US fans - Sherlock Tonight

[RJDiogenes]

The only clash I see is that it's harder to justify the idea of Holmes as something special than it was in the Victorian age, because now the forensic science that Holmes (and Doyle) pioneered has become a universal police practice.

And this is a big part of the problem. In one scene, nuHolmes describes himself as a consulting detective, something he invented, the only one in the world. Suddenly the genius sounds like a retard.

That's not the same thing, any more than West Side Story is the same thing as Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. This isn't just a pastiche, it is Sherlock Holmes. Same characters, just a different era.

Setting the characters in a different era makes it a pastiche.

No, we don't. We have a main character who is alleged to be a potential killer by someone who dislikes him. You can't take every sentence uttered by every character as gospel fact. It was just one woman's opinion. And you're getting it wrong -- she accused him of being a psychopath, and Holmes later corrected her that he's actually a high-functioning sociopath, which is a rather different thing. So not only was it just her opinion, but it was a misinformed opinion.

It was not necessarily misinformed, it was intended to influence the viewer's thinking. For all the misguidedness about the concept, this was written pretty well. The character's comments were intended to make the viewer wonder if nuHolmes will go around the bend-- a question supported by his total disregard for Human feelings in the rest of the script. This was the modernization of the character-- the contemporary audience loves characters that are "dark" and corrupt. So this is not the original Holmes, time period aside.

On the former point, both Watsons are veterans of war in Afghanistan and both sustained wounds there. It's just that a modern treatment of the character is bound to be more psychologically nuanced. Had Moffat written a Victorian-era John Watson, he probably would've written him the same way.

No, I think PTSD would have been more appropriate for the real Watson, not war addiction.

On the second point, Doyle's Watson was explicitly described as a crack shot, a superb marksman. He often made use of his service revolver in their cases, and was surely just as stoic about it afterward, because he was a trained soldier.

Certainly, but he was never portrayed as a cold-blooded executioner whose crimes were covered up by Holmes. This is, again, a darkening of the character for the bloodthirsty modern audience.

These are the same characters, at least as much as Bruce Timm's Batman and Christopher Nolan's Batman are the same character. The fact that there are differences in interpretation doesn't make them different characters, just different spins on the same characters.

I'm not sure who Christopher Nolan is, but if he's the movie guy, I could probably disagree there, too; but that would probably be more in terms of storytelling, and would also be a digression.

Flash Gordon quickly leaves the place of his origin for an exotic alien world, so he could come from any Industrial-Age time period. And indeed Flash Gordon has been updated as a "present-day" character more than once -- in the 1980 movie, 1986's Defenders of the Earth, the 1996 animated series, the 2007 live-action series, and, I believe, in various comics as well. And the 1950s TV series put Flash, Dale, and Zarkov in the 33rd century.

You're missing my point. He has to be in space, on an exotic alien world, or he's not "really" Flash. And the farther he gets from the original concept, the weaker he is-- note the most recent TV show, which was no more Flash than this show was Sherlock.

As for Odysseus, he's just a guy trying to get home to his wife. That tale could easily be told as, say, an epic space opera or a Western. As for the Scarlet Pimpernel, that could be done in any bloody revolution, perhaps a post-apocalyptic updating or something in the Russian Revolution. The Lone Ranger could maybe work in a futuristic frontier setting. (In my initial version of the post, I mentioned Zorro and Batman as updatings of the Pimpernel and the Green Hornet as both a conceptual and biological descendant of the Lone Ranger, but those count as similar characters, not updatings of the same characters.)

Exactly. Creating new characters that are inspired by previous characters or concepts is great. That's the dialogue between past and present. The Lone Ranger in contemporary Boston would be weird; McCloud, though, was cool. Having a guy named Odysseus wandering around the world for ten years with his men, trying to get back to his wife from Afghanistan, would be idiotic.

And Holmes is the world's greatest detective, an antisocial genius and a drug addict. There's nothing about who he is that requires him to be in the Victorian Era. (Yes, as I said, his forensics skills aren't as unique in a later era, but that can be worked around.)

His pioneer status was an important part of his character, I think. And, again, I also believe that the ambiance of a particular setting can be an important part of a fictional character.

Easy to say that in retrospect. We always assume less stuff happened in the past because a lot of it doesn't get written down or remembered. But keep in mind that the people who lived in the '40s considered their era every bit as modern as we consider ours, and no doubt saw great social and cultural foment in the preceding decades. Everyone thinks their own time is special and that all the past is kind of blended together.

No, I think it's pretty clear that the second half of the 20th century involved greater cultural change than the first. In some ways, the last twenty years has been a greater change than most of the 20th century.

