|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 25, 2010 15:22:42 GMT
How to guarantee my non-viewership: create a series about "Sherlock Holmes" and "Dr Watson", but have them as characters living in the 21st Century.
I hope it fails spectacularly. I won't be giving it an iota of a chance, however good the reviews. It goes against everything I hold dear!
(Well, nearly everything.)
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jul 25, 2010 20:53:12 GMT
How to guarantee my non-viewership: create a series about "Sherlock Holmes" and "Dr Watson", but have them as characters living in the 21st Century. I hope it fails spectacularly. I won't be giving it an iota of a chance, however good the reviews. It goes against everything I hold dear! (Well, nearly everything.) Martin Well, be fair Martin. At the time Conan Doyle wasn't writing about a detective who lived 100 years ago, he was writing about a detective who lived in contempory London. I don't have a problem with updates like that. It's okay so far, Sherlock seems a bit annoying, and I don't the stupid WORDS ON THE SCREEN gimmick they are doing. But above average at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 26, 2010 7:04:35 GMT
Well, be fair Martin. At the time Conan Doyle wasn't writing about a detective who lived 100 years ago, he was writing about a detective who lived in contempory London. I don't have a problem with updates like that. I could write a whole essay in response to that, but I'll restrict myself to saying that Holmes was pioneering a forensic science that is now fully developed in the modern police, and Doyle was developing an embryonic genre of fiction that is now widespread. Holmes was the _only_ private consulting detective in his world. He invented the profession. How can you bring him into the 20th Century without throwing all his 'first's out of the window? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#InfluenceSecondly, I resent a brand-new modern-day detective show having an unfair advantage by nicking the names of Doyle's characters in terms of drawing in viewers who might not give a series a try if it was about some new detectives they'd never heard of before. And thirdly, the atmosphere of foggy London circa 1900! The costume! The trains! The telegrams! That period world is so strongly portrayed in Doyle's writing that they are inseparable from the characters in my mind. Martin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2010 20:02:04 GMT
I'm with Martin on this. Although I'm not a fan of Holmes I have little to no respect for modern day updates of the story. If somebody ever mentioned the name Sherlock Holmes to me it would conjure up Victorian outfits and locations, early detective style crime solving. Never would it conjure up anything related to the 21st century - the two things just don't gel together. I'm a retro fan and I resent modern day remakes of classic films and TV series that update the stories. Some things work as updates while others work better set in the period of time in which they were written.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Jul 26, 2010 20:17:49 GMT
It'll always bring up images of victorian London for me to, but I have no problem with updates.
I think it's good to separate the writers original intentions from the period piece stories eventually become.
If nothing else they can bring in new fans that go on to explore the original writing.
I quite liked last nights first episode. It did a pretty decent job of keeping the Victorian city vibe.
