![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAs always, the character interactions are done extremely well, and are the best thing about the show.
Sherlock's detective vision is done well, though didn't have any moment to especially shine.
My biggest problems are, why would NK benefit from bombing British parliament[1]? I understand there has to be some kind of antagonist, but I think the story works better if there's SOME sort of motivation.
And also that some of the mysteries are done very well: the disappearing tube carriage has a simple obvious explanation that rings true, even if it has weaknesses in[2]. But some mysteries are played as mythology, which Sherlock enacts by magic.
What I find infuriating is not that the shows concentrates on characters, not mysteries. I think that's mostly good. It that it switches randomly between mysteries that have a "correct" answer, even if you only find it out afterwards, and mysteries that are solvable only by magic. That means you can't enjoy EITHER sort.
[1] They picked a bad year to get much sympathy for parliament.
[2] If the driver is in on it, couldn't someone just have got out of the train?
Sherlock's detective vision is done well, though didn't have any moment to especially shine.
My biggest problems are, why would NK benefit from bombing British parliament[1]? I understand there has to be some kind of antagonist, but I think the story works better if there's SOME sort of motivation.
And also that some of the mysteries are done very well: the disappearing tube carriage has a simple obvious explanation that rings true, even if it has weaknesses in[2]. But some mysteries are played as mythology, which Sherlock enacts by magic.
What I find infuriating is not that the shows concentrates on characters, not mysteries. I think that's mostly good. It that it switches randomly between mysteries that have a "correct" answer, even if you only find it out afterwards, and mysteries that are solvable only by magic. That means you can't enjoy EITHER sort.
[1] They picked a bad year to get much sympathy for parliament.
[2] If the driver is in on it, couldn't someone just have got out of the train?
no subject
Date: 2014-01-05 04:59 pm (UTC)(1) it explains why Mycroft telling Moriarty loads of intensely personal things about Sherlock was not an incredibly patently ridiculously stupid thing to do (which was something that previously half-ruined Reichenbach Falls for me)
(2) it was incredibly satisfying to see John getting properly angry at Sherlock. And I really like how they did it with them being thrown out of progressively less expensive eateries ...
The thing I like least about it is the scene with them actually in the tube carriage with the bomb. Sherlock is manipulative and self-serving and I think his continued manipulation of John / John's emotions is awful, particularly the bit after he's turned the bomb off (but also the bit before it - Sherlock already knows he's called the police, so he's already being deceptive). I know there's no rule that says Sherlock's nice, but I want him to treat John better than this ...
Maybe North Korea were acting in concert with some other entity which has a more obvious reason to want to get rid of Parliament? Agree it wasn't particularly convincing. Maybe on this occasion he wasn't actually acting for North Korea, but had been bought by someone else? (I liked the Giant Rat of Sumatra reference :) )
(no subject)
From: