Sherlock Vs Sherlock - Which Is The Superior Incarnation?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2024
- Which version of Sherlock Holmes is superior, in this video essay I address this question.
Support me on Patreon: / henryboseley
Please Like and Subscribe for more video essays.
Massive thankyou to my Patrons for supporting me
Gavan VanOver
Ádám Bergmann
Hannah Southerland
Joseph Henderson
Gabriel Hug
Nikki DeKeuster
Justus Berberich
Debra Stanley
Notker Kirchgäßner
John Sipes
Thad Snell
Steve Barrow
PJ Crabb
TheFisherman
Bernardo Rodríguez
Patreon: www.patreon.com/henrysharpe
Here is a link to my patreon, you don't have to donate however any donation no matter how large or small is hugely appreciated :)
The Closer Look please do a Sherlock vs Elementary, the movie doesnt portrait the character profile of Sherlock. I think it would be a fair comparison with Elementary. Greetings from your fans from Mexico :D
The Closer Look Seriously?? You're only 20??? o.0 I have kids 11 to 13 years older than you. HECK, I have CLOTHES older than you! @______@;;;
*goes off to huddle in the fetal position and be depressed for a few hours*
The Closer Look amazing work I think you are better than shelock
Ha, age is all part of the mind. I mean my dad is 60 and he's more of a kid than I am ;D
The Closer Look dude you came out of the waterworks with professionalism and heart. It was no surprise whatsoever that you'd grow this fast.
I personally prefer Sherlock but it’s ok and I respect your opinion that you like Sherlock
Same. I also like Sherlock but also respect the opinion that, they like Sherlock.
True, Sherlock is much sharper than Sherlock, while the other being a good version, Sherlock is just much smarter and uses common sense. I can see why you like Sherlock.
I'd say Sherlock is better than Sherlock. But its okay if you like Sherlock more than Sherlock.
Haha you fools thought you could confuse me, but i have found out exactly who likes what. Seeing the first comment and seeing how the next two agree, we can deduce that you are talking about liking the movie as you then go on to state how you disagree with the creator. The last reply on this goes against the comment and the first two so it is safe to assume that the last prefers the tv show.
What?
The fact that tom Holland tried to get the joke ‘no shit Sherlock’ into Roberts and Benedict’s scenes together in infinity war is still really funny
Ahahaha did he really do that lol
three legends
tony: "no shit, sherlock."
strange: "that line doesn't apply here."
Tom Holland on the riseeee
I think it would’ve been even better if it was Pratt(Starlord) who said that to both Sherlocks.
The movie puts the spectator in the same position as in the books. You are watching sherlock from a "Watson" pov. What i mean with this is that you dont know how he does it, you just see him.
The tv show puts you inside sherlock, you know what he thinks, you get access to sherlock's mind.
I think these are simply 2 different approaches to Holmes storytelling
Well,yea
Agreed! However BBC Sherlock makes Sherlock Holmes a more empathetic character, which is amazing bc he's such a strange character. Also, BBC Sherlock also engages the audience more, and makes the viewer feel more intellectually satisfied. RDJ's Sherlock Holmes is definitely closer to the point of view depicted in the books, excepting the fact that the movie doesn't follow any of the original mysteries closely, whereas again BBC Sherlock uses and remixes them in interesting ways so that fans of ACD are engaged in that incarnation to a greater extent.
However I still enjoyed RDJ's Sherlock Holmes a lot and the aesthetic of the score, mise en scen and the cinematography alone make these movies a win in my book (plus RDJ as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson are incredibly charming).
And given the books are absolutely fantastic, I have no doubt about the nature of their storytelling. I enjoyed the BBC version too - but I don't agree with this author's reasoning of why one is better than the other. I agree with you - they're different, very interesting viewpoints.
Exactly the 2010 one is much more detailed and goes in depth with the cases and everything eventually piles up to one and makes sense at the end and really puts us into the “investigator mode” as an audience instead of just watching him look at a bunch of evidence and say it’s “fascinating”
Furthermore if anything the 2010 one is far more educating and teaches us throughout the series for us to actually utilize these skills in real life which is really cool too 👍👍
Perfect
RDJ is Iron man who acts as Sherlock in the movie
while
Cumberbatch is Sherlock who acts as Dr. strange in the movie
True
No shit Sherlock 😄
an intellectual
True
I think rdj acts himself
Sherlock Holmes was able to solve this mystery in a cave, WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!
i-
Sorry sir but we are not *SHERLOCK HOLMES* 😂
AHAHAHHAHAHHA that's a good one!
Lmao
Moriarty, I came to bargain
well to be fair, in the RDJ films, they did succeed in making us all feel like Watson normally would.
and that might be the biggest difference between the average detective story and a sherlock story. sherlock was always (except for a few exceptions) told from watsons point of view. ALWAYS. and sherlock even complains in the books, that watson makes it look like magic, and not honest detective work. because watson misses so many clues.
I'd like to point out a hole in TCL's logic: He said the BBC Sherlock was more faithful to the source material, but this is simply not true. In the Sherlock stories that Doyle wrote, we are presented the evidence, but we don't know what is going on in Sherlock's mind. We see everything from Watson's perspective, and Sherlock typically doesn't reveal how he cracked the case until the end of the story, much like the RDJ movies. That being said, the BBC interpretation is fine, I don't have a problem with it, but to say that it is more faithful to the source material is a bit of stretch.
I don’t think he said it was more faithful, just superior
@@senzasmentalissues474 which is also wrong , that is merely his taste about seeiing on Detective's PoV , rather than it's Watson.
I think it also may be due to the bbc's Sherlock is being told much more in the modern world, you know? (sorry if my comment doesn't make sense, I don't speak English fluently)
@@phantasosxgames8488 It's really bonkers that he prefers something in his own video.
Hello. I'll give you a word where I might be wrong, and if I am, please correct me. Well, I noticed that Sherlock (BBC) doesn't know how to fight as well as he should. In the book itself he says that he dominates several types of fights. Therefore, I believe, that Sherlock (RDJ), is more faithful to the character of the books, in relation to the fight.
Sorry if there are any mistakes, I don't speak English.
The films match the books more closely, in aesthetic and mood, but I will always love the series, just personal preference.
Same, I think with some stories it can perfectly work out not to follow perfectly the book but to do a more modern version. AAAAND the chatacter of John Watson is just played soooo good by Martin Freeman. Hes so hilarious
milchen fox, I agree. The chemistry between the two in the series is also perfect.
I agree on the first part. But I never liked the show. It's boring, tedious and lacks a bit of... edge.
Now, the movies could do with a little less action and a bit more thinking, but overall, in my opinion, the movies were way more enjoyable.
@@kenninast the show kept me on my toes and made me feel more I cared for the characters more, while the movies just didn't grab my attention I didn't care to try to piece anything together as I had absolutely 0 chance to, sure my predictions in the show wasn't right but it had me interested enough to try
*_I see Ironman Vs Dr. Strange..._*
Aldo Zulfikar civil war 2
Same here
Yep it cannot be unseen
Dpt 300 like mas,enak to
I knew him at Dr.Strange first but I loved the show so much I honestly can only see him as Sherlock now.
Guess what? Sherlock won!
Marisabel Riva no shit sherlock
Fuck u watson
Luis Fer Alonzo OMG REALLY?!?! I had no Idea 😂😂😂
Which sherlock?
Robert downey or benedict?
Ferrel Malute well Downey's is Sherlock Homes and Benedicts in just Sherlock so Benedicts
The issue is that although Sherlock show does give you some evidence to show how *fancy* it can be with it, it doesn't show you enough to let you figure it out for yourself. If you're going to make it in the mind of sherlock, great, but then show all the evidence instead of having him yell "PINK" and run off.
You get evidence, but then the vital parts are made off screen.
Atleast in the Movie you get the same information Sherlock does; he just simply knows more facts around it than you do. If you happen to know that honey and egg makes glue, then you could figure it out yourself. But we are still watson.
@@ayushs6099 he spoke the truth though. The books didn't give you major proves until the end.
@@montyswift5661 That's literally what detective stories and crime fiction are about? Holding your hand through the resolution using the tidbits they've been feeding you throughout the entire story so that when you look back, you go, "Ah! It all comes together." This isn't Dora the Explorer. Furthermore, Sherlock did NOT supply the viewers with enough information to come to their own conclusions. This video conveniently picked the one time they actually made an effort to give you the evidence then explain it.
Monty Swift We’re not arguing the same things here. My argument is that BBC Sherlock did not supply the viewers with enough information for the reveal to be satisfying, he literally just pulls shit out of his ass all the time. Oh, a security guard got murdered? An unknown but presumably famous assassin did it, it’s his MO! Except we couldn’t have known that because we didn’t know he existed until he told us. Sherlock swoops into a crime scene we’ve only seen bits and pieces of, pulls information we’ve never been shown, then concludes the victim was killed by blunt force trauma caused by a boomerang. Except in the previous scene where we examined the crime scene they deliberately withheld information so that when Sherlock does solve it, he looks clever. These are just two examples of what I was trying to say. Maybe next time if you didn’t get what someone was saying, consider asking them first before patronizing them, thanks. I have literally never said feeding the audience too much information is bad. You’re arguing in bad faith and you know it.
