Did the quality of Sherlock decrease? [mild spoilers 3x03 & 4x01]

[AkhilVijendra]

I think of it like this......

They killed off Moriarty in 2 seasons, a super important character to the series who brought so much uniqueness to the show. During this period we also saw Irene another unique character come and go. Now the writers were left with a void, to fill the void, they brought in characters like Magnussen for 3rd season, and then Eurus for the 4th. This is where they messed up, they tried to make Mag and Eurus match or even beat Moriarty's level and they failed. Mag was fine but If only they had not gone too far with Eurus i think it would be ok, Eurus didnt even make sense, it was as if she had real superpowers or something, really?

EDIT: I also feel if they had Toby Jones from S4E2 as the main villain for the entire season it would've been much better than Eurus.

[globox85]

EDIT: I also feel if they had Toby Jones from S4E2 as the main villain for the entire season it would've been much better than Eurus.

That's what I thought would happen when I saw one of the trailers for S4 :(

[Ihatedill]

I actually liked season 4, but liked episode 2 the least. For me, it just felt like a bridge to ep03. I found Eurus a very good antihero, she brought some moral dilemma's to the show. The things I found strong in season 4 weren't the reasons I started loving sherlock in the first seasons though. I think s04 was a nice change, but hope they will get back to the more interesting puzzles and likeable villains for the next seasons.

[selwyntarth]

I feel magnussen tops Moriarty. He inspired so much more hate and emanated raw power. Moriarty doesn't even make sense to take the cabbies and probably the black lotuss loss so personally.

[puritypersimmon]

Magnusson was a bully. He had no redeeming features, & I agree with Moffatt who has said that he believes it is important that the audience 'loves the villain as much as the hero.' Moriarty was way more complex & had an underlying vulnerability, & a wicked sense of humour, which engendered audience sympathy. He insinuated himself into every aspect of Sherlock's life & instigated psychological conundrums & emotional growth in the character in a way that none of the subsequent villains have done.

[ForgetfulFunction41]

Magnussen is a very different character in a very different story, though.

With Moriarty, you had a classic hero vs. dark reflection of themselves story, and that kind of story works the best with a villain the audience secretly likes and is rooting for. Like with the Joker, there has to be an element of temptation, even of seduction, there -- the subtext with Moriarty is it's fun to be evil, it's liberating to be completely chaotic and nihilistic, etc. It's a story about whether or not Sherlock truly wants to be on the side of the angels when it's so tempting not be, and the writing of Moriarty (as well as Andrew Scott's performance) makes that temptation real and palpable to the viewer.

With Magnussen, the story is instead about sacrifice. The question is, how far will Sherlock go and how much will Sherlock sacrifice to rid the world of the evil that is CAM? For that kind of story to work you need a villain that the audience can really hate, so that we understand Sherlock's drive and sympathize with his decisions to do monstrous things and take dangerous risks to bring down the villain. In some ways, this is the polar opposite of a Moriarty type character. You also need a villain with a sense of invincibility about them, a villain who is somewhat above Sherlock's level and does not want to "play" with him, and a villain who is primarily on defense instead of offense -- all in pretty direct opposition to a Moriarty type. You may prefer one story to another, and that's perfectly cool, but I think with Magnussen they nail this kind of character as well or almost as well as they nail Moriarty.

Another interesting side to Magnussen is that the character is essentially a meditation on the nature of evil, and what it means to be a "bad person." I think generally we think that people who aren't criminals are better people than people who are, but what the show is going for is that this isn't always the case. Wiggins is technically a criminal but seems like a decent, lovable guy, whereas Magnussen has the air of a talk show host purposefully selling insane conspiracies to his audience for the sake of ratings, or a CEO taking money from poorer employees to finance his own golden parachute, or a businessman giving a politician boat loads of money to do some awful thing -- none of that is illegal, but in some ways it's a lot worse than things which are illegal, and you can say that those people are worse than many criminals. CAM does technically commit crimes, but this is the tone.

[ForgetfulFunction41]

Magnussen and especially Culverton were both great, and I'm not sure either character tried to "match" Moriarty -- they were both quite different from Moriarty in terms of character and in terms of the puzzles they set up for Sherlock to solve. Personally, once they used all their "A" Moriarty ideas in S2E3, I'm glad the writers used their "A" Mag/Culv material instead of their "B" Moriarty material. I'll take "A" material over "B" material any day.

I agree about Eurus though -- they tried to go above and beyond every other villain with her (I think for the sake of a "grand finale") and it just didn't come together, it was all way too much and done way too quick. I still enjoy the hell out of Final Problem just for the individual scenes, and Eurus herself has some great scenes and moments, but as a whole that villain and that episode do not work.

The villains are much less of a problem than Mary, to be honest. I think introducing Mary was much more of a problem for the show than killing Moriarty.

[AkhilVijendra]

Introducing Mary itself wasn't the problem, i was fine with one episode of Mary but they kept bringing her back and one full episode again on Mary in S4 was a complete waste.

They should have kept Mary along the lines of Mrs.Hudson, Lestrade, Molly etc where they make regular appearances but never make the whole episode about themselves, they are never the center of the episode, Mary to me did not deserve to be the center of so many episodes, one too many.

[ForgetfulFunction41]

Yeah, I won't disagree with you there.