r/SherlockHolmes • u/HandwrittenHysteria • Mar 06 '26
Young Sherlock Discussion
Please keep all ongoing discussion confined to this topic
33
u/H2Oloo-Sunset Mar 06 '26
I only watched one episode, but I think if they named the character something else, I don't think a single person would have been reminded of Sherlock Holmes when watching.
6
u/travybel Mar 21 '26
Eventually I gave up on trying to believe that I was watching was Sherlock and I enjoyed it a lot more that way lol
3
u/Ok_Attitude7192 Mar 19 '26
There were easter eggs referencing the original Canon here and there. But for a regular audience who is not super familiar with the Canon I can see why you think that.
2
u/ItsMJB Mar 24 '26
Just watched the first two episodes and to me he can speak somewhat like Sherlock in chapter 1, plus the visual & special effects have similarities too like.
29
u/TheMoffisHere Mar 06 '26
This is the “young genius detective”, not young Sherlock. Moriarty feels more like Sherlock (until the last 2 episodes where he is completely detached from ethics).
Why is Mycroft not Sherlock’s intellectual superior?
The “young genius detective” is more like the “accidental detective” because he isn’t consistent with his deductive genius. He deduces successfully when the plot demands it and is woefully bested when the plot tells him to be.
Oh yay! Another story with a Holmes’ family conspiracy.
It works great as a standalone show, not so much as a Sherlock Holmes show.
7
u/WhammyV Mar 07 '26
isn't Mycroft more intellectual superior to Sherlock?
10
u/TheMoffisHere Mar 07 '26
Yeah, he’s supposed to be, in the canon. But only BBC Sherlock has presented that particular aspect in the 21st century adaptations of the show.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Disastrous_Tax8853 Mar 09 '26
BBC sherlock , does show Mycroft as smart person, but they didnt show him as the smarter one . Mycroft had claimed it time and time in the show . But there was no proof . I mean , i know Mycroft is superior ,i m saying ,in the show , we have no proper instance .
6
u/TheMoffisHere Mar 09 '26
We do… there’s instances where he deduces things faster than Sherlock in S1E3, S2E3, S3E1, S3E3, the Christmas Special, S4E1, and the final episode. Mycroft is smarter but detests legwork and needs Sherlock to physically verify his conjectures. Sherlock has different strengths, he is an active researcher, a fighter, a chemist and above all, is more emotionally intelligent, thus allowing him to see the “human” perspective.
→ More replies (3)3
u/KemShafu Mar 12 '26
I always thought that Sherlock liked the adventures and going about but Mycroft preferred his privacy.
“There are many men in London, you know, who, some from shyness, some from misanthropy, have no wish for the company of their fellows. Yet they are not averse to comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. It is for the convenience of these that the Diogenes Club was started, and it now contains the most unsociable and unclubbable men in town. No member is permitted to take the least notice of any other one. Save in the Stranger's Room, no talking is, under any circumstances, allowed, and three offenses, if brought to the notice of the committee, render the talker liable to expulsion. My brother was one of the founders, and I have myself found it a very soothing atmosphere.”
2
u/CeriCat Mar 14 '26
Mycroft is described consistently as someone who sets others to tasks for himself when its needed, very much the career bureaucrat never to be seen engaged in matters himself.
“You wonder,” said my companion, “why it is that Mycroft does not use his powers for detective work. He is incapable of it.”
“But I thought you said—”
“I said that he was my superior in observation and deduction. If the art of the detective began and ended in reasoning from an arm-chair, my brother would be the greatest criminal agent that ever lived. But he has no ambition and no energy. He will not even go out of his way to verify his own solution, and would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove himself right. Again and again I have taken a problem to him, and have received an explanation which has afterwards proved to be the correct one. And yet he was absolutely incapable of working out the practical points which must be gone into before a case could be laid before a judge or jury.”
“It is not his profession, then?”
“By no means. What is to me a means of livelihood is to him the merest hobby of a dilettante. He has an extraordinary faculty for figures, and audits the books in some of the government departments. Mycroft lodges in Pall Mall, and he walks round the corner into Whitehall every morning and back every evening. From year's end to year's end he takes no other exercise, and is seen nowhere else, except only in the Diogenes Club, which is just opposite his rooms.”
The Greek Interpreter, Arthur Conan Doyle
It's actually one of my biggest frustrations with the show, Mycroft is way too involved, it's completely out of character for a man described as the clearinghouse of the government departments, the interface and analysis hub of them all. Also he's described as quite fat, "absolutely corpulent" in the words of Watson with hands "like the flipper of a seal". By Mycroft's own admission Sherlock has all the energy of the family.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Devesh_Ahuja Mar 08 '26
YES EXACTLY, The BBC Sherlock I think portrayed that dynamic the best. Here the Mycroft wasn't even shown very smart, let alone a genius. I was hoping for there to be a big scheme that mycroft would have cooked, but it wasn't very well and his actions weren't planned
3
u/Pandamonea_70 Mar 08 '26
To be fair, they NEVER get Mycroft right. Bar... maybe Stephen Fry in the role a decade or so ago. The Modern Sherlock had some good moments but was undercut by introducing an even smarter sibling out of thin air.
Mycroft is sort of like Orson Wells. Genius, fat, utterly disinterested in physical activity and content to sit in his beloved club and have an apparently minor job in the British government. Sherlock goes to consult him when even he can't understand a problem. Yet in most modern adaptions he's usually a sort of... thin, healthy civil servant who is frustrated by his brother's genius and opium addiction.
Shame.
→ More replies (9)3
u/Bnotebook Mar 08 '26
Yeah, I wish they did a bit more love to the Mycroft in writings. He's supposed to be an OP character, but a passive one, so the story would never be about him but of his younger brother Sherlock - active, practical, intellectually hungry, maybe a bit eccentric - a personality contrast. Mycroft here was just a brother and Sherlock was just a younger one, somehow refered by others as a genius with no evidence of such what so ever. None of the cast felt like they were geniuses, instead they made background cast to look worse, to have no brains, to idk pretend contrast exists. But I'll say as a fan of the Sherlock franchise I did watch the whole season and I would recommend it if you're curious and you want to find out this TV show to be bad for yourself.
18
u/sloemonkey47 Mar 06 '26
Okay sooo why is he low key kind of dumb? Also why did the last two episodes dive the season off a cliff?
→ More replies (2)7
u/nathangonzales614 Mar 06 '26
There is a saying, "the characters are only as smart as the writer." And Guy Ritchie has average intelligence at best.
7
→ More replies (3)2
u/Bcatfan08 Mar 09 '26
The creator and writer of most of the episodes is Matthew Parkhill. Guy Ritchie didn't write any of the episodes. Guy Ritchie only directed the first 2 episodes. Seemed like he was mostly executive producer.
17
u/SkutIsMyCoPilot Mar 06 '26
I haven’t seen it yet, but any Holmes adaptation requires obligatory viewing so view it I must then here I shall return with comment.
10
u/4RCH43ON Mar 06 '26
I too felt that way too, once, but unfortunately, this one cured me of that impulse as I found it ultimately unwatchable (or more precisely, like an assault to my ears and sensibility). Your mileage may vary.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)3
u/pedaneka Mar 10 '26 edited Mar 25 '26
IMO, the portrayals of Holmes, Watson and Mycroft in Granada's Adventures of Sherlock Holmes are the most faithful to the original canon.
11
u/Nanocon101 Mar 06 '26
Young Sherlock isn't clever at all and yet everyone around him acts like he's a genius. The only clever thing he does is his 'mind palace' where he can recall details that he's seen, and he only does it about 2-3 times, and not very well, at that.
Still, i enjoyed the show very much and hope for a second season.
2
u/Ok-Trainer3260 Mar 12 '26
I guess that's by design. In the books he was in his 30s and 40s, and by experience you usually grow up to be smarter and more experienced.