It did feel like a non sci fi Dr Who though, no idea if thats the result of Moffat or if the original books really read like that. Despite actually buying a number of books I've never got around to reading any.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Benn on Jul 26, 2010 20:47:21 GMT
I'm a retro fan and I resent modern day remakes of classic films and TV series that update the stories. Some things work as updates while others work better set in the period of time in which they were written. Four words. War. Of. The. Worlds. I know it's slight derailment, But I would kill to see a film or TV series set at the appropriate time. Martians! In walking robot bodies! With heat ray guns! We've got... ah... cannons. That to me is far more terrifying than anything Spielberg or Cruise came up with. At leat the old B-movie had the old nucleur option to scare people with. I guess, that's just a roundabout way of saying that I'm with Martin when it comes to period works... |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Jul 26, 2010 20:57:13 GMT
It'll always bring up images of victorian London for me to, but I have no problem with updates. I think it's good to separate the writers original intentions from the period piece stories eventually become. If nothing else they can bring in new fans that go on to explore the original writing. I quite liked last nights first episode. It did a pretty decent job of keeping the Victorian city vibe. I have rather mixed feelings. I'm not against modern dress reinterpretations of things in principle but I do feel that Conan Doyle's work is quite heavily rooted in its era and an updated Holmes, like a modern dress version of Professor Challenger just feels - to me - like one of those things that you could do but there is no particular pressing need for. I think that would be Moffat's writing style more than anything. I wouldn't say that Doyle's Holmes is that similar to The Doctor really (although one could envisage him having some interesting conversations with some incarnations of the latter). Definitely worth giving the original material a go I think - especially as it isn't costing you anything if you already own it. The short stories are quite good for dipping in to one or two at a sitting. (Probably the best place to start if you are looking to get a feel for Doyle's work). Hmmm. All this Holmes talk is making me think that I must do a re-read of some of the stories. I am currently, by accident of fate, the custodian of my sister's copies of the books. I must pull them down from the shelf and have a re-read in due course. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 27, 2010 6:48:00 GMT
I think it's good to separate the writers original intentions from the period piece stories eventually become. Sometimes it's valid to do that, sometimes it isn't. When the writer's original intention is to depict a pioneer of forensic science and modern methods of criminal detection in a world where the police has yet to embrace those techniques and in which amateur detectives are unheard of, you can't update it to the era of CSI. It's like updating Christopher Columbus or the Wright brothers to an era where they can get a cheap flight to New York for a weekend break. It's also a money-saving cop-out to do a modern-daye Holmes (or Shakespeare or anything), because they don't have to spend any cash on sets, costumes, etc. The medium of television is capable of transporting us back in time - where's the attraction in removing that element of a story? Only in saving money. Like I said, I'm not judging the quality of this series because I won't be giving it any sort of try. I'm just not interested in Holmes when you take him out of his time - I think it is too important a part of his character. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 30, 2010 19:37:59 GMT
I gave Sherlock a go. Well made and all that but it's the only time the Holmes character has ever irritated me. Take him out of his original era and plonk him in a modern day setting and frankly he comes across as a monumental dick. He also looks far too young. The actor's performance was rather one-note too. Martin Freeman put in a good shift as Watson.
It was alright, but didn't do it for me as a version of Sherlock Holmes so I doubt I'd watch again.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Jul 31, 2010 11:02:58 GMT
I think I'd agree with Ralph here, it was ok enough. I'll probably give the next episode a try but no great compulsion to.
Disappointingly I only heard about this after it first aired from friends and I thought SH in the 21st century? Awesome - spacey SH!! Forgetting of course that we live in the 21st century...
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jul 31, 2010 11:10:27 GMT
I think I'd agree with Ralph here, it was ok enough. I'll probably give the next episode a try but no great compulsion to. Disappointingly I only heard about this after it first aired from friends and I thought SH in the 21st century? Awesome - spacey SH!! Forgetting of course that we live in the 21st century... I think this is what you want (Don't watch this Martin, you will have an aneurism  ) |
|
|
|
Post by legios on Jul 31, 2010 13:19:14 GMT
I did watch the first episode of the Beeb's new Sherlock series.
I would agree that the guy playing Watson was quite good, and they have put an interesting spin on why John Watson might put himself in this position. (There is also something ironic about the fact that they are making this at a point in history that allows them to keep the Afghanistan War veteran background of the character, something that they couldn't have done at any point in the 80's or 90's).
Overall though I thought it was quite painfully slow - I really can't work out what it was 90 minutes long, it felt like it was desperately in need of a good trim to lose a lot of stodge. It felt quite laboured in places. wasn't really sold on their Holmes either.
Doubt that I will bother with the remaining two stories.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Jul 31, 2010 17:02:29 GMT
Agreed Watson is the best reason for watching. Holmes as a sociopath isn't something I've seen focussed on before either.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jul 31, 2010 18:12:42 GMT
I think this is what you want (Don't watch this Martin, you will have an aneurism ) Martin  |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 31, 2010 19:29:46 GMT
Hey, I remember that. It was shit. The same level of shit as the James Bond Jr cartoon.
