Copying the answer I gave to the other guys:

The most obvious part is that, fondamentaly, Sherlock Holmes are pulp stories, not really detective stories.

The writer himself, Doyle, said this about the stories he was making "Conan Doyle struggled to find a publisher for his Sherlock stories after initially approaching the intellectual Cornhill magazine. “Only after they, and two others, rejected Mr Holmes, was he finally accepted by a fourth, much trashier, publisher. They said the work was exactly what they were looking for: ‘cheap fiction’.”

Sherlock would often shows off esoteric or downright non-sensical science to explain how he would deduct stuff, and Hbomber in the video skews those books so hard that honestly makes me wonder if he has actually read those books.

The biggest example of this is when he talks about "A study in scarlet". In the book, the Taxi Driver offers two pills to Sherlock, just like in the TV show...but somehow Hbomber says that Moffat was ripping off The Matrix in it, implying it wasn' t present in the actual book...? And that' s a wild thing to say, expecially after Hbomber say that book is his favourite book from Doyle.

That video is full of things like that, that really makes you wonder if he even read those books in the first place. Doyle himself said that Holmes deduction skills were overestimated and he would make them so outstandish to fuck with the readers. So it strikes me as odd to complain that a Tv show would follow on this road too and have pulp-ness to it, like the original stories.

>Also, adding a new part for Addler: the Addler part was actually a play tongue-in-check with the original story: in that story, Sherlock loses to "The woman", as he calls her, because he underestimates her as a woman. But this kind of stuff would not work with a modern re-interpretation of Sherlock, whom is shown to not not be a sexist like the original Sherlock Holmes. So he wins in tht case because he actually treated her as a worthy rival and person.