Conan Doyle's Holmes was the first of a new breed. Moffat and Gatiss's Holmes is merely a particularly gifted example of a larger group.

And this is a big reason why I think this was ill-advised.

 

[Lindley]

As for Odysseus, he's just a guy trying to get home to his wife. That tale could easily be told as, say, an epic space opera or a Western.

Well, yes.

 

[Christopher]

And this is a big part of the problem. In one scene, nuHolmes describes himself as a consulting detective, something he invented, the only one in the world. Suddenly the genius sounds like a retard.

This show is set in an alternate universe where there was no Sherlock Holmes, fictional or otherwise, in the 1880s-1820s. Therefore, in that alternate world, the concept of a "consulting detective" could be brand new.

Setting the characters in a different era makes it a pastiche.

But not the same kind of pastiche as one that presents different characters fulfilling similar roles. You're falsely oversimplfying the genre.

It was not necessarily misinformed, it was intended to influence the viewer's thinking. For all the misguidedness about the concept, this was written pretty well. The character's comments were intended to make the viewer wonder if nuHolmes will go around the bend-- a question supported by his total disregard for Human feelings in the rest of the script. This was the modernization of the character-- the contemporary audience loves characters that are "dark" and corrupt. So this is not the original Holmes, time period aside.

No, it is the original Holmes, but perceived differently by the world around him. As I said, we're more psychologically savvy today, so we can look at Holmes's behavior and recognize signs of psychological conditions such as high-function Asperger's, sociopathy, and the like where a Victorian observer would simply have seen eccentricity. And a character such as a policewoman who's prone to see the worst in humanity would recognize those psychological traits and be aware that they could potentially lead in bad directions.

It's as I said. Put the same characters in a different context, view them from a different perspective, and it will alter how they are portrayed, or even how they behave. It doesn't mean they aren't the same characters at the core. It means, once again, that the whole point of doing this story is to explore how the same characters become different when filtered through a modern context rather than a Victorian context.

No, I think PTSD would have been more appropriate for the real Watson, not war addiction.

Dude, the whole of 19th-century Europe was war-addicted. They thought war was a noble game back then.

Certainly, but he was never portrayed as a cold-blooded executioner whose crimes were covered up by Holmes. This is, again, a darkening of the character for the bloodthirsty modern audience.

Watson acted to save Holmes's life from an imminent threat. True, the cabbie didn't have Holmes at gunpoint, but Watson recognized that Holmes was so obsessed with knowing the answers that he'd probably kill himself if he took that pill. Watson, a trained soldier, did what any soldier would do to save a comrade's life. How you get "cold-blooded executioner" from that is beyond me.

And tell me something -- have you actually read the Holmes stories? If you think Sherlock Holmes wouldn't cover up an illegal act, you obviously haven't. As long as he solved the puzzle, he was satisfied, and there were cases where he decided the culprits deserved to get away with it and thus allowed them to. It's very much in character.

And yes, the story took it in a darker direction, but that doesn't mean the characters are different. For the umpteenth time, the whole point is to start out with the same essential characters but to filter them through modern sensibilities. This is how the characters of Holmes and Watson turn out when filtered through modern times and modern storytelling sensibilities. In the same way that Batman as presented by Christopher Nolan in the 2000s is different from Batman as presented by Tim Burton in the 1980s or Bruce Timm in the 1990s but is still Batman. Your insistence that characters have to be exactly the same in every niggling detail in order to be considered the same characters at all is completely unrealistic.

Exactly. Creating new characters that are inspired by previous characters or concepts is great. That's the dialogue between past and present. The Lone Ranger in contemporary Boston would be weird; McCloud, though, was cool. Having a guy named Odysseus wandering around the world for ten years with his men, trying to get back to his wife from Afghanistan, would be idiotic.

Only to someone extremely narrow-minded. In the right hands, in the right setting, an updated Odyssey could be awesome.

And you're deliberately picking examples of contexts that wouldn't work and claiming they prove that no context could possibly work other than the original. That's incompetent reasoning. The general does not follow from the specific. For any setting you pick that would be a bad fit for a character, I can think of a setting that would be a good fit for the same character. Yes, the Lone Ranger (or Odysseus) should be on a frontier setting, but not necessarily the same frontier setting where his stories originated.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This show is set in an alternate universe where there was no Sherlock Holmes, fictional or otherwise, in the 1880s-1820s. Therefore, in that alternate world, the concept of a "consulting detective" could be brand new.

Crap. No Bones or Monk on TV. But, seriously, this opens up a big can of worms. Law enforcement in the 20th Century would be completely different, and it would hard to imagine-- and outside the parameters of this new series-- what effects that would have on society.

