• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Scifi Fans: Are we watching Sherlock?

Mal

Commodore
Commodore


The BBC has a new show called Sherlock, and I was wondering if Scifi fans are watching it?

I can't say I'm a Holmes fan myself - I've never even read a story, but, I always loved it when Data and Geordi would dress up to play Dr. Watson and Mr. Holmes.

Aside from the Star Trek connection, the show is written by a Doctor Who genius and stars Martin Freeman from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

So have you been watching? What did you think?
 
Is it sf/f?

Anyway, I'll just rent old DVDs of the Jeremy Brett show. He's the definitive Sherlock and I see no purpose to any further remakes.
 
Is it sf/f?

Anyway, I'll just rent old DVDs of the Jeremy Brett show. He's the definitive Sherlock and I see no purpose to any further remakes.

i'm not sure it's SF/F - can't quite tell as yet. but the scripting is very much like doctor who, and i just noticed that the theme song is similar to that in Serenity.

as i said, since i've never really had much interest in Sherlock before, i'm not exactly going to be comparing the show to previous incarnations.
 
It's not science fiction it all...it's a crime drama modernizing Sherlock Holmes and there is already a massive discussion thread in TV/Media. To answer your question though, this sci-fi is watching it and loves it.
 
There's already a substantial TV&M thread here... the idea of updating Holmes and Watson makes my ass hurt, frankly, but then, so does Watson punching an (American) Holmes for fun, as in the Ritchie movie.

I may Netflix it sometime when it comes to the States... if I can get over the lead having curly hair. WTF?!
 
Is it sf/f?

Anyway, I'll just rent old DVDs of the Jeremy Brett show. He's the definitive Sherlock and I see no purpose to any further remakes.

I agree, re: Brett, but this is actually well-worth watching. It's an enjoyable modernization of the mythos, and feels both fresh and familiar at the same time.

Definitely not SF\F, though.
 
It's not science fiction it all...

hmm... from the first episode

Not alot of money in driving cabs.

Or serial killing.

You'd be surprised.

Surprise me.

I have a sponsor.

You have a what?

For every life I take money goes to my kids. The more I kill the better off they'll be. See, it's nicer than you think.

Who'd sponsor a serial killer?

Who'd be a fan of Sherlock Holmes? You're not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There's others out there just like you except you're just a man, and there is so much more than that.
 
It is definitely NOT SF, but its a great show! We need more than just 3 episodes!!
 
So this is a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where he and Watson were born in the 20th Century, not come to the 21st through time travel or suspended animation? That's, um, highly inappropriate to the core concept. But being highly inappropriate to the core concept is all the rage these days.

I suppose it's all dark and edgy, too. :cool: :rommie:
 
So this is a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where he and Watson were born in the 20th Century, not come to the 21st through time travel or suspended animation? That's, um, highly inappropriate to the core concept. But being highly inappropriate to the core concept is all the rage these days.

I suppose it's all dark and edgy, too. :cool: :rommie:

I thought the core concept was Holmes is a brilliant, if irritating detective who uses his powers of observation to solve crimes. I dont think that concept relies on a 19th Century setting.

No darker or edgier than the original stories.
 
So this is a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where he and Watson were born in the 20th Century, not come to the 21st through time travel or suspended animation? That's, um, highly inappropriate to the core concept. But being highly inappropriate to the core concept is all the rage these days.

I suppose it's all dark and edgy, too. :cool: :rommie:

I thought the core concept was Holmes is a brilliant, if irritating detective who uses his powers of observation to solve crimes. I dont think that concept relies on a 19th Century setting.

No darker or edgier than the original stories.

Exactly. If Doyle was alive today, he would have set the stories in the modern day. The 19th century isn't intrinsic to the the way the stories work, it's the characters. And they've definitely got them right.
 
@Mal I don't get what your spoiler comment was supposed to indicate regarding "Sherlock" being science fiction. That conversation didn't strike me as being sci-fi orientated but being typical of mythological figures and Sherlock Holmes is definitely a mythological figure, that's what I got out of that conversation along with Holmes' arch-nemesis they're both larger than life.
 
It is definitely NOT SF, but its a great show! We need more than just 3 episodes!!
Yes, I'm enjoying it immensely. I hope the Beeb will commision more based on the largely positive feedback and solid ratings of the first two at least.
 
Too bad about it not being sf/f. A steampunk Sherlock might be fun. But setting it in the modern day is the dumbest idea imaginable. We've already got a glut of modern-day cop/detective shows on TV. What we need are more shows about anything else. At this point, I'd be happy with a show about a talking dolphin or a 19th C mountain man who talks to trees. At least it would be different.
 
