Scifi Fans: Are we watching Sherlock?

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Holmes is a product of Doyle's imagination and experience. I'm not sure any society could produce someone exactly like Holmes. Well they're doing a fine job on Sherlock in capturing the Holmes character and keeping him identifiably such. What makes Holmes Holmes? What parts are uniquely and untransferabley 19th Century?

How much of the Holmes stories are dependent on that "setting and atmosphere"? Been ages since I've read one.

All of them. Doyle also lived in the 19th Century. Holmes the character and the stories themselves were all products of their time, as I described above and others have added to. Start with the name: How likely is it in the late 20th Century that someone would name their kid Sherlock?

How likely is it that someone would be call their son Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch in 1976? I don't know but they did and he's playing Sherlock.

A very cool name; and one that certainly commits to memory fairly quickly by virtue of its atypical nature! Undoubtedly an aid for the actor in his profession.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Holmes is a product of Doyle's imagination and experience. I'm not sure any society could produce someone exactly like Holmes. Well they're doing a fine job on Sherlock in capturing the Holmes character and keeping him identifiably such. What makes Holmes Holmes? What parts are uniquely and untransferabley 19th Century?

How much of the Holmes stories are dependent on that "setting and atmosphere"? Been ages since I've read one.

All of them. Doyle also lived in the 19th Century. Holmes the character and the stories themselves were all products of their time, as I described above and others have added to. Start with the name: How likely is it in the late 20th Century that someone would name their kid Sherlock?

Of course Doyle added "contemporary color" to make them seem real to the reader. But he wasnt writing a period piece. The characters would have been associated with what ever events and people were happening at the time Doyle was writing. That's hardly proof that Holmes needs to be tied to the 19th Century, it only shows that Holmes was written to exist in the contemporary world.

In the new series Watson is still a war vet,though as "luck" would have it he was wounded in Afghanistan in this version as well. But had it not been Afghanistan, then another 21st Century military engagement would suffice. The important part is that Watson is a vet and was wounded, not where it happened. You update things like locations, events and real people. No one should expect a 21st Century Holmes to mention Queen Victoria or the Indian Mutiny. I guess more to the point is are the types of problems Holmes solves and the way he goes about solving them unique to the 19th Century? Are the motivations of these criminals unique to the 19th Century? Cutway the "color" and are we left with something that only exists in one period of time? Similarly, are Holmes' attitude and reactions to people something that only a product of the 19th Century can have? Or do such attitudes and reactions exist in todays "post-Freudian, post-psychoanalysis, post-sexual revolution" society? Holmesian characters exist in contemporary fiction in spite of these. Drs. House and Cooper come to mind. There is another Doctor too, but he's an alien and probably shouldn't count.

Yes, "Sherlock" is a tad unusual. But it was unusual for Doyles time too, as its more commonly a surname. One might as well ask,"Who in the 20th Century would name their kids 'Fox' or 'Temperance'?" The real world is full of unusal names, the fictional world even more so.

 

[Gaith]

Of course Doyle added "contemporary color" to make them seem real to the reader. But he wasnt writing a period piece. The characters would have been associated with what ever events and people were happening at the time Doyle was writing.

Maybe, but Doyle didn't write Holmes for a different time, he wrote it for his own time - starting a decade or so in the past, to be precise.

I guess more to the point is are the types of problems Holmes solves and the way he goes about solving them unique to the 19th Century?

Yes. There are lots of cases involving servants and masters in a class system that Doyle would scarcely find recognizable. But more to the point...

That's hardly proof that Holmes needs to be tied to the 19th Century, it only shows that Holmes was written to exist in the contemporary world.

One could employ similar logic to argue for a classical Roman Holmes, a 22nd-Century Holmes, or a modern Robin Hood who hacks into rich people's bank accounts. As soon as one detaches any character from his or her original time an biography, one creates a "new"/rip-off character.


Look, Holmes is public domain, so I don't really have a problem with any of this, though I might prefer if they gave the characters slightly different names, out of respect for Doyle and his legacy. But subtlety might cost them some of that sweet, sweet money, wouldn't it...

I just frankly wish that they'd remake The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, and not screw it up with a flirtatious blonde Holmes and a non-book second half of the plot...

 

[RJDiogenes]

How likely is it that someone would be call their son Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch in 1976? I don't know but they did and he's playing Sherlock.

I'm going to go with "pretty likely" then.