But not the same kind of pastiche as one that presents different characters fulfilling similar roles. You're falsely oversimplfying the genre.

I don't think so. A pastiche is a pastiche, no matter the specifics. Philip Jose Farmer's meeting of Holmes and Tarzan is a pastiche, as is Manly Wade Wellman's Homes fighting the War of the Worlds. Both are quite different and both (despite being pretty good) portray a Holmes quite inconsistent with the original.

No, it is the original Holmes, but perceived differently by the world around him. As I said, we're more psychologically savvy today, so we can look at Holmes's behavior and recognize signs of psychological conditions such as high-function Asperger's, sociopathy, and the like where a Victorian observer would simply have seen eccentricity. And a character such as a policewoman who's prone to see the worst in humanity would recognize those psychological traits and be aware that they could potentially lead in bad directions.

That's all true, but I think the writers deliberately portrayed Holmes as more antisocial and potentially dangerous to make him conform to contemporary fashion.

It's as I said. Put the same characters in a different context, view them from a different perspective, and it will alter how they are portrayed, or even how they behave. It doesn't mean they aren't the same characters at the core. It means, once again, that the whole point of doing this story is to explore how the same characters become different when filtered through a modern context rather than a Victorian context.

If they become different, they are different. Two exact genetic twins born in 1870 and 1970 are going to be completely different people.

Dude, the whole of 19th-century Europe was war-addicted. They thought war was a noble game back then.

Perhaps. But I don't recall Watson ever being portrayed as dysfunctional when not in the midst of battle.

Watson acted to save Holmes's life from an imminent threat. True, the cabbie didn't have Holmes at gunpoint, but Watson recognized that Holmes was so obsessed with knowing the answers that he'd probably kill himself if he took that pill. Watson, a trained soldier, did what any soldier would do to save a comrade's life. How you get "cold-blooded executioner" from that is beyond me.

That's a bit of a stretch, especially when you consider Watson could not possibly have known exactly what was going on over there. All he saw was Holmes studying a pill. Shooting somebody in the back when there is no obvious imminent threat is a cold-blooded execution. Although, now that you mention it, that may not have been the writers' intent-- they may just have forgotten that Watson doesn't know what the viewer knows.

And tell me something -- have you actually read the Holmes stories?

Once or twice.

If you think Sherlock Holmes wouldn't cover up an illegal act, you obviously haven't. As long as he solved the puzzle, he was satisfied, and there were cases where he decided the culprits deserved to get away with it and thus allowed them to. It's very much in character.

I wouldn't say that he was satisfied as long as he solved the puzzle, but he surely would go outside the law if he felt it was necessary. I can't see him blithely covering up something like that, though.

And yes, the story took it in a darker direction, but that doesn't mean the characters are different. For the umpteenth time, the whole point is to start out with the same essential characters but to filter them through modern sensibilities. This is how the characters of Holmes and Watson turn out when filtered through modern times and modern storytelling sensibilities.

Yes, they turn out to be completely different people. So the recycling of known-- and classic-- character names is awkward.

Only to someone extremely narrow-minded. In the right hands, in the right setting, an updated Odyssey could be awesome.

Sure. ACC called his book A Space Odyssey, but he called his protagonist Dave Bowman, not Odysseus. And he certainly didn't pretend that the original Odysseus had been born in 1965.

And you're deliberately picking examples of contexts that wouldn't work and claiming they prove that no context could possibly work other than the original. That's incompetent reasoning. The general does not follow from the specific. For any setting you pick that would be a bad fit for a character, I can think of a setting that would be a good fit for the same character. Yes, the Lone Ranger (or Odysseus) should be on a frontier setting, but not necessarily the same frontier setting where his stories originated.

No, I said that some characters are more bound to context than others. I just happen to think that Holmes is a character that is very much bound to a certain time and place.

 

[stj]

Dude, the whole of 19th-century Europe was war-addicted. They thought war was a noble game back then.

Florence Nightingale didn't become a household word because of the national passion for the game of war. Read Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade as well. And the French didn't love the game in 1871 either. Imperialist wars against technologically inferior enemies had much better press but this really is gross historical falsification. The Empire was commonly regarded as good and noble and the inferior races's suffering disdained, but that isn't the issue here at all. This "Watson" may miss murdering the Afghans but that wasn't the original Watson character.

Watson acted to save Holmes's life from an imminent threat. True, the cabbie didn't have Holmes at gunpoint, but Watson recognized that Holmes was so obsessed with knowing the answers that he'd probably kill himself if he took that pill. Watson, a trained soldier, did what any soldier would do to save a comrade's life. How you get "cold-blooded executioner" from that is beyond me.

