Thanks for your thoughts, I really liked going through them.
A line that stuck with me from the "Iron Lady" movie was when Maggie said, "Do you know what's wrong with this country? There's too much feeling and not enough thinking." I felt like that about Sherlock.
Ironically (she said, using it in the modern and not-really-classically-correct manner), one of the writers' problems is that they had to spend so much time on the actual plots of the whowherewhatwhyhow, since they took their inspiration (of not their interpretation) so directly from Doyle stories, that they left little time or space in the story for believable presentation of those feelings. They had to stuff them in, when what they should have done — what they clearly wanted to do — was explore them in a more leisurely fashion. Had they done that, then the FEEEEELINGS! would have been more realistic within the setting for me and, perhaps, less hard to digest. Something that's properly integrated into the conceptual meal is perhaps less bulky and uncomfortable whilst digesting.
Can you tell me a little about Birdsong? BBC? ITV? American cable?
Many of your remarks, for me at least, apply equally if not more so to the Doctor/River ship in DW.
The things that make the Doctor/River relationship more believable, for me, than the John/Sherlock relationship are a) that it took place within a framework that is avowedly skiffical, fantastic and even fairy tale, honestly stating 'We are in a paradigm that is unreal, and you must experience this with the help of ellipses and magical thinking,' something for which the putatively "real" world of Sherlock didn't allow; and b) the Doctor/River storyline stretched across enough time, and showed me enough Doctor-River developmental moments, brief as they were, that I could fill in the gaps in a way that I could not with Sherlock.
no subject
A line that stuck with me from the "Iron Lady" movie was when Maggie said, "Do you know what's wrong with this country? There's too much feeling and not enough thinking." I felt like that about Sherlock.
Ironically (she said, using it in the modern and not-really-classically-correct manner), one of the writers' problems is that they had to spend so much time on the actual plots of the whowherewhatwhyhow, since they took their inspiration (of not their interpretation) so directly from Doyle stories, that they left little time or space in the story for believable presentation of those feelings. They had to stuff them in, when what they should have done — what they clearly wanted to do — was explore them in a more leisurely fashion. Had they done that, then the FEEEEELINGS! would have been more realistic within the setting for me and, perhaps, less hard to digest. Something that's properly integrated into the conceptual meal is perhaps less bulky and uncomfortable whilst digesting.
Can you tell me a little about Birdsong? BBC? ITV? American cable?
Many of your remarks, for me at least, apply equally if not more so to the Doctor/River ship in DW.
The things that make the Doctor/River relationship more believable, for me, than the John/Sherlock relationship are a) that it took place within a framework that is avowedly skiffical, fantastic and even fairy tale, honestly stating 'We are in a paradigm that is unreal, and you must experience this with the help of ellipses and magical thinking,' something for which the putatively "real" world of Sherlock didn't allow; and b) the Doctor/River storyline stretched across enough time, and showed me enough Doctor-River developmental moments, brief as they were, that I could fill in the gaps in a way that I could not with Sherlock.