee! No River Song bubble-bursting! I like River Song...it's not the character's characteristics that bugs me, it's her environment.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 1, 2012 21:50:57 GMT -5
Oh, and for bad days.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on May 1, 2012 22:06:57 GMT -5
Oh, and for bad days. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 14, 2012 12:22:03 GMT -5
Midshipman Frame!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 14, 2012 12:24:15 GMT -5
I must say, The Hounds of Baskerville worked much better for me than "Scandal." That's the way you update a story; it wove in the elements of the original in an intriguing way. Need to rewatch for deeper thoughts. More later.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on May 14, 2012 12:56:56 GMT -5
I must say, The Hounds of Baskerville worked much better for me than "Scandal." That's the way you update a story; it wove in the elements of the original in an intriguing way. Need to rewatch for deeper thoughts. More later. I'll admit, while watching "The Hounds of Baskerville" it took me a while to get past my personal amusement that the guy who played the werewolf in Being Human had a starring role in an episode about a seemingly demonic canine. It's been too long since I read the original story for me to comment on how well it works as far as updates/re-workings go, but this ep kinda dragged along a bit for me, especially in the middle part. Which, granted, could partially be because I'd just watched the jam-paced Once Upon a Time finale, but it also seemed like after getting off to a fun and intriguing start (loved watching Holmes deal with nicotine withdrawal), once Sherlock and Watson got to Baskerville itself the episode's forward momentum came to a near-standstill. With "A Scandal in Belgravia" I found myself in the weird position of enjoying the episode quite a bit, and yet really disliking their take on the only person the original Sherlock Holmes never outwitted. It's too bad they couldn't have taken a lesson from the source material and realized it's okay if your protagonist isn't always right—and that those occasional losses (or stalemates) actually make the victories more meaningful. Plus, it would have been nice to have had a strong, independent female character who didn't need rescuing show up in a series that's been very male-centered to date. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 14, 2012 13:57:49 GMT -5
I must say, The Hounds of Baskerville worked much better for me than "Scandal." That's the way you update a story; it wove in the elements of the original in an intriguing way. Need to rewatch for deeper thoughts. More later. I'll admit, while watching "The Hounds of Baskerville" it took me a while to get past my personal amusement that the guy who played the werewolf in Being Human had a starring role in an episode about a seemingly demonic canine. It's been too long since I read the original story for me to comment on how well it works as far as updates/re-workings go, but this ep kinda dragged along a bit for me, especially in the middle part. Which, granted, could partially be because I'd just watched the jam-paced Once Upon a Time finale, but it also seemed like after getting off to a fun and intriguing start (loved watching Holmes deal with nicotine withdrawal), once Sherlock and Watson got to Baskerville itself the episode's forward momentum came to a near-standstill. With "A Scandal in Belgravia" I found myself in the weird position of enjoying the episode quite a bit, and yet really disliking their take on the only person the original Sherlock Holmes never outwitted. It's too bad they couldn't have taken a lesson from the source material and realized it's okay if your protagonist isn't always right—and that those occasional losses (or stalemates) actually make the victories more meaningful. Plus, it would have been nice to have had a strong, independent female character who didn't need rescuing show up in a series that's been very male-centered to date. Ah well. I think "Hounds" improves on rewatching, and within the context of the series as a whole. It's hard to be the "middle" episode; because of the short seasons of the show, it seems as if the second episode in both seasons seemed oddly paced, but necessary in context. "Scandal" was action-packed, and in light of next week's episode, it kind of makes sense why it resolved the way it did, although I still don't like it. What I felt "Hounds" did well was the "feel" of how it worked with the original. You have the haunted protagonist (Henry Baskerville/Henry Knight), the doctor who is his friend/therapist (Mortimer, in both cases), with the Baskerville research site and Frankland in particular repesenting the Stapleton character within the original, who was a well-known entomologist. Mark Gatiss, interestingly, said that rather than make it a ghost story, as in the original, he thought that in the current era, conspiracy theories are scarier to the general public. I thought he made an excellent case for it with this episode.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on May 14, 2012 14:55:34 GMT -5
I'll admit, while watching "The Hounds of Baskerville" it took me a while to get past my personal amusement that the guy who played the werewolf in Being Human had a starring role in an episode about a seemingly demonic canine. It's been too long since I read the original story for me to comment on how well it works as far as updates/re-workings go, but this ep kinda dragged along a bit for me, especially in the middle part. Which, granted, could partially be because I'd just watched the jam-paced Once Upon a Time finale, but it also seemed like after getting off to a fun and intriguing start (loved watching Holmes deal with nicotine withdrawal), once Sherlock and Watson got to Baskerville itself the episode's forward momentum came to a near-standstill. With "A Scandal in Belgravia" I found myself in the weird position of enjoying the episode quite a bit, and yet really disliking their take on the only person the original Sherlock Holmes never outwitted. It's too bad they couldn't have taken a lesson from the source material and realized it's okay if your protagonist isn't always right—and that those occasional losses (or stalemates) actually make the victories more meaningful. Plus, it would have been nice to have had a strong, independent female character who didn't need rescuing show up in a series that's been very male-centered to date. Ah well. I think "Hounds" improves on rewatching, and within the context of the series as a whole. It's hard to be the "middle" episode; because of the short seasons of the show, it seems as if the second episode in both seasons seemed oddly paced, but necessary in context. "Scandal" was action-packed, and in light of next week's episode, it kind of makes sense why it resolved the way it did, although I still don't like it. What I felt "Hounds" did well was the "feel" of how it worked with the original. You have the haunted protagonist (Henry Baskerville/Henry Knight), the doctor who is his friend/therapist (Mortimer, in both cases), with the Baskerville research site and Frankland in particular repesenting the Stapleton character within the original, who was a well-known entomologist. Mark Gatiss, interestingly, said that rather than make it a ghost story, as in the original, he thought that in the current era, conspiracy theories are scarier to the general public. I thought he made an excellent case for it with this episode. If I ever rewatch the ep, I'll definitely make it a point to at least skim, if not reread, the original; I'm pretty sure an entire generation has graduated college since I last laid eyes on any of Doyle's works.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 14, 2012 15:05:22 GMT -5
So.