It isn't necessary to shoot the cabbie to stop Holmes from taking the pill. Shooting the gun into the ceiling or floor would have made enough noise to distract Holmes from doing so. (Not that Watson had any reason at all to think Holmes was in imminent danger anyhow!) "Watson" just killed him because he could, without thinking of consequences. You might make a case for "Watson" being a thrill killer, though. And the general notion that army physicians are quite up to the highest standard in the killing department is as simple minded as the rest of the arguments.

 

[Christopher]

That's all true, but I think the writers deliberately portrayed Holmes as more antisocial and potentially dangerous to make him conform to contemporary fashion.

I don't agree that the writers are portraying him as potentially dangerous. Rather, they're portraying another character as seeing him as potentially dangerous. Whether that perception is accurate is a question that remains to be answered.

If they become different, they are different. Two exact genetic twins born in 1870 and 1970 are going to be completely different people.

But there are different kinds of difference. I'm saying that there's a crucial difference between a) starting with the same fundamental character and exploring how different circumstances change him and b) starting with a different character who just happens to resemble the character in question. You're saying those are the same thing, and I think that's a gross oversimplification. It's worth exploring the question of how a specific character would have turned out differently in a different context. A lot of literary pastiches are based on asking that question. And it is a different thing in intent and approach than a story that's just about a similar character under a different name.

Perhaps. But I don't recall Watson ever being portrayed as dysfunctional when not in the midst of battle.

Again, you're being incredibly narrow-minded in your insistence that nobody is allowed to portray the characters in a way that even slightly departs from their original portrayal. I mean, my God, man, does the name Nigel Bruce mean nothing to you? How is this portrayal of Dr. Watson more unacceptable to you than the doddering imbecile that's dominated pop culture's perception of the character for over seven decades?

I wouldn't say that he was satisfied as long as he solved the puzzle, but he surely would go outside the law if he felt it was necessary. I can't see him blithely covering up something like that, though.

Watson saved his life. Holmes has finally found someone he can count on, someone who accepts him and will back him up -- and save him from himself. I can definitely see him not wanting to lose that.

Whatever the logistical or logical flaws in the climax, it serves to establish the bond between these men, the cementing of their friendship. Their actions show their regard for one another, their trust in one another.

Yes, they turn out to be completely different people. So the recycling of known-- and classic-- character names is awkward.

*sigh* You're exaggerating. The characters I'm seeing here are as close to Doyle's Holmes and Watson as any other screen adaptations I've ever seen, certainly closer than most. You're taking slight variations in interpretation and blowing them ridiculously out of proportion.

No, I said that some characters are more bound to context than others. I just happen to think that Holmes is a character that is very much bound to a certain time and place.

And I couldn't disagree more. Yes, there are aspects of the character that work better in his original time, but there are plenty of other aspects of Holmes and Watson that are timeless and well worth exploring in a fresh context.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't agree that the writers are portraying him as potentially dangerous. Rather, they're portraying another character as seeing him as potentially dangerous. Whether that perception is accurate is a question that remains to be answered.

Well, who knows? Perhaps they are simply making the implication to appeal to fashion. But their portrayal of nuHolmes overall did seem to me more insensitive and sociopathic than the original. Like the moment where he wondered why the woman would still be hurting over the death of her child a few years later. I can't picture the original Holmes being that clueless.

But there are different kinds of difference. I'm saying that there's a crucial difference between a) starting with the same fundamental character and exploring how different circumstances change him and b) starting with a different character who just happens to resemble the character in question. You're saying those are the same thing, and I think that's a gross oversimplification. It's worth exploring the question of how a specific character would have turned out differently in a different context. A lot of literary pastiches are based on asking that question. And it is a different thing in intent and approach than a story that's just about a similar character under a different name.

Sure, but it becomes too much of a stretch, to me, to imagine someone born in 1970 growing up to be a 19th Century person. There was once a TV pilot about Holmes traveling to the present day via suspended animation; that, to me, was a much better way of achieving this literary end, because there's no question of his character being unlikely to exist.

Again, you're being incredibly narrow-minded in your insistence that nobody is allowed to portray the characters in a way that even slightly departs from their original portrayal. I mean, my God, man, does the name Nigel Bruce mean nothing to you? How is this portrayal of Dr. Watson more unacceptable to you than the doddering imbecile that's dominated pop culture's perception of the character for over seven decades?

Touche. But I still think those movies were more faithful overall (the WWII stories notwithstanding). But I've already mentioned Philip Jose Farmer's and Manly Wade Wellman's interpretations. They certainly depart from the original in ways that I would not go myself, but they are certainly derived believably from the original character.

Watson saved his life. Holmes has finally found someone he can count on, someone who accepts him and will back him up -- and save him from himself. I can definitely see him not wanting to lose that.