In the new series Watson is still a war vet,though as "luck" would have it he was wounded in Afghanistan in this version as well. But had it not been Afghanistan, then another 21st Century military engagement would suffice. The important part is that Watson is a vet and was wounded, not where it happened. You update things like locations, events and real people. No one should expect a 21st Century Holmes to mention Queen Victoria or the Indian Mutiny. I guess more to the point is are the types of problems Holmes solves and the way he goes about solving them unique to the 19th Century? Are the motivations of these criminals unique to the 19th Century? Cutway the "color" and are we left with something that only exists in one period of time? Similarly, are Holmes' attitude and reactions to people something that only a product of the 19th Century can have? Or do such attitudes and reactions exist in todays "post-Freudian, post-psychoanalysis, post-sexual revolution" society? Holmesian characters exist in contemporary fiction in spite of these.

Pointless questions, since they could be applied to any era. The real point is, aside from the loss of the ambiance that informs the original stories, what makes Sherlock unique in the modern era? He can't be the world's first consulting detective, and he can't be the pioneer of forensics-- what is it that makes Sherlock 2010 the equal of the original?

Drs. House and Cooper come to mind.

I believe the producers of House have said that they were inspired by Holmes (thus the name). That's the way you do it; instead of taking somebody else's idea and changing it, you should use inspiration as a starting point.

One could employ similar logic to argue for a classical Roman Holmes, a 22nd-Century Holmes, or a modern Robin Hood who hacks into rich people's bank accounts. As soon as one detaches any character from his or her original time an biography, one creates a "new"/rip-off character.

Exactly. So why recycle names that don't apply? They should have just created their own characters.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Yes, my point was is Sherlock Holmes really any less likely name than Benedict Cumberbatch? Wouldn't think so.

Also if you're going to do a story about a consulting detective in London who has a rather eccentric personality, shares a flat with a wounded war veteran and solves strange cases the police can't with fantastic deductive reasoning and you don't call it Sherlock you're just going to get people complaining you're ripping off Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course Doyle added "contemporary color" to make them seem real to the reader. But he wasnt writing a period piece. The characters would have been associated with what ever events and people were happening at the time Doyle was writing.

Maybe, but Doyle didn't write Holmes for a different time, he wrote it for his own time - starting a decade or so in the past, to be precise.

So why can modern writers write Holmes for their times?

I guess more to the point is are the types of problems Holmes solves and the way he goes about solving them unique to the 19th Century?

Yes. There are lots of cases involving servants and masters in a class system that Doyle would scarcely find recognizable. But more to the point...

You're missing the point. A story set in modern time will not have 19th Century master and servant relationships. They will have 21st Century master and servant relationships. Your talking about anachronisms. ( and something that has been avoided in Sherlock) That's something different than what I'm refering to.

What I am talking about is the nature of the crimes Holmes is investigating and how he goes about conducting the investigations. That has not changed in Sherlock ( other than the use of things like computers and cell phones.)

That's hardly proof that Holmes needs to be tied to the 19th Century, it only shows that Holmes was written to exist in the contemporary world.

One could employ similar logic to argue for a classical Roman Holmes, a 22nd-Century Holmes, or a modern Robin Hood who hacks into rich people's bank accounts. As soon as one detaches any character from his or her original time an biography, one creates a "new"/rip-off character.

One could. But a Roman Holmes could not be a consulting detective based in London who shares a flat with Dr James Watson late of the British Army. The 22nd Century Holmes is a different type of story as it involved a revived rejuventated Holmes who is from the 19th Century. What the creators of Sherlock have done it create Holmes stories set in the modern world not create a modern day analog to Holmes or transport Holmes to the 21st Century via futuristic technology.

If you havent already, watch Sherlock and then pass judgement.

 

[Nerys Myk]

In the new series Watson is still a war vet,though as "luck" would have it he was wounded in Afghanistan in this version as well. But had it not been Afghanistan, then another 21st Century military engagement would suffice. The important part is that Watson is a vet and was wounded, not where it happened. You update things like locations, events and real people. No one should expect a 21st Century Holmes to mention Queen Victoria or the Indian Mutiny. I guess more to the point is are the types of problems Holmes solves and the way he goes about solving them unique to the 19th Century? Are the motivations of these criminals unique to the 19th Century? Cutway the "color" and are we left with something that only exists in one period of time? Similarly, are Holmes' attitude and reactions to people something that only a product of the 19th Century can have? Or do such attitudes and reactions exist in todays "post-Freudian, post-psychoanalysis, post-sexual revolution" society? Holmesian characters exist in contemporary fiction in spite of these.