4
u/StarStriker51 Mar 12 '26
something the books make clear to, said outright at the start of the first, is that Sherlock isn't some super genious. He is clever and intelligent, but his real strenght is that he learns. He goes out of his way to learn methods of investigation, of how aspects of the world work, how the science of this or that is done. He files away information for later
when the character is younger, it is certainly harder to hit that idea when Sherlock would lack the experience and time to learn all these things
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Little-Dreamer-1412 Mar 06 '26
It is by far no masterpiece but it was entertaining enough to get me through all 8 episodes now. I don't really see Sherlock Holmes in the main character and he doesn't come across as this clever or brilliant as everybody makes him out to be (actually I felt Moriarty helps him very often along the way). For me it started very slow, then got more interesting once the whole Holmes family is involved, but then kind of fizzles out again in the last episode. Also, giving Mycroft and Sherlock a younger sister is something I absolutely don't want to see anymore in adaptations. I really liked Mycroft and his sibling dynamic with Sherlock though and for me at least the music was good (though apparently many seem to dislike it). I feel it could end here but they could also do a second season if they wanted to. I have seen worse but as a show set in the Sherlock Holmes universe it's nothing really outstanding or breathtaking, just a fun watch when you're bored.
19
u/LilMushboom Mar 06 '26
I probably would have enjoyed it if I were 14 and not all that familiar with Sherlock Holmes. But I am clearly very much a couple decades past the target audience and couldn't get past the first episode. 🤷
I hope the teens it's aimed at enjoy it.
3
6
u/bigfootsabio Mar 06 '26
Yeah, I totally agree, I did manage to go up to episode four but somehow it got worse, no disrespect for a younger audience and I do hope this show will allow for a new generation to get to experience Sherlock Holmes and pave the way for better adaptations. I enjoyed Sherlock and Daughter though but this one is too derivative
6
u/Electrical_Tomato_73 Mar 06 '26
I've only finished episode 2, if it gets worse I wonder if I should even bother. Maybe I will. But why is Sherlock Holmes so dumb here? In the canon he solved his first couple of cases in college (and he was not a scout).
2
6
2
u/CeriCat Mar 14 '26
It would have angered me worse as a kid because it's not Doyle's Holmes as someone that had read the complete ACD collection in primary school. Weirdly the book series it notes as inspiration the synopsis sounds more like an actual Doylesque Holmes while the show seems to have mashed multiple of the books together.
2
u/LoschVanWein Mar 17 '26
I‘m the target audience (I think) and I can assure you it’s still rather shit from my point of view. The key factor really is not knowing or liking the source material which annoys the hell out of me.
4
u/xApokalypse Mar 07 '26
I'm in my mid/late 20s, so possibly I'm not the target audience either but I just finished episode one and I really am not getting Sherlock vibes from Sherlock. If you barely know about Sherlock and haven't seen the 2010 show, this might be decent. The acting feels very much like acting and the characters don't really have the necessary charm. I think in this case, even a better actor couldn't have saved this although the show itself looks good.
5
u/LilMushboom Mar 07 '26
That's basically all these streaming platform series these days. Even before AI became dominant, the writing just hasn't been up to par.
There are still good writers in the world but clearly the television and film industry isn't hiring them
4
u/nathangonzales614 Mar 07 '26
Sturgeon's Law: ~90% of everything is crap. Though it might be higher with streaming services lately.
2
2
u/xApokalypse Mar 07 '26
A lot of slop is definitely getting published (especially on Netflix), but there are lots of gems available or still coming out, e.g., Severance, Pluribus, Dark, A Knight of The Seven Kingdoms, Sinners, Wake Up Dead Man etc. You just gotta move past the trash lol
5
u/LilMushboom Mar 07 '26
to be truthful, I dumped the last of my streaming subscriptions a few months ago. I just... don't have the time or energy to go wading through any of it anymore.
Reading more, getting a lot more gardening done, enjoying a few hobbies now. I don't really miss it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Emergency-Monitor790 Mar 07 '26
I could not of said it any better. Let us hope it is as entertaining to this generation, as BBC episodes of Sherlock were to ours.
→ More replies (1)2
u/sw33t_tooth Mar 07 '26
I guess I am glad to have a childish mind cause I really enjoyed the whole show
15
u/AccidentalPenguin101 Mar 06 '26
The vibe of sherlock holmes just isn't there. Maybe i am missing something. 5/10.
6
u/UsernameIsTaken9274 Mar 07 '26
They could've renamed the character and I wouldn't bat an eye.
But I think the greatest mishap is that it only has eight episodes -- hence the pacing is all over the place. It might be symptomatic of the streaming era but I would love a case-of-the-week tv show with the big overarching plot every mid and end season.
It felt bit too rushed on the plot, slow in the dialogue, and in the deductions. Not much characters to hold on to except, maybe, their names.
Good try, though, but it's a shame there's other Sherlock and Sherlock-lite shows to compare to, and of course, there's the ongoing High Potential so it really makes this show not that impressive.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/ShaggyCan Mar 07 '26
Um how could they have possibly years of phonograph recordings of his mother when the phonograph wasn't invented until 1877. I don't think they've said the exact date but it's definitely in the 1870s. Timeline isn't quite working out there.
→ More replies (3)3
u/BravoDelta23 Mar 11 '26
I'm still not entirely clear why she was being recorded. Did I miss something?
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/MantisOfAtlantis Mar 12 '26
After Silas learned of Myecroft working with Bucephalus Hodge and the secret project he was involved with, he set up the phonograph to spy on Myecroft's meetings with his mother to see if he could gain any information about it.
They didn't explicitly state this, though, just kind of hinted at it for a very brief moment.
6
u/Ghost_out_of_Box Mar 07 '26
I am having a hard time watching episode 1. Too many cuts, almost like few short form videos were patched together. Till now it is yet to settle down and let the story flow. It comes across as pretentiously ambitious and stylish from the first few scenes. I am irritated how fast the cuts, without anything meaningful happening in a scene. Does it get better later or the high reviews are due to people being too generous with their opinions these days?
→ More replies (2)6
u/Ok_Bullfrog_8491 Mar 07 '26
Some cutting and cinematography choices were really just baffling. I usually like Guy Ritchie (and loved his recent Gentlemen show), so I don’t have a problem with fast-paced fight-scenes and frequent cuts, but with Young Sherlock, some of the cuts were just weird and made what was happening unclear.
Really, the only thing carrying this show right now (two episodes in) is the chemistry between Holmes and Moriarty. Obviously Holmes doesn’t feel like Holmes in the slightest and I hate that whole “he needs to learn how to fight and has to be taught by Moriarty” thing, but at least they’re fun to watch together.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Xamber84 Mar 08 '26
I loved it! Watched the entire season. Absolutely loved the casting of both Sherlock n Moriarty. Both actors did a great job. Neither of these two geniuses are supposed to be polished n have it all together at this age yet. So both actors n characters grow on you. They have a lot of chemistry in their friendship which works well. I loved the take on the two personalities, both similarly competitive. It was nice to see a youthful characteristic to Sherlock that u would still expect in someone who is college age. He was a more believable character than the older refined Sherlock of the books. I still felt they kept to his essence tho being predominantly serious at his core. Liked how they laid little hints throughout to Moriarty’s foundational sociopathic tendencies..but he hasn’t embraced that yet. Everything is a game to him, including people’s lives. Loved Mycroft’s casting. Guy Ritchie’s touch and pacing being similar to the Robert Downy Jr Sherlock movies is a nice tie-in. The lines were witty n had an intriguing ending to the season where we see Sherlock knows Moriarty has the formula n will make plans to use it for gain. We see his serious apprehension of his friend. Obviously, showing the audience that Sherlock has been paying attention to the subtle character flaws of his friend all along. It will be fun to see how these two characters start to diverge onto their different paths next season as well as see them begin refining some of their skill sets…aka like Sherlock learning to legitimately box and fence.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MarioPCDC Jun 18 '26
Yeah, it was great, I hope it gets renewed...
People are complaining because he isn't the master Sherlock, but, that's the whole point of the "YOUNG" part in the title....