Whatever the logistical or logical flaws in the climax, it serves to establish the bond between these men, the cementing of their friendship. Their actions show their regard for one another, their trust in one another.

I don't challenge this at all, in context. I just don't believe this whole scenario is consistent with Sherlock Holmes and Watson.

*sigh* You're exaggerating. The characters I'm seeing here are as close to Doyle's Holmes and Watson as any other screen adaptations I've ever seen, certainly closer than most. You're taking slight variations in interpretation and blowing them ridiculously out of proportion.

Well, we disagree. You think this is closer than the Jeremy Brett series? The Seven-Per-Cent Solution? I wouldn't say so. I'd put it maybe on the same level as the story that portrayed Watson as the brains and Holmes getting all the credit. But, again, it's obvious that we perceive these characters and stories very differently.

And I couldn't disagree more. Yes, there are aspects of the character that work better in his original time, but there are plenty of other aspects of Holmes and Watson that are timeless and well worth exploring in a fresh context.

And this I agree with. I just think this is better accomplished by generating new characters. It's the way I think in general. I think continuations are better than remakes, new characters are better than reimaginings et cetera. I'd rather create something new rather than remodel something old.

 

[Agent Richard07]

Sherlock Holmes was, in a sense, the first CSI. Or, conversely, crime scene investigators and forensic scientists are all trained to use Holmes's methods. As Owain said, he isn't as unique these days. Conan Doyle's Holmes was the first of a new breed. Moffat and Gatiss's Holmes is merely a particularly gifted example of a larger group.

Well, I'm not as well versed in Holmes lore as you, Owain and RJ are, so his early use of forensics hasn't been as big a defining point for me. When I watched the 2010 remake, I saw a character who felt as special and cutting edge as I imagined the classic Sherlock to be. Good training and investigative methods may be more commonplace these days, but the updated Sherlock used his mind on a level that struck me as anything but commonplace. And as someone who has a strong interest in the development of the mind, the way the new Holmes comes across in that department counts for something and that's why I see him as a modern-day new breed.

I think the writers deliberately portrayed Holmes as more antisocial and potentially dangerous to make him conform to contemporary fashion.

I don't think people like "antisocial" or "dangerous" per se. I think people take to these characters because they display a level of brutal honesty that most people are afraid to use, and they also have the guts to do what they want without concern for rejection. Most people tiptoe around others, play a part, or play it safe to varying degrees in order to be socially accepted and these characters seem to be mostly free from that. They're what a lot of people aren't or who a lot of people want to be, which is pretty much what a hero is.

And I couldn't disagree more. Yes, there are aspects of the character that work better in his original time, but there are plenty of other aspects of Holmes and Watson that are timeless and well worth exploring in a fresh context.

And this I agree with. I just think this is better accomplished by generating new characters. It's the way I think in general. I think continuations are better than remakes, new characters are better than reimaginings et cetera. I'd rather create something new rather than remodel something old.

Even remakes can be creative and new. Sometimes an artist just has to redo something and sometimes a work is just screaming to be remade or updated. Not always, but sometimes. It would be a real shame if a good idea or improvement never saw the light of day simply because of some unspoken rule that a piece of work has to remain static, untouched and just the way it is for all time. Yeah, we went over this last week, but it's worth mentioning again and I gotta be honest, I do find what you're suggesting to be too limiting. I think there are a lot of great remakes out there and I think the world of art and entertainment would be a lesser place without them. Respect for the fundamental spirit of a piece of work is the real issue as we also discussed, isn't it? But what if a remake captures that spirit better?

 

[Christopher]

But their portrayal of nuHolmes overall did seem to me more insensitive and sociopathic than the original. Like the moment where he wondered why the woman would still be hurting over the death of her child a few years later. I can't picture the original Holmes being that clueless.

Just differences of interpretation. Holmes has been played and written in a lot of different ways over the decades, and many of them have shown behaviors that other versions wouldn't. For instance -- so help me -- Roger Moore's Holmes in Sherlock Holmes in New York was much more jovial and romantic and, well, Roger Moore-like than most, depicted as having a romantic interest with Irene Adler even though the original text of "A Scandal in Bohemia" made it extremely explicit that that was not the case. Jeremy Brett's Holmes was more manic and theatrical than the saturnine figure described by Doyle. Robert Downey, Jr.'s Holmes is scrappier and scruffier than the Holmes of Sidney Paget's original woodcuts. And so on. But surely you wouldn't claim that every one of those characters should've been given a different name. It is the nature of art to explore variations on a theme.

Sure, but it becomes too much of a stretch, to me, to imagine someone born in 1970 growing up to be a 19th Century person.

