One last thought on Sherlock's Final Problem

[brixtonbrood]

Cut for spoilers (not that one, something a viewer might actually be surprised by)

I thought the computer code thing was interesting/frustrating.

Moriarty: I haz the Magic Computer Code of Doom that is a couple of lines long and will crack any system! It is the most valuable thing in the world because it allows you to steal anything!

Sherlock/Mycroft/Lestrade/assorted criminals: Oh Noes! We must get the Magic Code or stop Moriarty from selling it.

Audience: Well, that's just bollocks isn't it. I am/am not a computer expert and/but I know for a fact that that is gibberish for a whole host of reasons. However, this is a high gloss heightened reality thriller in which this sort of gibberish is not unexpected, and if I let it get to me I'd have stopped watching five episodes ago. So, yeah,OK, whatever, go on...

Some time later....

Moriarty: The Magic Computer Code? Oh, that was just a fiction, I did it all by bribing the guards. How on earth did you ever believe it was real? No short code could ever do that kind of thing, it's gibberish for a while host of reasons. I can't believe you fell for such a transparent ploy, are you some kind of idiot?

Moffat Gatiss The Other One: Ha ha! Did you see what I did there?

Audience: {strokes chin} Ah, I see what he did there. Very clever, manipulating our understanding of the form like that bit in House with the jump cut, only not quite so good.

Several hours and much online discussion of cyclists, rubbish/laundry lorries and rubber masks later.

Audience: Hang on a minute. Why did Sherlock/Mycroft/Lestrade/several criminal overlords fall for such transparent bollocks? They weren't fooled by their expectations of the form. Are they some kind of idiot?

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

Comments

[zengineer.livejournal.com]

Lestrade/criminals are supposed to be idiots. Clearly real idiots wouldn't be so stupid but this does not violate the form and so is forgivable but Mycroft and Holmes are supposed to be clever.
It is just poor scriptwriter craftsmanship. Shame really as Moffat is better than that. Some of the Coupling scripts were breathtakingly clever at constructing complex narrative whilst fooling you but not breaking consistency of character.

[pureofthought.livejournal.com]

The episode was actually written by Steve Thompson, who also wrote The Blind Banker in the first series (which my lack of memory suggests was the least interesting episode) and a not very good Dr Who (The Curse of the Black Spot) from 2011. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1839162/ (Note that although Moffat, Gatiss and Conan Doyle are also listed as writers for the episode, M & G are credited as "creators".)

Seems odd for Moffat to let someone else write the last episode, but I would assume that he at least had editorial control over the content.

[zengineer.livejournal.com]

I should probably have checked the writing credits before that assertion but still if your name is on the list you should at least check and comment on the script. I imagine a writer can get caught up in the narrative and miss issues like this so a checker who is a little more distanced should spot this and suggest corrections.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Tbh the 'Ha ha! Did you see what I did there?' factor is what really turns me off Sherlock. Fannishness should be for fans, not for canon. Every time the creators wink and nod to it in this way, they seem to demean the whole experience.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

I don't mind that actually - it's appropriate to the subject matter; I personally get a lot of enjoyment out of the ones I spot and don't find the ones I don't spot (like the cameo in the Diogenes club for example) intrusive; and judging from the viewing figures, other people aren't put off either.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, other people seem to love it, and I'm very happy for them: it just grates on me. But I guess I'm not the target audience.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that all looks very grumpy! Ignore me, I think I got out of bed the wrong way round yesterday.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Why did Sherlock/Mycroft/Lestrade/several criminal overlords fall for such transparent bollocks?

Because they have been sold on the improbable genius of Moriarty as much as everyone is sold on the improbable genius of Sherlock? As in, they wouldn't buy it from anyone else, but if Moriarty says he can do something, you wouldn't bet against him...

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

And that extends to not doing even the very basics of police work, such as checking whether Moriarty had inside help? When John says that "no one knows" how Moriarty broke into the three most secure locations in England, I think it's implied that all the possible explanations have been investigated and ruled out, and to reveal that they weren't strikes me as being dishonest with the viewers.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I think it's implied that all the possible explanations have been investigated and ruled out

So do I. But concealing his mundane methods from police investigation strikes me as well within Moriarty's stated abilities.

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

But that completely flies in the face of the episode's theme of misdirection. The underlying message of the exchange with Moriarty is "Ha! You thought I did something so complicated and difficult that it was virtually impossible, but really I just did something silly and low-tech!" But when the three targets are called the most secure locations in England what's meant isn't simply that they have tough computer security but that their security protocols in general are tight enough that it would be very difficult, verging on impossible, to get into them even with help on the inside, and certainly not without that help being discovered after the fact. If Moriarty found a way into not just one, but all three locations, then he's done something just as remarkable - more so, even - than the famed computer program, and if nothing else you'd expect Sherlock to be mad to find out how he did it rather than dismissing it as dull.

It's like my brother said yesterday: everyone in the episode keeps saying that finding out that Sherlock is a fraud makes him ordinary, but if he was smart enough to not only plan all those crimes and take the credit for solving them but conceal the fact that he was doing this for more than a year, then he's still quite an extraordinary person even if he is a criminal.

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

I'd normally buy that explanation, but once they've played the "aha, we're not actually doing the bullshit thriller rules of computing, we're doing real world rules of computing" card then I think that implicitly applies to the characters within the world as well - what Moriarty claims is simply impossible, so there's no excuse for any official body believing it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Except that they think Moriarty is capable of impossible things.

[celestialweasel.livejournal.com]

Have you read "One fine day in the middle of the night" by Christopher Brookmyre? (If not, I think it's one of his best, but anyway...) In it, at one point, two characters are discussing action movies, and one explains his theory about the BDQ (bullet deadliness quotient) - different values are allowed as long as the film is consistent.

[zengineer.livejournal.com]

So we have a software usefulness quotient and can discuss how much the film suqs.

[jackfirecat.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed. Your basic issue descibed above was also said in the e_pepys, emily_shore, and firecat household. I can't remember who said it first (I think it was emily_shore), but I agreed.

Now then, What's this about a cameo? How many other things have I missed?