View Single Post
Old May 18 2012, 12:09 PM   #207
Rear Admiral
Angel4576's Avatar
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Lucy Liu cast as Watson in CBS' Sherlock Holmes show

Christopher wrote: View Post
And as I've already said, your assumption that "the standard CBS-drama template" equals "romance between the two leads" does not match up with reality.
No, the CBS-drama template is that of bland vanilla, appealing to the widest possible audience by playing things safe.

Obviously. You're so mired in your expectations that you've already made up your mind regardless of the evidence. As Holmes himself said, "It is a capital mistake to theorise in advance of the facts."
Not at all. I'll employ my usual approach towards the show. I don't have the time to watch everything that I ordinarily would do, so I'll leave this one on the backburner until the first season has aired. By that point we'll know well enough whether it meets or exceeds my current expectations. If it meets them then I probably won't bother proceeding any farther. If it exceeds them then I will. Theorizing and speculating ultimately makes very little difference to whether or not I eventually end up watching a show.

But would American viewers understand how the Afro-British cultural background differs from the white British cultural background, or from the African-American background? Heck, it'll be an accomplishment if the writers even portray his Britishness authentically.
Should that prevent them from trying? How will people ever learn without someone trying to explain cultural differences? Whilst entertainment is an important, and primary function of television, particularly prime time, it shouldn't be the sole function.

It must just be the shows you watch, because I've seen a number of shows where that's simply not the case. You're making far too many assumptions beyond the evidence.
Well as I've already stated, it could be me, and if it is, then it is. I do however, call it as I see it.

So what the hell is wrong with challenging assumptions? Make up your mind! Moments ago you were criticizing CBS for being too formulaic and safe, and now you're saying they're wrong to defy expectations!
You're comparing apples to oranges. There are certain assumptions and expectations around the Holmes 'world'. The gripe that I look like I'm going to have with the show is the number of changes that are being made to squeeze it into CBS's bland format rather than to necessarily benefit the narrative.

The ultimate in spurious objections, and a gross abuse of statistics. This is the same BS you hear when a movie with a female action lead does badly. They never admit it's just because it wasn't a good movie; they insist on blaming it on the sex of the lead character, even though they never do that in the many, many cases where a movie with a male lead fails. Okay, sure, there have been two movies where Holmes was given a female partner and they flopped. But how many Holmes adaptations with a male Watson have also flopped? Quite a few, I'm sure. (Does anyone even remember the Matt Frewer Holmes movies?) It's no surprise that two given Holmes movies in the past have failed, because the majority of movies are failures, period. Statistically, the fact that both movies with female partners for Holmes happened to fail does not prove any kind of causation, because the probability that any two given movies with a random trait in common would both fail is high to begin with. It would take a far larger statistical sample to demonstrate any meaningful correlation, and even then, correlation is not proof of causation.

If you're going to defend your view of Sherlock Holmes, you should at least try to employ his methods in formulating your arguments.
I think you've totally missed the point, as that's not what I said at all. The concern is that they've made too many changes, to too many fundamental aspects of the Holmes 'world'. The point that I raised, cited three major changes within the movie that you pointed out, and a subsequent movie which made exactly the same changes. Both failed. Were they bad movies? Possibly. Are we totally excluding the possibility that making all of these changes contributed towards the movies not being very good? I don't recall at any point suggesting that both movies failed simply because they had a female lead.

I think it's fair to say that Moffet has a pretty good understanding of what constitutes good 'Holmes'. and the potential pitfalls that new adaptations should be wary of, having to navigate them themselves when they came up with Sherlock. He's raised exactly the same concern that I have. I don't think he's being unreasonable in his concern. Why don't you tweet him and tell him that he's wrong......
I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge and no one may pass. We live for the One, we die for the One.

Last edited by Angel4576; May 19 2012 at 12:02 AM.
Angel4576 is offline   Reply With Quote