[Closed] Sherlock

Twist!
[img] [/img]

Lot of leaf for christmas..

So the new baddy is the bridesmaid lady?

His secretary?

That was a great episode.

So the new baddy is the bridesmaid lady?

Nope. If they continue with her she'll play as alliance and an enemy.

Well I enjoyed it....
the problem with the 3 show set is it puts a load of pressure on to deliver 3 standouts. Also watching elementary - it's different but with a few similarities. However it does suffer from the American problem of 20+ episodes and ending up with some real filler in there too. I'm waiting for episode 3 though, the real shame will be that is the end for another year.

That's better.

And there was a reference to 'The Man With The Twisted Lip'.
Which makes me very happy.

That was a great episode.

So the new baddy is the bridesmaid lady?
Nope. If they continue with her she'll play as alliance and an enemy.

I think it's moriaty's sister out for revenge. Pretty sure it was her voice over his face at the end.

Pretty sure it was her voice over his face at the end.

I genuinely hope so, she was an asset to the series.
I'd like to see more of her.

Her work.
I mean I'd like to see more of her work.

Very good, loved the 3 episodes. Mycroft made reference to another sibling too, could it be moriaty and all 3 of them are playing a game? Probably be bloody ages til the next series now!

I noticed that... A sister perhaps

was redbeard the dog?

Yes - Sherlock called him by his name several times too.

So - did anybody miss him?

So what's this about Sherlock being a girl's name?

Apart from a few character names, the last couple have no resemblance to the original canon

So what? There must've been half a dozen adaptations of Sherlock Holmes over the years already. We are (fortunately) not doomed to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

Why not take it and do something different with it? You can still go and watch the old ones with Basil Rathbone if you want.

They've changed it.
For the worse.

No they haven't! It still exists in all its previous versions. This is something new, based on it. Can't see the problem here. What would be the point of spending all that money re-filming the same stories?

The problem with popular media is that the old stuff doesn't go away, it affects current output because we are all aware of the old stuff. The original stories were part (the beginning?) of the tradition of crime drama, and we're absolutely saturated with that currently. If you want more intricate crimes being solved by brilliant detectives, just watch 5 USA or something, there's tons of it.

I like Sherlock because of the characterisation. And as modern people they behave in a modern way and do modern things, to a modern audience. Which makes it necessarily different. If Holmes had been born 20 years ago, this is quite possibly how he'd have turned out.

I think it's moriaty's sister out for revenge. Pretty sure it was her voice over his face at the end.

Ah yes.. I did wonder if her accent was deliberately the same as Moriarty. Although given the series it should be.. and the voice clip did seem a bit high for a bloke.

I expect that the new series will take the story forward with absolutely no links, even tenuous ones, to the original canon, using completely original story lines.

Stand by for mass apoplexy from the "must stick rigidly to the original" crowd. 🙄

molgrips - Member

So what? There must've been half a dozen adaptations of Sherlock Holmes over the years already. We are (fortunately) not doomed to repeat the same stuff over and over again.

I know.
This thread would appear to be about the new BBC series though.

Why not take it and do something different with it? You can still go and watch the old ones with Basil Rathbone if you want.

I have no problem with updating the stories.
What I do have a problem with is removing so much of the original that there is no point in maintaining the Holmes link.

They've changed it.
For the worse.

No they haven't! It still exists in all its previous versions. This is something new, based on it. Can't see the problem here. What would be the point of spending all that money re-filming the same stories?

When I said they've changed it for the worse, I was referring to Series 3 vs Series 1 & 2.
Not the new adaptation vs the originals.

Mr Woppit - Member

I expect that the new series will take the story forward with absolutely no links, even tenuous ones, to the original canon, using completely original story lines.

Stand by for mass apoplexy from the "must stick rigidly to the original" crowd.

Except no one has said that, have they?

What I do have a problem with is removing so much of the original that their is no point in maintaining the Holmes link.

The characters are still essentially the same, but in a modern context. That's good enough for me.

100!

And +1 on molgrips.

Good characters are well worth putting in new stories so long as they're good ones.

I expect that the new series will take the story forward with absolutely no links, even tenuous ones, to the original canon, using completely original story lines.

