Ahh, ok. Well, I definitely agree that it suffers from writing then. It just seems like they weren't in their element. It almost seems like the writers were set to write a mystery show while never having read any of the stories.
US fans - Sherlock Tonight
- Thread starter OmahaStar
- Start date
I'm about a third of the way through the first one (I don't get much leisure time these days) and I really like it. Some points:
- Sherlock is really, really hard to understand at times. When he was explaining his deductions to Watson in the cab to the murder scene, I had to pause and replay it 3 or 4 times. On balance, I think I get about 7/10 of what he says. Now I know what folks from the UK would feel like watching The Wire.
- I like how they weaved in lots of stuff from the original Holmesiania, but updated it.
- I really liked when they had the text on the screen as he was examining the body of the woman in pink--much easier to understand than the quick mumbling.
- I now know what Sherlock Holmes sounds like when he makes blowjob jokes. Definitely updated.
- Sherlock is really, really hard to understand at times. When he was explaining his deductions to Watson in the cab to the murder scene, I had to pause and replay it 3 or 4 times. On balance, I think I get about 7/10 of what he says. Now I know what folks from the UK would feel like watching The Wire.
- I like how they weaved in lots of stuff from the original Holmesiania, but updated it.
- I really liked when they had the text on the screen as he was examining the body of the woman in pink--much easier to understand than the quick mumbling.
- I now know what Sherlock Holmes sounds like when he makes blowjob jokes. Definitely updated.
Nah, I'm neither happy nor unhappy. It's just my opinion of this particular show. I am back to my true identity, though.But, I agree, Watson was a little more like Nigel Bruce. (that should make RJDemonicus happy.)
And I do love Nigel Bruce, even though his Watson is not consistent with the character in the stories. For one thing, he's a lovable chap, and for another, those movies were my first exposure to the characters.
When you watch any show, always start at the beginning.
Yeah, I know. In my case, I only found out it was playing here in Canada on the Showcase network when the second episode was being shown, which was at the end of September. The guide wouldn't tell me enough to know which episode it was, and their website was pretty useless, but I took my chances anyway and got the second episode. It was hardly advertised up here, which made it easy to miss.
Wasn't as good as last week and the first half-hour was slow. But I still very much enjoyed it. The interaction between Sherlock and Watson remains the show's strength.
Yeah, I think I found out about the show on the day the first episode aired back in September. Saw a commercial on Showcase and decided to check it out at 10. I also remembered that Mal started a thread about a new "Sherlock" show in the SF&F forum several weeks earlier, but I wasn't interested back then and didn't bother clicking on it.
You were lucky then. It seems you pretty much happened to come across it at the right time. Considering it's a new property, they've hardly advertised it enough, or maybe I'm just watching the wrong channels, but it seems to me there's been a lot less advertising for it in general, and less advertising for things across channels as they used to do. You'd think they'd scream it out. "LOOK, WE'VE GOT SHERLOCK! GENIUS DETECTIVE ON OUR CHANNEL AT 10!" But no, they don't. Comes out feeling like they don't even try. How do they ever expect people to find it? I find it amusing that we get a commercial for it right before it starts though.
I finally finished watching the first episode. I really liked it--lots of good moments. Looking forward to more.
I recently watched the first season of Torchwood. (Isn't that made by the same production company?) In one of the special feature extras, a producer said that they like filming later episodes before the premiere episode, so the cast and crew get a "feel" for the show, to make them more comfortable with the characters and set and each other. She felt this could make the premiere even better when it's filmed.
Maybe that's what was done on Sherlock?
Yea that's how I felt too. It was ok... but not quite as good.
Their interaction is in part the show's strength like you said. But I look forward to seeing next week's episode anyways just to see where things go from there.
Yeah, that's what I thought, considering the chemistry wasn't quite there yet, not only as characters but actors as well.
BBC Wales, yes.
According to Wikipedia, the abortive 60-minute pilot was filmed first, and the three 90-minute episodes were shot in reverse order. So "A Study in Pink" was actually the last one made.
No. BBC Wales commissioned them both, but Torchwood is/was an in house production, Sherlock is made by Hartswood Films, Steven Moffat, Sue and Beryl Vertues production company.
^Ahh, thanks. Serves me right for trusting IMDb's "Company credits" without checking further.
Seems I came a little late to this party, and what a party it's been. 
If I may be permitted to toss my own two cents about the argument RJ, et al, were having for the first five or so pages. I think that it's interesting how both Holmes and Watson in this film are misunderstood by modern people.
