MovieChat Forums > Mark Gatiss Discussion > Great writer, lousy Mycroft....

Great writer, lousy Mycroft....


I love the fact that Mark has resurrected Sherlock on TV and that he has done a great job in writing the series (for the most part). I don't like that he has made Sherlock out to be such an anti-social and rude person, and the fact that he has removed the warm relationship between Sherlock and John, but otherwise the writing is fantastic.

That being said, he should never have written himself into the series as Mycroft. He is not a suitable Mycroft. Mycroft is an extremely powerful, imposing man, and Mark is simply not this type. Mark is best as a warm, gentle character, frustrating bureaucrats or as weasely, simpering types, but he does not have a strong, formidable presence that commands respect, which is who Mycroft is supposed to be.

I'm truly grateful to Mark for this new Sherlock series. He shows real brilliance in his interpretation of the canon. I can't wait to see season three.


"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

This message has been deleted by an administrator

reply

This message has been deleted by the poster

reply

This message has been deleted by the poster

reply

I would shower Mark and everyone on this series with awards until their heads exploded from the swelling!

Moffat's head is already exploding from the swelling.

I agree with almost everything else you've said though, except for how the women are written. Until TRF, Molly was a complete doormat who exhibited little self-respect (even though she must be a highly-competent professional to hold the position she does); Donovan's an interesting character, but I wish that we knew more about the obvious animosity between her and Sherlock (is it just professional jealousy?); Adler was a potentially great character undermined in the last 10 minutes.

reply

What makes you say his head is exploding? Not arguing it. Just curious!

reply

Then you and I are in agreement. I lauded the writing and interpretation of the canon. The only things I had issue with are the lack of real closeness between Sherlock and John, Sherlock's overly bristly nature, and Mark's unsuitability as Mycroft. Other than those trifles, I love, love, love the series and am delighted that it has been such a success - it certainly deserves it.

That being said, we do disagree as it pertains to your assessment of Brett's Sherlock. Nothing comes close to matching, let alone surpassing his interpretation of the enigmatic Holmes. No one, ever, has come close (IMHO) to bringing Holmes alive as Jeremy did. Brett's Holmes was a very multifaceted character and all the more amazing considering the fact that Brett suffered from bipolar disorder. Cumberbatch does a wonderful, modern approximation of Holmes, but his Holmes is nothing like the canon, and for people like me who love Doyle's work, that detracts from the excellence of the series. The reason Holmes was so brilliant and effective is because he could easily, effectively maneuver, intellectually and socially, within all classes and strata in Victorian England. He had a disdain for women, but is always courteous to them, as Watson states in The Dying Detective:

"...for he had a remarkable gentleness and courtesy in his dealings with women. He disliked and distrusted the sex, but he was always a chivalrous opponent."

Holmes was strange and could be very difficult, but he was a gentleman and was socially adept, unlike Benedict's Holmes who continually offends, hurts and (generally) torments the one woman who has real, romantic affection for him, not to mention most other people in his life. I have no problem with this interpretation, but to say that it, "...blows all other productions out of the water - even the Jeremy Brett series from the 80s" is (in my opinion) way over the top. This tends to happen nowadays, particularly on IMDB, where some new movie will come out and suddenly capture the top spot on the Top 250 for a few weeks or months (The Dark Knight and Inception come to mind). The series is fantastic and I thoroughly enjoy it, but it cannot hold a candle to the Granada productions with Brett, which captured perfectly the brilliant detective and the exciting, vibrant times in which Holmes lived and plied his trade as “the only unofficial consulting detective”.


"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

And see for me right now, Mark is my main reason for watching. I think he's a great Mycroft. :)
If it weren't for his Mycroft in fact, I would chalk this show up to being just average. His presence elevates it 2 points for me. Plus, he didn't write himself into the series as Mycroft. It was Moffat and others behind the scenes who suggested Mark should and could play the part. I think Mark brings the right amount of pathos to Mycroft, who can come across as rather one note in other adaptations.

reply

I think he's fine as Mycroft but whatever.

However I must disagree with you on your view of Sherlock/John in this one. This is the warmest version yet ... however they STILL have not actually kissed on screen yet so that sucks for the S/J shippers out there.

In fact, the S/J relationship in this show is so warm that I am doing all I can to keep my mother from seeing it. She is quite anti-gay and she will be against this even though they aren't technically a couple here ... yet. (Heard some rumors that the BBC might take S/J that one step farther. It be a first. So yeah, definetly keeping my dark age mother away from this >_

reply