@@montyswift5661 You do realize that the worst thing you can say about a detective show is that a scene in which detectiving is going on supposedly doesn't matter, right?
@@MBValentine It's a tad more grounded that way, it would be a hell of a coincidence if every single case this guy was on was connected to all the others - now admittedly that is interesting but if you want that watch Dirk Gently's not Sherlock.
The Sherlock show started out as a reasonable detective show but then devolved into a lot of showing off how special and genius Sherlock was, and that really took away from the show in the end
Very this! Really went off the rails towards the end.
Yes! Made me hate the character but had to remember he was not thus way.
I actually like how he went down that path and then he realized how unimportant it was, in the episode where Mary died it hit him like a ton of bricks that it was his biggest flaw. Huge character arc.
Couldn’t agree more!
Things change... They changed show little bit in good way. Maybe problem is you not the show.
whoever the actor....Sherlock Holmes will always be my favourite character.
How overjoyed I am for you to have never seen the syfy sherlock holmes. Almost ruined the character for me.
@@durimdead1 syfy?, well now he would XD
Hear, hear!
Sherlock holmes is dumb lool
@@jacobwolff5821 uhhhhhh
Actually recently read through the entire body of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and what strikes me is that those stories were almost entirely solved by dumping new information onto the reader. So in essence the RDJ movies are actually way more faithful to how Doyle told the stories, even if it is to their detriment.
Absolutely true, I mean (spoilers) but the culprit in the very first sherlock novel was some kind of wild pygmy out for revenge, if I recall correctly which the audience had absolutely no reason or evidence to expect and there was a really boring story within a story near the end of the novel to explain everything. Detective stories that 'give the audience all the information they need' is actually a very modern way of writing a mystery that was more of an idea that became popular AFTER the Sherlock Holmes books. And it isn't that Sherlock Holmes isn't giving us all the information. We have exactly the same information that Sherlock has, we see all the same things he does, the direction even pointing out important elements for us, such as the honey and the leaf and the powders in the scene showed in the video. The revelations of Blackwood paying people off to fake possessions or sabotaging the American ambassador's gun isn't a reveal of new information, they are Sherlock's deductions based on the evidence we see. How do you explain possessions if you exclude magic? Obviously they must be fake then. Why would they be fake? Blackwood paid people or it's hysteria, probably both. It's obvious really. The primary difference between the show and film is the show brings us into Sherlock's thought process as it happens, and the film shows us all the clues but leaves us to contemplate them ourselves, allowing Sherlock to reveal his deductions at the end. I can see why people might like the show's method better, but I don't think it is inherently better or better story-telling than the film's way. If anything as Johan says, it's more faithful to the books.
very true. Not to mention the conclusions that sherlock jumps to in the BBC show are often only one of MANY possible solutions, for example just because someone takes off their ring often does not mean they are cheating on a spouse. Articles of jewelry are supposed to be removed every night to minimize wear, so this could easily explain why the inside was clean. Also he had just taken it off her finger which easily could have wiped off some (if not all) of the residue inside.
The movie drops hints they’re very subtle
Elementary
If you've read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, you'll notice that RDJ's version is more true to the book than BC's. In the book, from the exposition up the climax, there's not much information given on how Sherlock is deducting things in his mind, until we come right down to the falling action, where everything is being unfold. The way things are laid out in the book is the same way things are laid out in RDJ's version. In my opinion, RDJ's Sherlock Holmes is the superior incarnation.
The closer look: show..:don’t tell
Also the closer look: I love how the tv show literally tells us Sherlock’s conclusions with on screen text
💀💀💀
No but it gives us that information but not how it affects the case, that is what we're putting together, show the evidence don't tell how it's evident
@@ElliotSunshine disagree. If you observe carefully, not on the first viewing obviously, but in the later viewings you will notice that the show doesn't even do that. Most of the times, what ends up to be the clue that pieces together everything is something that was never shown to the audience. In fact it's the opposite that it's the Robert Downey Jr Sherlock series that most of the times shows the clue but explains it later. You can watch the video by hbomberguy that critiques these aspects of BBC Sherlock in detail
@@samwellick1706 I was talking about the information we do get, the situation the comment was probably talking about at lady in pink, we knew she was a mistress but we didn't know why that was important, of which we learnt later
Yeah, the closer look's logic for this makes no sense. He has contridicted his own show don't tell message just because he likes a tv show that tells instead of shows.
I prefer Downey's interpretation and the directorial vision of the films, purely because we don't see his thoughts scene by scene, more is left to the imagination before the ending.
It adds a sense of realism where, although you do not know his exact thoughts, you can see he's gathering clues and connecting them piece by piece.
This gives a more complex narrative to not only the scenes, but to the character himself. The basic principle of 'What If' is crucial in both acting and directing, most importantly to the audience too.
Personal preference however, as Cumberbatch's Sherlock is fantastic in it's own right.
Also D I S C O M B O B U L A T E
Exactly! Finally someone explain what i was thinking about robert downey jr Sherlock Holmes!
When you realized both became marvel characters
And with the upcoming Captain Marvel movie, both versions of Watson will share the universe, too.
@@RavenMethil what do you mean?
@Robo-Knight YT: Well, with "Captain America: Civil War" Martin Freeman joined the Marvel universe as Everett Ross. And in the upcoming "Captain Marvel" movie, Jude Law will join the universe, too.
I still someone says says something like how do you figure that Sherlock in a mocking tone and Stark and strange try to answer xD
They even have the same beards!!!!!!!!!
I think the best one is Sherlock.
However I like Sherlock much more better than Sherlock because Sherlock is much more realistic than the other Sherlock, but Sherlock almost wins
*cough cough* Batman...
Pengwings ._.
Holy crap someone agrees with me
Oh sit wkwkwkwk
........... Oh sure yeah, I agree with you. I totally was able to follow your thought process precisely as it was in your head. Marvelous job!
To me the movies are the "superior way" of telling the stories of solving the crimes. Because to me, the whole point of Sherlock Holmes has always been the fact that Sherlock is such a genius, that you can't really match his level. If you're already caught up with him before the final reveal, then you don't really get that same sense of "Wow, I could've never caught that!". (I do like the series as well though, I think it's really good!) Just my opinion though, everyone's free to have their own:)
Also it's more true to the books
Yes but personally I enjoy stories for my attachments to the characters more than the wow factor of it, I enjoy a more ah shit I know this will end okay but I'm still worried for the characters than a cool I never would've thought of that wow so smart
Stark: “I am Sherlock Holmes”
Strange: “No, WE are Sherlock Holmes”
Ricardo Lui communism
@@vootoonn Papa stalin happy saw this
No no no it’s
Strange: Stark, I’ve come to bargain.
Reading it in barry and iris's voice
@@divyavishnoi2598 same lol
To be fair the movie and RDJ's version of Sherlock Holmes is a better representation of the books. Also the books never gives any major clues until the end.
But in the books Sherlock is not that type of man of action. He's very obsessed with finding the truth, to the point when he would not eat, maybe for days and be on drugs just to help him solve a case.
Sherlock would hardly go out kicking asses.
@@drogadepc Actually as someone who has read ALL of the original stories by Doyle, yes, he is, in one story Holmes even tells Watson how he engaged in a pub fight and lost a tooth.... It's of course all subtly implemented, rather than written out, but Holmes is actually very competent in physical aspects as well
@@drogadepc
The books...are an odd one with Sherlock and physical feats.
At one point he bends (and I want to believe bends back) an iron bar with his bare hands that a strong man couldn't. Just to prove he could, I believe.
Sherlock Holmes has always been whatever and whoever the author needed him to be at a moment's notice.
The guy who made this hasn't read any of the books and apparently only saw one episode of the TV show.
Exactly. That's the point of "mystery" - - to be mysterious. The books often reel off information that may or may not have to do with solving the case.
Really? The Study of Pink is pretty much the only episode in Sherlock that resembles the original book in terms of Holmes's methodology and ways of thinking. The later season are the epitome of not inviting the audiences in. Sherlock obtains evidences off screen. Solves mysteries off screen. The narrative boils down to the good guys win. Why? Because Sherlock is super smart. But how? Did you hear me? Because he's super smart and beyond your comprehension.
just like the movie
except he gets the cool fight scenes
Must of been a boomerang obviously
Hence why I much prefer Elementary... specially since it pays a lot of tribute to the written original
The unaired pilot is the best, in my opinion, from a narrative standpoint.
倪传历 Someone watched that 40 minute rant video on why Sherlock is a bad show
I know this has probably already been touched upon but...the audience is supposed to share the same view as Watson. These stories always received around not knowing until Sherlock tells Watson what's going on.
BBC Watson is garbage.
