![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAmong other things...
1. Victoria and The Crown I also watched another episode of "The Crown", episode 7. I think I have three more? Tried "Victoria", but gave up half-way through, may or may not come back to it. I agree with the critics on "Victoria", if you've been watching Netflix's superior "The Crown", "Victoria" falls a bit flat. Part of the problem with "Victoria" is that the writers have decided to try a Downton Abbey set up, we have the servants and Victoria's story going on simultaneously, which worked in Downton Abbey but not here. Here it is distracting, and a bit tedious. Also, Jenna Coleman's Victoria is played as a wee bit too eager and over-the-top, makes me miss Clair Foy's more understated performance as Elizabeth. After watching twenty minutes of it, I flipped to the 7th episode of The Crown, which is hardly fair, but there you go.
2. Sherlock - the final or last episode which I think is called The Musgrove Case? -- I've mixed feelings about the episode. I think it was in many ways a muddled mess from a plot, writing, and direction standpoint. Careening here and there, and way too gimmicky and fond of its own cleverness. That said, there were things I liked about it from a characterization and metaphorical stance. I don't think the plot made a lot of sense, and various bits defied logic, but metaphorically and character wise, it was interesting.
Sherlock is a self-described sociopath, although I've never thought of him as one. And he doesn't see himself as a good or moral man, which I think runs counter to his own actions -- whereupon he constantly does whatever can be done to save another's life at risk to his own.
In this episode, the writer's go to great length's to prove him wrong. I'm not sure this is necessary. Also throughout, I began to wonder about the writers' issues with women. Although, perhaps they are just trying to stick within the noir underpinnings...women, as previously stated, do not fare well in noir.
Euros..reminded me a lot of Moriarty, and felt like a female version of Moriarty, which in a way goes a long way towards explaining both Sherlock and Mycroft. Also Sherlock's weird obsession with Moriarty, to the extent that he got distracted during Mary's case and didn't realize the case in the first episode was related to Mary not Moriarity. Also in the second case, he's similarly distracted by Moriarity, and Culverton is a lot like Moriarity or is a substitute. It's in the final one that we see the predecessor, his sociopathic sister, who has no sense of right and wrong, or any conscience to speak of, at least it doesn't appear so.
I was unclear about the ending...was the girl on the plane bit supposed to show us a split in Euros personality? That inside the sociopath, was an innocent child who just wanted to come back to earth and home to her family? It was equally unclear how she got her brother in that well, and the degree to which Sherlock participated. Mycroft alludes to the fact that he may have, in stating that she was able to reprogram people into doing horrible things at the age of five, which resulted in a tragedy that involved Sherlock.
The writer's leave a lot of the story, the more interesting bits, on the editing room floor. Leaving the audience to conjecture. While providing the less interesting and somewhat cliche ones onscreen. As a result, the plot was hard to follow and jarring in places -- it was, dare I say, bogged down by its own cleverness. Ironic that -- the ego of the writers got in the way of the story, just as Sherlock's ego often gets in the way of solving the case.
There's a bit with Molly...where I began to realize maybe it wasn't a dog that died, since the coffin is child-sized, and has "I love you" written on it. Euros is clearly trying to turn her younger Brother into herself -- he thinks like she does, or so she thinks, but has those pseky emotions, if she can just turn them off. At least that's what appeared to be her plan for a while.
But then the story twists...and the writers appear to be trying to redeem their villain, which is nice and all, but at this point it's hard to see why. I liked that Sherlock realizes the song is in reality an SOS, from Euros to him, to have him save her from her own self-imposed oblivion. In fact she visits him with the same goal in mind in the second episode as Faith-- or so it seems, or at least he catches on to it at the time, when he takes her gun away from her. And in saving Euros from herself, he manages to save John and himself as well or so it seems. It's all rather convoluted and not all that clear. After seeing it a second time, I picked that bit up.
I literally had to ignore the plot inconsistencies and high-jinks in order to get to the meat of the story, which was a simple enough tale of a man struggling to deal with his family dysfunction. Euros was brillaint, but lonely, and envied her younger brother's friendship with the slightly older one. Not sure, but it appears Redbeard may have either been her twin or Sherlock's, we're not told. Not only does Sherlock block it out, but he rewrites it, with assistance from his brother who maintains the delusion. This makes me wonder if Sherlock helped Euros kill his brother and best-friend, and that's what made him scream and block out the memory? If she manipulated him into it? If so, again, we are never told and it is never clarified. But that explanation makes the most sense...and would go a long ways to explaining Sherlock, Mycroft, and the crazy plot.
Again, it's not clear, because you can easily interpret it the other way around. That Euros somehow lead the younger brother into the well. How he didn't die immediately, when he fell, I don't know. Also how did she get him down there? Push him? It's a deep well. The logistics don't quite work, but the logistics don't work in the entire story..so what the hell. Also, why couldn't the parents locate him? Again...the logistics don't make a lot of sense, so best not to think to hard on them.