Stand by for mass apoplexy from the "must stick rigidly to the original" crowd.

you're continuing to miss the point of this thread, aren't you?

here it is spelled out:

people really liked series 1 & 2
series 3 is not as good
nobody cares that any of series 1, 2 or 3 don't stick rigidly to the original stories

What I do have a problem with is removing so much of the original that their is no point in maintaining the Holmes link.

Is there any point in not doing? Would it make a massive difference to your enjoyment of the show if we were watching the adventures of famous consulting detective Dave Smith and his associate Doctor Johnson? Or would we all be sat here pissing and moaning that it was just a Sherlock Holmes rip-off?

you're continuing to miss the point of this thread, aren't you?

Well excuse me all over the place. I suppose I'm missing what YOU think is the point, but then why would I be interested in that?

Or would we all be sat here pissing and moaning that it was just a Sherlock Holmes rip-off?

😆

I enjoyed series 3 more than 1&2 (well, episode 2 and 3 of s3 anyway)
So there.

Cougar - Moderator

What I do have a problem with is removing so much of the original that their is no point in maintaining the Holmes link.

Is there any point in not doing?

Would it make a massive difference to your enjoyment of the show if we were watching the adventures of famous consulting detective Dave Smith and his associate Doctor Johnson?

Or would we all be sat here pissing and moaning that it was just a Sherlock Holmes rip-off?

molgrips - Member

The characters are still essentially the same, but in a modern context. That's good enough for me.

Yes, I agree. As I have said repeatedly.

I keep finding myself agreeing with Molgrips. Which is a new experience. 🙂
I liked series 3. Kept me wondering but in a different way to the other 2 series. This explored their social and interpersonal relationships more and was laying foundations for the show to expand and develop outside if the original stories/concept IMO. They're saying that there might be more by the end of the year. Hope so.

Well excuse me all over the place. I suppose I'm missing what YOU think is the point, but then why would I be interested in that?

You're probably not.

You do seem to be quite interested in expressing the opinion that people who don't like adaptations being different from the original should be ridiculed - despite nobody on this thread actually being particularly concerned about the current bbc series being a modern take.

I'm doing rather well on this thread 🙂

So - did anybody miss him?

Actually I did, I thought he was a brilliant baddie and very well acted too.

If someone rewrote Macbeth, changed the names and claimed it as their own, I think people would notice.

It's been done with most of Shakespeare's bigger plays, all they need to do is put 'inspired by' or 'loosely based on' in the DVD commentary and that's ok. And this is good imo.

I feel there should be certain level of fidelity to the original characters

I'm honestly curious here, as someone who's interested in such things but has never read an original story - how do the characters differ? From what I can tell Watson was a bit of a buffoon originally? More of a foil than a character in his own right?

[img] [/img]

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jan/13/dailymail-sherlock

Ah ha, now last nights episode was most excellent. After last weeks flimflam last nights was gripping and there was no way I'd guessed the Mary'ism link.. Fine thread that.
Enjoyed it, it restored my faith in the series. 😀

Not surprised the DM didn't like that last episode. It was a huge and incredibly transparent dig at Murdoch. Brilliant 🙂

molgrips - Member

If someone rewrote Macbeth, changed the names and claimed it as their own, I think people would notice.

It's been done with most of Shakespeare's bigger plays, all they need to do is put 'inspired by' or 'loosely based on' in the DVD commentary and that's ok. And this is good imo.

Yes. I know.
That's why I said 'claimed it as their own'.

I'm honestly curious here, as someone who's interested in such things but has never read an original story - how do the characters differ? From what I can tell Watson was a bit of a buffoon originally? More of a foil than a character in his own right?

No, the Watson in this adaptation is pretty faithful to the original.
It was the Nigel Bruce characterisation in the Rathbone films that gave rise to the myth of Watson as stupid.
He's actually very intelligent in the books.

The character of Holmes is pretty accurate too, but ahas een made a lot more 'obvious'.

Mycroft?
Too much Mycroft in this one - as has been mentioned before.
The workings of the Diogenes club should be a little more mysterious I think. 🙂

Holmes never wore a deerstalker in the text of the books.
An 'ear flapped travelling cap' is mentioned in one story, as is 'a close fitting cloth cap'.
But no Deerstalker. 🙂
One does appear in the original illustrations by Sidney Paget, as does the Edinburgh cape.
He never said 'Elementary my dear Watson' either, or specifically smoked a meerschaum pipe.