@@tiaaaron3278 I keep waiting to see hbomberguys name and getting more depressed the longer he isn't mentioned in the comments
@@tiaaaron3278 Movies Sherlock is garbage compared to the books and the show. The movie Sherlock should be renamed as " Batman but without mask" would have been cool
@@achyuththouta6957 The tv show is utter garbage and should have been called "Queerbaited Mary Sue".
The movies were more faithful to the books.
@Iris Zhu the BBC isn't garbage. They just made a shitty Sherlock show.
I know that RDJ's version is more similar to the books but I just like the way that Benedict Cumberbatch shaped the character.
Same here
@Pranav M he was brought into the 21st century and he made a awesome 21st century holmes
@Pranav M he was More useful then your watson Who just wrote his stupid book and was of little help And the old Sherlock was more of a vigilante then a detective
@Pranav M I do but hey the ending was still good
@Pranav M hey it's better it's a great ending and I don't have to deal with fat Mycroft
In all Conan Doyle novels and short stories I've read, Sherlock solves the case using information that's new to the reader.
That's because the novels were "written" by Watson, we see and hear everything through him. Like him, we're just spectators, we don't have access to what Sherlock is thinking.
Not really. Most of the important information is hidden away as minor details, which then later becomes the major points to save the case.
I think that's true to an extent. Most of the time, although minor details may become important, what allows him to solve the case thoroughly is the information withheld from us.
Can I ask for some proof of this?
In The Adventure of the Speckled Band, one of the main clues in the case is that a mysterious whistle was heard before the murder. *Spoiler Alert!!!* Sherlock reveals in the end that he quickly deduced that the snake made the whistling. Now. unless most Londoners in the mid-eighteen hundreds were familiar with this fact, it was an example of solving the case with previously withheld information.
(Of course I could be totally wrong and whistling snakes are just a common occurrence I alone had never heard of)
That statement is in fact incorrect. It was the father that made the whistling, not the snake.
While this is true for the very first episode, A Study in Pink, unfortunately it's not the case for the rest of the series. Just as the movies turn Sherlock into an action hero, the series also make Sherlock the focus of most cases instead of him solving cases. When every episode mysteriously (and ridiculously) ties up in some hilarious way to Moriarty and how everything is a plot to get Sherlock, the show loses all elements of a detective story.
the moriarty masturbation gets reaaaaally bad.
The Hound of the Baskervilles didn't have anything to do with Moriarty, did it? I see your point, but I think it's important to show how much of a huge mastermind Moriarty is by making him be the man behind those cases. In most episodes, like the one with the wedding, they mention a lot of other cases that they've done. Point is that these cases don't move the plot along, so in order to have a red thread through the seasons, they use Moriarty. I also think the very first episode is the best one, I wish they'd continued to show us these clues by writing them out, but I don't think there should have been less cases connected to Moriarty.
In my opinion up to the death of Moriarty it did seem like a natural tie to the cases and I can see your point of having a main tread, however, everything beyond that point seemed to me extremely forced, as if the writers/producers didn't trust the audience would continue watching or just couldn't come up with more ideas for a main tread. I think if you are caught up to the last season you'll be able to appreciate how they just can't seem to go through with their choices to kill off characters and they must always somehow keep their presence in pretty absurd ways. That in itself I don't like, but the fact they keep them revolving around Sherlock - making him the case in a sense - is how I think they managed to kill the elements of a detective story. I think in season 4 even Watson says it tiredly "It's all about Sherlock", and it really is, it's not about the cases which Sherlock mostly solves off camera just so he can continue running around the city and being frustrated by Moriarty.
This also isn't really true for Study in Pink either. The mystery for the episode is who's forcing these people to kill themselves and how. It's entirely possible for the audience to figure out who it is, but I don't think Sherlock ever does until the guy shows up at Sherlock's house. And the question of how doesn't get solved by Sherlock or the audience, we just find out when the guy does it to Sherlock.
It's been a long time since I've seen this episode, maybe I'm only remembering it being "about the case" because of them showing Sherlock's observations with the text and not coming up with some ex-machina evidence from an off screen contact, but now you mention this I'm starting to wonder if they ever showed a complete thought process from mystery to clues to solving.
I dare disagree. Yes, Sherlock Holmes (2009) is more of an action movie but they may have chosen so in order to attract a wider audience. Presenting the detective at work at a crime scene for ca. 2 hours straight would be boring, bluntly put.
Sherlock (TV) is not restricted by the time limit of 1.5-2 hours (more like 1.5 hrs times 3 per season), therefore, the writers can take their time and choose Holmes' particular traits to be presented in seperate episodes. Apart form his deductive skills, which are shown in every episode, I think.
However, those who have read the stories know that they are written from the perspective of Dr John Watson. He is the character-narrator and the protagonist's companion. Because he is not omnicient, he does not have the ability to see into Holmes' mind and present his train of thought "in real time". Only at the end of the story does the detective reveal how he's come to the conclusions to Watson and, consecutevily, to the reader.
In Sherlock Holmes (2009) audience don't have access to the detective's mind. It can be concluded then that the plot is narrated by Watson and is closer to the original, in this regard at least, where Holmes actually WAS "several chapters ahead", as you've nicely put it. I believe it was employed in classical detective stories, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was not the first one to use it.
Of course, it would be boring and time consuming for each episode of the series to employ this strategy, therefore, the train of thought of the detective is presented to the audience during the investigation.
To conclude, choosing the "superior incarnation" is irrelevant here, since both versions have their fortes. It is a purely subjective choice. I, for one, enjoyed watching both of them because they have an engaging story and the actors have done a fine job portraying the World's Most Famous Detective.
Boy, I hope somebody reads it ;)
read it!!!
Wow this is a damn explanation.... I mean anlysis.. Why is there a dearth of likes!
Completely Agreed
Great arguments, and nicely put. I read all of it and I agree with you.
Sorry for my bad grammar, it's not my native language.
Very well put and surprisingly concise for the length of the comment. One thing I’m going to note that nobody else has mentioned that I find interesting, is that Watson is portrayed virtually the same in both adaptations. I find it interesting to compare the differences in how Sherlock and Watson interact with each other in both series, and that, despite differences in the Sherlock characters, that central relationship has a very good feel. For instance I believe you could swap the Watsons and hardly even notice. Sorry if I repeated myself too much. I just find it interesting.
Hmmmmm
Now thats why iron man and dr strange have the biggest egos in avengers
Cuz they r both smart! Aaaaaand they r both Sherlock holmes
I love this
To be fair, in the show Sherlock half the time Sherlock runs off screen and solves the entire case using information the show does not present while everyone else is screwing around.
Um... no...
David Vilshansky the fucking boomerang
Agreed. It feels a bit like this guy's only ever seen A Study in Pink, and then assumed the rest of the show was just as good.
David Vilshansky Totally agree. I'd argue with with the exception of maybe the first two episodes of Series 1, Sherlock has a terribke habit of keeping his thoughts and conclusions mysterious or simply pulling a conclusion out of his ass at the end.
Hell, I'd argue that most of Sherlock isn't even about solving mysteries but ended up being focussed more on the character interactions instead.
Elementary is a better detective show in almost every way, and this is coming from a British person ffs.
But the clues are always still there. I mean, if you bother being observant.
I will concede something though: It's easy to stop being observant when dealing with Moffatt's writing. He's a curse that should stay away from the actual writing and just remain in the brainstorming arena.
Movie: How the hell was I supposed to know that?!
Series: Gah, I should've known that!
Then you get to series 2 and the boomerang scene...
@Jolien Deschamps Yep and super dumb.
LMAO,are you for real?
Let's take a look at episode 1:
There are scratches around the bottom of the phone so the owner must be an alcholohic not because of many failed attempts to plug in a charger e.g in the dark. Nope. She's an alchoholc and that's the only way to explain the scratches.
I should have known she frequently take off her ring because she's unfaithful it can't be because she wants to cook or clean or something else,not at all!
That's how BBC Sherlock functions:making far-fetched deductions based on little to no data and pulling assumptions out of his arse.
@@silentcoder Still dumb as hell that serial adulterer was the first conclusion that popped up in his head. The entire 'deduction' thing with ring was merely added to make Sherlock seem smart because by just one look at a ring he could tell the owner is unfaithful. It's just bad writing.
How could he even tell her spouse was a man? Maybe she was a lesbian.
This ring thing is one of the many example that Sherlock makes ridiculous assumptions and treats them as facts.
@@silentcoder
You're so right about the cab driver. I remember my ten-year-old self and seven-year-old sister watching A Study in Pink for the first time and watchimg that scene,we both shouted "It's the driver,you idiot.",it was just unbelievably foolish of Sherlock and in that moment,I realized the definition of the term "idiot plot".
Something else I noticed about the ring 'deduction' was that it adds nothing to the story or characters except showing how smart Sherlock is.