And he's not a 19th-century person. He's Sherlock Holmes as a 21st-century person. I don't understand why it's so impossible for you to stretch your mind a little to encompass that concept.

Touche. But I still think those movies were more faithful overall (the WWII stories notwithstanding).

You think the Rathbone-Bruce movies were faithful?! I have no way of comprehending that.

Well, we disagree. You think this is closer than the Jeremy Brett series? The Seven-Per-Cent Solution? I wouldn't say so.

It's not a competition. A story should be judged on its own merits. I think this does a good job of being true to the essence of the characters of Holmes and Watson while simultaneously offering a fresh and different approach. It's not trying to do the same thing as the Brett adaptations, so it's illogical to pit them against each other on some kind of scale of similitude. It's not like there's only one dimension to the equation.

And it's odd that you'd cite The Seven Per Cent Solution as an exemplar, since it's radically revisionist, claiming that Holmes was delusional and Moriarty was a figment of his imagination.

And this I agree with. I just think this is better accomplished by generating new characters. It's the way I think in general. I think continuations are better than remakes, new characters are better than reimaginings et cetera. I'd rather create something new rather than remodel something old.

No reason you can't do both. Like I said, much of art has always been about variations on a theme. And it's fitting that there are various ways to explore variations. Telling a different take on the same characters is just as creatively valid as using new characters to explore similar themes, and the world would be poorer if it were deprived of either.

Well, I'm not as well versed in Holmes lore as you, Owain and RJ are, so his early use of forensics hasn't been as big a defining point for me. When I watched the 2010 remake, I saw a character who felt as special and cutting edge as I imagined the classic Sherlock to be. Good training and investigative methods may be more commonplace these days, but the updated Sherlock used his mind on a level that struck me as anything but commonplace. And as someone who has a strong interest in the development of the mind, the way the new Holmes comes across in that department counts for something and that's why I see him as a modern-day new breed.

Interesting comments. You're right -- when Doyle wrote Holmes, he wrote him as an extremely modern, progressive man, a man on the cutting edge in his methods of thought and analysis. A man who was always several steps ahead of everyone else, including his audience. In a real sense, the Holmes stories were science fiction, with the science in question being forensics. So in a way, modernizing Holmes for our era is a more faithful way of adapting the essence of the character than treating him as an exemplar of a bygone age.

 

[stj]

A legitimate revisioning of Sherlock Holmes was done in The Zero Effect. The BBC Sherlock is an incompetent modernization. Golden Pumpkin's remarks are basically saying that the deductions were cleverly done. This is true but it is very doubtful this is relevant to characterization. (The deductions are one of the few things well done about the movie, and almost all the entertainment in it.) Only if your notion of the Holmes character is mainly the deducing machine can you swallow this.

But, supposing this were somehow the modern version of Holmes, stripped of nostalgia for stories and movies of childhood, all we then see is that Sherlock Holmes is ignoran, backward drivel.

Also, once again, Watson didn't save Holmes' life. That's as dumb as actually believing anyone could have made that shot with a handgun. It's so dumb it's hard to believe that anyone honestly believes it. Sherlock loves Watson for being a killer? Disgusting.

 

[Professor Zoom]

A legitimate revisioning of Sherlock Holmes was done in The Zero Effect. The BBC Sherlock is an incompetent modernization. Golden Pumpkin's remarks are basically saying that the deductions were cleverly done. This is true but it is very doubtful this is relevant to characterization. (The deductions are one of the few things well done about the movie, and almost all the entertainment in it.) Only if your notion of the Holmes character is mainly the deducing machine can you swallow this.

But, supposing this were somehow the modern version of Holmes, stripped of nostalgia for stories and movies of childhood, all we then see is that Sherlock Holmes is ignoran, backward drivel.

Also, once again, Watson didn't save Holmes' life. That's as dumb as actually believing anyone could have made that shot with a handgun. It's so dumb it's hard to believe that anyone honestly believes it. Sherlock loves Watson for being a killer? Disgusting.

I think a lot of us where watching something different than you did.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't think people like "antisocial" or "dangerous" per se. I think people take to these characters because they display a level of brutal honesty that most people are afraid to use, and they also have the guts to do what they want without concern for rejection. Most people tiptoe around others, play a part, or play it safe to varying degrees in order to be socially accepted and these characters seem to be mostly free from that. They're what a lot of people aren't or who a lot of people want to be, which is pretty much what a hero is.

It's not heroes that are in fashion these days; even calling them anti-heroes would be generous. From nuBSG to nuTrek to nuMarvel and so on, people just like characters who are corrupt or politically incorrect in some way. Society seems to be going through a phase where goodness is considered weak and people gravitate toward things that make them feel like tough guys. It's all very adolescent.