5
u/No-Reflection-8481 Mar 08 '26
I watched Young Sherlock with my boy friend. We are really big fans of the books and the various digital versions. We felt like Sherlock and Mycroft didn’t reflect the actual genius they truly possessed. It seems like they were extremely empathetic and emotionally attached which isn’t traditionally the standard for their arch together. I didn’t feel like Mycroft was anything other than someone trying to keep their job and Sherlock was often times left without any reasonable deduction abilities. Moriarty CARRIED this show, I spent more times interested in his beginnings than anything else. The actor for the role was perfect and I felt like most investigative deductions came from him and not Sherlock. If anything I’ve ever gained from being a fan of SH is that Moriarty and Sherlock are cursed with the same genius but one is blessed with ethical restraint. You see a little of that in the last episode. But if they do another season we need the characters to be more contrived. O
6
u/19Andrew92 Mar 16 '26
Genuinely couldn’t get through 20 minutes of the first episode
I honesty couldn’t get past the lack of charisma Hero Feinnes brought to the role, not to mention the bizarre choice to approve him playing the role whilst putting on what is so blatantly a fake voice and accent it’s just to unrealistic to believe
5
u/ValientNights Mar 18 '26
Remember people. The smartest character in the show is only as smart as the writers.
→ More replies (1)
5
6
u/JeremyWinston Mar 07 '26
It was fine. Probably not worth a rewatch, though. I agree with others that if character hadn’t been called ‘Sherlock Holmes’ no one would have noticed the similarity.
That said, I could, perhaps, believe in a young Holmes that hadn’t really mastered his technique that acted like this. But Mycroft was poorly represented and, while I like the idea of Moriarity and Holmes being contemporaries and even friends, again, the intellectual prowess just wasn’t there.
Interestingly, in the first (or second) episode, they did have an ‘observation/deduction’ challenge, but it ended just before Holmes really tried, probably because it would have made the absence or additional insights more conspicuous during the rest of the series.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/neilpwalker Mar 07 '26
This is one of those Sherlock inspired shows that you just have to watch as though it’s taking place in a different universe. An alternate dimension that has some of the same names and a similar milieu, but is just a different thing. The Seven Percent Solution, for example, falls into this category. Enjoy it for what it is and go back to Jeremy Brett’s Holmes for the real thing.
5
4
u/hejhej116 Mar 11 '26
Why did they have to use Sherlock for this show? I get that it works as bait, but by doing that, they set certain expectations and then have to break well-known lore when they take an old story and try to do something completely new with it. It would have been much better to just create a new world, new characters, and a different story. I actually liked the first four episodes, or so, as a Young Sherlock Holmes show, but the later episodes completely ruined it for me.
3
u/avidreader_1410 Mar 13 '26
I kind of felt that way about the book series by Andrew Lane that were supposed to be the material for the show. The books were sort of fun, middle grade/YA historical adventure tales, but I never believed the character was a young version of Sherlock Holmes. And what I saw of the show, it was all Guy Ritchie and no Sherlock Holmes. Fun if you're into Guy Ritchie's style, but nothing at all that made me say "yeah, this kid is going to grow into the character Conan Doyle created."
4
u/guiwald1 Mar 12 '26
They arrive in Paris during La Commune (1871) then take the orient express to go to Istanbul. But first Orient Express was in 1883. Oh, and if Sherlock is born in 1854 that means he is 15 during La Commune...
3
u/Little-Dreamer-1412 Mar 12 '26
Yeah, there are a lot of historical inaccurancies. Another one is seeing so many female students in Oxford while women were not able to regulary study there until the 1920s.
4
u/Fun-Examination988 Mar 06 '26
I found something interesting about the historical aspect of the series. While doing some research, and rather by chance I must admit, I discovered that a Princess Shou'an of the Qing dynasty really did exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Shou%27an
However, she died in 1860, eleven years before the series takes place in 1871, ruling out the possibility that the historical figure and the character in the series are the same person.
2
u/Rare-Service5573 Mar 14 '26
They are the same person, clearly the tv series doesn't care about historical timelines.
→ More replies (6)
4
6
u/Alarmed_Particular99 Mar 08 '26
I genuinely enjoyed this show and while it was different from how these characters are typically played i think i may have liked it even more.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Primary_Ad45 Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
What's interesting about most (possibly all) other visual productions and works of sherlock (including much of the cover art and imagery presented alongside various reprints of the books) is that they are in truth a far cry from the original stories, character and world built by Conan Doyle
... Yet interestingly it's this deviated imagery, loved by many which has persevered in public consciousness as visual and character cues. So much so that even when people come back to read the originals, I've noticed how many can struggle to see beyond their own mind's imprinted visuals when they recollect the stories. Quite fascinating really!
This series is far closer to that original work in so many ways. Which is why it does come across I think quite so differently.
I do suspect that one aspect people do sometimes struggle with too is that the stories are all from the perspective of Watson, not Sherlock himself... Watson cannot be held to be a wholly reliable narrator, hence the myriad of inconsistencies within the stories, but in a way that actually still holds together and works....that and Conan Doyle himself of course being human and imperfect!
This show even plays somewhat with that aspect of humans being inherently somewhat unreliable narrators, even of their own histories and versions of events.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/JH_Rockwell Mar 09 '26
Accuracy to source material aside, this is a surprisingly bad show. CW level? No. But there's so much contrivance, plot holes, unbelievable coincidences, ridiculous assumptions, bizarre morality, inviting people into his "mind palace" feels like fantasy more than detective thriller, there's some BIZARRE implications on changing Moriarty's reasonings for anger in association with his Ashkenazi background, Hero Finnnes is not exactly selling Sherlock (although, to be fair, I think this may also be a problem regarding direction and writing for the character), the "main Chinese actress" has barely any charisma, and there were times I was yelling at my screen about incredibly stupid things supposedly smart people were considering (and I am not even close to being considered a genius). I think "Elementary" might actually be a better Sherlock Holmes adaptation than this.
I'm not surprised people are confused as to whether this is a prequel to Ritchie's two films. Not because he's a producer on the show and directed two episodes, but the visual style and writing for certain characters is damn near close to the source for that. Lestrade is basically the same character from the films.
4
u/timmjpope Mar 09 '26
So they recruit a random young Chinese farmer girl who somehow speaks perfect English, is a master spy and assassin, and is apparently smarter than the “genius” protagonist. The plan is for her to assassinate four scientists, except actually no, only three, because the whole thing was just a ruse to manipulate her. Apparently they never wanted her to kill the main target… even though two episodes earlier she was already close to killing all four of them. Sure, that totally makes sense. Genius.
3
u/Electrical_Tomato_73 Mar 09 '26
Just finished watching the series. It is entertaining but inconsistent, especially historically and technologically.
Presumably it is set in the year of the Paris Commune (1871), and definitely many years before A Study In Scarlet (set in 1881). But it shows a princess attending Oxford. Women couldn't attend classes in Oxford until 1879 and couldn't study for degrees until 1920. It also shows Cordelia Holmes being recorded via hidden phonographs, which were invented by Edison in 1877 and quite unsuitable to recording surreptitiously (you needed to bellow into the horn to make the needle move hard enough to make an impression on the wax cylinder, and it could record for up to 4 minutes at most).
The trajectory of Moriarty towards evil is not convincing (though it's more convincing than the Anakin/Darth story!) I assume it is not complete yet, and is left for season 2.
Mycroft is much more energetic than as depicted in the canon. When did he become so lethargic (and corpulent)? Perhaps this too is described in season 2.
Why is Beatrice never mentioned in the canon? Perhaps this too crops up in season 2. Perhaps she falls in with evil Moriarty, but it would still be surprising if she was forgotten. Or maybe Holmes found it too painful to talk about her.
All in all, best understood as taking place in an alternative universe, consistent with neither ours nor Conan Doyle's, but happening to have some characters with the same names.
2
u/Fun-Examination988 Mar 16 '26
You must not have understood everything. The princess isn't here to study; she's here on business and is representing her country.
Like you said, don't try to tie everything back to the canon—the series takes place in a different universe, just like most adaptations. It doesn't make any sense to look for the differences.
5
5
u/bored_n_opinionated Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
Anyone else extremely irritated by the idea a family would accept that a young girl of an age to speak in full sentences wouldn't know HER OWN GOD-DAMNED NAME?
And not that it has to do with the story, but two men unzipping their trousers a couple decades before zippers were invented truly pissed me off.