In my mind,I compared it to the restaurant scene in first Sherlock Holmes which I had watched the previous year. What I loved about the scene was Holmes observes Mary and makes multuple deductions but not all of them are accurate. He correctly deduces she's a governess. He wrongly deduces Mary dumped her fiance,not considering the other possibility which is the fiance died. Holmes deliberately came to the most outlandish conclusion. This scene is perfect because it shows:1) Holmes is smart for correctly guessing Mary's job. 2) Holmes is not infallible,as a person and a detective 3) Holmes cares about Watson a lot.
I imagined serial adulterer thing would be something similar,something to show Sherlock is not perfect but it didn't even become remotely relevant later.
I do admit,Sherlock series,despite the BS in pilot episode,I found myself watching the second episode and other episodes but I never really _thought_ about them. I think it qualified as a guilty pleasure for me back then with only a few good aspects. Benedict Cumberbatch was delightfully over-the-top as Sherlock and the score was enjoyable.
When I rewatched the show a while ago,this time thinking about everything thay happens...the show went down the gutter for me. I hate how infallible Sherlock is and I also hate how he can get away for being a jackass to everyone,and how Watson is so irrelevant and useless. Irene Adler is dreadful and Moriarty is behind every single crime committed.
The fangirls who eat all the queerbaiting and shipteasing the show throws at them who can't even tell Moffat is mocking them and their fan theories in season 3 episode 1 and can't handle criticism to Sherlock no matter what.
That famous quote sums it up very well which basically says:"Sherlock is a smart character written by dumb people results in intelligence being equated by wizardry."
That's the core problem with Sherlock: Moffat didn't create a smart character. He made a godlike,omniscient creature. Funny how other characters worship him at this point.
Nearly every other adaptation is superior: Ritchie movies,Granada,Russian series,Elementary and even House.
On Batman,I hope upcoming Mat Reeves's movie will focus on detective work,an aspect of Batman that hasn't been explored properly in other cinemtatic adaptations.
Throughout the years of reading sherlock holmes stories, i find RDJ movies fits more perfectly to the source. So many hidden mysteries in the stories that's revealed at the end of it. That's why I prefer RDJ over benedict, it just feels so mysterious like in the novels. Well, that's just my opinion
as mentioned by others in the comments, in Doyle's novels the reader doesn't get any hint, and just reads the explanation at the end of the story. so actually the RDJ's incarnation is more like the novels one.
Cumberbatch's character sticks to the novels in terms of plot (every episode is a "modern adaptation" of novels, like the first one (a study in scarlet), where the cabby is the murderer. we can't know it until the explanation, there aren't hints of any kind, and we just know that Holes found it out. THEN we have the explanation.
Now, I could be completely misremembering my Sherlock, but I'm pretty sure the films are actually a better representation of the books. The books are done from Watson's PoV who almost never understands Sherlock's thought processes and is often given information out of the blue that is D-Ex-M. It's mostly why I never read too many of the books as the arguments in this film are accurate for the stories too. However, I would argue that it works in the Sherlock films as they're not being told as Detective Stories, but rather action-adventure stories involving a genius detective.
But the point is, in the books we can still piece together the case, as no information is withheld from us. But the movies fail completely in visualizing this. Sherlock(TV) also fails in this after the second season. Some of the deductions feel far fetched in seasons 3 and 4. So both are bad
I read every single book of Sherlock Holmes written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and to me the film isn't loyal to the books at all.
Yes, the stories are told in Dr Watson's perspective and yet he never mentioned that Sherlock Holmes was that kind of guy.
Sherlock is a man of action but not like in the film. No, he would't go out kicking assess.
The film focus on the action, rather than the misteries of the crimes and most of the time you don't even remember what was he investigating, wich fortunately changed a bit in the second film.
In both the show and the books the focus is on the crimes and on how they seem to be impossible to solve.
@@drogadepc Didn't the Sherlock of the books study martial arts? (Bartitsu.) The same one demonstrated in the movies? (Neobartitsu.)
It is told in Watson's perspective yes, but just like Beena said, no information is withheld from the reader, everything that Sherlock notices, we notices.
Yes, and what I like in the movies is although Watson doesn't understand his processes, he's still highly competent in his own right, and illustrates his importance in the Sherlock-Watson duo as opposed to BBCs 'theyre bros but could be gay lol', which due to its lack of substance devolved into sappy sentimentality by the end.
While I agree that it is great to feel like you can piece together the mystery with the detective, I would like to offer a defense for Sherlock Holmes 2009. That film relied heavily on the paranoia of the citizens that Blackwood was terrorizing and by extension the audience. If the audience knows too much information they are not in the proper mindset. The audience needs to question if Blackwood really has magical powers.
I agree.
That's a very good point
Joseph Vasquez Thanks
You hit the nail on the head
Jet Storm Thank you.
This guy never read Sherlock Holmes or any “detective” series.
You’re not supposed to be spoon fed information. You’re supposed to go back and read/watch it again after what the “great detective” saw that we the viewer didn’t the first time around.
Binks D. Brook EXACTLY 👏🏼
spike blake that’s where you’re wrong. The show throws all the info at you right away and makes you go “oh, how did I not notice that” when the episode ends. The books and the movies are different, they’re in Watson’s POV so the readers are as clueless as he is most of them (although you could argue that the movie is sort of in both?). You get to see a side of him only Watson does. You’re also wrong when you say only the show shows us how Sherlock’s mind work. The books and movies does that too, but in their own way.
spike blake I can see where you’re coming from. The movies are in John’s point of view. The second movie even begins with him narrating it.
In the books, you know nothing, and I mean nothing until after the 3rd act where Sherlock explains how he solved it. The movies hide informations everywhere and you’d be able to catch them if you were truly paying attention to it whereas the show has Sherlock reveal everything to Watson and the audience. What’s the fun in that? You don’t get to put the puzzle together.
spike blake I’m not saying the show is bad, it’s amazing. I’m just saying it’s (the movie) the better and more accurate incarnation/adaptation of the books or any good detective story.
@@prujckn2586 But, I think if they saw you the clue, you would try to solve it before the ending reach and then when Sherlock solves it, see if you got it right.
This is the reason I actually like RDJ version of the character. It's a revelation, we had seen the facts. We understand their significant and having the reveal at the end putting them all together makes us, the viewer, string these along without a long break. If we had seen each bit of evidence in Sherlocks perspective it would ruin the reveal making it more of an unecessary repeat of what we already know. The movie shows and doesnt tell while simultaneously hiding the facts until they are important. Though I also enjoy Benedict's version of Sherlock, I still think that RDJ's is the true sherlock. They are both still great though!
You should read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The film version is exactly how he revealed the mystery. Truer to form.
@AUGUST LYRICS im a new sherlock fan got any reccomendations? Or call to actions?
@@moonsets-on_you Read the books so you won't be outsmarted in Sherlock-related discussions, the fandom gets real crazy sometimes
It would work if Watson was the mc..
Except he only used Sherlock as a tool rather than a point of focus
Mm I believe that Sherlock Holmes (2009) is that way because it sticks closer to the way Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the series. Go back and re-read them and Sherlock tells a few things to John and asks for his view, but mainly the deductions are kept mysterious and almost magical until Ta-Da! He's solved it and revealed it all. That is 19th century writing.
BBC's Sherlock is the way it is, taking us through it alongside Sherlock, because it is set in modernity. Here we have DNA, modern weaponry, a more complicated take on the classic series. We, as an audience, can generally follow along and devour the deductions raised because we are familiar with modern technology. For those in the 1800s, when Sherlock was being written, I imagine that for them the suspense and the tidbits of information were as titillating as our being with him every step of the way.
I honestly think it's just a matter of writing what you think is accessible to the audience.
I liked the Elementary version. The actor played a brilliant take.
The suspense created by just seeing him put the clues together is greater. The fact that RDJ's Holmes universe is more akin to the novels is also telling, not to mention how we know he's putting clues together but you are simply brought along as he solves it. Solving the case isn't the job of the audience, it's Holmes'. The fact it takes place within the original time period also makes it more interesting. His early car in AGOS which Mycroft remarks as "one day those will be found on every road in Britain," or something like that, is interesting storytelling as well telling us just how advanced Holmes is. This atmospheric superiority is also conveyed through the music, something you practically admit when using it towards the end of your video. In short, you proved the movies are better by selectively nitpicking methods of storytelling which to many are in fact quite superior than being spoon fed exposition and information as done in the bland series, all due respect to Cumberbatch who is a great actor.
I think that Downey's Sherlock is way more similar to the detective from Conan Doyle's books from this point of view. At the end of almost every book we read Holmes' deductions, which contain many more details than the ones we encountered before. As a long time lover of Holmes' stories, i think that "Sherlock" by BBC is a perfectly made tv-series, one of the best around these days. But Downey's movies make me feel i'm watching the adventure with the eyes of an astonished Dr. Watson, and it gives me almost the same awesome feeling i got from the books.
