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.

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?

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.

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

True

No shit Sherlock 😄

an intellectual

True

I think rdj acts himself

i-

Sorry sir but we are not *SHERLOCK HOLMES* 😂

AHAHAHHAHAHHA that's a good one!

Lmao

Moriarty, I came to bargain

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.

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.

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

*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!

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.

@@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.

💀💀💀

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!!!!!!!!!

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

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.

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.

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

I love this

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

I agree.

That's a very good point

Joseph Vasquez Thanks

You hit the nail on the head

Jet Storm Thank you.

@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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

*high functioning sociopath xD

High functioning sociopath

ITS HIGH FUNCTIONING SOCIOPATH

What is benzedine snumblesnitch

@@therealslimshady6763 Benedict cumberbach

LMAO

Jeremy Brett is the best.

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.

He hasn't. He's a pretentious idiot.

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.

We were told he was a sportsman, recently returned from abroad and the boomerang was shown in the wide angle. This happened a good 10 minutes before the reveal, giving plenty of time to work it out.

Some Random Guy Some Random Guy there's no sport where people throw boomerangs so the fact that he's a sportsman doesn't matter.Travelling abroad is helpful but there's no way anyone would relate that to a boomerang killing the guy. And I'll have to re-watch the scene, but I don't think there is a wide shot of the boomerang since after it kills the guy it drifts down stream in the river. I remember the sudden revelation of the boomerang being very abrupt, basically all solved with info off screen

The action is one of the main problems with the 2009 movie. Holmes was never meant to be an action hero. This is why S1 E2: The Blind Banker from BBC's Sherlock gets so much smack. Sherlock is shown as far more of an action hero than the character ever was, and yet still has a fraction of the 'beat up the bad guys' trope that the movie does.

There's a shot from above and you can see the boomerang near the stream.

Yeah, but Holmes always knew how to take care of himself. He's trained in Bartitsu. A thug backhanded him in a country pub, so he removed his coat, loudly pointed out that he's acting in self defence and beat the crap out of the guy. Also, the way he survived the fight with Professor Moriarty was by being a superior fighter and throwing him off the waterfall. It's not a recent idea that he's a good fighter.

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".

kiptelgat The Great Game was also pretty good at showing the detective stuff

Yeah, that's why they're called conclusions...

exactly!!

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

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.

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

Thanks for sticking around Amelie :)

Yo Pomdpin my thoughts exactly!!

Yep

You nailed it!

Yup

If you are right, it kinda defeat the purpose of a detective story.

Like I said to someone else in the comments with the same opinion, you got it perfectly right.

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.

Kayaba Akhiko true. Its cuz the books are written from watson perspective and he sees what Sherlock does but not why he does it.

We're not talking about which series is more faithful. This movie sherlock vs tv sherlock.

SERN Yeah but at the end this guy said Cumberbatch's adaptation is true-er to source material when in fact it's RDJ's that's more similar.

Actually, it's possible. when I first started reading them, I had absolutely no clue. I thought it's impossible. But as I read through more of them and I slowly observed Holmes' style of thinking and how he has gotten there, I started to understand. I also read the book "How to think like Sherlock Holmes", which I recommend. What you find out is, that what he's doing is detailed observation (which you don't need to solve the crime as he always actually shares what he's found), and scientific thinking. Now when I read them, I actually CAN solve it before he reveals how he's done it.

True...but I still think that Sherlock is the better adaptation. RDJ's take on Sherlock is more like a Victorian James Bond. And if you like that, well, all power to you, but the end result has little to do with the Sherlock Holmes from the stories. Sherlock draws elements, often full pieces of dialogue from the original story. RDJ's version doesn't.

Bleeker Street* (Doctor Strange's address)

Nah, he says "Bleecker Street wizard"

No, he says "the Bleeker Street magician".

gelato benne THANKS. That's exactly my opinion.

gelato benne same here

@Rashdan Mohamed Exactly what I thought. Anyone that read the source material just has to at least acknowledge what the movies did. The fact that the series always explains everything to me was also the fact that kept me from watching more than a few episodes while I was able to thouroughly enjoyed the movies, even though they also took their liberties - especially when it came to Reichenbach. The same thing also struck me when watching Everything wrong with Sherlock Holmes (2009) by CinemaSins. They did critizise the film for making Sherlock and Watson proficient fighters while the source material clearly states that they are ^^

RDJ is a bit more fun too.

None of my friends deduced it

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

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)

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.

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.

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

Bravo for the reference recognition!

😻 someone said it

Logical deduction genius>>>>>>>good doctor

Lol for real

That's actually true

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