Even remakes can be creative and new. Sometimes an artist just has to redo something and sometimes a work is just screaming to be remade or updated. Not always, but sometimes. It would be a real shame if a good idea or improvement never saw the light of day simply because of some unspoken rule that a piece of work has to remain static, untouched and just the way it is for all time. Yeah, we went over this last week, but it's worth mentioning again and I gotta be honest, I do find what you're suggesting to be too limiting. I think there are a lot of great remakes out there and I think the world of art and entertainment would be a lesser place without them. Respect for the fundamental spirit of a piece of work is the real issue as we also discussed, isn't it? But what if a remake captures that spirit better?

Oh, sure, it's not impossible, and I could name a few examples myself. But I think that the respect for the source material is rare, especially these days. And I definitely don't believe things should remain static. In fact, I love it when somebody can take a work and breathe new life into it without violating the essence of the thing. It can be a fine line, but it's a challenge I really appreciate both as a writer and part of the audience.

Just differences of interpretation. Holmes has been played and written in a lot of different ways over the decades, and many of them have shown behaviors that other versions wouldn't. For instance -- so help me -- Roger Moore's Holmes in Sherlock Holmes in New York was much more jovial and romantic and, well, Roger Moore-like than most, depicted as having a romantic interest with Irene Adler even though the original text of "A Scandal in Bohemia" made it extremely explicit that that was not the case. Jeremy Brett's Holmes was more manic and theatrical than the saturnine figure described by Doyle. Robert Downey, Jr.'s Holmes is scrappier and scruffier than the Holmes of Sidney Paget's original woodcuts. And so on. But surely you wouldn't claim that every one of those characters should've been given a different name. It is the nature of art to explore variations on a theme.

I'm not familiar with the Roger Moore version, so I can't comment. Manly Wade Wellman also included a romantic relationship for Holmes-- in his case with Mrs Hudson. That was totally off the wall, but I seem to remember his portrayal of Holmes was otherwise good. The RDJ movie definitely should have been about a new character. Jeremy Brett, though, I thought was brilliant.

And he's not a 19th-century person. He's Sherlock Holmes as a 21st-century person. I don't understand why it's so impossible for you to stretch your mind a little to encompass that concept.

I have a pretty stretchy mind, but it's not encompassing that.

You think the Rathbone-Bruce movies were faithful?! I have no way of comprehending that.

Aside from Watson, I sure do.

And it's odd that you'd cite The Seven Per Cent Solution as an exemplar, since it's radically revisionist, claiming that Holmes was delusional and Moriarty was a figment of his imagination.

Sure, it's definitely an Alternate Universe Holmes, but it's a logical and and interesting divergence, consistent with what we know. Not like plunking all the characters down in a modern world where the originals never existed either as real or fictional characters, with no regard for the effect on that world. That's more like a DC-style Imaginary Story than anything else; not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's inconsistent with the serious style of the show.

No reason you can't do both. Like I said, much of art has always been about variations on a theme. And it's fitting that there are various ways to explore variations. Telling a different take on the same characters is just as creatively valid as using new characters to explore similar themes, and the world would be poorer if it were deprived of either.

Again, I have no argument with that. But in this case, I definitely think it was ill advised.

 

[stj]

I think a lot of us where watching something different than you did.

Thinking Watson saved Holmes' life, much less could have made that shot suggests that people were not so much watching, but absorbing occasional images into a fantasy about being able to murder and torture people or just be rude to them without any consequence other than the helpless admiration of policemen like Lestrade. I suppose being that kind of person makes you feel part of the herd at this bbs, but who really gets hit by this would be zinger?

Taking a wild guess at any meaning that might (it's barely possible) be hidden behind the inarticulate snarkiness, it might be at the idea that Holmes loves Watson. I know that actually troubling to read posts before you attack is bad form for the groupthinkers but I specifically said the running joke about Watson and Holmes being lovers was diversionary. The friendship between this Holmes and Watson is founded on blood, not semen. A gay relationship really would have claims to be a modernization, on the grounds that such a selfless friend as Watson strains modern credulity.

The BBC Sherlock is a failed modernization.

 

[Australis]

Sorry, stj, no one agrees with you. It really is like you watched something different.

I thought it was very, very good, and pleased there will be more. As Christopher said, variations on a theme, art reinterpreted.

 

[stj]

^^^Sorry, you're still wrong. The movie was set up so that Watson murdering the man, without cause, was the seal on the Holmes/Watson friendship. The movie was also a very poor mystery, because it was an origin story about Holmes/Watson. If you want to defend modernization, cite The Zero Effect. This is garbage, no matter how popular it is.