Andrea Arighi Exact my opinion
The BBC Sherlock puts small twists on real stories from Conan's stories though. The Downy versions don't have that same level of faithful adaptation. I agree with the astonished Watson comment but Watson in the Downy versions doesn't feel astonished by really anything ever. He is almost as smart as Sherlock in the movies.
EXACTLY!
I agree with this.
Also things like honeycomb and egg used in the grave, the gun setting off a fire having been tampered with - these are not things beyond the scope of logic or reason. I put together both conclusions, just not the means when I watched it - honey is a weak adhesive that could be bolstered, and the gun obviously triggered a flammable liquid. That was easy enough to follow - Sherlock knows the specific means, but the entire film is about questioning irrational belief with tempered reason.
If you keep that in mind, they aren't hard things to follow intuitively. If you fail to follow them, the more impressive his display of reasoning becomes later on in the film.
The BBC Sherlock series is also not above withholding crucial information from you. Taking Irene Addler's pulse is withheld completely from the viewer. The false painting having a celestial event in it is buried within a fight scene in a frantic light show, withholding the key bit of information that a viewer would need.
BBC's Sherlock on the other hand spoon-feeds you his chain of reasoning and worse, it's often very flawed. There's a few times he draws conclusions and they are proven to just be him being utterly mistaken, which is to its credit, but at times if you attempt to follow his chain it breaks down and his actions become inexplicable. The plot's he's chasing also become so sensational and unwieldy as to question his motivation entirely. Both shows are guilty of sensationalism for entertainment, but the film Sherlock you can at least follow if you stick to rational principles - his motivation is always clear, whereas the BBC's Sherlock his motivation is often very unclear, to the show's detriment.
For instance the Reichenbach Falls incident betrays his relationship with Watson completely - there is sentiment there, their friendship matters to Sherlock, it's not entirely hollow. A simple message saying he was alive would've saved Watson a year of grieving and stress. They try to make a point that he was trying to stay "underground" during this time - but no need to be THAT underground.
Thematically the film's always display a much more realistic impression of Sherlock's greater motivation and thus, his character. Defending scientific and rational principles against an opponent who deals in trickery and deceit is the first film's entire point - an issue that we still struggle with today. The further you fall behind in the plot due to those misgivings, the more the emotional weight hits you when it's all thwarted soundly and rationally. That's the juice, not exactly tracing clever deductions - but winning a greater victory for rational thought in the minds of viewers who succeeded in following the narrative, or those who were beguiled by its trickery.
In the second film it's not about the cleverness of Moriarty - the chess game is a great example. They don't show the game, because it doesn't matter, because you can hear the key details - Moriarty takes early and often, playing aggressively, their narrative explains that. You don't need to see every move. You just need to know that Sherlock places faith in the long game and doesn't meet aggression with aggression - he meets aggression with steadfast faith in a dubious piece - a bishop.
It's about faith in men, faith in comradery, versus an individual who excels by cutthroat means of self-gain. It's about matching aggression with
The BBC Sherlock has much less to prove and instead fixates on snarky line delivery and sacrificing character for plot. Admittedly, the actors carry that narrative, but it does not make the show superior.
It just makes it easier to draw lines between dots, instead of actually doing as Sherlock does in actually - make the dots and then the lines.
People should be somewhat beguiled. We don't need to identify with Sherlock. We need to identify with Watson - the man reconciling Sherlock, who has become detached from life. Watson's narrative is more important than Sherlock's.
In this regard, both the film and the show treat this character very badly - but the BBC Sherlock treats Watson like a poster boy for the entire show. In the film, Watson's friendship is always, always held high and the events in his life the most important. Because being able to solve all of life's riddles doesn't bring him happiness - and following Sherlock's narrative doesn't appeal to Watson though he'll admit it's clever and amusing.
What matters is that in the end of the films, Sherlock has placed all his faith in Watson - not just to adopt his rational ability, but that his personal investment in the case will drive him to become equal with Sherlock - something Moriarty would never allow someone else to accomplish. This is why Sherlock's Bishop succeeds and Moriarity's aggression fails - because he sacrifices his pieces instead of investing in them.
Sherlock's investment in Watson, and their friendship, is winning the day. Comraderie in the face of an overpowering aggressor.
These things matter more than clever narrative.
I agree so much - i think Downey's movies are amazing. Same feeling as books!
RDJ's Sherlock is a bit more closer to the book than the show. His personality resembles the book more as sherlock was addicted to heroin and was overall a strange and lonely dude. That should of also been analysed.
Sherlock in the book wasn't addicted to any drug. He took cocaine (not heroin) occasionally, but he wasn't addicted. He was addicted to having his brain work and took cocaine when there weren't any cases to keep his mind busy. The drug wasn't illegal at the time the stories were written, but Dr. Watson always argued against his doing it.
I think that it is Mary Russel that had a heroin problem? If yuo do somting about the ( very) creepy age diffrens between Holmes and Russel those stories might make a good tv series.
BBC Sherlock is a drug addict, and also a sociopath, so your argument there doesn’t really work out
Man clearly you didn't read the books.
It's not about which one is more accurate, it is about which is a better film to watch.
@@dushaunlewis7574 But the video is talking about which one is more closer to the source material, which is very clearly the films
The taxi scene is the only reveal in Sherlock where I just kinda felt like “... duh”
As soon as he said that bit about who can be in a crowd and not be seen, I knew it was the cabbie. The other episodes weren't anywhere near as easy.
JennySayKwah yeah, but, for the most part, a lot of the other solutions were kinda dumb. Either they were ridiculous or they were something a viewer didn’t have the necessary info for (for the most part)
The detective is smarter than the viewer
@@achyuththouta6957 no, I mean it was obvious
@@jennysaykwah690 because the other episodes didn't give you info needed to figure things out. They gave you red herrings so Sherlock could look cool by knowing a random unshown things and solving the case off screen.
So you're not comparing the Sherlocks, you're comparing the design of the movies to the show.
You're not comparing the detectives, you're comparing their depiction.
That is not what I expected from your title or your introduction.
Jodonore 2.0 you’ve been played by the Holmes boys
Pretty much ......
It's a subjective topic which depends upon the perspective of the individual but this guy is acting as if his perspective is the absolute.
great conclusion sherlock
@@user-nu3sd7zb2j Not to mention,he takes only one episode from the show for his 'analysis' or whatever this is supposed to be and thinks no one notices. Much like Moffat himself,The Closer Look considered his audience to be short-sighted and inattentive,in the case of this video at least.
easy, one of them has autistic behavior, one doesn't.
I'm not sure though... While in Cumberbatch's scene we feel that we were so dumb that we didn't notice the answer in front of our face, In Downey's I feel the genious of Sherlock even more, since he had an answer I probably would never had deduced.
Julian Zabala agree. Also although I believe Sherlock has these amazing abilities, I think it should at least TAKE A WHILE to actually deduce somethings age - the tv show.
Well I think you are looking at the tv show in hindsight bias as although you may see the answer as obvious now you are still just as unlikely to deduce what Sherlock does on the tv show as he does in the movie. So I understand where you are coming from, but I think it goes on to show the brilliance of the writers as they are able to present obvious clues that not even the smartest of us could deduce
+Cameron McColgan No, sherlock's writers suck. Those "obvious clues" are super specific & Sherlock in the show magically knows what those clues mean, when they could of meant so many things other than what he concluded... Its really pretentious.
Neither one seems like Sherlock Holmes to me. One seems like Steampunk Batman, and the other is Ender Wiggins goes viral on the internet.
Now I'd like to see someone compare this to Elementary.
The end of the video makes me so happy, I'm so happy for you finding your passion. These videos are amazing and you're easily my favourite video essayist out there. You have a insane talent and I couldnt be more happy for you
That did not age well. Thats probably the only scene in the series where you can actually follow the deduction
It is not. You can follow deductions through the whole series
@@helena8911 yeah? Ya got examples to backup that claim?
@@sethmiles9436 oh yeah plenty, see: the entire series
lmao 🤣🤣
sherlock solving the entire case offscreen with hints not being shown to the viewer, does not count as "being able to follow".
episode 1 of Sherlock the closest he gets to actual detective stuff
kiptelgat The Great Game was also pretty good at showing the detective stuff
Letting the audience know what the protagonist is thinking has more involvement from them and also makes it a great story.
-Totally agreed.
But, you're missing the general story of Sherlock Holmes ( The actual Sherlock Holmes novels by Conan Doyle).
It is that, the story is NARRATED by Dr. Watson. Hence, we(the audience) are seeing the story from Dr. Watson's perspective. We understand what Watson is understanding even though Holmes had potentially solved the case.
And the video is about "Superior Incarnation", so......
I say 'Sherlock Holmes' movies are better "Incarnation".
..... and also I loved this video.
Finally someone mentioned the Watson argument. According to Doyle's creation, we are not supposed to empathize with Sherlock, but with Watson, since he is used as a "witness narrator". Yes, sometimes Sherlock explains to Watson some of his methods, but the essence of every Sherlock mystery resides in being exposed to the same elements as the detective, while being unable to enter his mind and follow his line of thought. Then, at the reveal, you realize that you were presented with the same pieces as Sherlock (honey) but were unable to deduce further information (honey=>glue). The result is the reader feeling like Watson, a witness to an act of genius from which we are always just several steps behind.
