Writing on the subject, Peter Hitchens gets it right [here] about the value of contemporary television and its 'postmodern' laziness:
"...You begin, just begin, to enter into the imagination of one of the greatest of all Victorians. Those of us who still read, rather than leave our literature to the TV , will always have this (and Jeremy Brett) to fall back on. But it is a shame about everyone else. TV first imitates, then devours , then recreates in its own image. ..."
The problem, of course, is that those who make programmes these days (and those who run the show in more disciplines than one) can see through everything, have a breathtaking sense of self worth and entitlement, but actually know very little ....
"..first imitates, then devours , then recreates in its own image." - to what else could that apply ....?
And for those of us who think that 'Sherlock' is vacuous and crude 21st century pastiche, and agree that Jeremy Brett is the definitive Holmes - 'The Sign of Four'