Watch A Trailer For Season 4 Of Sherlock

[Primetimer]

New villains! And old! And whichever Mycroft is!

View the full article

[IWantCandy71]

I still think that look on Sherlock's face where he looks rattled/devastated has to do with Mycroft. It just doesn't look like the kind of face he'd pull if it were anyone else. Or maybe it's just my wishful thinking?

Anyway-I do love how Moffat and Gatiss used to harp about certain other versions-namely Elementary-when they themselves have gone so far off the rails with these characters, this is NOT Sherlock Holmes as Doyle imagined it and wrote it. It's far closer now to Downey's action adventure version than the source material.

Elementary was, the last time I watched it,  still the one closest to the spirit of the original stories.

With that said, I'm interested to see the brothers on my screen again. Would like to see a house fall on John Watson and Mary, but you can't have everything.

[SusanSunflower]

yes, unfortunately Elementary conflicts with Masterpiece ... but I've grown quite fond of it, specifically because it's QUIET (even "grown-up" quiet), a feature I've always associated with the old Sherlock Holmes which is part of my annoyance with "Sherlock" ... I like grown-up, well done, simple concept stories -- see also Law and Order which is also quiet, not very violent/bloody but is absorbing and ultimately satisfying (even if the "good guys" usually win).  Hated the acting histrionics of Law and Order: SUV, stopped watching it ever years and years ago ... 

[Winter Rose]

With the exception of maybe a couple new shots and the official release date, is this not just the same trailer from the summer?

Either way, still looking forward to why Mycroft is a "reptile" and hoping the back of Moriarty's head isn't somehow his entire screentime before they cut away, just to prolong the speculating. I like Mary, I hope she doesn't die, but I won't be surprised if she does. It would be so ballsy if they killed off John but not in a million years do I think they'd do that.

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:33 PM, SusanSunflower said:

yes, unfortunately Elementary conflicts with Masterpiece ... but I've grown quite fond of it, specifically because it's QUIET (even "grown-up" quiet), a feature I've always associated with the old Sherlock Holmes which is part of my annoyance with "Sherlock" ... I like grown-up, well done, simple concept stories -- see also Law and Order which is also quiet, not very violent/bloody but is absorbing and ultimately satisfying (even if the "good guys" usually win).  Hated the acting histrionics of Law and Order: SUV, stopped watching it ever years and years ago ... 

Yep-the quiet thing-I agree. The Granada version was very quiet too, and I think Elementary is  a lot like it. Jeremy Brett will always be the ultimate screen Holmes for me, and I think JLM plays his version on Elementary much like Brett did. There's more overt humor in Elementary, but Brett's version has my favorite Watsons ever.

[rereader2]

While for me, the only thing that Elementary has to do with Sherlock Holmes is the character names. Honestly, it's just another detective show.

[IWantCandy71]

That's what Sherlock Holmes is SUPPOSED to be. A detective show.  Nothing more or less. It's all Granada EVER was-and many people agree that Brett/Granada are the ultimate version. This will likely be Elementary's last season, but they've gone on for five seasons and produced some great TV, and they've done it without stupid cliffhangers(with stupid illogical "resolutions") every three episodes. They have nothing to be ashamed of. At least JLM's Holmes is still somewhat similar to ACD's characterization.

 Moffat and Gatiss have turned the character and verse into something the stories never were. Sherlock is now more like Downey's movie version, than ACD's canon. It's not that I can't see the appeal of it. It is just not CANON Holmes anymore, if it ever was.

[SusanSunflower]

Some people really really like shows that they have to (get to) watch 3 times to fully appreciate ...  I like shows worth re-watching, but I don't like feeling so confused and disoriented that I have to watch a second time, and then a third time to make sure that my impression (after the second watching) was accurate ... I feel like the show is demanding to much from me, particularly (I'm talking to You Mark Gattis) when I feel like ambiguities and confusions may be deliberate cognitive "cliff-hangers" of nonlinear narrative variety.  I'm there for the story ... sometimes I can be partially mollified by great or fun acting and gorgeous production values, but in the end, I know if I got a decent story or not. 