You really ought to read the books - they are superb.
And there are soooo many references to them in the BBC adaptation it's quite difficult keeping up with them all. 😀

Mycroft?
Too much Mycroft in this one - as has been mentioned before.

Agree, I think Mycroft is a fantastic character but there needs to be greater mystery around him.

Mark Gatiss likes writing himself in but I don't think he quite has the authority to play Mycroft. Appreciate his and Moffat's writing though.

having never read any Sherlock Holmes books or seen anything related to him on film or TV, I watched it last night to see what the fuss was all about.
whilst I didn't particularly like it and was itchingly annoyed by some of the flashbacks, cut-aways and overlayed graphics it was quite entertaining. I particularly liked the Magnussen character. the humour in it was good too.
but it felt very Doctor Who to me, which I also dislike.

I've enjoyed it all, series 1,2 and 3. I enjoyed the wedding, sherlocks speech was good, funny, moving in some parts. The Stag-do was humorous. Last nights was enjoyable too, some right shenanigans wi Mary. Sherlocks big act at the end of last nights, I nearly cheered at the TV 😆 . I hope they get another series commissioned.

I properly LOLed at the lines

'I'm gonna stab you'.

'Not from there you're not'.

😀

I think they've already been given the green light for series 4 and 5, but are having trouble fitting in around the stars' movie commitments.

If someone rewrote Macbeth, changed the names and claimed it as their own, I think people would notice.

Sons of Anarchy and The Lion King are based on Hamlet, The Forbidden Planet was based on The Tempest, Romeo Must Die and West Side Story are based on Romeo and Juliet, and there's loooooads of romantic comedies based on The Taming of the Shrew.

last nights episode (3) saved the bacon, ooo-errrr. I thought episode 2 was pants, went to off tangent but three pulled it back and I enjoyed it.

I do think they push the bounds of what I believe. The Mary bit seemed a bit far fetched for me but I liked everything else espeically sherlock actually shooting somebody. nice touch. who didnt cheer! 😀

Not watched the final episode yet but the wedding episode was slow, it was also littered with clumsy graphics and self indulgent transition wipes and mattes, Cumberbatch's performance holds it together.

Holmes never wore a deerstalker in the text of the books.
An 'ear flapped travelling cap' is mentioned in one story, as is 'a close fitting cloth cap'.
But no Deerstalker.

Ta for that, didn't know Padget had invented the thing.

And where the hell did I get 'Edinburgh' cape from? 😀

That'll teach me to try and type one handed whilst making lunch. 🙂

For those interested in the source material (for some of it), the books are free on Kindle now, and well worth reading.

FWIW I've enjoyed all of it. Well done BBC.

I really enjoyed last nights, but thought that Ep2 was a bit rubbish.

I also agree with the comment that its got a little bit of a feel of Dr Who about it, too much frivolous nattering and jumping shots about ... I dont remember series 1 being like that.

I think it needs be stripped back a little to lean towards being a little grittier, grimier, dirtier and enigmatic ... more early spooks style than dr who style.

There is a BBC *look* to their productions at the moment (Robin Hood, Dr Who, Sherlock, that Greece thing that was on and even Ripper Street to an extent) , and I think they are falling fowl of beginning to all look a bit the same. Its only happened the last few years. Things like Life on Mars, spooks, waking the dead all seemed to have more inidividuality to their looks IIRC.

From what I can tell Watson was a bit of a buffoon originally?

No - the original was written as a sort of "Mr Normal Steady Eddie" kind of character. Watson didn't turn into a buffoon until the rubbish films with these guys:

[img] [/img]

and I think they are falling fowl

[img] [/img]

If someone rewrote Macbeth, changed the names and claimed it as their own, I think people would notice.

Been done a few times.

Here's one. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_Blood

 

Watson is a literary device to allow Sherlock to explain the intricacies of the plot to the reader. But he conforms well to the buddy-movie/ bromance format.

Mr Woppit ..

errr ... oops!

Really good episode last night conforming with Moffats likingfor the long game/story...building up the plot through the series.