So this is a reboot of Sherlock Holmes where he and Watson were born in the 20th Century, not come to the 21st through time travel or suspended animation? That's, um, highly inappropriate to the core concept. But being highly inappropriate to the core concept is all the rage these days.

I suppose it's all dark and edgy, too. :cool: :rommie:

I thought the core concept was Holmes is a brilliant, if irritating detective who uses his powers of observation to solve crimes. I dont think that concept relies on a 19th Century setting.

No darker or edgier than the original stories.

Exactly. If Doyle was alive today, he would have set the stories in the modern day. The 19th century isn't intrinsic to the the way the stories work, it's the characters. And they've definitely got them right.
Doyle isn't alive today; he was alive a hundred years ago. And setting is indeed intrinsic to many characters. Odysseus belongs circa the Trojan War, Robin Hood belongs in old Nottingham, Zorro belongs in Spanish California, the Shadow belongs in the 1930s, and so on. Sherlock Holmes belongs mostly in Victorian London (although, of course this does not preclude some travel, or stories revolving around his identity as Sigerson or in his old age as a beekeeper or whatever).
 
I thought the core concept was Holmes is a brilliant, if irritating detective who uses his powers of observation to solve crimes. I dont think that concept relies on a 19th Century setting.

No darker or edgier than the original stories.

Exactly. If Doyle was alive today, he would have set the stories in the modern day. The 19th century isn't intrinsic to the the way the stories work, it's the characters. And they've definitely got them right.
Doyle isn't alive today; he was alive a hundred years ago. And setting is indeed intrinsic to many characters. Odysseus belongs circa the Trojan War, Robin Hood belongs in old Nottingham, Zorro belongs in Spanish California, the Shadow belongs in the 1930s, and so on. Sherlock Holmes belongs mostly in Victorian London (although, of course this does not preclude some travel, or stories revolving around his identity as Sigerson or in his old age as a beekeeper or whatever).
Disagree. Holmes is an English consulting detective who lives in London with his flatmate Dr. Watson, an ex-military Doctor. Nothing about his profession, location or background says "19th Century" only. Doyle wrote Holmes in a contemporary setting, dont see why modern writers cant do the same. Odysseus, Robin Hood, Zorro are more closely tied to to their time periods by who they are and what they do than Holmes or even the Shadow.
 
I thought the core concept was Holmes is a brilliant, if irritating detective who uses his powers of observation to solve crimes. I dont think that concept relies on a 19th Century setting.

No darker or edgier than the original stories.

Exactly. If Doyle was alive today, he would have set the stories in the modern day. The 19th century isn't intrinsic to the the way the stories work, it's the characters. And they've definitely got them right.
Doyle isn't alive today; he was alive a hundred years ago. And setting is indeed intrinsic to many characters. Odysseus belongs circa the Trojan War

ever heard of Ulysses?
 
Exactly. If Doyle was alive today, he would have set the stories in the modern day. The 19th century isn't intrinsic to the the way the stories work, it's the characters. And they've definitely got them right.
Doyle isn't alive today; he was alive a hundred years ago. And setting is indeed intrinsic to many characters. Odysseus belongs circa the Trojan War, Robin Hood belongs in old Nottingham, Zorro belongs in Spanish California, the Shadow belongs in the 1930s, and so on. Sherlock Holmes belongs mostly in Victorian London (although, of course this does not preclude some travel, or stories revolving around his identity as Sigerson or in his old age as a beekeeper or whatever).
Disagree. Holmes is an English consulting detective who lives in London with his flatmate Dr. Watson, an ex-military Doctor. Nothing about his profession, location or background says "19th Century" only. Doyle wrote Holmes in a contemporary setting, dont see why modern writers cant do the same. Odysseus, Robin Hood, Zorro are more closely tied to to their time periods by who they are and what they do than Holmes or even the Shadow.

For a better comparison, what about James Bond? One could easily argue that the original novels and films are very much rooted in the world of the 1950s and 60s, and yet the character is re-modernized with each successive film. To varying degrees of success, of course, but it's a similar concept: he's always a suave, intelligent British superspy, regardless of the year.

And let me just add that I'm a big fan of Conan Doyle's work. I think the original stories are generally quite brilliant, and I tend to be a bit of a purist: until now, the only adaptation of Holmes that I really liked was the Jeremy Brett version. Sherlock isn't quite up to the same level yet, but it is a strangely faithful adaptation when you get down to it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top