4 minutes ago, SusanSunflower said:

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[Winter Rose]

On 11/1/2016 at 8:07 PM, rereader2 said:

While for me, the only thing that Elementary has to do with Sherlock Holmes is the character names. Honestly, it's just another detective show.

I have to agree. I don't care what Elementary does in comparison to Sherlock because despite both being Sherlock Holmes shows, they're structured differently. Not just that Sherlock has less episodes but that the writers say they're more like mini movies, so it makes a comparison between the two shows not quite work for me.

[rereader2]

On 11/4/2016 at 8:03 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

That's what Sherlock Holmes is SUPPOSED to be. A detective show.  Nothing more or less. It's all Granada EVER was-and many people agree that Brett/Granada are the ultimate version.

Not exactly--it's a show about SHERLOCK HOLMES, a specific character. I don't see any of Sherlock Holmes or John Watson in Elementary, but I can see modern projections of the characters in the BBC version.

As for detection...well, the large bulk of the ACD stories are fantastic adventures, but they are terrible mysteries (which is possibly why so many of then have the word "adventure" in their titles). Clues either don't exist or Holmes tells no one about them, Holmes solves cases as much by information only he has (and that no reader could have, not having access to his fictional monographs or research) as by deduction, and some deductions he does make are factually incorrect. But it doesn't matter AT ALL, because the idea of a scientific detective was new and modern and exciting when the stories were written and the adventures were fast and furious and thrilling. And while scientific detection is no longer new, the adventures and the characters are evergreen.

For me, the BBC version is true to the spirit of the original stories, which is what matters to me. But everyone has their own taste in fan fiction, which is what, after all, any work based on someone else's original work IS.

[IWantCandy71]

Even Moffat called the original  ACD stories "detective stories".   He also went on to say that his show would NOT be detective stories (a big clue right there that canon ACD and "Sherlock" have little in common in Moffat's version, straight from the horse's mouth).  He said they would be stories about a detective-which to me is double speak for "I'm going to do what I want and since I've already said they are stories about a detective instead of detective stories, you can't say I'm doing anything against canon". (even though he HAS done lots against canon,(though so has Elementary) but eh. IDC  enough to continue to debate this, TBH.

Anyway-we'll obviously have to agree to disagree. I don't have the time or patience to get into yet another debate about which is more canon, or which is ultimately the better show, between Elementary and Sherlock.  I DO know this: Elementary has pulled off something Gatiss and Moffat would have never been able to do. Yes, some of Elementary's episodes are mundane, but many are not. And quantity doesn't equal quality. But I have zero doubt in my mind that Gatiss and Moffat would never be able to pull off what the show runners of Elementary have done in terms of producing quality television for that many episodes about the same characters.

As I said though, it's an old, tired debate-not one that I care enough about to continue, because there IS NOT a wrong or right, here. Endless back and forth is pointless as far as I'm concerned.

Edited November 7, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 9:23 PM, SusanSunflower said:

Some people really really like shows that they have to (get to) watch 3 times to fully appreciate ...  I like shows worth re-watching, but I don't like feeling so confused and disoriented that I have to watch a second time, and then a third time to make sure that my impression (after the second watching) was accurate ... I feel like the show is demanding to much from me, particularly (I'm talking to You Mark Gattis) when I feel like ambiguities and confusions may be deliberate cognitive "cliff-hangers" of nonlinear narrative variety.  I'm there for the story ... sometimes I can be partially mollified by great or fun acting and gorgeous production values, but in the end, I know if I got a decent story or not. 