The closer to the original the better, the farther away then its another story, you need more upvotes
best comment!!!!! i was about to write exaxtly what you did
Akhil Gadige couldn't have said it better. You deserve a slow clap 👏
Akhil Gadige I do agree with most points of this comment like how the movies go better with the original story but as the creators of the television show said they were telling the story about Watson and Sherlock they meant to not just make it johns perspective they wanted it to be a story about the two men and what they thought so they did. But I still respect this comment deeply and don’t believe it’s wrong I do personally like the show better but the movies are good too I am not defending the show in anyway whatsoever.
I just love these two incarnations equally. They’re not really meant to be compared because the RDJ version focuses on the story more than the character of Holmes whereas Cumberbatch’s version focuses on how a person such as Holmes with his genius level intellect and godlike ability of deduction would fit in to a world like ours and how his existence itself would affect those around him and himself. It’s like a character study. Which is why it’s told from Sherlock’s perspective and not Watson’s like in the books. On the other hand the movies just set the character of Holmes as is and focus on his adventures. Both versions are amazing and distinct and at the same time, similar. That’s why I love them. I can’t wait for the third film and for the next season of the show.
Sherlock to Sherlock
"It was the only way"
Good video, but I do think it has to be noted that this isn't exactly fair. You've compared Downey Jr's Sherlock in the first movie to Benedict's Sherlock in the first episode, and while I agree that Benedict is better in the first two seasons, I feel like it is worth pointing out how the show gave up trying to make the character relatable, and basically made him an action superhero. For this comparison to be fair, it should have been more than the first movie vs the first episode, as how Benedict's version changes as the show progresses is relevant to the discussion. Don't worry though, I'm not hating, this was still a well-made video essay. I just feel there was more that could have been said.
Bradlling the problem with the video is that he talks about the way which the shows display information...that's it tv show Sherlock wins but the movie tries to show you a piece of evidence and try to figure out if it's vital to the case, it let's you theorise on its importance.
Essentially - the later seasons really fell off a cliff with almost Doctor Who levels of improbable, poorly explained situations and action scenes.
Benedict cumbertach and Martin Freeman are the best
True
Hell yea
I AGREE
Yeah... They are the best at taking 2nd place in a who's the best Sherlock Holmes contest. Downey is #1!
Agreed
I will have to disagree with you, the fact that we don’t see all of his mind through deduction makes the scenes feel more mysterious and impressive on his part.
Love to hear your enthusiasm and excitement! So glad to see you approaching 500k subs!!!
Let's ask ourselves. Superior incarnation in what sense? In being similar to the original Holmes, or in being how you wish Holmes were?
The problem with using the first movie as opposed to 'A Game of Shadows' is that the sole purpose of it was to be mysterious regarding Blackwood and his exploits. Here we have a man who is believed to use Black Magic, and the movie succeeds in making the viewer question how he did it. The only reason why we don't see a lot of insight into Holme's mind is to avoid destroying the whole mystery surrounding Blackwood and his magic as the movie progresses. It's not lackluster. It's just not the movie's objective. Now, regarding the movie portraying Sherlock as an action hero who does detective work, you got it all backwards. In the original novels by Conan Doyle, Sherlock is a man with various skills, of which fighting is one of his most developed ones. In fact, Watson mentions in 'A Study in Scarlet' that he's "an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman". In the short story 'The Adventure of the Illustrious Client', Sherlock fights against multiple assailants, just like in the movies. Unlike the show, the novels don't show a lot of insight into Sherlock's mind, so that would make the one in the movies the Superior Incarnation.
The show is not bad. It just takes everything that Sherlock was and made something completely different.
No arguing that.
Love this reply. Was about to say almost the exact same thing
Kenneth Eisenhower ya but I like it and I don't really care about authenticity
Great reply I love both but prefer downy jr’s incarnation as he captures the novels greater and has a great quality to him
In the original stories the conclusions are revealed at last
Yeah, that's why they're called conclusions...
exactly!!
Hey! I found your channel while searching for videos about dialogue- and I LOVED your vid about that subject. I literally took notes; I learned so much.
I've loved all of the videos I've watched of yours bc the way you analyze stories and films is incredible! So looking forward to all the things you have planned- both on RUclips and elsewhere!
I find it absolutely wonderful that you have found one of your great passions so early in life. Go for it! Especially the writing. And, as someone much older, let me repeat the oft-used adage, that it truly IS the things that you don’t do that you regret. Enjoy!
Have you ever read a Holmes story? Doyle barely gives any insight into what Holmes is thinking and half the time the case is solved by Holmes knowing some random shit like Egyptian honey glue because he makes it his obsession to learn as much as possible that may ever apply to a case(he's smarter than everyone else). We're only supposed to ever know what Holmes tells Watson or someone else, and mostly importantly, unlock the Sherlock TV show, the stories usually conclude and make sense
He hasn't. He's a pretentious idiot.
I would consider the RDJ Sherlock Holmes to be far truer too the style of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. The original stories never bothered to give us Sherlock's point of view, but gave the reader all of his methods. If you applied those methods while reading, did the thinking for yourself, you stood as much chance as the sleuth himself on solving the case.
But that also happens in BBC Sherlock. If it is a trivial matter or the conclusion, Sherlock describes it. Leading up to it, there are words that describe observations, and you can often put them together.
The Jewish Egg That's the thing, Doyle's Sherlock doesn't really allow the viewers to see through the eyes of Sherlock. Readers see through the eyes of Watson hence most mysteries are revealed by Sherlock
What you describe is similar to Agatha Christie's detective novels
> If it is a trivial matter or the conclusion, Sherlock describes it. Leading up to it, there are words that describe observations, and you can often put them together.
No, you can't 95% of the time. Mostly mysteries are solved through information that only main character knows but not the audience, all the while everyone around him just cums from the supposed genius of a man. As far as a detective show goes, Sherlock is down with the worst of them.
the series is spoon-feeding the information to the audience while the movie represent the depiction of the book itself and the reveal is always at the end..
I know this is an older vid but that whole spiel you did at the end really made me smile. Keep being passionate man!
I feel the video should be titled "Sherlock vs. Sherlock - Which Is The Superior Detective Story" because in the short stories and books, the reader is not suppose to empathize with Sherlock but rather Watson. In the books Watson represents the common reader (who is ignorant of Sherlock's brilliant deductions until Sherlock elaborates). I would argue that, while not as engaging for an audience, the movie is much more accurate to the book style of Sherlock Holmes. I agree that the show is a better detective story, but it is not the faithful to the style of the original books.
The short stories always left the feeling of amazement at how Sherlock, given the same evidence as Watson (the reader), reached brilliant conclusions.
The video was good, as always. I look forward to when your next new video appears in my feed.
Agreed. I couldn't help thinking the whole time that the movie actually is closer to Doyle's Sherlock. I'd add that I don't necessarily think the books/short stories are great detective stories.
Alot of people want to compare Sherlock films and shows to the old movies were he was a stuffy snob or to an idea of what a Sherlock story should be, in both cases without regard to the original books. Usually because they haven't read them.
I would personally categorize the Sherlock books closer to being a super hero story than a detective story or mystery, as Watson and the reader are supposed to be left in awe of this unbelievably talented but extremely flawed, character. The audience isn't supposed to come out feeling as if they are on par with Holmes.
Robert Downey Junior's Sherlock is more closer to the original sources than Cumberbatches', because it is set in the correct time period and in the original, Dr. Watson doesn't know what Sherlock is feeling, and he tells everybody at the end and gives out all the deductions he made during the investigation. Also, in the original books, he does get involved in fights and action. One point to Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock!
Rdj played a better Sherlock character, while the show Sherlock has a better way of letting everyone see what he's thinking.
That's at least what I got from it.
Yet book Sherlock doesn't fight that frequently in the same story... RDJ as Sherlock has this kid's action figure feel to him. I like the movies since they're entertaining, I also like the show and have noticed some problems with that Holmes as well but either of their depictions are close enough to the real Sherlock, perhaps another Sherlock mixing characeristics from both of these versions would be close enough.
@@lphantomhive6259 I agree that book Sherlock didn't fight nearly as much, but he's more accurate in the physical descriptions department as well as mentioning a few times that he was an expert fighter, which I think they used the fight scenes in the movie to portray, even though it isn't something he does all the time.
BBC Sherlock does get into fights, just for not the whole episode (please see 2 fight scenes in the Blind Banker episode, the epic slow-mo fight scene in the Scandal in Belgravia episode, etc). Also, Holmes in the books/short stories does not fight at every opportunity, only when necessary. I think you need to read them again ;)
I agree that RDJ's Holmes is truer to the POV of ACD Sherlock Holmes, but BBC Sherlock has modernized a lot of elements that stand true to the books (Holmes' drug problems, his biology & chemistry experiments, his weird distant relationship with his brother, his relationship with the urchan/homeless population of London, how he uses his violin to help him work through problems, etc). Don't forget that BBC Sherlock actually used mysteries from original source material, RDJ's Holmes... Well didn't.
