The Sherlock BBC series, set in modern London, turns an astounding number of… let’s go with “brainy types” into raving fans, but I’m not actually sure why. There’s nothing particularly rationalist about it, they’re standard detective stories with Sherlock making impossibly precise deductions. The mysteries are fiendishly clever, though; the writers come up with plots that are still surprising if you’re familiar with the tropes and the particular stories they parallel.
Characterization is probably the biggest appeal. Holmes is a high-functioning sociopath (his words) and an insufferable self-centered brat (not his words) who slowly defrosts over the series; his love for showing off makes exposition very palatable. Watson is competent, and he knows it; he’s solid under stress, a quick thinker, and an excellent marksman; he admires Holmes, but he doesn’t hesitate to stand up for himself (a poor choice of words, since he’s lame at the beginning of the series). The relationship between the two is a big focus of the series, with Watson learning to deflate Holmes’s melodrama and becoming used to his putting-human-eyes-in-the-microwave antics, Holmes learning nonzero social skills and a scrap of concern for others, and way too many gay jokes. Moriarty is… not like you’d expect.
I love the way Sherlock’s thoughts are shown, and the editing of the whole thing, but then again I fall over myself squeeing “The Musketeers of Pig Alley uses follow focus YOU GUYS” so take it with a grain of salt.
Overall the show is not subtle (“He’s a storyteller! GET IT? GET IT?”), but the acting is (Martin Freeman has an expressive forehead. How does one have an expressive forehead?), and so are some of the references to the original stories. The jokes are funny without taking over the story, though if you’re prone to vicarious embarrassment some might hurt a bit. Cumberbatch and Freeman rather cute, if you’re into that, as is Pulver in the second season if you’re into that.
Be wary of the fandom; it produces excellent fiction and art, but the characters are badly distorted in them, much more prone to express themselves through angsty confessions than through banter about Chinese food.
show text messages and similar, so the camera is pointed
at a person rather than a device
It may seem a bit gimmicky at first but I’d like to see it
become more common. (Maybe it will as more and more people
become used to bits of text popping up over people and
things in video games and, eventually, augmented reality.)
The show has a high-quality bromance, if you are into that. The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon/Leonard relationship could have had that, but the sitcom format gets in the way. And also the fact that American humor is generally inferior to British humour.
Oh, and Moriarty providing comic relief, while still being competent and scary is a nice touch.
Hypothesis 1: It only seems that way. Due to survivorship bias, American audiences are only exposed to the best British humor. Possible test: see if British audiences rate American humor higher than British humor. (I anticipate the answer being no, though.)
Hypothesis 2: The process that cultivates American comedic talent is flawed compared to the process that cultivates British comedic talent. I think the process that cultivates American comedic talent is comedy clubs. Possibly these excessively encourage pandering to the lowest common denominator. I have no idea what the process that cultivates British comedic talent is. Possible test: look at comedians who were cultivated in one country but attempted to find success in the other. (I anticipate sample size being an issue.)
Hypothesis 3: Due to cultural differences, Americans find British people saying funny things to be funnier than American people saying funny things. May be hard to distinguish from Hypothesis 1, as it may also be true the other way around. Possible test: find something humorous that has been performed by both British and American comedians. (I can’t think of anything like this off the top of my head.)
Hypothesis 4: It only seems that way to you. Due to cultural differences, British humor appeals more to high-IQ people and American humor appeals more to low-IQ people, and you are generalizing excessively from a small sample of you and people you know. May be related to Hypothesis 2. Possible test: ask people on the street whether they think American or British comedians / shows are funnier. (May be many confounding variables.)
I suspect that British culture in general tends to value a sharp sense of humor more highly than American culture. Bill Bryson, a writer who’s lived about half of his life in each, wrote that in his experience a British man would likely be less offended by being told he was a terrible lover than that he had no sense of humor, whereas in America he found a sense of humor to be treated as more of an optional extra.
I think the comment you’re replying to was just a reflectivity fail on my part
Story time: my girlfriend asked me “why is British humour funnier?” and I wondered for two seconds and forgot about it. Then I saw shminux’s comment and it reminded me so I just asked, and the assumption that British humour IS better was smuggled into my brain because it was embedded in the question I was asked. I probably meant something more like “why do I tend to like British humour better”, and now it seems like a stupid thing to ask here. So I’m probably going to lean towards hypothesis 4 unless I learn something new about their culture or television networks.
Heh. I’m not really sure if all of that was worth sharing but I felt like I’d caught myself being silly so I felt an impulse to publicly admit it.
Eh, I enjoyed the gay jokes. There was like… one an episode? Which isn’t a lot when you remember there are only six episodes, but is a lot when you realize it’s one an episode.
