Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Rob Helmerichs, May 16, 2013.
This. If you read the entire works, moriarity is not that important.
Reading is in Ireland? She is not Irish.
I've read most of what Doyle has written about Holmes, and Moriarty is certainly important. Holmes has one woman who ever interested him. And one villain who ever really challenged him. Other than Watson, those two are the most important people in Holmes' life.
Interesting that Elementary has combined them into one.
Oops, for some reason I always get Natalie Dormer and Sarah Bolger mixed up...which is weird, because they're not really similar at all.
I guess all of Henry VIII's wives look alike or something. And daughters. And stuff.
She is truly in love with him. She also could not pass up the opportunity to gloat.
When a character only appears in 2 of 60 stories, no matter how important the author says he was, he was not integral to Holmes success as an iconic character nor his commercial success. Holmes was popular without Moriarty. The character and the stories don't need him. I maintain he was relatively minor. And, personally, not my favorite aspect of Holmes. The twist of him actually being. Irene was cool but if the show becomes Holmes versus Irene, I won't like it as much. Repetitive villains are boring.
I understand. You don't know how many times I'm about to post something I am sure I know but look it up anyway to make sure I'm not confusing facts. Still get thinks bollocksed up sometimes.
Moriarty is also mentioned in five other stories, and Doyle did a ret-con to make Moriarty a longtime concern of Holmes. Although Sherlock Holmes stories sold well before Moriarty was mentioned, you are only speculating when you claim that the enduring popularity of Sherlock Holmes (one hundred years later) would have been the same without Moriarty. There are plenty of examples of stories selling well but fading into obscurity after ten years.
I'm sure the most filmed (probably) Holmes story, the Hound of the Baskervilles would be much worse and less popular without Moriarty. Oops.
Mentioned doesn't sell books. And the ret con is just that. A ret con. Had nothing to do with the success or the quality of the stories.
You are claiming that one major and one minor story made the rest all popular when the two were at the end?
You have a right to your opinion. I don't agree with it.
Again you have it wrong. Moriarty appeared in or was mentioned in 7 different Sherlock Holmes stories written by Doyle.
And yes, it does appear the Moriarty played a part in the enduring popularity of the Sherlock Holmes stories. Look at how many of the most popular subsequent adaptions of Sherlock Holmes have Moriarty as an important part of the story.
Appeared or mentioned does not mean being a part of. I am not wrong. He appeared in two stories. Period. Mentions do not rate worth anything. Nobody ever said "Oh! Did you read the latest Sherlock Holmes story? He mentioned Moriarty. It was so exciting!"
"Does appear?" Why because newer writers are incapable of writing something without a "big bad?" Ignore all the remakes and retellings of non-Moriarty stories.
Holmes did and does quite well without Moriarty. In fact, even Elementary did well without her. And hopefully she is done now. Good story. Good twist but if the series becomes nothing but Holmes and Moriarty, it loses a lot of its charm.
I only read a few of the Sherlock Holmes short stories(a long long time ago) - I think they were early pre-Moriarty, and I don't think Moriarty would have improved them. I kind of worry that "Moriarty" really has too much weight in the Holmes mythos and they're playing the card too early. (Like Batman was around for like 50 years before Bane, but every modern tv version feels the need to pull him out in the first season, and both of the recent movie series need to pull out some version of him in movie 3)
On tv shows, I don't mind a "big bad" as a secondary story, and I prefer that it doesn't go on for more than one season.
I thought having an adversary with similar powers has ruined a couple shows(Joan of Arcadia, Tru Calling) for me in the past that I really enjoyed season one, but season two turned the show into a completely different dynamic.
(Hopefully I haven't spoiled Batman, Joan, or Tru for anyone...)
I don't think there's any real danger of that happening. It's CBS, so most episodes will be your standard self contained procedurals. She will probably escape at some point in the future because as we have learned from television, when you have a vast criminal empire, escape is easy, but she'll only appear during an occasional special episode. She may get mentioned on other occasions but it won't be the dominant storyline.
Wrong again. The fact that Holmes is thinking about Moriarty and he gets mentioned in the story because of it is quite significant. It shows how important Moriarty is to the character development of Holmes.
Right. It will probably be the typical separation into the more common villain of the week episodes and the occasional "arc" episode with Moriarty.
Having an unbeatable antagonist isn't exciting or fun, it's just dreary. I'm really happy that they caught her in Elementary, and am hoping she stays caught, at least for some time.
Using Moriarty in the future would just be an indication of lazy writing.
I much prefer to see the hero challenged by someone who is his equal (or near equal). And I don't think I am in the minority in this. Having the hero always be the smartest or strongest tends to get boring. Also, the hero character development is usually more interesting when there is an ongoing nemesis.
In the case of Joan, I liked Season 1 in that it was about her family, dealing with her brother's accident, and the powers or whoever she saved week to week was incidental, and to me, it was about her putting her family back together. Season 2 felt like it focussed more about the powers and the adversary.
In Tru, I liked the puzzle, where the info she got was incomplete. So it was her against time, and trying to figure it out. Adding the adversary increased the time pressure, but I think it was unnecessary.
Just to be clear though, I'm not making any claim anyone else thinks like me. I'm just saying those are what ruined it for me, and I hope they don't do that in Elementary. And even if they do use Moriarty, I think season one was too early to play the mention/existence of Moriarty card, let alone reveal the identity.
you really have no idea who Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes are, do you ?
Wait, are we talking about Moriarty on Elementary or Red John on The Mentalist?