Both versions of Sherlock Holmes are fantastic, I obviously have my own opinion on which is a bit better, as do you. (I've heard the Grenada version is simply fantastic, and I've so been meaning to give that one a go too.) I would just say, don't give BBC Sherlock a miss, if you haven't given it a chance yet. :) Series (seasons) 1-3 are simply fantastic!
RDJ's version is closer to the books because that version was set on the same era as the books? Oh, that's why we call Americans dumbass people. You only see, you don't observe. You think, but you don't deduce. You know nothing about the spirit of Sherlock Holmes. You know nothing about a true detective story. You know nothing about telling a story with different background but also is the truest incarnation of Sherlock Holmes' spirit. Ok, dumb ass. Keep praising RDJ's Sherlock Holmes version because iT wAs aT tHe sAmE eRa.
When I‘m in the mood for action Sherlock i prefer RDJ but when I’m in the mood for high functional psychopath then I prefer Benzedrine Snumblesnitch .... both actors are great as Sherlock but my favorite Mycroft Holmes will always be Mark Gatiss from the BBC show ...
*high functioning sociopath xD
High functioning sociopath
ITS HIGH FUNCTIONING SOCIOPATH
What is benzedine snumblesnitch
@@therealslimshady6763 Benedict cumberbach
I’ll be honest I loved the Sherlock movies far more than the show. The ambiguity and vagueness of it is what made me love it so much tbh. It was more focused on a more set story I’d say, rather than a detective experience. But that’s what I go to a movie to see. It’s a lot like knives out in that sense. More of a story and the mystery is unraveled at the end and conclusions are drawn by putting the puzzle of the scenes together.
First of all, your videos are amazing, and I think your work is among the best out there.
The only point I disagree with you about this issue, is that I think the film was heavily based on the feeling that you actually don't know how Lord Blackwood must've pulled it off. It's almost as if the film wants us to believe that it's gonna go all supernatural, and showing us certain pieces of information that Holmes had would destroy this feeling.
While usually the point of view of the story is the viewer's point of view, I think in the movie the point of view they wanted to sneakily show us was the average, uneducated person of the time, so we were supposed to think that he actually got resurrected and that his magic is real, with the gun setting that guy on fire etc.
This doesn't mean that you are wrong, the best reveal I think IS the one that makes the audience say "Damn it, it was in front of me all along!", but I think the film's choice of withholding information was deliberate.
Like I said to someone else in the comments with the same opinion, you got it perfectly right.
This comparison can only really apply to BBC Sherlock for maybe the first season, after which the show kinda goes off the rails and a bunch of your complaints from Downey's Sherlock start happening in those later episodes.
Antiform
Nope. The second season is the best, the third is incredible and the fourth is good. I think that overral the first season is the weakest, but in terms of "doing investigation" it was the best, but not in plot.
actually it's a bunch of self-fellating crap written by a dumb guy who thinks genius intellect is indistinguishable from magic.
Antiform
Funny fact: He explains everything in the show, just watch it.
Moffat haters are really funny. He made true masterpieces like Doctor Who series 5, Heaven Sent, Dark Water, Day Of The Doctor, Time Of the Doctor, Series 9 and 10 and the best finale ever (Fall Of The Doctor), not counting his incredible work on Sherlock. Even his worst works on Doctor Who are way better than the overral writing.
Moffat's a good writer and has written some very good shows... when he has a good boss. Given free reign however he just fails.
Jack Evans
His era on Doctor Who was incredible, Heaven Sent and The Doctor Falls are easily among the best episodes of the entire show.
Within 3 years this channel grew by a thousand percent. Nicely done!
I really wish the VERY book-accurate Jeremy Brett series got some love and recognition, it really was awesome and Brett's is pretty much the definitive portrayal of this fascinating character.
Dr. House is the best Sherlock Holmes.
Bravo for the reference recognition!
😻 someone said it
Logical deduction genius>>>>>>>good doctor
Lol for real
That's actually true
Sherlock from the film is portrayed as a human with unusual skills. A cut above the rest, someone who can predict your movement,
because everyone is predictable for his brain.
As a film, "Sherlock Holmes" is fantastic because it has a different idea. It is not a underdog story, but a story about the greatest trying to be greater by overcoming obstacles.
If someone who is reading this comment hasn't watched it, I recommended. :)
When this video was posted the channel had around the 50,000 subscribers. Now I watch this video two years later and the channel has more than 600k subscribers! You did a great job! Keep it going💪🏽
Thanks for sticking around Amelie :)
I love RDJ. But BC is Sherlock Holmes.
LMAO
Jeremy Brett is the best.
Sherlock the TV series is one of the best series I've seen on Netflix.
It's for one, absolutely beautifully made, and the scoring of it is eargasmic.
For the few less amazing episodes, I always feel like there is still something to enjoy in them. Perhaps not the case itself, but the great thing is that there is always something else you appreciate.
It really does an incredible job at building everything up from ep 1 and making everything fall into place at the end.
I feel like the show got such a phenominal start with s1 and 2, that everything after would've not been seen as that great anymore by the pessimists of the internet.
I've never seen a comment that is so perfect. This is absolutely true! Even the episodes I don't like, I like at least half of the episode because they (Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat) are amazing writers and are very imaginitive and becuase Sherlock is amazing and the show is absolutely perfect in every way!
It is very good but the final season was awful.
exactly! So incredibly well done so beautifully scored. Benedict Cumberbatch is a far superior actor.
@@NotAnotherKuromi
I personally think that the final season gave some spice to the overall series although I would agree that 1 and 2 are really the best, but that doesn't mean that 3 and 4 are bad, they are actually quite enjoyable as well
The superior incarnation...
is House M.D.
Yeet Skeet nah it's Psych
Yeet Skeet And House operates the same way (albeit culminating less in dramatic final revelations due to it being serial) as the Sherlock movies.
Yeet Skeet agreed lol
Soo basically its *IRON MAN* VS *DOCTOR STRANGE*
Irrelevant point but the difference between both sherlock adaptations that I can't help but notice is their versions of Dr. Watson.
In the show, Watson is somewhat rather a pushover than someone who aids Holmes in his adventures. The film however displays a way better Watson who uses his medical expertise providing Sherlock knowledge most of the scientific shenanigans he has very little knowledge about.
Now don't get me wrong I don't wish to pronounce anathema on the show's Watson, infact I'd pick him over the film's portrayal, reason being "Attachement".
The film's Sherlock sure is brilliant but he seemed more aloof, absent in most times of need. Now, I know that both Watsons had a private life to deal with but the show's Watson managed to be with Sherlock all the time despite having a family, what's more is that the show makes us feel closer to the characters by showing their back stories therefore giving us knowledge of what they've gone through that led these characters to one another, whereas the film's exhibition of the mentioned back stories is apparently absent.
You review this as if you've never read the books.
Garret Castro because he has not
most people haven't read the books
Breanna Lelewski It doesn't have to *about* the books, but knowing the books allows for a much more informed and insightful analysis. RDJ's Sherlock is by far more accurate to the original character--not necessarily better overall, but more accurate--for example: we see NOTHING of Holmes' thought processes unless he chooses to reveal them. Heck, a fair portion of the time, he's not even there to share his insights, instead solving everything off-screen! There's nothing wrong with analyzing the film and show separately from the books and short stories, but there's so much more to add if you can integrate all three together, making it very, VERY obvious when someone tries to discuss the character without having done so.
I love the books but still prefer the BBC one
This is just about the movies in general
Did you watch only the first episode of Sherlock? Cause that's literally the only episode he doesn't just run off and solve everything off screen with evidence we have never seen and we're supposed to ooh and aah at how much of a smarty smart he is. At least Guy Ritchie's movies are not pretending to be "intellectual".
That's not right. The clues and deductions always appear when sherlock does them
Sherlock is an intellectual...
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΤΕΛΗΣ ΛΑΧΑΝΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ
Rewatch the "boomerang killing" scene again, then come back and try to say that with a straight face...
That is basically the only circumstance when Sherlock does that in the series. In almost every episode we see how his minds works in the best cinematographic way possible. On many ocassions we see him go to his mind palace and see the reasoning behind his conclusions. The Sherlock Holmes films of Guy Ritchie never do this.
What about the time when he solves the case where the woman was killed by Botox poisoning by watching clips of her show off camera, or the time where he solved a murder by deducing it was a legendary assassin we had never seen any sign of before that point, and worst of all when they introduce his sister and all she does is impossible things that aren't really ever explained apart from "she's a genius". The BBC version of Sherlock pulls that kind of crap constantly, which defeats the point of a detective story. The thing that makes mysteries interesting is being given all the information but having it put together in a way you probably wouldn't have thought of.
