|
Post by MagdaFR on Mar 16, 2017 8:37:04 GMT
I didn't read it all, I just found it and went straight to what he says about Mary. Moffat's ideas on Mary were enraging many people on tumblr. I find it amusing that he has this ability to enrage people. On Mary: His lack of awareness of how lots and lots of people feel about Mary is incredible. More on the link. EDIT: the link
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Mar 16, 2017 12:15:59 GMT
Why is this lack of awareness? He described exactly what they did with Mary's character, which is exactly what I got out of it when I watched the show. Is he supposed to predict how some tumblr lunatics are going to react? I'm glad he wasn't influenced by internet opinions and instead wrote the story however he wanted. I also liked how the show paid tribute to Mary in the behind-the-scenes featurette with Amanda that they showed before The Final Problem in theatres.
Any storyline that didn't end with Sherlock and John as a couple was going to be hated by some people. Mary wasn't the reason.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 16, 2017 12:44:11 GMT
I don't think it's just the JLers who didn't like the way Mary's character was written by Moftiss. I'm not a JLer by any means but I didn't like it. I thought the level of attention given to Mary in series Three really took away from the dynamic between Sherlock and John which is the core of the original stories. I don't mean a sexual dynamic, I mean the way the two of them worked together on cases and how their different personalities contributed to their success.
Arthur Conan Doyle barely mentioned Mary or indeed any of Watson's other wives for a reason. The stores are about Holmes and Watson. Not Holmes,Watson and Mrs Watson. I don't care how "cool" she is, Mary Watson in my opinion, and that of a number of other non JLers it must be said, undermined the show somewhat.
And don't even get me started on the fact that she shot Sherlock in cold blood and effectively killed him (he was declared dead by the Drs working on him) and yet they tried to say she deliberately shot to miss. Why? Why would she want him to survive when the whole point of her shooting him was he wouldn't reveal her secret. It made NO sense.
Anyway opinions differ and all that. Some like stuff that others don't. But not everyone who doesn't like something in the show is a lunatic JLer.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 16, 2017 13:50:47 GMT
I don't think it is a lack of awareness on Moffat's part either. I think he is fully aware of the faction of people who didn't like what the show did with the character of Mary. But I think he is trying here to acknowledge those fans out there who got what they were trying to do with the character, because there are also a fair number of people who didn't reject the idea of Mary as she was written.
What I think he was clearly stating here (again) is why he and Gatiss decided to create this character and then give her an exit - but write it so that people would know and care about the character before she made an exit.
And in my mind they did that. I liked that they sort of took something that was canon and developed it into something different. Like they did with Mrs. Hudson. Or Lestrade. Mrs. Hudson was in the original stories but never in the same way as she was in their version. There was so much more to her "story" and she actually became a factor in some of the adventures. Same can be said for Lestrade to a bit lesser degree. But he was much more developed as a personality in BBC Sherlock, than he ever was in the ACD stories.
I think they took real care in writing the character of Mary and this is what M is talking about here.
Because Mary was married to John Watson and in order not to have her just as the stereotypical "wifey" they decided to try and incorporate her into the adventures and for me it worked totally. I liked her and was interested in her character the same way I was interested in any of the supporting characters.
I never felt that she interfered with the "togetherness" of Watson and Holmes at all. And even with the infamous "shooting" it only served the purpose to show the strength of the friendship between Sherlock and John. So storywise it was brilliant IMO.
As far as enraging folks - that comes with the territory of being creative. Somebody is always bound not to like what you do. Can't please everyone.