I think it's very telling that they have in the past, appeared to talk down to their audience, as if we are idiots, because we do not "get" something they are doing. I know I'm no idiot, and no one here is one, either. Mysteries/plot twists are my favorite story telling, so it's not like I can't follow it-even if it takes a rewatch. But if you are completely confused to the point of irritation, even after a rewatch.......it's the fault of the show. Part of the appeal of so called "clever" storytelling, is that it's "smart", but it should still make sense. And while I liked Sherlock a LOT in series one, even then...it didn't make sense. Sherlock making the leap from "Rache" to it being the dead woman's daughter?

OH, please. It's stuff like that that just drives home how NOT clever the show really is. And yes, as has already been said, a lot of ACD's stuff made no sense, either-but ACD's original "Rache" was logical in comparision to that.

[Bethorz]

Not sure what exactly you're saying with the "Rache" thing, it made sense to me. All Sherlock deduced on that front was that she was trying to write "Rachel", they then tried to figure out who Rachel was and, with research, learned she was the woman's deceased daughter. After that, Sherlock was trying to figure out why she would scratch her dead daughter's name in the hardwood (rather than just thinking about her) and realized it was the password to track her phone and find the killer. Seems a reasonable step in logic for Sherlock Holmes, to me.

There's so much negativity in this thread, I, for one, can't fricking wait for the new season. It's interesting that Elementary is coming up as I am currently bingeing that series (just started season 4) and I really really like it. I readily admit that there are many things it does better than Sherlock (coherent mysteries, more in-depth supporting characters, diversity) but it is a very different show, and I agree with the folks upthread, in that (apart from character names, and very broad themes) it doesn't really have much more in common with Sherlock Holmes than other procedurals named after one super-smart lead (like House). Almost all crime shows are already kind of in the mold set by ACD back in the day,  but as I said, I do really like it as it is. 

I still like Sherlock more, because it isn't a procedural. There's nothing  wrong with procedurals, but they just have a very particular pattern that each episode follows, one that I can often guess. I like that Sherlock it is a character-based action-adventure that kind of does whatever it wants, but I can also see why some people don't like that. I just love the roller-coaster ride, though I admittedly only saw the whole thing when season 3 was airing, so I didn't have years of preconceived expectations to either meet or not.

My take away is that, while I love a good mystery, I find the overarching plot and character-work more interesting, and I think the writers do, too. I love John, I love Sherlock, I love their friendship and I love what Mary added to it in season 3. I love Mrs Hudson and her ridiculous and growing backstory. I can't wait to learn more about Sherlock's past and more about Mycroft and the Holmes brothers' fascinating relationship.

It is not at alI perfect, but I am very interested in the story Moffat and Gatiss are telling. In particular, I'm really curious about the answer to "the big question no one asked".  I can't wait.

Though, I also love the Guy Ritchie films, so maybe my opinion is invalid :D

[Eneya]

A lot of the negativity is mostly due to disappointment in Moffat and Gatiss, imo.
I got really bored with the way Moffat portrays Sherlock since season 2 and I am sticking around mostly because it's so beautifully made and the chuckle here and there. Nobody likes to be talked down... especially by a person who is NOT smarter than the audience, sorry.

[rereader2]

I have to say I totally don't feel talked down to--on the contrary, I feel like they think very highly of the viewers' intelligence and observational skills. I do like a challenging work of fiction.

[IWantCandy71]

On 11/13/2016 at 4:28 PM, Eneya said:

A lot of the negativity is mostly due to disappointment in Moffat and Gatiss, imo.
I got really bored with the way Moffat portrays Sherlock since season 2 and I am sticking around mostly because it's so beautifully made and the chuckle here and there. Nobody likes to be talked down... especially by a person who is NOT smarter than the audience, sorry.

I'm sticking around for any good brotherly love with Mycroft and Sherlock. Their relationship is the only reason I keep coming back.

I think Moffat totally knows he can be condescending towards his audience. It's sad.