Jeremy Brett is the only true Sherlock Holmes. *CHANGE MY MIND*
Thank you! I'm dissapointed that not more people mentions Brett's performance.
Gotta be honest, I always prefered "fight me" to "change my mind" seemed a little truer to the intent of the comment lol.
RDJ's was more darker, seemed to show that Industrial England feel well. And the suspense, the way he examined the scene and we tried to think along with him was amazing.
I enjoy the comparison. But I do have to disagree with you. Solving the case in the Downey iteration is more interesting because you have to actually think. The honey example you gave makes you think. Upon watching that scene the first time I saw the honey and dismissed it. Then when the reveal was happening I couldn't piece it all together and enjoyed that. When it came to watching the first episode of Sherlock. I felt like it was all laid out for me and I was five steps ahead of Sherlock. I hated that.
in bbc sherlock you have to think, too. it just presents info to the audience in a different way: using dialogue or words on screen. it’s still a complexing mystery to put together, and the words/ dialogue are just insight into Sherlock’s mind. i agree it might not be the better one when it comes to actually having the audience solving the case, but bbc sherlock helps the audience relate more to the character, which i think is sorta more of the focus. but you already knew the answer to the case in sherlock before he did???
I think both representations have different goals in terms of how they want to present the detective. I think Sherlock (tv show) focuses on showing the thought process behind solving a mystery and shows the viewers what kinds of things to look for, whereas Sherlock Holmes (movie) only shows the viewers THAT the detective is thinking instead of WHAT he’s thinking, despite using dialogue to show if something is abnormal, etc. In the end, Sherlock (tv show) puts the pieces together and it feels like an earned realization/finding of an answer because we were in the detective’s brain. On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes (movie) hands us the answer by filling the holes with information that feels completely unrelated to the investigation. If the movie had given a bit more information about what he was thinking (but not too much), the answer would feel like an “OH OF COURSE” moment instead of an “oh... huh.”
This is just my opinion and I’m not saying your opinion is wrong because opinions can’t be right or wrong! Just my take on this. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Iprefer the movies because the show treats you like an idiot. + Cumberbatch's version of Sherlock is just a dick for no reason. Not for comedic purposes, just because he is an asshole. What I find the worst is Watson. Watson is portrayed as the dumbest ever, watson isn't supposed to be an idiot.
@@noticeable_difference7340 In BBC mysteries are split into: You know before Sherlock, and you had no way to know, and Sherlock also had no fucking way to know because the mystery was too convoluted and the show didn't even bother to show us the clues.
Ok smarty pants, sure
If I absolutely had to choose between the two, I'd go with RDJ's Holmes (but I will always choose book Holmes and/or Jeremy Brett). Why? Because he at least doesn't pull conclusions out of his ass without explaining how he got there. The fucking BOOMERANG. Sherlock is basically a magician's trick, they keep on waving Sherlock's amazingness in our face while anything interesting doesn't actually happen onscreen. It's the farthest incarnation of the character feom the original I have ever seen, and that is saying a lot
absolutely agree. RDJ is one of the best actors i have ever seen and his cocky attitude is perfect for this like he is for iron man. i love it
Yeah the boomerang shit was dumb and I didn’t like season 4 episode 2 either because its the same shit there. I think they should’ve cut episode 2 completely and make the final a double episode with Sherlock and Watson solving cases like normal in the end of the finale
Fun Fact: In Avengers EndGame, Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man) Calls Cumberbatch (Dr Strange) "The Baker Street Wizard"
Bleeker Street* (Doctor Strange's address)
Nah, he says "Bleecker Street wizard"
No, he says "the Bleeker Street magician".
Hearing you talk about going from 10k to 50k subs, how happy you are, and you're now near a million. :))
Watching this after frustrating season 4...
I feel you man
Exactly
Season 1 was great with great riddles and characters personality flowing into the lines. After that Sherlock was just about character development and pretty much just about “who is this one guy” and “is he still alive”. The rest was just boring. So sad. After episode 1 I was so hyped
@@PRIMEVAL543 I actually liked how Sherlock 2010 played with Sherlock's emotions.
@@PRIMEVAL543 Wtf, season 2 was the best season and season 4 was really good too, season 1 and 3 were the weakest ones
I remember when Sgt. Donovan in the TV show, accused Sherlock of lying and setting up every crime, so he can solve it miraculously. Of course, John (and the audience) didn't believe her, because we have seen every bit of evidence that he has seen, along with his thought progress and how he came up with the conclusion. He wasn't smarter because he got more info, but he's more clever because how he put it together.
But honestly, if she said that about the movie Sherlock, most would probably be inclined to believe her.
And congrats on finding your passion! I love video essays and it's incredibly hard to come by creators who not only have the intelligence to explain what's going on, but has a great presence when speaking to the camera. Good luck on your future, and I'll definitely be commenting on every video along the way!
Do you mean accused rather than excused?
Crispman 777 yea, thanks for pointing that out for me
The way the movie approaches it is the same the novels did (since they are from Watson's point of view, and he finds Sherlock's thought process as alien as anyone else does). Also, I at least would find it a interesting premisse, if the audience would have doubts about the real abilities of Sherlock.
If you watch another video called I think "Why Sherlock Sucks" (the tv show) it mentions a few important things where basically he's given information through an ex machina way too many times, it's worse in the later episodes, the one shown here is basically one of the few good examples of him properly solving something himself, often times he just goes away and comes back having solved something, maybe having used 'his homeless network' and then shocked than neither the other characters and presumably the audience didn't figure it out by themselves
10,000 Subscribers without Videos Or the TV show(s)
When I first subscribe this channel there is no so much of followers, it really excited to see you decide to choose this as your career. Thank you and Good luck~
I enjoyed this project of yours.
I can't say that I agree. First, in the original stories, MUCH of Holmes's work takes place behind the scenes, which means that Watson (and thus through his eyes, the reader) is in the dark until the end. Second, the viewer of the RDJ films is treated to sequences of Holmes's deductions (which the producers call Holmesvision) that are virtually precognitive. Further, the BBC series has gotten so ham-handed and grim that I've given up on it.
Yes, that's what I remember from the original stories as well. Those are the stories from doctor's perspective. He can't know what is going on in Sherlock's mind whatsoever. So, the mystery is revealed at the very end of each story.
Well this is a show, not a book, they don't have to go with what the book says, they make it suitable for a TV show, I understand you like RDJ, but you saying this shows that you've only watched the films. Try watching one episode of the show and tell me what you think.
I don't think that was Mr. Malcolms point. The creator of this video clearly states: "If you want to ask which adaptation is most ture to the sourcematerial [...] Cumberbatchs incarnation takes the cake." All the while he contributes this to the more inclusive narative in crime solving. If you have read the sourcematerial as Mr. Malcolm pointed out you can't draw that distinction, as there Watson, i.e. the reader is left in the dark. hence the point and conclusion is mute.
Moritz Cornehl Yes but ronald also voted movie over the show and called it grim which slightly provokes the fans. Whatever the so called "Holmesvision" is, it definitely does not make the movie better than the show.
I don’t get the major gripe about Holmes withholding most of his small deductions that build up. In the books and the movies, the details are given for anyone who has the background info or trivia already known as Sherlock does. It’s sensible for him to hold on to it until he’s for certain. Shouldn’t be a problem if it follows a working logic.
I have to disagree BBC Sherlock almost feels like it's spooning feeding the audience and focuses too much on snarky lines/ Downey's Sherlock also seems to value Watson more and Watson is not treated like he has second rate intelligence or charm to Sherlock. However you make some good points
i think the focus on bbc sherlock does lie more on relating the audience to sherlock. a lot of the story focuses more on the relationships that sherlock has and the way he deals with people. and it’s not a bad thing, it’s just different. rdj’s rendition IS more focused on action... and it is less focused on Sherlock’s relationships. bbc sherlock also just presents information to the audience in a different way, that being words on screen and dialogue. it’s still a complexing case to solve... it’s just presented in a way that helps the audience related more to sherlock.
it’s good to explore different qualities in different versions of sherlock. if every version was focused on the same thing... idk... i just like how each one is kind of unique and tells the story in its own way...
Finally someone said it
I love Benedict Cumberbatch's version of Sherlock because of that reason and because the show is so witty and unlike anything I've ever seen! Absolute favourite show!
You are an amazing person man, you're a true inspiration for me.
Can I just say that I love your channel? Keep making these videos, you have some great insights.
Thanks, I will :)
Love your channel! If you're trying a novel I would recommend considering to read them and record them! (audiobook?) your voice would be perfect and you have a nice timing
Everyone's just gonna ignore elementary XD
I don't!
Kaeden Ngai-Natsuhara It is fine??? I guess???
I am _ _ _ _ Locked The words you're looking for here is "CSI With Sherlock Holmes"
lmao yeah fuck that shit
...because it sucks.
Well I liked the Sherlock Movies, I'm still waiting for part 3, but thanks for the information about the 2 Movies and this video made me like the show more.