It is like you didn't understand what you saw.

 

[Deckard]

I didn't see the gunshot as Watson murdering the man without cause or in cold blood. Watson knew that this man was able to convince four complete strangers to take their own lives via lethal poison. As soon as Watson saw Sherlock and the cabbie in the building opposite he knew exactly what was happening. If Watson hadn't intervened at that point then there was a real 50/50 chance that Sherlock would have been the fifth victim. At that moment I think Watson saw his chance to neutralize the threat through deadly force. You can call it murder for the fact that he took the man's life but Watson didn't really have time to think of another option and he had to make a judgment call. From where he was standing it was either Sherlock or the serial killer and Watson acted to save his friend's life.
I think the point of that scene was to show us that Sherlock needs Watson to practically save him from himself (like the cabbie said "You'd do anything, anything at all to stop being bored").

I also don't see how the episode represents Watson as some sort of bloodthirsty killer who thrives on war.
It's never stated that Watson misses the bloodshed of war, I took it to mean that as a soldier who can no longer serve due to injury that Watson feels like a man who has lost his purpose in life. Watson strikes me as a man who has defined himself by his military service and now has to get by in a life where "Nothing happens to me.". Sherlock even said when describing the shooter (before realizing it was Watson) that clearly he was acclimatised to violence as his hand could not have shaken when he took the shot. Just because Watson was used to a life where violence was a natural everyday thing doesn't mean he loves it or gets off on it, it means that he was used to it and probably thrived under that kind of pressure as some soldiers do and to go from that extreme life of constant peril to a more mundane existence must have been tough for him to bear.

To me Watson isn't a cold-blooded killer (watch his expression when he walks into the room and sees the pink lady laying dead on the floor), he is an ex-soldier who is struggling to find his place in a world where he feels he no longer has a purpose. That is a big adjustment for anyone to have to make.

Just one question and on this I'm not trying to provoke anyone but I am genuinely interested to know. It's been said that Watson could not have killed the cabbie from where he was using a handgun. How far apart were those two buildings? I've read that Watson's handgun (Browning L9A1 I think) has a confirmed kill distance of 50 metres. Is it so unlikely? I couldn't tell by watching how far apart those two buildings were but they did seem quite close together.

Just curious on this one

 

[Christopher]

As I recall, the buildings were quite close together, with only about a wide sidewalk's separation between them.

And Watson is a trained soldier. Soldiers are trained to use deadly force to defend their comrades. By the standards of a peacetime society, that is rather cold-blooded, but that's how we train our soldiers to think and act. He did what you're supposed to do in war: stop the enemy from killing your allies, using any necessary force. Is that ethical by peacetime standards? Not especially. But it's completely consistent with the character of John Watson. Given Watson's background as established by Doyle -- a combat veteran and expert marksman who has only recently returned from the front at the time he first meets Sherlock Holmes -- it is entirely credible that he would act the way he did when he perceived a threat to his friend's life.

 

[Professor Zoom]

The BBC Sherlock is a failed modernization.

Not according to the BBC, who will be making more.

 

[Pingfah]

^^^Sorry, you're still wrong.

It's almost like it were a matter of opinion or something.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I didn't see the gunshot as Watson murdering the man without cause or in cold blood. Watson knew that this man was able to convince four complete strangers to take their own lives via lethal poison. As soon as Watson saw Sherlock and the cabbie in the building opposite he knew exactly what was happening. If Watson hadn't intervened at that point then there was a real 50/50 chance that Sherlock would have been the fifth victim. At that moment I think Watson saw his chance to neutralize the threat through deadly force. You can call it murder for the fact that he took the man's life but Watson didn't really have time to think of another option and he had to make a judgment call. From where he was standing it was either Sherlock or the serial killer and Watson acted to save his friend's life.

And yet they covered it up.

I also don't see how the episode represents Watson as some sort of bloodthirsty killer who thrives on war.
It's never stated that Watson misses the bloodshed of war, I took it to mean that as a soldier who can no longer serve due to injury that Watson feels like a man who has lost his purpose in life.

No, this was plainly presented as Red Herring followed by revelation. We were led to assume that he was suffering from PTSD, but then were given the character insight that this healer thrives on war.

Just one question and on this I'm not trying to provoke anyone but I am genuinely interested to know. It's been said that Watson could not have killed the cabbie from where he was using a handgun. How far apart were those two buildings? I've read that Watson's handgun (Browning L9A1 I think) has a confirmed kill distance of 50 metres. Is it so unlikely? I couldn't tell by watching how far apart those two buildings were but they did seem quite close together

I don't think that really matters too much. The shot was well within the bounds of artistic license for a detective show.