yeah, ok, I do like the show Sherlock. and I prefer to write a wee post on it rather a very long one on my disappointment with Moffat’s Doctor Who.
I kinda had lost faith in any modern versions of the books after I watched the highly unfortunate film version with Robert Downey Jr so I was reluctant to watch the BBC series. as a matter of fact, the first episode I watched was A Scandal in Belgravia, so the next couple of days I had to run the previous three episodes just to see what I had missed. clever written script doesn’t impress me that easily but the impeccable arrogance of Sherlock won me straight away. but as cool as I find it, I managed to catch a few (just a bit) irritating moments that made me point and shout and the computer screen. so, dear Mr Moffat and Mr Gatiss, if you happen to read this, please take notes for future episodes.
the Vermeer argument (The Great Game)
I’d go and say that Vermeer’s paintings are awesome. however, the whole conspiracy behind a supernova appearing on a painting before its time, it’s just… unconvincing? first, there is no fucking way anyone can convince me that Vermeer or any painter really would sit down and draw every single star on its exact point much like a star map. and even if you bring the argument about him using a camera obscura. at night? is this even possible? (no, but seriously, is it?) furthermore, as Sherlock himself said earlier the same episode, he is not interested in trivia, hence there is no way he could know the whole night sky by heart so he would recognise which yellow dot is the claimed supernova. yes, they were all yellow dots. I honestly expected something… well, noticeable.
so, no.
**improbable pictures (A Scandal in Belgravia)
there was a moment when Irene Adler receives on her phone several pictures of Sherlock and John. while they were in a moving taxi. on a bridge. considering the fact they didn’t notice anyone taking pictures of them (and I’m not even sure if there were any cars of that side of the taxi), I just wish to have a look at the lens they were using. impressive stuff.
trivia, trivia (The Hounds of Baskerville)
the first mentioning of the glowing in the dark rabbit and Sherlock dissing this to be a fairytale story created by a child’s imagination. come on, guys. the news about such experiments on animals, including mutating the genes to try and recreate the glowing effect, they’ve been around for some time now. surely at least someone must’ve read about it on the internet.
and yeah, I know this is me being a general pain in the arse who might be losing the big picture but if you’re making a story about a genius detective, at least try to smooth such details.
ps. gatiss, you’re good.
** this theory of mine got proven to be wrong in about 15 seconds. however, I’ll leave it as a part of the post because it fills up space. hey, it’s my blog after all!