Anyhow, assuming Euros lead him into the well, he wasn't found, and no one could locate him...then told everyone long after the fact, resulting in her imprisonment by her uncle then later her brother, while the younger brother blocked out the memories of both his playmate/younger brother and Euros.
I think the first explanation works the best -- because it fits with why she's managed to manipulate people at Sherringford. Also, with Sherlock's own manipulation of people over the years and how it plagues him. And why she tries at first to reprogram or manipulate Sherlock into killing people.
While all along, hoping she fails, because the first time she did it, years ago, almost doomed them both -- and it's why only Sherlock can save her, and why she reaches out to him, and why she's obsessed with him -- because he both aided her crime and was the reason for the crime, as well as one of the tragic consequences.
And...it goes a long way towards explaining Sherlock's interactions with women. And how he isn't quite sure he can trust himself around them.
But, the writers work hard to confuse you. It's almost as if they don't want the audience to understand or get their story. Which I found to be a bit tedious. Writing that is clever for its own sake irritates me. It's showing off and very ego driven. Writing is about communication -making stories accessible to the reader or viewer. And I think this story wasn't as accessible as it could have been.
[ETA: As your librarian points out below, it's apparently Sherlock's friend Trevor, a neighbor, who is in the well, not his little brother. There were only three siblings. That sort of explains a few things...but the fact that I was distracted by the logistical plot holes and lost that bit...doesn't bode well for the writing.]
1. Victoria and The Crown I also watched another episode of "The Crown", episode 7. I think I have three more? Tried "Victoria", but gave up half-way through, may or may not come back to it. I agree with the critics on "Victoria", if you've been watching Netflix's superior "The Crown", "Victoria" falls a bit flat. Part of the problem with "Victoria" is that the writers have decided to try a Downton Abbey set up, we have the servants and Victoria's story going on simultaneously, which worked in Downton Abbey but not here. Here it is distracting, and a bit tedious. Also, Jenna Coleman's Victoria is played as a wee bit too eager and over-the-top, makes me miss Clair Foy's more understated performance as Elizabeth. After watching twenty minutes of it, I flipped to the 7th episode of The Crown, which is hardly fair, but there you go.
2. Sherlock - the final or last episode which I think is called The Musgrove Case? -- I've mixed feelings about the episode. I think it was in many ways a muddled mess from a plot, writing, and direction standpoint. Careening here and there, and way too gimmicky and fond of its own cleverness. That said, there were things I liked about it from a characterization and metaphorical stance. I don't think the plot made a lot of sense, and various bits defied logic, but metaphorically and character wise, it was interesting.
Sherlock is a self-described sociopath, although I've never thought of him as one. And he doesn't see himself as a good or moral man, which I think runs counter to his own actions -- whereupon he constantly does whatever can be done to save another's life at risk to his own.
In this episode, the writer's go to great length's to prove him wrong. I'm not sure this is necessary. Also throughout, I began to wonder about the writers' issues with women. Although, perhaps they are just trying to stick within the noir underpinnings...women, as previously stated, do not fare well in noir.
Euros..reminded me a lot of Moriarty, and felt like a female version of Moriarty, which in a way goes a long way towards explaining both Sherlock and Mycroft. Also Sherlock's weird obsession with Moriarty, to the extent that he got distracted during Mary's case and didn't realize the case in the first episode was related to Mary not Moriarity. Also in the second case, he's similarly distracted by Moriarity, and Culverton is a lot like Moriarity or is a substitute. It's in the final one that we see the predecessor, his sociopathic sister, who has no sense of right and wrong, or any conscience to speak of, at least it doesn't appear so.
I was unclear about the ending...was the girl on the plane bit supposed to show us a split in Euros personality? That inside the sociopath, was an innocent child who just wanted to come back to earth and home to her family? It was equally unclear how she got her brother in that well, and the degree to which Sherlock participated. Mycroft alludes to the fact that he may have, in stating that she was able to reprogram people into doing horrible things at the age of five, which resulted in a tragedy that involved Sherlock.
The writer's leave a lot of the story, the more interesting bits, on the editing room floor. Leaving the audience to conjecture. While providing the less interesting and somewhat cliche ones onscreen. As a result, the plot was hard to follow and jarring in places -- it was, dare I say, bogged down by its own cleverness. Ironic that -- the ego of the writers got in the way of the story, just as Sherlock's ego often gets in the way of solving the case.
There's a bit with Molly...where I began to realize maybe it wasn't a dog that died, since the coffin is child-sized, and has "I love you" written on it. Euros is clearly trying to turn her younger Brother into herself -- he thinks like she does, or so she thinks, but has those pseky emotions, if she can just turn them off. At least that's what appeared to be her plan for a while.
But then the story twists...and the writers appear to be trying to redeem their villain, which is nice and all, but at this point it's hard to see why. I liked that Sherlock realizes the song is in reality an SOS, from Euros to him, to have him save her from her own self-imposed oblivion. In fact she visits him with the same goal in mind in the second episode as Faith-- or so it seems, or at least he catches on to it at the time, when he takes her gun away from her. And in saving Euros from herself, he manages to save John and himself as well or so it seems. It's all rather convoluted and not all that clear. After seeing it a second time, I picked that bit up.