Edited November 15, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[Eneya]

Well, I am glad there are people who enjoy Sherlock. Hell, just because something isn't my cup of tea, doesn't mean that's objective or universal opinion. :)
 

14 hours ago, rereader2 said:

I have to say I totally don't feel talked down to--on the contrary, I feel like they think very highly of the viewers' intelligence and observational skills. I do like a challenging work of fiction.

[cardigirl]

I've always enjoyed Sherlock more than Elementary.  To me, Elementary misses opportunities all the time to make the show really GREAT, and often becomes formulaic in its mysteries (most famous guest star is the villain).   I've never had that response to any Sherlock episode.  I am willing to re-watch any Sherlock episode multiple times, but I cannot say that about Elementary.  I had had hopes, when Elementary premiered, that it would be as engaging as Sherlock, but it was not to be.   I love Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu, but feel they have not been given a real opportunity to expand on the relationship.  The supporting cast is great too, but they are never given enough to do.

Of course, this is JMO.  

And also, can't wait for the next Sherlock series.  

[Eneya]

On 11/16/2016 at 4:15 PM, cardigirl said:

I've always enjoyed Sherlock more than Elementary.  To me, Elementary misses opportunities all the time to make the show really GREAT, and often becomes formulaic in its mysteries (most famous guest star is the villain).   I've never had that response to any Sherlock episode.  I am willing to re-watch any Sherlock episode multiple times, but I cannot say that about Elementary.  I had had hopes, when Elementary premiered, that it would be as engaging as Sherlock, but it was not to be.   I love Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu, but feel they have not been given a real opportunity to expand on the relationship.  The supporting cast is great too, but they are never given enough to do.

Of course, this is JMO.  

And also, can't wait for the next Sherlock series.  

 

The last episode was a nice subvert of that practice. Mohinder WASN'T the villain. Dun-dun-DUUUUN!
About the relationship of the two... hm, I have the exact opposite feeling. Weird, huh?

[SusanSunflower]

It is funny because one of the things -- that I think I'm not alone in liking -- is that they have avoided moving that relationship to a new level, avoiding the so-call "Moonlighting effect"  ... maybe it's another "generational" thing ;-)  See also Benson/Stabler on L&O: SUV -- eventually, there's only room in this show for one of 'em 

Edited November 20, 2016 by SusanSunflower

[Peace 47]

I don't know exactly in what thread to put this, but watch a new S4 trailer here.  [Stefan from SNL voice]  This trailer's got everything:  Wet John at the bottom of a well-like space, Mycroft standing in front of a burning house, Sherlock saying, "I love you" to or about someone at the very end (with John and Mycroft standing behind him).  Sherlock in a shark tunnel.

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 10:15 AM, cardigirl said:

I've always enjoyed Sherlock more than Elementary.  To me, Elementary misses opportunities all the time to make the show really GREAT, and often becomes formulaic in its mysteries (most famous guest star is the villain).   I've never had that response to any Sherlock episode.  I am willing to re-watch any Sherlock episode multiple times, but I cannot say that about Elementary.  I had had hopes, when Elementary premiered, that it would be as engaging as Sherlock, but it was not to be.   I love Johnny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu, but feel they have not been given a real opportunity to expand on the relationship.  The supporting cast is great too, but they are never given enough to do.

Of course, this is JMO.  

And also, can't wait for the next Sherlock series.  

No offense, but for the 88th time: these two series really can't be compared. If Gatiss and Moffat had to come up with 24 episodes a year of Sherlock....let's just say one season/series would have been all we would have gotten. If even that. I don't think they could have done that many, even poor episodes.  They don't have an excuse for not making every episode of Sherlock cracking viewing, with two or three years to come up with stuff. I have to say, British television must be REALLY awful, if what Gatiss and Moffat pull out of their hats is the best there is around. Not that there aren't moments of each episode I can't enjoy. But I haven't enjoyed a FULL episode since series one.