Ending was weak for me but all of it was excellent.

Well written and nice twist on Mary Watson re enforcing Watsons stability under pressure....very faithful to the original, Watson was far more than a steady everyman with elements of Conans doyles student medical school tutors, Watsons Afgan war involvement steady under fire and his skill as a doctor..........

Rathbone was a fine holmes but stories in Hollywood played to the times and the needs of the auidance not dissimilar to BBC 1.

Most fun and thoughtful Sherlock prior to BBC1 Seven per cent Solution Nicol Williamson as Holmes Robert Duvall as Watson and I think influenced Moffat and Gatiss more than people know

@Rusty

Can you give me a couple of Sherlock book recommendations to get me started?
Keen to give them a go.

scandal in bohemia
hound of the baskervilles
redheaded league
The man with the twisted lip

personally

Cheers vondally!

As well as vondally's choice, I'd go for:

The Final Problem & The Empty House.
The Bruce Partington Plans.
The Blue Carbuncle.
Charles Augustus Milverton.
The Gloria Scott.

They're all good, tbh.

The Blue Carbuncle. 🙂

Ok, but if you both HAD to pick one.....?

One?
The Man With The Twisted Lip.
Just such a clever story.

FeeFoo - Member
Ok, but if you both HAD to pick one.....?

Well obviously not the Blue Carbuncle.

It'll spread.

Musgrave Ritual is my clear favourite. That or Bruce Partington Plans.

Just starting The Man with the Twisted Lip - thanks all!

Obviously, the majority of the "books" were not books at all, but the stories appeared in Strand magazine. "A Study in Scarlet" and "the Sign of Four" were published unillustrated before this association began and Holmes is pictured first wearing a deerstalker in the fourth illustrated story to appear in Stand magazine, "The Boscombe Valley Mystery", the first time he goes to the country in an illustrated story. He generally wore a trilby in town.

I thought this series was pretty poor - overly stylized and a bit too pleased with itself - and last night's was the worst and was frankly laughable. I won't make a special effort to watch the next series.

Enjoyed it as entertainment
Not a fan of defective series but this has a nice twist to the plot lines.
Good to see Moriarty back, cracking actor.

Like the way the characters are played and the interactions but the story is padded out too much for the amount of time. Hour longs would have worked. What was the point of building up Magnusson making him so odious then killing him? Apart from to bring his PA into play as moriarty's sister with control of media outlets.

I've given this a punt. £0.77 for a Kindle book that has quite a few of the classic stories in it.

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/SHERLOCK-HOLMES-Arthur-Conan-Doyle-ebook/dp/B00F11KS6E/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1389694692&sr=8-1&keywords=the+man+with+the+twisted+lip ]Clicky[/url]

Apart from to bring his PA into play as moriarty's sister with control of media outlets.

Did i miss this while watching it? Is it a 'fact' that Sherlock's irish squeeze / Magnussen's PA is Moriarty's sister, or is it speculation?

What was the point of building up Magnusson making him so odious then killing him?

And why would the most powerful man in the world reveal to anyone that it was all in his head?

"Oh, so if I just kill you...?"

I also thought that the reveal of the last episode was pretty weak. If he knows the blackmailing material exists, he must have had access to it at some point, but chose not to retain it, but memorise it instead.

So as soon as one of his victims says 'publish and be damned', his whole plan for world domination falls to pieces.

The 'Mary is international assassin' was frankly preposterous, too, as was the 'shoot to seriously injure not kill' idea, given that Sherlock was flatlining at the hospital, so the shot would have killed nine out of ten people.

The whole series has been a bit Doctor Who, smug and self-regarding, too little focus on tight plotting and too much on in-jokes and sorting it all out with a [s]sonic screwdriver[/s] deduction in a couple of seconds flat.

I'd still like to meet the Doctor/Pathologist woman 😉

The whole [s]series[/s] thread has been a bit Doctor Who, smug and self-regarding

Excellent TV, the eye flicking scene in episode 3 was brilliant.

