Sherlock : Mary badly written or Abbington poorly cast?

Or both?

I never really got Mary from the outset, and it was surprising, given she was at one stage in a relationship with Freeman, that they shared so little chemistry on-screen. Her character never seemed to work, and her depiction as a special forces agent in "The Six Thatchers" was unintentionally comic. I'm not sure who's to blame though - was Abbington given a poorly written character that she did the best with, or would Mary have been more credible if played by another actress?

Perhaps here in the UK, we ought to use the term "Enter The Mary", or "Alas, the Abbington" rather than "Jump The Shark" when pinpointing the moment a series starts to go downhill?

To IMDB, or not to IMDB - because I've got some questions.

Meryl Streep would struggle to make Nikita-becomes-Florence-Nightingale a convincing character.

"There is no future in England's dreaming": The Sex Pistols

---

Mary badly written or Abbington poorly cast?

---

I'll go for the lazy answer and say a bit of both!

Sadly there may also be an ideological angle to this as many will no doubt be aware that Steven Moffat also helms the other jewel in the BBC's crown: Doctor Who.

What they/you may not be aware of however is that Moff' suffered not inconsiderable abuse and harassment (and was practically hounded off of social media at one point) from foam-flecked feminists/SJW's a few years back after they had decided that The Doctor's then female companion's miniskirts were too mini for their liking and that naturally Moff was a "rape apologist", "misogynist" and "can't write female characters properly" as a consequence.

Rather than dismiss the ravings of this tiny minority of nutters Moff's been unwisely trying to redeem himself/placate his deranged accusers ever since which, for Doctor Who, has meant overpowered female companions/characters, weak and feeble male characters and endless 'quips' about how toxic masculinity is et al. Sherlock's not immune from this either going by last year's pseudo right-on 'lecture' of an Xmas special.

^Such considerations then might explain why Mary was implausibly 'overpowered' and quite unconvincing as a former elite special forces merc/solider (s******) and why her and Watson's relationship perhaps didn't quite chime or else convey itself warmly (I.e. if Mary had been portrayed as being too besotted with John she could be perceived as weak thus likely earning Moff accusations of sexism again.I honestly wish I was exaggerating ).

Just a theory of course though the evidence to support it is arguably compelling.

Chopper-Chang wrote:

What they/you may not be aware of however is that Moff' suffered not inconsiderable abuse and harassment (and was practically hounded off of social media at one point) from foam-flecked feminists/SJW's a few years back.

Yes, I remember that - but wasn't that with regards to "Sherlock", rather than "Doctor Who", and the (supposedly) misogynist depiction of Irene Adler in "A Scandal In Belgravia"? Link attached to the article that I seem to remember sparking off a series of heated arguments:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat?newsfeed=true

Rather than dismiss the ravings of this tiny minority of nutters Moff's been unwisely trying to redeem himself by placating his deranged accusers ever since.

Yes, this has been really noticeable in his writing. To be fair, Rory's being hopelessly enthralled to Amy seems to have preceded the feminist furore, but it's become more and more pronounced in DW, culminating in River Song - who was ok when first introduced, I thought - and Clara. And, in Sherlock, it hit it's apex, or nadir, with Mary, and the horror that was "The Abominable Bride" (which I remember really, really looking forward to as well!).

The problem is that there's no satisfying SJWs/feminists, or the more extreme ones, at any event. They're just going to be offended, no matter what, and if you can't placate them, you may as well provoke them.

To IMDB, or not to IMDB - because I've got some questions.

---

Yes, I remember that - but wasn't that with regards to "Sherlock", rather than "Doctor Who", and the (supposedly) misogynist depiction of Irene Adler in "A Scandal In Belgravia"? Link attached to the article that I seem to remember sparking off a series of heated arguments:

---

I'd better check my dates as I thought the above was preceded by the aforementioned faux furore generated during Season 5 (Moff's first as showrunner) of Doctor Who way back in 2010.

Either way one suspects those hounding Moff for purported outrages against wimminkind committed via 'Who and later for Sherlock were largely one and the same. Naturally.

Regardless, it's hard to argue against the calibre of Moff's work 'pre-pandering' being of far higher quality than after it, hence implausibly super-powered Mary amongst other debatable concessions.

So sad. So avoidable.

---

the calibre of Moff's work 'pre-pandering' being of far higher quality than after it,

---

Amen.

Basically, I think we all agree that the pandering somehow drained his clever creativity of all its initial freshness and vitality.

---

The problem is that there's no satisfying SJWs/feminists, or the more extreme ones, at any event. They're just going to be offended, no matter what, and if you can't placate them

---

The problem is that Sherlock scholars (who were all men at once point because they fought like hell to ignore women who wanted to join in the fun) have insisted for years that Sherlock was a misogynist, and adapters have tried to work around that since, but he really wasn't. Sherlock was unfailingly courteous to women in the original stories. He just didn't trust women. Or pretty much anyone, actually.

I think you're spot on, Chopper-Chang. Seems Sherlock now has to pass through SJW feminist censorship before it's permitted to be broadcast. Even some of the dialogue tonight, which came from Mary's 'ghost' and went something along the lines of "You're tired of having the world explained to you by a man, well who isn't?"

i'm going to say the fault is primarily with the core characterisation of Mary. Once she was revealed as ninja spy the writers had began a process of painting themselves into a corner that they only resolve with the events at the end of The Six Thatchers.