As to why I bother even commenting about Sherlock- this is a place for critique(s). I will not lick the boots of Moffat or Gatiss for what I consider to be sub par writing and plotting. Never mind the obvious fan fiction-esque turn this show took in series three. But, in my favor, it IS looking like Mycroft bites it.

One good thing may come of it, after all.

Edited December 12, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[Eneya]

No. British tv series are regularly quite amasing. Moffat and Gatis are butique and they manage to make something many people like. :) This is not the "norm" though.
Yes, the writing is the problem with this show but the visuals is what saves it. It makes turn your brain off and enjoy the pretty, fast talking, smart-sounding (but not really) show. And that is its job anyway. :)

This is mostly Moffat. I have watched other shows of his and it is the same... it even has the same characters, lines of dialogues and ideas. :) (Jekyll, Coupling, his run of Doctor Who, etc.).

[IWantCandy71]

Quote

It makes turn your brain off and enjoy the pretty, fast talking, smart-sounding (but not really) show. And that is its job anyway

This is the way I see it. It's pretty much intellectually empty.  Which is why I don't get the "brilliant" comments I  see. They don't even logically try to get the characters out of messes. Jim Moriarty doesn't blow them up because he gets a phone call? Seriously.  They don't even try to logically wrap up cliff hangers. They don't even try to do real mysteries, like old school Sherlock Holmes, which is why I get so irritated when people try to say it's close to canon Holmes. No, it isn't. Having Sherlock spout off a few lines now and then about "deductions" doesn't make it canon Holmes. Having characters with the same names(and for some strange reason, they change some of the names-like Magnussen) doesn't make it canon Holmes. Really at this point, Sherlock and Mycroft having wonderful brains, and the Sherlock & Watson friendship is about the only thing left that is true canon.

Now, if you want to say it's FUN, and a distraction, and some good acting(from some of them) and even suspenseful at times, I get that. I can agree with that. If you want to say it's INSPIRED by ACD, or based on the characters, I agree with that. It's a fun show, as long as you don't expect everything to make sense or for the show to be well written.

By the way, what is butique? And I can see people enjoying British series, but *most* of them have very short seasons or series, don't they? It's easier to make the shows good, if you only have to do six or less, every two or three years.

I like Peter Capaldi as Doctor Who, but it's really not my cup of tea. Too bizarre, and I'm not really a Sci Fi fan, anyway.

[Starchild]

On 12/11/2016 at 1:17 AM, Peace 47 said:

I don't know exactly in what thread to put this, but watch a new S4 trailer here.  [Stefan from SNL voice]  This trailer's got everything:  Wet John at the bottom of a well-like space, Mycroft standing in front of a burning house, Sherlock saying, "I love you" to or about someone at the very end (with John and Mycroft standing behind him).  Sherlock in a shark tunnel.

Yeah as a Mycroft fan that last bit worries me. Earlier in the trailer there seems to be a gun in the room with them as well. I get the sense that Sherlock is saying "I love you" to the person he's about to turn around and shoot because of some kind of blackmail. And I don't think that's going to be John.

I love the show, but I don't know if I'd feel as compelled to watch it without the promise of a little Mycroft now and then.

[IWantCandy71]

I do think they are killing Mycroft off, and he'll die by Sherlock's hand or because of Sherlock or John or someone close to them. I think that's why the showrunners are saying it'll be hard to come back from. I can see them revisting the show in another five years or a little more, showing Sherlock having one last case and then retiring, and then maybe every so often doing specials of just one movie length show. I personally love BC, but the show has bought into it's own hype, and I just don't have any interest without the Mycroft and Sherlock brotherly angst and bonding. I don't want to see MG play Mycroft as part of Sherlock's mind palace, or as a figment of Sherlock's imagination in some other way. It won't be the same.

I will say, I think the trailer is misleading, because they always are.  It *almost* seems as if Sherlock is speaking to the person he is looking at (not John or Mycroft) or even that he may be reading the words "I love you", not speaking them to someone as a declaration.