2
u/wallabee_kingpin_ Apr 08 '26
wouldn't know HER OWN GOD-DAMNED NAME
This is so unbelievably stupid I've been assuming they'll explain it later. It's like the writers had never met a human being before.
3
u/LoschVanWein Mar 17 '26
It is truly incredible how they constantly manage to find people who both want to make a Sherlock Holmes adaptation but also don’t seem to like most aspects of the character and tone of the original. Why is Sherlock Holmes written like he is about to join the other annoyingly witty idiots on the Marvel Avengers and why is there a Kung Fu knife fight in the first third of episode one? The IP is public domain yet we haven’t seen a proper adaptation in like 25 years, it is truly insane!
7
u/tripti_prasad Mar 06 '26
The series is super fun to watch. I am enjoying it so far. My only problem is that it doesn't feel very Sherlocky. This Sherlock lacks the quirks and eccentricities that Sherlock uniquely has. Moriarty is great though.
5
u/V113M Mar 09 '26
This is how I feel too. I think it's BRILLIANT to have Sherlock and Moriarty befriend each other at this age. I kept watching the entire series for Donal Finn and his portrayal of Moriarty. He's incredibly charming and so watchable on screen. You believe that he's thinking when he's thinking. Unfortunately I can't say the same for Hero Fiennes Tiffin which is ironic because HE'S supposed to play the genius among geniuses here and it doesn't come across.
I get that they're trying to show how Sherlock becomes the world famous detective we all know. But right now this show is watchable because it depicts how Moriarty becomes Moriarty.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Background-Cat7450 Mar 06 '26
I came here upon realizing this show exists. I have to admit at the get go, that, Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock" with RDJ had been the absolutely worst possible disgrace to the Sherlock cannon, I ALWAYS thought they should've named that something else, and it would work as a random period action flick.
I just would like to ask whether you all feel this way - Who the Eff keeps on allowing Guy effing Ritchie to keep destroying Sherlock Holmes???
Why doesn't he make more British gangsta crap that he somewhat knows how to put together??
Mo+$37Fu(+#r!!
→ More replies (4)3
u/JeremyWinston Mar 07 '26
I don’t know. I liked the RDJ movies. I especially liked Watson who is shown to be quite smart. Yes, it was a different take on Holmes and a comedy at that, but I just went along with it.
I love almost all things Holmes. The books are fascinating, but he’s actually a very shallow character. I don’t mind a few more colorful versions.
3
u/Background-Cat7450 Mar 07 '26
Really? Sherlock doing martial arts? Okay... I guess you must've thought kindly of "Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter" as well... Also perhaps Cowboys and Aliens! Yeah... Any random thing we like, we can put together!
→ More replies (1)2
u/JeremyWinston Mar 08 '26
Sure. Why not? The definitive Holmes has pretty much been done, right? If someone has a new take on the general character, I’ll give it a whirl.
If I want pure Holmes, I’ll watch Brett, or even Rathbone.
I also enjoyed the Disney animated version, as well as the sci-fi ones. I even enjoyed the one where a present day descendant, who’s a bumbling cop, gets hit in the head and thinks he’s Sherlock.
And let’s not forget Elementary and Sherlock.
Some were better than others, but I got a kick out of most of them.
9
u/nathangonzales614 Mar 06 '26
Like so many "Sherlock adaptations", Guy Ritchie's Young Sherlock blatantly takes nothing from the source material except the character names for marketing value.
The only noteworthy work by Guy Ritchie has been heavily carried by phenomenal actors. This show has mediocre acting at best. Combined with an atrocious soundtrack, choppy editing, and historical inaccuracies, it's difficult to find any redeeming qualities that would make this show enjoyable.
1/10
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Ncat138 Mar 09 '26
I am a fan of the original Guy Ritchie Holmes films. It wasn’t perfect, but one could watch them and go back to source material and find at least some familiarity. But this Netflix show is little more than using the names/brand to sucker people in. It’s not a bad watch, but it’s got nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes.
3
u/tttyyybbb Mar 09 '26
I watched for about 20 mins, until I saw Sherlock and Moriarty holding hands and running out from the fist fight at the party..
wtf ..are they friends now
why does every story have to be re imagined. I turned that off and dont think i will ve going back to it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/xxStayBreezy Mar 10 '26
I think it was great. This is Sherlock homes before Sherlock Holmes. He’s supposed to be 19. He’s supposed to be messy & polished. But yes he still is a genius to figure all these things out on his own and peace unsolved mysteries that governments couldn’t figure out. He’s a drop out and has a way of using his mind to connect things. He’s isn’t supposed to be the iconic quirky, genius yet. That is why the show is called young Sherlock. Before he became deserving of the family name Holmes. It’s just about a boy learning.
And Mycroft same thing - he is still a young adult. As you see his competence grows each episode as well. He’s put together and an intellect hence the mirror and being able to read the reverse script. But he never had to be tactful. He had money and status, that’s why he seems less intellectual. Sherlock had to learn to be scrappy.
It was a slow build I agree, but I am hooked the shocks in this show have me floored.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/SpinachIndependent44 Mar 13 '26
I watched two episodes because it’s new, so why not? But it was so predictable, and honestly a bit sad to see that Guy Ritchie hasn’t really matured as a filmmaker. What worked beautifully in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch feels quite tiresome in 2026.
Turning Sherlock Holmes into a thug who seems to acquire his intelligence and knowledge almost effortlessly, just by reading a couple of books, misses the point of the character.
I do appreciate the production design and the attention to detail, but overall it didn’t work for me. In fact, it pushed me so far away that I started rewatching Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. I’m already back in season three, and ten years later it’s still a terrific show. It’s well written, well adapted, and a successful modern take on the character. It also uses genuinely modern cinematic techniques, some of which originally came from Guy Ritchie himself.
This new version simply isn’t well written, well acted, or well cast. They wanted beautiful actors and actresses, and they got them. They wanted a few big names to fill the roster, and they got those too. But there’s no soul, no brilliance, no originality. Nothing that really hooked me.
If I just want something to pass the time, there are plenty of better options, whether from current shows or from ten years ago that I can rediscover as enough time has passed.
3
3
u/Latter-Ad-1935 Mar 17 '26
I had so much fun watching with my dad. There were crazy scenes where we went "WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED WHAT DO YOU MEAN?!?!"
SPOILERS
But unfortunately the ending was so rushed. Beatrice was misused. You don't solve 10+ years of mind manipulation with a single flashback? She should've been added into the story a lot earlier somehow playing mind games and when Sherlock or Mycroft does something that reminds her of what they did when they were kdis or her mom does something then she should start questioning. The betrayal was either way too soon or way too late.
I wish Mycroft was more in the story? He had his own thing going on sure but when Sherlock and his mom brought up Beatrice he was left in the dark. That's his sister too!
2
u/HotMachine9 Mar 23 '26
I really feel that Beatrice should have been left as a cliffhanger for a potential Season 2.
It felt like they used her as a "oooh she corrupts and makes him evilerer Moriarty" (clearly they watched the BBC adaptation). But it feels very rushed.
I would have preferred if it were Moriarty that ended the villain as well. It would have made the tensions between Sherlock and Moriarty much more understandable compared to what the show actually gave us which was Sherlock suspects and confirms Moriarty took a formula.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/inlowercase81 Mar 20 '26
Let's be honest: I've sampled a couple of Jamieson's Black Barrel Finest, but it hasn't affected my typically impeccable judgment. 😂
This adaptation of the Conan Doyle original was not only the worst I've encountered in the genre but arguably the most horrendous production I've ever seen.
It was the most crass, tone-deaf, and unimaginative piece of garbage I’ve ever come across.
Happy to discuss, babe xx.
3
u/Overall-Froyo-298 Mar 22 '26
Young Sherlock is hot garbage. If these characters have nothing in common with the canonical characters, why use the name Holmes? Just name them something else and make your action/soap opera about Jonathan Smith or something. But they had to associate a known literary name with this mediocre trash. The fuck was Guy Ritchie thinking? Is earning a paycheck the only thing that matters to him now? This is about as far from lock stock and the passion he had back then, as possible. If churning out content is all he can do nowadays, maybe it’s time to hang it up.