-Ralph
|
|
Dave
Empty
Posts: 1,811
|
Post by Dave on Jul 31, 2010 21:10:40 GMT
Argghhhh!!! Now I've remembered James Bond Jr exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jul 31, 2010 23:07:53 GMT
I like to remind people that it does. It makes the rest of their life seem so much better than it did 30 seconds beforehand.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 5, 2010 17:43:53 GMT
Well, stuck for something to do I tried ep 2 of the Sherlock series. Swiched if off halfway through as it was very boring and the story was being stretched to breaking point.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Aug 5, 2010 19:10:44 GMT
I came across 2 James Bond Jr vehicles last week, they looked bad.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jan 2, 2012 8:38:12 GMT
Watched the first episode of the new series of Sherlock last night, having come late to the firsts series via BD.
Brilliant, brilliant stuff. Loved it. Just the sort of TV I want to be watching. BDs promptly ordered and it might get another whirl tonight to pick up all the detail. If you're not watching, you're missing out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 2, 2012 9:19:47 GMT
Never watched an episode of Sherlock. It may be brilliant, but I just can't abide the names of Conan Doyle's characters being used to market modern-day TV detectives.
(In my mind, Sherlock Holmes has no place in modern times. He is the detective who invented and carried out forensic science when the police _weren't_ doing it. Now they are.)
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jan 2, 2012 11:38:16 GMT
Isn't that a narrow view of what Holmes is all about?
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,501
|
Post by Hero on Jan 2, 2012 11:42:00 GMT
Sherlock really isn't a remake of the books. I see the modern day stuff as their own stories with bits and pieces cherrypicked from classic tales thrown in to suit the present era setting.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Jan 2, 2012 13:58:52 GMT
Sherlock is good enough but it's not really Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't do much mystery solving, and most of the little mysteries we do get are quite 'cheaty' towards the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 2, 2012 16:12:56 GMT
Isn't that a narrow view of what Holmes is all about? It's an essential component. Sherlock Holmes has been a real-life inspiration for the development of forensic science over the last century and a half. Although a fictional character he has received an honorary fellowship from the Royal Society of Chemistry. Setting him in the 21st Century is like having Phileas Fogg live in an era when millions of people have gone around the world in far fewer than 80 days, or having Captain Nemo in an era of superpowers with entire fleets of nuclear submarines. He can't pioneer what he once pioneered when it's already been pioneered. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jan 2, 2012 16:28:56 GMT
As a more casual fan I wouldn't have seen that as an essential part at all and would put interlect & deductive reasoning as much more important elements of Holmes.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Jan 2, 2012 16:38:28 GMT
Isn't that a narrow view of what Holmes is all about? I'm with Martin on this one! I did try Sherlock series 1 though despite my misgivings about setting it in the modern era, but found the lead chap's portrayal of Holmes as a near-Sociopath was a real turn-off. Sorry, not for me. -Ralph -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jan 2, 2012 16:41:36 GMT
You have at least seen it to make the judgement: Martin hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Jan 2, 2012 17:42:31 GMT
You have at least seen it to make the judgement: Martin hasn't. I haven't judged any aspect of it that requires me to see it (such as quality of writing, direction, acting, etc.). But I have read every single Sherlock Holmes novel and short story written by Sir Arthur CD, and that is all one needs to do to form a valid opinion on what are the essential aspects of the character Doyle created. One such essential aspect for me is the era in which he lived. Other people who have read the stories may have equally valid contrary opinions as to the essential aspects, of course - and there will be many such people who are fans of the new TV series - and some of them may, unlike me, have boycotted the Robert Downey Jr films, knowing without seeing them that they deviate too far in the aspects important to them. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jan 4, 2012 19:22:57 GMT
Rewatching the first Sherlock I am amused to see, in light of Martin's comment above, that the first time we meet Sherlock he's in Bart's Mortuary flogging a corpse with a riding crop just to see the effects on the body!
Human Eyes in the Microwave.......
|
|
)