Pointless questions, since they could be applied to any era. The real point is, aside from the loss of the ambiance that informs the original stories, what makes Sherlock unique in the modern era? He can't be the world's first consulting detective, and he can't be the pioneer of forensics-- what is it that makes Sherlock 2010 the equal of the original?

Pointless in what way? My arguement is that the Holmes character can exist in a 21st Century environment. So questions about Holmes' attitudes, personality quirks and habits and their existence in the 21st Century are quite relevant. As are those of his friends and foes.

As for ambiance, isn't that something that the Holmes stories acquired after the fact? The only ambiance Doyle was striving for was what for him was contemporary London.

What makes Holmes unique are those attitudes, personality quirks and habits. Also his methodology and status as someone outside of the police force. He doesn't have to be the first or the pioneer just better than anyone else. (And rub their noses in it)

Drs. House and Cooper come to mind.

I believe the producers of House have said that they were inspired by Holmes (thus the name). That's the way you do it; instead of taking somebody else's idea and changing it, you should use inspiration as a starting point.

All thats really changed is the time period. Not seeing that as a big deal. The characters seem faithful.

Though my point in bringing up House and Cooper was to show the Holmes personality type in a 21st Century setting. Proving that Holmes would not be as "unlikely" as you've claimed.

One could employ similar logic to argue for a classical Roman Holmes, a 22nd-Century Holmes, or a modern Robin Hood who hacks into rich people's bank accounts. As soon as one detaches any character from his or her original time an biography, one creates a "new"/rip-off character.

Exactly. So why recycle names that don't apply? They should have just created their own characters.

Because they're writing Sherlock Holmes, not a guy who's like Sherlock Holmes.

As I said to Gaith. Watch Sherlock and then pass judgement.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Holmes is very much intrinsic to the period it was written in. Many of his solutions were based on what was available to him at the time, where new methods were developed to solve the crime. The Crime Scene Investigation system that is used today is directly derived from these methods. So, to put Holmes in the 22nd century where he would use the CSI system of investigation means you would lose out from some of that history of the character, and you lose out on the dynamic of the character, because now, you have someone who uses something that was available before his time.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yet despite all of that I think they managed to capture the essence and Benedict certainly at least to my satisfaction as a Holmes fan portrayed him as I would have expected him. Batman was created in the 1930's and one could argue a product of his time and has evolved with technological development and growing societal changes. This character as far as I'm concerned demonstrated all of Holmes's idiosyncratic characteristics and his cold almost calculating scientific genius perfectly in a modern setting. As has been stated before you just have to watch the show and see for yourself and I've stated a couple of times already that I was skeptical but intrigued and was hooked in the first ten minutes.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Benedict has said he's met a lot of fans who told him they were big fans of the original who wanted to hate the show but couldn't after watching it.

 

[omgahitsbritt08]

I want to watch the new Sherlock BBC. I just havent had the time. It looks good though. I hope the actors are as good as other fans say they are. But, I wll definitely watch it sometime soon.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

I was a bit cautious at first shall we say, but I had faith in Moffat's ability to spin a tale and after just the first 5-10 minutes of the episode, I was drawn in for the remainder.

I was really happy when I guessed correctly concerning the guy in the warehouse.

These stories may be updated in setting, but all the little story elements and details are there.

I didn't guess correctly, but I laughed out loud when Sherlock said, "Hello, Mycroft." I loved it! Haven't seen the 2nd two episodes but I will eventually.
I think - no, I know - people should watch the show before they say it doesn't work. Because it does work, at least in my humble opinion.
Star Trek was created in the 60's and can be considered a 'period' piece in one sense because it dealt with the kind of issues the audiences back then appreciated, like any other drama did. Does that mean that TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT are a corruption of the core concept? No, and neither is Sherlock. When someone says 'Sherlock Holmes' you will think of the period but the character springs to mind first. The characters are the same characters - especially Watson, they finally got him right.

 

[auntiehill]

I enjoyed this far more than I thought I would. Hubby enjoyed it too, and he's only vaguely familiar with Holmesian universe, unlike Sherlock-fanatic-me.