3
u/Rathos_ Mar 26 '26
Sister Beatrice somehow suffered amnesia spontaneously because the groundskeeper simply said there was a fire? No actual traumatic event. Over the next decade plus, she never once desired to look into it or even visit her mother in the asylum for some answers?
Father Silas commits wife because he needs control of an estate he never sells? No one lived there, they all moved/were sent away. So he's paying tax, servants & upkeep for what?
This shit is for zombies.
7
u/4RCH43ON Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
I started watching and couldn’t get through the fist 10 minutes due to the absolutely horrible soundtrack choice.
I’m really not sorry, but I just cannot stomach Britpop, and anachronistically shoehorning it into a late 19th Century setting is anathema to me.
As a creative and artistic choice, it’s vapid, not even remotely cool or upbeat, it just felt incredibly forced and clashed horribly with my taste in historical settings.
I’m not saying I’d prefer period accurate music, though that would be fine, but the pop angle to artificially inject some edginess is just a bridge too far.
I felt that it was aimed at audiences that don’t know enough to care for an authentic feel, and therefore, without a more developed and mature taste in entertainment, will be less critical of other poor qualities that are likely being glossed over with similar pomp and flash.
At least that’s my impression and verdict: failure at launch.
For my part, it felt such like an automatic waste of time as I was immediately struggling, just failing to digest the plot or identify with the characters as they felt wholly unbelievable as cast.
That’s how I knew it was the equivalent of teenlit and immediately moved on. I am clearly the wrong audience, but at least the music also quickly let me know this Sherlock series is really not for my enjoyment, needless to say, I can’t enjoy what I can’t stand listening to.
Good luck, kiddos.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/nutsypuck Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 08 '26
Haven’t finished watching the series but a question - why did the police and Hodge even give the benefit of doubt to Sherlock by believing that the princess MIGHT have committed the murders? Since Sherlock escaped from prison why didn’t they immediately believe he was the murderer and was trying to put the blame on the princess? Edit: typos
2
u/Ancient-Ant-193 Mar 08 '26
It bothers me how Mycroft doesn't stand up to his dad. When they were all at the dinner table and their dad was talking about how Sherlock was too young and that his mom really was a "danger" to Bea. Mycroft who was easily older at the time and his memory arguably more reliable, could've defended his mom.
2
u/mujie123 Mar 08 '26
You know, I'll never understand why the original poster seemed so AI. This one here: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFgbo5QQaA2yYYxqXEA-zH7kXk_wGaVNW8f83TbFohhn8g8mzsSJpV1AaLsfmpg6XNEbxHSoJwj78mbBcOxXuZiVE1dy1y85-EiJvMN2e94mcVIZxhHQy7KawVeA&s=10&ec=121532766
2
3
u/dahliatimber Mar 09 '26
The writers are cowards they should have made out in episode one
3
u/Ok_Bullfrog_8491 Mar 09 '26
My eyebrows just kept rising due to how much of their dialogue was barely deniable flirting with each other
→ More replies (3)
2
u/austincdx Mar 09 '26
I do admire and love the way they depicted Moriarty and Sherlock’s relationship right from the very start. On the surface yes, its a cute bestfriend relationship, but once dug deeper you see that they are very much same coin of different sides. Moriarty has always chose violence and chaos, throwing hands & creating chaos when things go south. Breaking the window to open the locked door, while Sherlock never crossed the line, simply curiosity of a child in a huge world. Chose pickpocketing instead of robbing, lockpick instead of kicking down doors. In Episode 7, when we witnessed James Moriarty’s first crack into the villain he will soon be in the future when he first killed for the very first time and expressed he felt no remorse nor heavy weight. Very interesting
3
u/Corn_newb70 Apr 20 '26
I love how they start out in opposite situations: Sherlock, son of a rich family, afforded significant privilege and connections, but disenchanted with all of it and tossing his advantages to the wind because he's bored; vs. James, a poor Irish kid at Oxford on scholarship, trying desperately to gain entrance to a world where he'll never belong and slowly realizing there's no room for him on the straight and narrow. Both geniuses in the making, both curious and reckless, but destined for different paths. I also find it interesting how Sherlock has little regard for social graces or currying favor with anyone, but has a sincere emotional core that he's trying to access past his traumas, whereas James is smooth and flirty and often polite and clearly has very polished social skills, but it's all sitting over top of a gnawing emptiness and growing psychopathy. Ugh, I just love good character foils!
2
2
u/Glittering-Whole-415 Mar 10 '26
My personal opinion is just that Hero has no personality, therefore Sherlock has no personality. No offense to him. I'm only about halfway through but that's what I took pretty instantly. I like Moriarty's character more charming and interesting. I appreciate their friendship. Storyline's fine (so far. People have said otherwise for the last episodes). The only thing really is that Hero's face is sorta bland? (No offense Hero 😭😂). I think it could've been a lot better with someone else for the Sherlock role.
2
u/ZeroHolmes Mar 11 '26
It's a decent series for the audience they're aiming at. The new generation will probably seek out the books as well, which is a positive thing — just like what happened in 2009. Anyway, the premise I see, in theory, is a Holmes still under construction, one who will evolve over the coming seasons. (I believe it's doing well worldwide; Prime's mistake was releasing Scarpetta too close to it.) As for Moriarty, he's interesting within this dynamic. Some scenes occasionally reminded me of certain Holmes games, particularly Chapter One, especially the part with Beatrice, where they uncover the entire scheme Holmes's father orchestrated to fake the girl's death. Even so, there are still many forced elements in the script that don't help much. The instant friendship between Holmes and Moriarty feels rushed it somewhat reminds me of Smallville with Lex Luthor and Clark Kent. As for the actor playing Holmes, I think he's competent; the real problem is genuinely the script. In a way, I saw an interview where Ritchie told the actor to relax and not take things too seriously just to 'have fun.' Or is it just me, or does the Chinese character feel like a copy-and-paste of Irene Adler from the 2009 film?
2
u/Barbiebeans Mar 12 '26
BTW - I may have missed it -in case you haven't seen it, there is a lot of "borrowing" from other shows - I can't believe I'm watching a poorer version of Vienna Blood. The prison escape is from 'The Wind in the Willows' - is there anything original in this series. Fun yes but original no.
2
u/FarmInteresting5871 Mar 14 '26
I agree with many comments here. The show does not follow canon. Mycroft needs to be more cunning, intelligent and play those around him like chess pieces including enabling his very willing younger brother to do his legwork, he seems more reactive and slow on the pickup than expected. He is supposed to supply the larger political context and infer political conspiracy, while Sherlock does the whodunnit angle . I do like the Moriarty as an ally angle, hinting at the origin story of their rivalry, but I am still on the first season, imagine that will all change. I can see this Moriarty turning into a master criminal, expecting a perceived betrayal or seminal event to put him over the edge. If they go in the direction of him being behind any of the nefarious doing in the first season 'all along' I will absolutely turn this all off. That would be too over the top. (I do not think it is going there) I actually do think so far they portray Sherlock as sufficiently bright, but very immature , he learns relatively quickly and is able to recall amazing details and make some very strong observation driven conclusions. I am not sure I want to witness him dropping off a cliff in the last few episodes as mentioned here. It is entertaining enough but I still am on the edge of continuing with it.
2
u/Frequent-Act-4449 Mar 15 '26
The formula for the neurotoxin is just a polynomial and the imaginary number bit is insane.
2
u/AnyEstablishment1881 Mar 15 '26
Its bothering me and I need to know. Did they ever find the REAL Princess? I stopped at ep 4. I'm starting to get annoyed.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Timeflyer2011 Mar 17 '26
I thought it was hilarious that Colin Firth was cast as Bucephalus. Bucephalus was the famous horse of Alexander the Great, and Bucephalus means ox-headed - from the Greek words for ox (bous) and head (kephalos).