I love the way Sherlock’s thoughts are shown
I really liked this when they did it, but I also thought they did it rather inconsistently. In some of them, they highlight all the clues, and you can draw the inferences (I chided Sherlock through my screen for not getting it in A Study In Pink); in others, they don’t highlight them, and it’s easy to feel like Watson (Hover for spoiler.).
More than that, I think two or so an episode. There are three in the first (Mrs Hudson, Angelo, and Mycroft), and that’s if you count Angelo’s shipping of Johnlock and Sherlock’s clumsy attempt to let John down gently as one joke. Oddly enough, I can’t find a tally, so I’ll keep one on my next marathon.
The jokes are good—anything that causes Freeman to act one of his nine or so flavors of exasperation is automatic comedy gold. I’m just complaining about the frequency.
they did it rather inconsistently
I think the mood dictates that. A Study In Pink is meant to show Sherlock’s abilities, so we can exclaim “Fantastic!” in chorus with John, which is why we get both clue highlighting and expospeak. Baskerville is about Sherlock losing it a little, so making things less clear helps.
I agree that the characters are sometimes dense. In Reichenbach, Sherlock misses or takes forever to get nearly all of Moriarty’s hints, though a large part of it is probably playing dumb. (Moriarty’s last move genuinely surprises him, but he didn’t phone that one in.) My personal theory for his abysmal stupidity in A Study In Pink is that he starts out incapable of any thinking while distracted (e.g. by Anderson’s face) and that improvement in this area is one of the benefits of having a sidekick-caregiver-sober coach.
(I chided Sherlock through my screen for not getting it in A Study In Pink)
I would like to know what he hadn’t gotten—I just watched ASIP, but I had had the plot spoilered.
Obviously, to avoid doing the same thing to anyone else, rot13 or that link spoiler thing you just did would be a good idea.
EDIT:
Regarding consistency, IIRC they only show that he’s checking “wet or dry” on the coat, not what he’s trying to learn, but with the jewelry they show the deduction onscreen, even though he exposits it anyway. (I think I danced around the spoilers successfully there.)
I would like to know what he hadn’t gotten—I just watched ASIP, but I had had the plot spoilered.
Jura gurl jrer jnvgvat ng gur erfgnhenag, naq gur pno chyyrq hc, vg jnf boivbhf gb zr gung gur pnoovr jnf gur crefba gurl jrer vagrerfgrq va, abg gur cnffratre.
The Sherlock BBC series, set in modern London, turns an astounding number of… let’s go with “brainy types” into raving fans, but I’m not actually sure why. There’s nothing particularly rationalist about it, they’re standard detective stories with Sherlock making impossibly precise deductions. The mysteries are fiendishly clever, though; the writers come up with plots that are still surprising if you’re familiar with the tropes and the particular stories they parallel.
Characterization is probably the biggest appeal. Holmes is a high-functioning sociopath (his words) and an insufferable self-centered brat (not his words) who slowly defrosts over the series; his love for showing off makes exposition very palatable. Watson is competent, and he knows it; he’s solid under stress, a quick thinker, and an excellent marksman; he admires Holmes, but he doesn’t hesitate to stand up for himself (a poor choice of words, since he’s lame at the beginning of the series). The relationship between the two is a big focus of the series, with Watson learning to deflate Holmes’s melodrama and becoming used to his putting-human-eyes-in-the-microwave antics, Holmes learning nonzero social skills and a scrap of concern for others, and way too many gay jokes. Moriarty is… not like you’d expect.
I love the way Sherlock’s thoughts are shown, and the editing of the whole thing, but then again I fall over myself squeeing “The Musketeers of Pig Alley uses follow focus YOU GUYS” so take it with a grain of salt.
Overall the show is not subtle (“He’s a storyteller! GET IT? GET IT?”), but the acting is (Martin Freeman has an expressive forehead. How does one have an expressive forehead?), and so are some of the references to the original stories. The jokes are funny without taking over the story, though if you’re prone to vicarious embarrassment some might hurt a bit. Cumberbatch and Freeman rather cute, if you’re into that, as is Pulver in the second season if you’re into that.
Be wary of the fandom; it produces excellent fiction and art, but the characters are badly distorted in them, much more prone to express themselves through angsty confessions than through banter about Chinese food.
I like the use of captions to
show (some of) Sherlock’s observations
show text messages and similar, so the camera is pointed at a person rather than a device
It may seem a bit gimmicky at first but I’d like to see it become more common. (Maybe it will as more and more people become used to bits of text popping up over people and things in video games and, eventually, augmented reality.)
I thought the whole texts above people’s heads thing was refreshing.
The show has a high-quality bromance, if you are into that. The Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon/Leonard relationship could have had that, but the sitcom format gets in the way. And also the fact that American humor is generally inferior to British humour.
Oh, and Moriarty providing comic relief, while still being competent and scary is a nice touch.
“Have you talked to the police?”
- “Four people are dead, there isn’t time to talk to the police!”
“So why are you talking to me?”