I literally had to ignore the plot inconsistencies and high-jinks in order to get to the meat of the story, which was a simple enough tale of a man struggling to deal with his family dysfunction. Euros was brillaint, but lonely, and envied her younger brother's friendship with the slightly older one. Not sure, but it appears Redbeard may have either been her twin or Sherlock's, we're not told. Not only does Sherlock block it out, but he rewrites it, with assistance from his brother who maintains the delusion. This makes me wonder if Sherlock helped Euros kill his brother and best-friend, and that's what made him scream and block out the memory? If she manipulated him into it? If so, again, we are never told and it is never clarified. But that explanation makes the most sense...and would go a long ways to explaining Sherlock, Mycroft, and the crazy plot.
Again, it's not clear, because you can easily interpret it the other way around. That Euros somehow lead the younger brother into the well. How he didn't die immediately, when he fell, I don't know. Also how did she get him down there? Push him? It's a deep well. The logistics don't quite work, but the logistics don't work in the entire story..so what the hell. Also, why couldn't the parents locate him? Again...the logistics don't make a lot of sense, so best not to think to hard on them.
Anyhow, assuming Euros lead him into the well, he wasn't found, and no one could locate him...then told everyone long after the fact, resulting in her imprisonment by her uncle then later her brother, while the younger brother blocked out the memories of both his playmate/younger brother and Euros.
I think the first explanation works the best -- because it fits with why she's managed to manipulate people at Sherringford. Also, with Sherlock's own manipulation of people over the years and how it plagues him. And why she tries at first to reprogram or manipulate Sherlock into killing people.
While all along, hoping she fails, because the first time she did it, years ago, almost doomed them both -- and it's why only Sherlock can save her, and why she reaches out to him, and why she's obsessed with him -- because he both aided her crime and was the reason for the crime, as well as one of the tragic consequences.
And...it goes a long way towards explaining Sherlock's interactions with women. And how he isn't quite sure he can trust himself around them.
But, the writers work hard to confuse you. It's almost as if they don't want the audience to understand or get their story. Which I found to be a bit tedious. Writing that is clever for its own sake irritates me. It's showing off and very ego driven. Writing is about communication -making stories accessible to the reader or viewer. And I think this story wasn't as accessible as it could have been.
[ETA: As your librarian points out below, it's apparently Sherlock's friend Trevor, a neighbor, who is in the well, not his little brother. There were only three siblings. That sort of explains a few things...but the fact that I was distracted by the logistical plot holes and lost that bit...doesn't bode well for the writing.]
Re: Yeah
Date: 2017-01-29 01:25 pm (UTC)Wolverine: I know, right?! I liked his cameo in the new Ms. Marvel, she geeks out over him and it was just so *real*. When I got a tablet I started reading comics on it using Comixology, but I've gotten other tablets since and just am not keeping up again. But I saw so many covers with him on them, I knew it wasn't going to be good.
Re: Yeah
Date: 2017-01-30 03:27 am (UTC)The later writers, who went a bit darker with the character, pulled in some the complexities. The movies unfortunately went the route that the early writers went, which was sort of one-dimensional. So the character got sidelined in the movies.
Characters like Cyclops are harder to write for than characters like Wolverine...because Cyclops is very repressed, says little, and has a dead pan sense of humor. He reveals close to nothing. While Wolverine is Mr. Tough Guy and lets it all hang out. Much easier writing for the bad boy, than the stoic and wounded hero, who says very little. (See Batman vs. Superman for an example. Or rather Iron Man vs. Captain America).
The later comics by Brian Bendis, Grant Morrison, Joss Whedon, ...all dug into why Cyke was repressed, the consequences of it, his strategies, and how he dealt with people like Wolverine. While the earlier ones...sort of jumped around it.
With Wolverine? Less is more. Cameos work better. He worked better as part of the ensemble or a lone wolf, then as a lead in a team comic. And they really shouldn't have put him in every title. It made no sense that he was in the Avengers (seriously? Wolvie would never work for the government willingly), or for that matter The Defenders...because, why would he know them? It became ridiculous. So over-used.
I did the same thing --- when I discovered I could read comics on my Ipad, I started grabbing them from Marvel. And they made it too easy with a quick click. Very dangerous....stay away from the Marvel app. Only had the one tablet though, barely use it except on trips and when I went nuts reading comic books. (I'm not a gamer...so that's part of it.)
Re: Yeah
Date: 2017-01-30 02:28 pm (UTC)Yeah, it's a harder to write characters like him well.
I do like reading comics on a tablet, it's the perfect format for such devices, IMO. I can't read regular books on a device, but YA I can read, and comics I can read. Stuff that's a fast read, so my eyes don't hurt.
Re: Yeah
Date: 2017-01-31 12:25 am (UTC)Re: Yeah
Date: 2017-01-31 07:03 pm (UTC)