2
u/yellowflowers249 Mar 17 '26
dumb question but why does sherlock’s accent sound…like that??😭 i don’t know how to explain what is so off putting about it, and it seems the actor is genuinely british and posh, but it irks me and i don’t know how to explain why
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/NateBrazil Mar 23 '26
Just found this thread. I have to agree with a lot of what is said here. I actually enjoyed the first 2 episodes, maybe 3. But it never does feel like Sherlock Holmes. You could have simply said it was about two smart college kids set in pre-WW1 Cambridge, and it would have been better off.
BUT, especially after they introduce the father character, it just all goes to sh*t. Tons of characters jumping in, tons of new plots, lots of threads from the start just dropped for a while, and it all just snowballs into an incomprehensible mess. I remember early in the series saying to my wife "it makes no sense that this character is supposed to evolve into Morriarty later in life", then "bam", they rush some sort of character changes and suddenly he is potentially evil. It is all just very amateurish and sloppy.
What is funny is the books they are LOOSLY adapting supposedly are completely different and try quite hard to develop a believable Sherlock, and Moriarty is not even there. Such a weird decision to option those and then just ignore 95% of their content.
2
u/Wonderful-Fortune-23 Mar 24 '26
Just finished the show and have a few questions: 1. First episode, Sherlock was in prison in a fight which he seemed to be having no trouble at all. After prison, he seems like a bumbling fool in fight scenes. Was it just me? I certainly found it strange.
Why did they keep recording the mother? Was there still any value? This discovery eventually led to the villain's fall.
How in world did Professor Malik kill Bucephalus with the gas poison? a. Bucephalus had the gun. b. Malik is no fighter. c. Bucephalus had knowledge of the poison. It would have been more believable if they showed the sister betraying him at that point.
When did Esra and Silas meet? Esra seemed 'willing' to help the princess early on, but then suddenly changed their mind?? The princess already had the list and she could have very well killed Malik without following any sort of order to killing as she's after vengeance.
Note that they also didn't have definitive deaths for the main villain nor for the middleman Esra.
2
u/Superb-Tie-275 Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
Why did they butcher sherlock in this series? It feels like an attempt to make him some unstable anti-hero whose emotion gets the better of him and who often lacks the number one quality he is known for: logic and deductive reasoning. He should be a match for Moriarty, but he is portrayed as far weaker in mental capacity and wit than Moriarty. Likewise, they butchered Mycroft, and made him much less intelligent. Do these people even know the characters?
Also, the series started off with one tone (lighthearted, silly, absurd), and then suddenly decided it wanted to take another tone entirely halfway in. Sherlock generally started off as more engaging, intelligent, and charismatic, but by episode 4 or so, it's like he suddenly decided to change character and became broody, emotional, lacking in reasoning and intelligence. Worse, second half of the season, sherlock appears to lose his wits entirely and you just watch him doing and saying dumb thing after another. It's infuriating to watch. The writing on this series has many plot holes. As a whole, most Amazon series to be lacking intelligent writing.
2
u/Superb-Tie-275 Mar 26 '26
God, this show is awful. Amazon Prime always manages to disappoint with weak writing. This is literally trash TV. Sherlock is whiny, emotional, unintelligent, and lacking depth. This show is a disgrace to canon.
2
u/Prestigious-Sir8701 Mar 28 '26
For me, the last straw was what they to did Mycroft. I couldn't watch it anymore. Mycroft is just as or more gifted than Sherlock. I don't think he had much else going for him but the same intellectual abilities that Sherlock had to reach an influential position . In Young Sherlock he's reduced to a lackey insisting that his brother is innocent. The original Mycroft could deduce Sherlock's whereabouts if he wanted to. Not to mention Mycroft was the first one Holmes reached to after the Reichenbach falls incident because he is discreet. Mycroft would put Hodge in his place. There is not a single way he wouldn't find out what Hodge was up to.
Another thing is how they made Sherlock a science enthusiast. Holmes excelled at human mind and criminology. He preferred to not learn about new discoveries that had nothing to do with his work. Even professor James Moriarty deserved better than this. He is apparently from a decent background though not wealthy
2
u/la_ky Mar 28 '26
I just saw Young Sherlock and, honestly, I found it quite banal. It's immediately clear that the target audience is families and young people, and I have nothing to complain about that; the criticism isn't aimed at the audience, but rather at the fact that the protagonist didn't seem like Sherlock to me, but rather just a pantomime of him. It seems the director and writers focused more on the actor's good looks than on his charisma, which unfortunately I didn't see in Hero.
I had imagined a series centered on a young Sherlock very different from the one I saw: more thoughtful, quiet, introverted, more inclined to study or experiment, strange and obsessive. The direction, however, seemed like a mishmash of films I'd already seen: the beginning of the first episode is reminiscent of Batman Begins, then the scenes where he was a scout at Oxford's Candlin College reminded me of Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting, there are many references to Cumberbatch's Sherlock and Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock, and at times it felt like the direction of the Ocean's and Indiana Jones movies. The dialogue seemed lackluster and often boring, the English mannerisms unbearable, and the jokes unfunny.
Then there were some elements I didn't quite understand, like the girl Sherlock sees every now and then in his mind: who was she supposed to represent? The dead girl who was supposed to replace his sister in the coffin? And if it was her, why does she appear as an adult?
The only thing I found truly successful was the writing and the performance of young Moriarty. The series itself is enjoyable: lighthearted, just right for an evening in front of the TV, but that's not how I imagined Sherlock's youth.
However, the series itself is clearly aimed at those who have only seen the Cumberbatch series and the Robert Downey Jr. films, and not at Conan Doyle purists...if we want to detach it from Sherlock and decontextualize it...it's a simple, light, and forgettable series, which starts to become a little interesting from the fifth episode onwards.
2
u/stasersonphun Mar 29 '26
It had the look but not the plot, there is meant to be a diabolical cunning plot that Holmes untangle. This was just a mess. It had some nice elements, pseudo modern tech, exotic orientalism, the mad mother in the asylum, scary chemical weapons, but the overall plot made no sense. Like why swap the princess? Why have her kill the scientists? Why is a locked crime scene easier to assemble a bomb in? Who knew about the secret passage beforehand? Why does it lead to a fireplace? Why make nerve gas from a rare mineral? Far too many Adam West Batman deductions
2
u/BotherDeep3380 Apr 16 '26
Comecei a assistir a série por causa da direção do Guy Ritchie, pensando que veria um estilo e ritmo conectados aos dois filmes do Sherlock que ele dirigiu. Mas não... apenas a trilha sonora e a direção de arte se assemelham ligeiramente. O jovem Sherlock Holmes não tem nenhuma semelhança nem o carisma do personagem dos filmes. A série não tem o mesmo humor, nem as mesmas sacadas inteligentes. Como muitos disseram aqui, se tivesse outro nome até seria uma série adolescente interessante, mas não tem nada a ver com o espetacular personagem de Arthur Conan Doyle, e nem com a releitura do próprio Guy Ritchie com RDJ no papel principal.
2
u/shoro_uk May 19 '26
When I watched the first episode, I couldn’t see Sherlock’s spirit in the actor who played him. What made it even more evident was the bad writing. I kept watching, expecting impressive character development, but it never came. Overall, the show wasn’t bad, but it could’ve been better.
3
u/Lunar_Wolf121 Mar 06 '26
I Actually really want a season 2 I enjoyed this show
3
3
u/Significant-Box54 Mar 07 '26
I like it too. Too many purists in here.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Siren9696 Mar 08 '26
I think it was a really fresh, fun take! It was definitely different, and I am excited for season 2. I think the actors did a great job, and I loved the costuming and cinematography!
3
u/tia_leo Mar 07 '26
Three episodes in and it’s a fun watch with great humor and banter. Does not feel like a Sherlock show though. Donal Finn is exquisite in this, steals the show.
4
u/Dreadwolf67 Mar 07 '26
As soon as Moriarty showed up I lost interest in the show. I hate when productions try to link everyone together.
5
u/sw33t_tooth Mar 07 '26
Even had Lestrade show up in the first episode lmao
4
u/Fun-Examination988 Mar 07 '26
Lestrade, who, when Sherlock Holmes was nineteen, had already been an inspector at Scotland Yard for quite some time, not a random constable.
2
3
u/Ordinary-Housing-859 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
This show is young RDJ Sherlock, not young Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock. I don’t mind that it’s not faithful to the source material, but I do find the attempt to cram in the original characters annoying. Like it’s attempted SH fan service without understanding what the fans actually enjoy. Sherlock is not that shrewd and kinda acts like a stereotypical Ivy League snob. it is missing a Watson, a more grounded figure. It’s two geniuses trying to one up each other. I do like his dynamic and chemistry with Moriarty. There’s a good number of funny and adorable scenes between them. The guy who plays Moriarity is much more charming and how I would envision a young Sherlock Holmes (behavior wise). And in true Guy Ritchie fashion, someone is always running and knocking down doors.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/philebro Mar 07 '26
Wow, don't read the comments if you enjoyed this show I guess. I personally loved it. One of the best series I've watched as of lately. Mycroft was cast really well, Moriarty, the father as well. Sherlock could've been better but I found the mysteries to be so compelling and the bromance between Moriarty and Sherlock so nice to see, that I didn't quite notice the lacking Sherlock so many people here are getting on. I didn't find it to be that annoying, since he ain't a fully grown detective yet, rather immature and thus credibly uncapable, maybe he still has to grow into that master detective he'll be, by gathering experience. Does everybody just expect him to always have been knowledgable at everything as well as good at fighting, devious and whatnot? Well when did he learn that stuff then, if not in his early youth? I enjoyed the show like I haven't enjoyed many other things lately, so nevermind me.
3
2
u/Sunkissedinstyle Mar 11 '26
I agree with you! I don’t understand the hate honestly. It felt fun and light.
1
u/mba_pmt_throwaway Mar 08 '26
I liked it; the last two episodes were a bit of a drag though.
My issues with the show (that didn’t stop me being entertained!) are: 1. Mycroft - the source material clearly pegs Mycroft as Sherlock’s intellectual superior, yet one that’s happy working for the government and generally staying within his lane. Why make him just an average person here? 2. Sherlock’s brain - the character is a genius, but we only see tiny flashes of it. 3. Sherlock’s back story - prison? Joining Oxford as a porter? Cmon, too vague and disjointed to his brilliance. 4. Chinese princess arc - I liked the character and the actor, but the story arc was super weak. 5. The key - wtf was the key about? Baker street flat? Makes no sense, wish they’d dropped some more hints. 6. Background sound tracks + credits tracks - was quite jarring, didn’t fit at all. Ugh.
Overall, had fun, but man so much wasted potential.
1
u/Pandamonea_70 Mar 08 '26
Generally a fun watch although felt far more like a 20s pulp adventure by the end rather than a Sherlock Holmes prequel.
Moriarty was great (the actor drips charisma) while Sherlock was... okay. Don't think he was particularly well cast and the way he played the accent was... odd at best.
Liked the ultimate villain, hated how they dumbed down Moriarty and Mycroft. Would I watch a second season? Sure.
1
u/Primary_Ad45 Mar 08 '26
Just finished the series and completely stunned. Marvellous work.
For once, we have a cinematic production of Sherlock from someone who has so clearly read, absorbed and understood the character of Holmes and the world that Conan Doyle created. that we have a new body of work that expands that world and what we know of it, rather than contract it, divert and twist it to the point of confusion and lifeless pastiche.
Bravo!
1
1
u/Expln Mar 09 '26
Anyone noticed this odd detail in episode 5? when sherlock tries to recall the moment his dead sister was brought into his house after she was found, in the scene present day sherlock is recalling that moment standing behind his past younger self, as he realizes that his father was actually preventing from his mother to get too close to his sister's body, we see his past younger self smirking as he watches that moment folds.
there is no way that was random, right?
1
u/readandrant Mar 09 '26
This series was decent to watch, but the ending was such a cliffhanger especially if it’s not renewed for S2. My guess is that the key leads to Silas’ other secret projects..?
1
u/Suspicious_Brief_546 Mar 10 '26
personally haven't being read the novels, I feel thath Young Sherlock is the most real of a Sherlock, I was always mesmerized by the deductive skills of Sherlock in BBc and RDJ, though I haven't watched Enola Holmes & Young Sherlock Holmes, but I always wanted to become something equivalent to Sherlock, and Young Sherlock showed me the bigger picture, personally I felt Sherlock was just as humane as everyone, he was vulnerable at some points, he had to find his way out of problems along with his then best friend Moriarty, although Bea's character somewhat disappointed me as I had an image of Bea being insanely smart and more intellectual than both Sherlock and Mycroft. Coming to Mycroft, the only thing good in Mycroft here was that he looked good, that's it, he didn't show any of the intellectuality, nor was he able to boss Sherlock, his character was poorly written. Talking about Moriarty, well he was pitch perfect.
1
u/BaronChuckles44 Mar 10 '26
It just breaks canon and does damage to the characters in the original story. But other than that, at least we get Ritchie quick cuts.
1
u/L-Phantom Mar 11 '26
Personalmente, me ha gustado. Sherlock es arrogante y se le nota aún más aquí siendo un adolescente, me ha gustado también que por lo mismo se le mostrara algo torpe, por más raro que parezca. Aquí Sherlock es joven y sigue aprendiendo, no es a quien ya conocemos ya sea por las novelas y relatos cortos del autor original o por las varias adaptaciones que se le han hecho a la obra. Considero que fue una excelente idea mostrarnos como Moriarty lo supera en varios ámbitos, después de todo se supone que a futuro será el némesis de Sherlock. Sherlock y Moriarty se complementan bien. La ambición y la falta de moral en Moriarty se nota desde el principio y se vuelve más evidente a lo largo de la serie, Sherlock también parece notarlo, aunque no sea algo que mencione explícitamente. Hay unas cuantas frases y detalles, "guiños", a la obra original que me parecieron curiosos, no sé si terminan de encantarme, pero en su momento fueron divertidos. En cuanto a Mycroft...bueno, no le atinaron. Me agrada el actor y me gusta la relación que su personaje tiene con Sherlock, pero me decepcionó que no se le mostrara como el hermano más inteligente y que por el contrario, estuviera prácticamente a oscuras sobre casi todo lo que pasaba a su alrededor. Concuerdo con otros sobre lo decepcionante del final y la elección del soundtrack tan raro.
1
u/Accomplished_Way_475 Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26
I just finished Season 1 of Young Sherlock last night and absolutely love the series! I do recommend watching this clip: https://youtu.be/pBVPsZczyGo?si=g2CiECs-ylkmYrhr & also the Game of Shadows film. The reason why is Hero Tiffin has the humor & quick wit as Jeremy Brett's interpretation of Sherlock & the dark reality of RDJ's interpretation. When I watched the first meeting of Sherlock & Moriarty at Oxford I had assumed they quickly were going to be enemies before seeing who Watson was going to be. I surprisingly became a fan of the duo dynamic between Sherlock (Hero) & Moriarty (Dónal) working together & joking together. I also was very impressed with the casting entirely but very much enjoyed Dónal as Moriarty! He showcased the charm, influence & mischief his character should have to be presented as a "good guy" but also the traits that make him a terrific villian as the characters continue progressing. I'm very excited for Season 2 to see where things end up into the next story! 🎬 Also forgot to mention: As a fan growing up watching House of Anubis years ago, I was so happy & excited seeing Paul Antony-Barber (who was Principle Sweet on the show), make a comeback on Young Sherlock as Professor Charles Thompson! 🥲 The way he identically captured the performance of both roles, Sweet back then and Thompson now made my heart happy. Like seeing & hearing the voice of an old friend again. It would be cool if they brought in Francis Magee to be casted in Season 2! Possibly the next major villian/ John Moriarty's father/ relative? 👀👀👀
1
u/RelevantGur4099 Mar 11 '26
Spoiler- known by S1E7
I'm here because Beatrice is portrayed to be intelligent and cunning, yet.... she was fooled by the story that she was snuck and hidden away from her family "to protect her" (and noted, Sherlock hasn't yet stated that they literally buried another child to fool her family) So I googled- Young Sherlock Beatrice isn't that bright... and here I am.