Even before the reveal Mary was bound to become a burden to the relationship between the two main characters and post she just wasn't likable enough to continue to be the catalyst for events. Unfortunately whilst she was alive, with the backstory and personality she had been given, it would have been difficult to ignore her from storylines.

I agree.
The character was annoying, she was given far too much screen time, and she detracted from the Holmes/Watson relationship.

There were times in this episode where she seemed more like Sherlock's partner than Watson did.

That said, I believe they were trying for a cross between Emma Peel and Miss Marple, and Abbington couldn't quite seem to grasp either concept.

I always liked Mary, I just didn't like the other characters' reaction to her. If she had been revealed as a villain and stayed that way, I would have loved that twist.

Arthur, put the kettle on and dig out those lemon hand wipes.

Bad writing. Most of Sherlock's crimes are tangible and relatable whereas Mary's rogue spy, gone good, wants normal life, persona felt very unrealistic and far away. I'm not aware of her character arc in the novels other than her death, but I really didn't like it.

Also us juggling between Watson or Mary, who's going to watch the baby? Who's going to solve crimes with Sherlock? Mary will go this time since she's "better at this sort of thing" just didn't fit.

I've always thought she was poorly cast

I've never been able to get myrtle from The Office Christmas special out of my head every time I saw her and up until this weekend I always thought it was her. They look so similar & that's not a good look, so cast as a Spec Ops Soldier.. No Way!

I think it's a combination of both. I also agree that if she could go full villain and stayed that way it might have had better results.
The problem is that the writers of the show sometimes throw in story lines or complications that they usually cannot handle well later, just for the sake of surprising the audience. They even did it with TRF, yesss Sherlock jumped and survived and your mind is blown so we'll just leave it at that, yessss John is married what on earth are they going to do now? haha gotcha again! she's a freakin' assassin! deal with it! oops they have a babyand so on.

If fifty million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.(Anatole France)

I always liked Mary, I think Amanda was great in the role - I liked her interactions with John and especially the way she treated Sherlock. She played it just right in that she was likable but not a wet blanket.

If anything it's the writers fault because she had to be more than just a wife and nurse - she had to be something extra special. I don't personally see why she couldn't have been super smart but still just a nurse! But this is Moffat and co for you - their characters have to be OTT.

Let's face it Sherlock himself has become annoying - he actually does very little these days except the fast-talking shtick and a bit of insult-ralleying with Mycroft. They're focusing more on character traits and larger than life antics, than on a coherent story these days.

Both.
Absolutely terrible writing and terribly portrayed. She just sounded irritated and nagging all the time, even when she wasn't mean to. And considering that when she was hired (and lets face it,s he was hired through nepotism) she was in a relationship with Freeman, they had so little chemistry it was laughable. I have been waiting for her to die for awhile, seeing as it's canon. Going to be bored of the 'John blaming Sherlock' thing pretty quick, but I know a lot of it is because he really blames himself, that she died loving him when he was about to tell her he'd been having an emotional affair. all in all, delighted she's gone

BOTH.

Why so many people try to make Mary into a star in spite of the fact that she's not a big deal in the original stories, I have no idea. It puzzles me as much as the scholars who debate how many wives Watson really had, refusing to believe that Doyle was just rushing to churn these out because he had to and never really liked the character after awhile.

Mary was both well-written and well-acted in the show that I watched.

.
I don't know. It probably wasn't a great idea to cast Martin Freeman's real-life longterm partner as his love interest (I mean seriously, is that ever a good idea?). They've been partners since 2000 and have a couple of kids.

The second problem is that Mary lies so much it's a pretty thankless role to play, and a somewhat ambivalent (if not outright irritating) one to watch.

The third problem, at least for me, is that I don't like Amanda with platinum blonde hair. It just looks wrong to me. In the other role I've seen her play, a recurrent main role in Case Histories, she plays a redheaded Scot. She was much more believable, and much more appealing, in that.

Maybe they made Mary not particularly pleasing or sympathetic in this series so we wouldn't get too bent out of shape when she gets killed. She's fairly two-dimensional in this series, and maybe that's for a reason.

.

Neither. Those aren't he only two choices. She was well cast, and has had some very well-written moments. It's just popular right now to bash her,

Oh, a conspiracy theorist. So tell us, if she was well cast and well written, why the hate?

they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

---

So tell us, if she was well cast and well written, why the hate?

---

Because most people are idiots.

"There's a little good inside everyone. Sometimes it just takes a scalpel to find it." - Me

So because your opinion.

they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I was merely paraphrasing Sherlock. A smart person might have spotted that.

"There's a little good inside everyone. Sometimes it just takes a scalpel to find it." - Me

Nothing so dramatic. Just surmising that from reading IMDb posts.

I myself like the actress and her storyline, therefore I feel she was cast well and the writing was good for her character.

It's ok to disagree. I just responded to the OP's assumption that his were the only two possible choices.

I enjoyed her portrayal of Mary very much, especially in tonight's episode.

It does sometimes appear to be fashionable to bash female characters, however, or female actors. If Mary is badly written, are any of the male characters similarly badly written? Are assumptions being made about the writing?

It is an interesting (and irritating) phenomenon.

Good question. People bashing Mary brought to mind the hate for Skylar on Breaking Bad. Maybe for different reasons but you're right, I can't think of similar instances with male characters.

There is tonnes of hatred on this board for Cucumber & Freeman but you whingers just want see women as victims, you are pathetic!

LOL about your incoherent, angry rant.

Go back to sniffing your own farts instead of "LOL"ing

LOL again!