I'm not doing any deep analysis just watching from an "entertain me" viewpoint.
That said:
I enjoyed the Irene Adler ep and don't recall the original story well enough to know whether it departed too much or not. Wasn't bothered by any overt feminism (or non-feminism) issues but I'm from a different era and my antennae are rarely up.
However, I did have very strong feelings about the 2nd ep and Sara put if far more kindly than I would have: filler, filler, filler, filler. Oh my gosh. Jim fell asleep and I got so bored I went and cleaned the kitchen. The hallucinating scenes (esp with Watson) just went on way too long for my limited attention span and I wasn't crazy about the the editing or directing that dumped me into scenes and I couldn't figure out where they were coming from.
Homes and Watson enter the facility and then with no explanation at all Watson is alone ...
Don't know. Just didn't work for me at all.
I'd like to see more linear deducing instead of filler, filler, filler, exposition in under 90 seconds of everything I was figuring out in my brain where you (the viewer) couldn't see or follow it.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 14, 2012 15:07:06 GMT -5
I must say, The Hounds of Baskerville worked much better for me than "Scandal." That's the way you update a story; it wove in the elements of the original in an intriguing way. Need to rewatch for deeper thoughts. More later. I'll admit, while watching "The Hounds of Baskerville" it took me a while to get past my personal amusement that the guy who played the werewolf in Being Human had a starring role in an episode about a seemingly demonic canine. It's been too long since I read the original story for me to comment on how well it works as far as updates/re-workings go, but this ep kinda dragged along a bit for me, especially in the middle part. Which, granted, could partially be because I'd just watched the jam-paced Once Upon a Time finale, but it also seemed like after getting off to a fun and intriguing start (loved watching Holmes deal with nicotine withdrawal), once Sherlock and Watson got to Baskerville itself the episode's forward momentum came to a near-standstill. With "A Scandal in Belgravia" I found myself in the weird position of enjoying the episode quite a bit, and yet really disliking their take on the only person the original Sherlock Holmes never outwitted. It's too bad they couldn't have taken a lesson from the source material and realized it's okay if your protagonist isn't always right—and that those occasional losses (or stalemates) actually make the victories more meaningful. Plus, it would have been nice to have had a strong, independent female character who didn't need rescuing show up in a series that's been very male-centered to date. Ah well. the part in red. And I didn't watch OUAT until this morning (wowza!)
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on May 14, 2012 15:38:43 GMT -5
Visited. Nothing much to say, since I didn't watch the entire ep. What I did watch was disjointed, from my view and difficult for me to remember what the original story contained so I couldn't follow it as well as the Irene Adler ep.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2012 0:50:52 GMT -5
I guess I'm in the minority on this one; I really liked it (The AV Club review was with you guys; they gave the episode a C-). I thought the disjointedness worked in the context of how they retold the story, and enjoyed the way they weaved the allusions to the original story into this one, particularly the Grimpin Mire into the Grimpin Minefield, where in both cases, the antagonist meets his death.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 15, 2012 7:19:15 GMT -5
I guess I'm in the minority on this one; I really liked it (The AV Club review was with you guys; they gave the episode a C-). I thought the disjointedness worked in the context of how they retold the story, and enjoyed the way they weaved the allusions to the original story into this one, particularly the Grimpin Mire into the Grimpin Minefield, where in both cases, the antagonist meets his death. One man's juice is another man's vinegar (or something, haven't had my coffee yet). And I'll be the first to admit that I have fairly plebeian tastes in all forms of art -- and "uneducated palate" perhaps. Recall that Mad Men also is too slow for me.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 15, 2012 10:59:45 GMT -5
I guess I'm in the minority on this one; I really liked it (The AV Club review was with you guys; they gave the episode a C-). I thought the disjointedness worked in the context of how they retold the story, and enjoyed the way they weaved the allusions to the original story into this one, particularly the Grimpin Mire into the Grimpin Minefield, where in both cases, the antagonist meets his death. One man's juice is another man's vinegar (or something, haven't had my coffee yet). And I'll be the first to admit that I have fairly plebeian tastes in all forms of art -- and "uneducated palate" perhaps. Recall that Mad Men also is too slow for me. Nah. We all like what we like; I wouldn't call your taste plebian. We all have things that appeal to us and not to others, not to mention things that bother us that don't bother others. I didn't mean to make you feel like you were wrong!
|
|