Now it is someone else's turn apparently, so let those who are so unhappy with what M&G came up with create something that is better in their mind and see if it flys the way BBC Sherlock did.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by igs on Mar 16, 2017 14:19:31 GMT
I never felt that she interfered with the "togetherness" of Watson and Holmes at all. I think she did partly, but she wasn't the only - or even the biggest - aspect of the show that affected the Holmes-Watson relationship. I think Sherlock (both the show and the character, but here I'm referring to the show) was never really the same after Reichenbach. Imho way back in the day when the stories were more insular from one another and continuity in general wasn't as important, it was easier to bounce back to the same dynamic after Holmes' two years of absence (especially since it wasn't plotted that way, as in Holmes really was supposed to be over.) In today's serialized dramas it's not really the same, you can't just expect to forgive-and-forget in an instance, and that's what Sherlock would have required being only 3 episode a series. I've said before that I thought both Sherlock and Mary were abusive towards John and I stand by that opinion, which makes me impossible to fully be on-board with the John/Mary relationship that was based fully on lies, or to really enjoy the camaraderie between John and Sherlock the same way as I did before Sherlock went two years lying to John and letting him suffer needlessly. I think TLD (hands down the best episode since TRF imho) is where the situation was finally resolved somewhat, and the fact that it took 1,5 series is related to the prominence of Mary, since they used screen-time to build up the dysfunctional Sherlock/Mary and John/Mary relationships. But that's just how I feel about it. I didn't want Sherlock and John to end up together, but neither did I enjoy their interactions with Mary - apart from The Empty Hearse where she was fantastic, and Sign of Three to some extent too. I also think they missed an opportunity with Mary to handle her in the same way they used to handle canon in series 1-2 when they were really witty in my opinion. The 21st century equivalent of death ending a marriage in the 19th century is divorce. Imho they definitely should have had Mary and John divorce sans baby. That would have been more in touch with the style they set in S1-2. I know Mary isn't the only character whose prominence was vastly increased in Sherlock, Moriarty and Mycroft's were too and I do know many think there was too much Moriarty too. I think Mycroft was such a big character because Gatiss portrayed him, but I also think he was very comfortably in the "supporting" category until TFP whereas Mary and Moriarty both veered into leading category regarding their importance to the main storyline.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 16, 2017 14:28:49 GMT
Opinions differ Roverpup. I did not care one jot about Mary and could not wait for her demise. I found the character both irritating and badly plotted. And for the record I'd be very happy to rewrite Mary's role because I think it was incredibly poorly done so the bar really isn't set very high. Moftiss are not infallible. Yes they're great writers most of the time. But not all of the time. And I think that the reaction of a lot of "normal" Sherlock (i.e. Not the lunatic fringe) fans shows it is a fact that lots of viewers were not enamoured with the way Mary was written.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong Roverpup but your posts always seem to suggest that nobody has the right to criticise Moftiss unless they can do a better job. In which case all critics of pretty much everything not to mention editors should cease to exist. When you're writing something for public consumption it is the right of the consumer to proffer an opinion on what they think of it.
Only ever listening to positive feedback is one of the surest routes to ultimate failure.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Mar 16, 2017 14:41:47 GMT
You may not have liked it, but I doubt you were "enraged" by it. That reaction is ridiculous!
I have a friend who was so-so about Sherlock until Mary came along, and then she loved it. I liked Mary because John and Sherlock liked her. You have to buy into it or the show doesn't make sense. If Sherlock is wrong about Mary, then he's wrong about everything.
I'm not saying that you must love everything about the show, but if you're enraged by a character's story, then it's time to watch something else, instead.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Mar 16, 2017 14:57:56 GMT
I tried to like Mary, but I just couldn't. I thought she was a distraction to the meat of the series, the relationship between Sherlock and John. And here's an unpopular opinion: I didn't care for AA's acting, especially in T6T. I thought she was overwrought and overacting. I thought she tried too hard and that lent a level of falsity to her part. I like that Sherlock liked her, as she was basically living his exciting, wanna be life. But in general I thought her character pushed the boundaries of reality (even for this show!), which put a strain on the premise of the show. I see what they were trying to do, because her story arc gave us the very satisfying Lying Detective, but there might have been a way to insert the rift between John and Sherlock without her.
Moffat has his highs and lows in writing, that's for sure. He's terrible at closing plot holes and making a coherent narrative, instead favoring showy set pieces. But he's fabulous at pacing and emotional punches. The scene in the morgue was a masterpiece. That said, I could hardly do better, and I give all of them huge kudos for what they did manage to accomplish. In the end, it was Ben and Martin's show, they certainly owned it and deserved all their accolades.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 16, 2017 15:12:31 GMT
Ellie: Yes, I would say you are reading me incorrectly. I am not suggesting at all that no one has a right to criticise M&G. Not at all. I respect and accept that different people (including professional critics) may have a difference of opinion. I know this all to well on a personal level since my husband is a professional writer and author. It is part of my everyday life. I live with literary criticism. 🙂
My remarks are, and always have been, specifically aimed a select group of people who only wanted one specific element of the show to be canon and when it didn't happen, have proceeded to trash the entire writing efforts of M&G and say that they are "terrible writers" and accuse them of being unprofessional.
Critical analysis of public works is completely valid. Where it stops being valid criticism is when it is so totally discoloured by one obsessive factor that it stains their entire view of M&G and attacks their integrity as professional writers (such as saying blanket statements like they couldn't write their way out of a paper bag - that just defies credibility since they have a proven track record and are well respected in the business).
And valid criticism stops when the people doing the criticism refuse to accept the story that M&G have written and insist it is something else (even when they have been told it isn't). And there are enough incidents of this happening as well. That isn't valid criticism in my book. That is a perfect example of when a statement like "well, then write your version" appplies.
That's all I am saying. And since the show seems to be over now, it really is an opportunity for those types of people, who have written in the past that they could do a better job (read that a lot too), to come forward and give it a go. Good luck to them.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 16, 2017 15:50:13 GMT
Yes but I and others are not part of that group Roverpup. We're just people who didn't like how Mary Watson was presented. It's a different point of view and it is of course subject to debate. But I was just pointing out that everyone who didn't like Mary is not part of the group to which you refer and therefore all of the criticism of the way Moftiss handles the character cannot be ascribed to the people or motivations you describe.
|
|