- “Mrs. Hudson took my [pet] skull …”
“So I’m basically filling in for your skull?”
- “Relax. You’re doing fine.”
I was thinking about that earlier this week. It does seem that way. Why IS that?
Hypothesis 1: It only seems that way. Due to survivorship bias, American audiences are only exposed to the best British humor. Possible test: see if British audiences rate American humor higher than British humor. (I anticipate the answer being no, though.)
Hypothesis 2: The process that cultivates American comedic talent is flawed compared to the process that cultivates British comedic talent. I think the process that cultivates American comedic talent is comedy clubs. Possibly these excessively encourage pandering to the lowest common denominator. I have no idea what the process that cultivates British comedic talent is. Possible test: look at comedians who were cultivated in one country but attempted to find success in the other. (I anticipate sample size being an issue.)
Hypothesis 3: Due to cultural differences, Americans find British people saying funny things to be funnier than American people saying funny things. May be hard to distinguish from Hypothesis 1, as it may also be true the other way around. Possible test: find something humorous that has been performed by both British and American comedians. (I can’t think of anything like this off the top of my head.)
Hypothesis 4: It only seems that way to you. Due to cultural differences, British humor appeals more to high-IQ people and American humor appeals more to low-IQ people, and you are generalizing excessively from a small sample of you and people you know. May be related to Hypothesis 2. Possible test: ask people on the street whether they think American or British comedians / shows are funnier. (May be many confounding variables.)
I suspect that British culture in general tends to value a sharp sense of humor more highly than American culture. Bill Bryson, a writer who’s lived about half of his life in each, wrote that in his experience a British man would likely be less offended by being told he was a terrible lover than that he had no sense of humor, whereas in America he found a sense of humor to be treated as more of an optional extra.
I think the comment you’re replying to was just a reflectivity fail on my part
Story time: my girlfriend asked me “why is British humour funnier?” and I wondered for two seconds and forgot about it. Then I saw shminux’s comment and it reminded me so I just asked, and the assumption that British humour IS better was smuggled into my brain because it was embedded in the question I was asked. I probably meant something more like “why do I tend to like British humour better”, and now it seems like a stupid thing to ask here. So I’m probably going to lean towards hypothesis 4 unless I learn something new about their culture or television networks.
Heh. I’m not really sure if all of that was worth sharing but I felt like I’d caught myself being silly so I felt an impulse to publicly admit it.
Eh, I enjoyed the gay jokes. There was like… one an episode? Which isn’t a lot when you remember there are only six episodes, but is a lot when you realize it’s one an episode.
I really liked this when they did it, but I also thought they did it rather inconsistently. In some of them, they highlight all the clues, and you can draw the inferences (I chided Sherlock through my screen for not getting it in A Study In Pink); in others, they don’t highlight them, and it’s easy to feel like Watson (Hover for spoiler.).
More than that, I think two or so an episode. There are three in the first (Mrs Hudson, Angelo, and Mycroft), and that’s if you count Angelo’s shipping of Johnlock and Sherlock’s clumsy attempt to let John down gently as one joke. Oddly enough, I can’t find a tally, so I’ll keep one on my next marathon.
The jokes are good—anything that causes Freeman to act one of his nine or so flavors of exasperation is automatic comedy gold. I’m just complaining about the frequency.
I think the mood dictates that. A Study In Pink is meant to show Sherlock’s abilities, so we can exclaim “Fantastic!” in chorus with John, which is why we get both clue highlighting and expospeak. Baskerville is about Sherlock losing it a little, so making things less clear helps.
I agree that the characters are sometimes dense. In Reichenbach, Sherlock misses or takes forever to get nearly all of Moriarty’s hints, though a large part of it is probably playing dumb. (Moriarty’s last move genuinely surprises him, but he didn’t phone that one in.) My personal theory for his abysmal stupidity in A Study In Pink is that he starts out incapable of any thinking while distracted (e.g. by Anderson’s face) and that improvement in this area is one of the benefits of having a sidekick-caregiver-sober coach.
There it is: Tally of Johnlock-teasing jokes in Sherlock, seasons 1-2. Nitpicking welcome. On average, an episode has a little over two jokes.
I would like to know what he hadn’t gotten—I just watched ASIP, but I had had the plot spoilered.
Obviously, to avoid doing the same thing to anyone else, rot13 or that link spoiler thing you just did would be a good idea.
EDIT:
Regarding consistency, IIRC they only show that he’s checking “wet or dry” on the coat, not what he’s trying to learn, but with the jewelry they show the deduction onscreen, even though he exposits it anyway. (I think I danced around the spoilers successfully there.)
Jura gurl jrer jnvgvat ng gur erfgnhenag, naq gur pno chyyrq hc, vg jnf boivbhf gb zr gung gur pnoovr jnf gur crefba gurl jrer vagrerfgrq va, abg gur cnffratre.