We were both very entertained and are looking forward to more. It's too bad we have to wait so long to see the next three!

 

[omgahitsbritt08]

I'm a fanatic too. Just haven't got around to watching the new version. I do hear good things about the show.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I saw this last night and quite enjoyed it. Here are a few thoughts...

- I was surprised to see that they're doing a Sherlock Holmes TV show while the movie series is out.
- Seeing a modern-day Holmes took some getting used to, but not much. I really like this new take on things.
- Holmes' talking and analysis was pretty fast-paced. I really had to pay attention to keep up.
- Loved the dynamic between Holmes and Watson.
- The word tags and text bubbles were a nice touch.
- The nicotine patches as a modern-day twist on Holmes' drug use was also a nice touch.
- As I was watching, I thought of Jekyll, that mini series from a few years ago, which is the best take on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde I've ever seen. Nice to see that it's made by the same guy.
- The fakeout at the end was pretty funny. I won't spoil it. Those of you who've seen this know what I'm talking about.
- Since this version of Holmes takes place in the 21st century, what can the character pioneer when it comes to detective work? I'd say the power of a keen mind, an area that still needs pioneering today.
- For those of you who don't like the idea of a modern-day Holmes, at least check it out. It's worth a look.

Can't wait for the other two installments.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I saw this last night and quite enjoyed it. Here are a few thoughts...

- I was surprised to see that they're doing a Sherlock Holmes TV show while the movie series is out.
- Seeing a modern-day Holmes took some getting used to, but not much. I really like this new take on things.
- Holmes' talking and analysis was pretty fast-paced. I really had to pay attention to keep up.
- Loved the dynamic between Holmes and Watson.
- The word tags and text bubbles were a nice touch.
- The nicotine patches as a modern-day twist on Holmes' drug use was also a nice touch.
- As I was watching, I thought of Jekyll, that mini series from a few years ago, which is the best take on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde I've ever seen. Nice to see that it's made by the same guy.
- The fakeout at the end was pretty funny. I won't spoil it. Those of you who've seen this know what I'm talking about.
- Since this version of Holmes takes place in the 21st century, what can the character pioneer when it comes to detective work? I'd say the power of a keen mind.
- For those of you who don't like the idea of a modern-day Holmes, at least check it out. It's worth a look.

Can't wait for the other two installments.

General consensus seems to be episode 2 is a bit underwhelming, and episode 3 is great until the reveal at the end, but I liked it so each to their own on that score.

 

[Agent Richard07]

^ Yeah, the second episode wasn't as interesting, but it was still fun to watch Holmes and Watson doing their thing. Loved the end scene too with "M".

 

[Greg Cox]

The show is finally airing in America next month. I'm looking forward to checking it out . . . .

 

[Owain Taggart]

The show's been airing in Canada on Showcase.

Edit: Ok, so I watched an episode and I wasn't very impressed. A big Meh to me. Had a very generic mystery show feel to it and I didn't see any unique characteristics about it. Not sure if I'll keep watching. Almost fell asleep near the end.

 

[Starkers]

I saw this last night and quite enjoyed it. Here are a few thoughts...

- I was surprised to see that they're doing a Sherlock Holmes TV show while the movie series is out.
- Seeing a modern-day Holmes took some getting used to, but not much. I really like this new take on things.
- Holmes' talking and analysis was pretty fast-paced. I really had to pay attention to keep up.
- Loved the dynamic between Holmes and Watson.
- The word tags and text bubbles were a nice touch.
- The nicotine patches as a modern-day twist on Holmes' drug use was also a nice touch.
- As I was watching, I thought of Jekyll, that mini series from a few years ago, which is the best take on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde I've ever seen. Nice to see that it's made by the same guy.
- The fakeout at the end was pretty funny. I won't spoil it. Those of you who've seen this know what I'm talking about.
- Since this version of Holmes takes place in the 21st century, what can the character pioneer when it comes to detective work? I'd say the power of a keen mind.
- For those of you who don't like the idea of a modern-day Holmes, at least check it out. It's worth a look.

Can't wait for the other two installments.

General consensus seems to be episode 2 is a bit underwhelming, and episode 3 is great until the reveal at the end, but I liked it so each to their own on that score.

Yeah episode 2 is a bit pale in comparison to the other two, but the reveal at the end of three didn't annoy me that much, it was unexpected but it wasn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, the show's brilliant can't wait for more.