Watson is a person who thrives on stress, someone who actually becomes calmer in stressful situations, but who suffers incredibly under the weight of "normalcy". People today see this and either see it as a problem, some sign of mental illness, ie those who see him as a "war lover" and "murderer". That or they see it as a sign of mental injury, ie the therapist who sees it as PTSD from his time in Afghanistan.
He is an abnormal person, one without a place in "modern" society, who's issues are further stressed because of his fear to tell the truth because of what other people might think.
Then you have holmes, a brilliant mind. He has developed his attitude because he is leaps and bounds above the average person. But, unlike Watson, Holmes has no fear or worry of what others may think... Because it really doesn't matter one bit to him. Holmes's abilities is a self fulfilling machine, it needs to be used or it eats itself. He also has no mental switch when it comes to thought. He sees thinking as the ultimate freedom, with no connection to right or wrong. Actions are limited to this, and defined by morality, but thought is something above that, something more pure not bound by anything but the capabilities of the thinker.
Holmes has self identified that he is an abnormal person, but where Watson strove to hide it, to pretend to be a normal, Holmes owns it. He almost thrives in his abnormality because it proves that he isn't "screwed up".
This is the root of the two men's friendship. They both see in the other a kindred spirit. They are two people who society has driven to the fringes, and slightly mad, because they are truly different. Not in the self created societal ways people think, but in the true nit and grits of the DNA of the mind. But more than that they are complementary, where Holmes gets lost in the problem, gets so sucked into his head while on the adventure as to lose focus on the reality of a situation, Watson becomes more clear, more observant, more focused on the reality at hand.
I found this one of the most interesting aspects of the updating that was done here, and it was one of the first to really touch upon it... The effect that modern society, and more specifically the effect of psychiatry and collectivism, would have on these charecters of classic appreciation. That while we adore them as an anachronistic example of modern thinking in a time past, we would abhor them in reality. The same attributes which made them classical heroes would today define them as outcast, weird, mentally ill, ect.
If I may be permitted to toss my own two cents about the argument RJ, et al, were having for the first five or so pages. I think that it's interesting how both Holmes and Watson in this film are misunderstood by modern people.
Watson is a person who thrives on stress, someone who actually becomes calmer in stressful situations, but who suffers incredibly under the weight of "normalcy". People today see this and either see it as a problem, some sign of mental illness, ie those who see him as a "war lover" and "murderer". That or they see it as a sign of mental injury, ie the therapist who sees it as PTSD from his time in Afghanistan.
He is an abnormal person, one without a place in "modern" society, who's issues are further stressed because of his fear to tell the truth because of what other people might think.
Then you have holmes, a brilliant mind. He has developed his attitude because he is leaps and bounds above the average person. But, unlike Watson, Holmes has no fear or worry of what others may think... Because it really doesn't matter one bit to him. Holmes's abilities is a self fulfilling machine, it needs to be used or it eats itself. He also has no mental switch when it comes to thought. He sees thinking as the ultimate freedom, with no connection to right or wrong. Actions are limited to this, and defined by morality, but thought is something above that, something more pure not bound by anything but the capabilities of the thinker.
Holmes has self identified that he is an abnormal person, but where Watson strove to hide it, to pretend to be a normal, Holmes owns it. He almost thrives in his abnormality because it proves that he isn't "screwed up".
This is the root of the two men's friendship. They both see in the other a kindred spirit. They are two people who society has driven to the fringes, and slightly mad, because they are truly different. Not in the self created societal ways people think, but in the true nit and grits of the DNA of the mind. But more than that they are complementary, where Holmes gets lost in the problem, gets so sucked into his head while on the adventure as to lose focus on the reality of a situation, Watson becomes more clear, more observant, more focused on the reality at hand.
I found this one of the most interesting aspects of the updating that was done here, and it was one of the first to really touch upon it... The effect that modern society, and more specifically the effect of psychiatry and collectivism, would have on these charecters of classic appreciation. That while we adore them as an anachronistic example of modern thinking in a time past, we would abhor them in reality. The same attributes which made them classical heroes would today define them as outcast, weird, mentally ill, ect.
All of that is true, which demonstrates that they can't be the same characters as the originals; their interactions with society would be completely different. Also, this show exaggerates these attributes to ensure that they are seen as damaged, rather than merely eccentric.
It is bizarre that you think the same entity interacting with a different environment must be a completely different entity. Is the way you interact with a romantic partner the same way you interact with your boss at work? Is the way you behave in the workplace the same way you behaved at recess in fifth grade? If not, does that mean you're several completely different people? No. It means you're the same person but your behavior manifests differently in different contexts.