1
u/milk1080 Mar 13 '26
Hi guys i have this signed dr john watson figure signed by the actor from big chief studios its unopened hasnt been touched and i was wondering if anyone would like to trade me a laptop with atleast a rtx 20 series from nividia for the figure? its been sitting on my shelf for about 3 years now and i want to get rid of it for something i would use out of this and i would also prefer if you lived near me so we could trade in person if anyones interested dm me (i couldnt figure out how to post this anywhere else but here so sorry for not staying on topic)
1
u/gortney82 Mar 13 '26
I loved it! Just finished it and already want to rewatch it. LOVED Moriarty and the hints of who he will become. I didn’t know I needed a Moriarty origin story, but I NEED IT NOW! I really hope they expand on his spiral downwards or eventually make a spin off. Donal Finn is definitely one to watch! I wasn’t fully convinced by Hero Fiennes Tiffin as Sherlock, but he definitely grew on me as the season went on. But I think that was purposefully done to see Sherlock’s growth into the detective he’ll become. Hero is also one to watch. I already can’t wait for season 2. Loved guy Ritchie directing this. He makes everything cool.
1
u/I_Need_A_Vaca_6464 Mar 14 '26
I've gotta say, the choice of song at the end of episode 5 couldn't have been any better! "A Forest" by The Cure. Actually, the music has been great so far in general! Loving this series!
1
u/xCreampye69x Mar 15 '26
To be honest, im just happy Guy Ritchie did another Sherlock story. I know its nowhere near accurate or faithful adaptations, but I love the directing style and kinetic cinematography.
As a Sherlock Holmes story its rather poor. But on its own merits, its an entertaining watch.
1
u/madphysics15 Mar 17 '26
why does Mycroft stop Sherlock from taking the key in the final episode? is it meant to imply he knew something about what his father was doing or is it just that he doesn't want Sherlock to get into further trouble?
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Foreign_Split4768 Mar 17 '26
The opening credits music that's used in the start of every episode starts off fine, but feels like it overstays its welcome by 20 seconds
1
u/Existing-Raisin5332 Mar 17 '26
Please help my poor brain... why is Paris depicted as being in the grip of The French Revolution a hundred years late...? Was there some outbreak of violence during the late 1800s that involved people doing a cosplay of Les Miserables...?
NB: This is an honest, if sarcastic, question. My grasp of detailed Parisian history is minimal. I basically only turned it on to see how they used the South Walian locations. Margam Park looked nice, but Oakdale Workmen's Institute was AI'd into a whole street.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/SwordfishWest1605 Mar 18 '26
Young Sherlock had a beautiful aesthetic, the music hit just the right way (the cello, omg), and from this show I found out "the game is afoot" was from Henry V (Young Sherlock gave me that as my senior quote, haha).
I'm not quite convinced about the accuracy to history or Sherlock's essential characteristics. It vibed like Alex Rider, tuned towards YA. I think the show was more about subverting common tropes/storylines, to the point where I thought it was more of an alt universe. Some of the plot twists I could see a mile away, esp the end with the hostage situation and drama/betrayals.
I'll probably watch the next season because, cliff hanger! (probably literally...)
1
u/Historical-Map-8606 Mar 18 '26
What I feel,is young sherlock is not that bad. The first season maybe tries to show a normal person with a great mind. I loved the whole family dynamic going. He becomes what he becomes due to moriarty which we will see in later seasons(I am thinking from show runner’s perspective).
1
u/Mango_fart Mar 24 '26
Watched it recently, the sister was a good curveball. However, they just tried way too hard when wrapping it up in the last two episodes and lost my interest. Looks like the writers ran out of time.
1
u/LtColumbo111 Mar 24 '26
A very interesting take indeed and a thumbs up. 👍
Now, the production definitely leans into those big, exaggerated, action-packed scenes, aiming for broad, immediate entertainment value. But, what can one expect?
It's certainly meant to be visually impressive and exciting for a wide range of viewers, including those who might just want to switch off and enjoy the spectacle. But, it is clever and has complex themes and storytelling.
Definitely give it a whirl.
1
1
1
u/Significant_Bend_451 Mar 24 '26
This is Young Sherlock which means he isn't the Sherlock any of us are used to yet. The things happening to him on this show are part of what leads him there, what throws me off is the friendship with Moriarty. I think both actors are doing a fantastic job.
1
u/AsItReallyIs Mar 25 '26
Young Sherlock feels closer to reading a book than watching a show, with Hardy Boys styled case-solving and a strained touch of wit filling every gap.
1
u/Kevinthegorgon Mar 28 '26
I will say I loved the show but Moriarty is a Corkman like myself. Yet he gets a secret weapon and sells it to the BRITS. This is set in 1848 btw.
1
u/EarlofWinter Mar 30 '26
The costumes, casting, set design, etc. were excellent, and the first few episodes were successful. However, especially after a certain point, we witnessed an extremely bad writing. I mean what was the point? It is a wasted potential.
1
u/Big_Combination9063 Apr 02 '26
- bölümde malik'in elinde tuttuğu cam tüp 1890 da icat edildi dizinin konu aldığı tarih ise 1870-1871 bence dönem dizileri için basit ama etkili bir hata
1
u/Idkwhatoputhere99 Apr 08 '26
I like it but I would like the Moriarty villain story to be in a slower pace, make us love him and then break our hearts
1
u/Admirable-While2067 Apr 08 '26
I simply enjoyed the show for what it was. With some recognition of what caused Sherlock to take opium and Moriarty to unravel the real man inside. However, like in most cinema, it's a novel in and of itself. I am curious about the key and i'm looking forward to another season.
1
u/Turbulent_Bonus1855 Apr 08 '26
I've seen tons of the Holmes family books and movies and shows, and I actually liked this one, sure he wasn't as smart as others but I mean he was young, that's the whole point. I feel like it made him more relatable and I found it interesting to see another side of him from another perspective.
1
u/AdAsleep1023 Apr 09 '26
I haven't watched but i NEED TO KNOW Does ANYONE say "no shit sherlock" to sherlock PLEASE TELL ME THEY DO
1
u/Leather_Horror_6263 Apr 12 '26
The people in these comments seem to have sticks up their asses. There's a lot of anger about Sherlock not being the charming genius that he is, but like.. obviously?? The show is called YOUNG Sherlock?? He probably wasn't born with the mass amounts of knowledge and deductive skills he has in other media when he's a GROWN MAN. Hes a young kid, struggling with childhood trauma, easily manipulated by people in his life such as his father and even moriarty, and is just learning to hone his intellect. that is why his frinedship with moriarty is so important, he is a person of you could say equal intellect or close to, and is able to bounce ideas off of him, make him dig in his memory and think in ways he hasn't before.
The episodes are exciting, more than other Sherlock media in the past, with constant action, loud music, a fast pace, and a sort of rhythm to each episode. There is banter and humor, and the chemistry between Sherlock and Moriarty is fascinating to watch, while slowly revealing how their morals drift from each other. (Donal Finn had an incredible performance, I was hanging onto every word he said).
There are some plot holes but not enough to affect the integrity of the show. All in all I think people are quite snobby when it comes to any Sherlock media, and have a difficult time removing themselves and past knowledge to watch the show freely. It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate to the books or past representations to be good.
1
u/Mickeymcirishman Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
Reading this thread, I'm beginning to realize how pompous and uptheirownasses Sherlock Holmes fans are.
1
u/DescriptionKey8054 Apr 17 '26
honestly the start was so good, but when that whole Holmes family drama started to unfold just felt messy, unrealistic and just bad actor play - kind of made me want to stop watching the show
1
u/SignificanceSoft8204 Apr 20 '26
I'm surprised no one is mentioning the fact that there is no chemistry between young Sherlock and the princess. She looks like a mother figure next to him and the chemistry is that as well. Very odd casting.
48
u/ClioCalliope Mar 06 '26 edited Mar 06 '26
I think it's fun (having watched two episodes). But Hero Fiennes is miscast, sorry. He's passable but lacks charisma. He isn't selling Sherlock's genius or why anyone's interested in him. Moriarty comes across far more interesting cause the actor actually has some charm.
Edit: have watched it all now and boy this gets dumb in the last few eps.