[Starchild]

Yeah I think he's saying it to Mycroft and can't look him in the eye as he says it. Still, I hope we're both wrong.

[cardigirl]

On 12/12/2016 at 3:39 PM, IWantCandy71 said:

No offense, but for the 88th time: these two series really can't be compared. If Gatiss and Moffat had to come up with 24 episodes a year of Sherlock....let's just say one season/series would have been all we would have gotten. If even that. I don't think they could have done that many, even poor episodes.  They don't have an excuse for not making every episode of Sherlock cracking viewing, with two or three years to come up with stuff. I have to say, British television must be REALLY awful, if what Gatiss and Moffat pull out of their hats is the best there is around. Not that there aren't moments of each episode I can't enjoy. But I haven't enjoyed a FULL episode since series one.

As to why I bother even commenting about Sherlock- this is a place for critique(s). I will not lick the boots of Moffat or Gatiss for what I consider to be sub par writing and plotting. Never mind the obvious fan fiction-esque turn this show took in series three. But, in my favor, it IS looking like Mycroft bites it.

One good thing may come of it, after all.

Hmmm, okay.  I enjoy Sherlock (full episodes) and the writing and the actors.  

[FanOfDorks]

I like both but Sherlock is my fave.  

Only cause it was the one I watched first and I have a bit of a soft spot for as my mother calls him Wee Cumberbum.

I like Elementary too in fact its on TV right now lol.  *pre recorded on Sky+*

[festivus]

On 11/13/2016 at 9:03 AM, Bethorz said:

There's so much negativity in this thread, I, for one, can't fricking wait for the new season. It's interesting that Elementary is coming up as I am currently bingeing that series (just started season 4) and I really really like it. I readily admit that there are many things it does better than Sherlock (coherent mysteries, more in-depth supporting characters, diversity) but it is a very different show, and I agree with the folks upthread, in that (apart from character names, and very broad themes) it doesn't really have much more in common with Sherlock Holmes than other procedurals named after one super-smart lead (like House). Almost all crime shows are already kind of in the mold set by ACD back in the day,  but as I said, I do really like it as it is. 

I can't wait either. I've been re-watching the series this week in anticipation. I like Elementary but I LOVE Sherlock. I'm not much for procedural shows, I like character driven shows. I also don't have the problems with Moffat/Gattis that some do, I think the show is really clever and every time I watch I see something new that I didn't notice before.

 

On 11/13/2016 at 9:03 AM, Bethorz said:

Though, I also love the Guy Ritchie films, so maybe my opinion is invalid :D

I love the films too.

[cardigirl]

Getting back to the trailer, I know several people have said that perhaps Mycroft dies this series, but I'm more worried about Molly Hooper.  The scene where Sherlock seems appalled and shocked looks like the morgue where she works. Just my thoughts.

[IWantCandy71]

Quote

I love the films too.

I am actually one who had a fit when the first film was about to come out, because to me it bears the least resemblance out of all the recent versions, to the source material. But I love Jude Law's Watson. I watch them for him alone, TBH. I am tired of Robert Downey, Jr in any form. I think he's a fine actor, but there's just something about him that makes me tired. I think it's overexposure due to Iron Man.

Out of Law, Martin Freeman, and Lucy Liu, Jude is the only one remotely close to how I've always imagined Watson to be. He reminds me of the Watson in the Granada version(both actors, though David Burke to me will probably always be my favorite version of Watson, ever).

Edited December 30, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[cardigirl]

21 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Out of Law, Martin Freeman, and Lucy Liu, Jude is the only one remotely close to how I've always imagined Watson to be. He reminds me of the Watson in the Granada version(both actors, though David Burke to me will probably always be my favorite version of Watson, ever).

I loved David Burke as Watson and thoroughly enjoyed the Granada series.  My PBS station will occasionally rebroadcast it and it has held up very well. Jeremey Brett was wonderful.