The whole series has been a bit Doctor Who

Agreed, the problem with putting this and Doctor Who in the hands of fanboys, is that they write for fanboys, and that's great if you keep up with every detail, but otherwise it turns off the casual viewer. My son's an avid Doctor Who fan (yes, I know there's a word for it, no, not that word) but I don't get to see every episode. Used to be fine, I'd drop in on the series when I could and enjoy the odd episode - that's becoming increasingly impossible as it becomes so self-referential that unless you've seen all the other episodes and know who everyone is, and what they've done previously, none of it makes any sense.

Sherlock is in danger of going the same way - unless you've seen all the others, don't bother trying to follow it....

Great that they'll get more geeks along to the fan conventions, less great when it gets cancelled because the only people watching it are the geeks who go to fan conventions..

I also thought that the reveal of the last episode was pretty weak. If he knows the blackmailing material exists, he must have had access to it at some point, but chose not to retain it, but memorise it instead.

So as soon as one of his victims says 'publish and be damned', his whole plan for world domination falls to pieces.

Well he did say that as a newspaper person he could publish and then worry about the evidence (or words to that effect). I guess if you think about it, the real damage is in revealing the info as long as it's true, rather than having documentary evidence. Sometimes it's not even the risk of publishing it but giving it to the wrong person like he said to Watson about Mary.

I liked the fact the solution to the problem was as non-cerebral as it could be; shooting the bad guy in the head. That said, the scenes to tie it up and introduce the next season felt a bit rushed.

Excellent TV, the eye flicking scene in episode 3 was brilliant.

Yeah - almost went along with that but then couldn't help thinking what if (we know he's a bit handy) Watson just kicked him in the crutch and said "Didn't see that coming did you, Mr Clever Clogs?"

just seen episode 3, in a different class to eps 1 & 2

I don't get to see every episode. Used to be fine, I'd drop in on the series when I could and enjoy the odd episode - that's becoming increasingly impossible as it becomes so self-referential that unless you've seen all the other episodes and know who everyone is, and what they've done previously, none of it makes any sense

TV shows do sometimes have series-spanning plots.

Yeah - almost went along with that but then couldn't help thinking what if (we know he's a bit handy) Watson just kicked him in the crutch and said "Didn't see that coming did you, Mr Clever Clogs?

Sherlock had Watson on the leash, no? (presumably, in preparation for shooting Magnus Magnussen in the head, and leaving Watson free to live his life without getting charged for murder)

The point about the eye flicking was that Watson had to suck it up for the sake of his Mrs. Which would take a huge amount of strength. And Sherlock shooting the guy was also an enormous gesture of love and friendship. One reviewer complained that Sherlock should not be shooting people illegally, which is true but he did it to take the fall for his friends. Knowing it would lead to his death ultimately. He wanted to set Watson and Mary free from tyranny. It wasn't really dwelt on but it was profound. Greater love hath no man than this...

TV shows do sometimes have series-spanning plots.

Yes, but with Doctor Who, it's stretching to multiple series - if you wanted to get into Doctor Who now, you'd have to watch about three years worth of DVDs to get up to speed on quite a lot of it, River Song etc. In the long term, it's not a good plan - I have another child, who is now 8, roughly the age my lad was when he first got into Doctor Who. My daughter can't get into it, because she doesn't understand what a lot of it is about, since she wasn't watching it two years ago. For a family show, that strikes me as being a short-sighted strategy.

I'm all or keeping the geeks interested, and it's great that there's clues and obscure references for them to pore over in internet forums (both Who and Sherlock), but with Gatiss and Moffatt, it seems that they are writing primarily for those fans, rather than the less obsessive viewer.

I also felt eps 1&2 were weak compared with the previous series and ep3.

Would have been good to have [s]Murdoch[/s] Magnusson built up in the background through the 1st 2 eps (unless he was and it was so subtle I missed it 😀 ) rather than just set up and destroyed in 1 episode.

Sherlock could still have shot him in the head after he got a kicking...

Be honest, you were just hankering for a bit more Watson-based chop sockey action weren't you? TBH, I'm with you there. The knife scene was great.

@edlong, ok fair enough. I'm not a Who-ver (?) and don't follow it, but yes making it impenetrable to new viewers ain't not a good idea.

Watson NOT lashing out was a major plot point. Given we were all screaming for him to do it, and the majority of our US based drama would definitely have had him doing it, it was a brilliant bit of drama imo.