"Sherlock" BBC series.

[Son_of_Atropos]

We disagree on this one. In the particular case of sherlock holmes, place is to some extent irrelevant. A good story is just that, wherever it's set.

I think I am being nit picky but...

I disagree with your last sentence. The new setting has to add something, otherwise the whole thing is derivative. Something new must be added or else it is just smoke and mirrors fooling people into seeing the same movie 2-100 times. I think this was evident in the Avatar thread. Dances with Wolves on Pandora.

 

[Edward]

Loved it. Much as a new setting can bring a fresh perspective to Shakespeare, so too did it here for Holmes. The characters of Holmes and Watson were actually truer to the books than any other screen version I have seen. And wasn't it lovely to see a Holmes not stuck wearing the damn deerstalker and country tweeds in town?? Too many versions go for the characateur.

 

[undertaker]

You didn't miss anything.

I figured as much.

Regards,
J.S.

 

[Tiller]

Loved it. Much as a new setting can bring a fresh perspective to Shakespeare, so too did it here for Holmes. The characters of Holmes and Watson were actually truer to the books than any other screen version I have seen. And wasn't it lovely to see a Holmes not stuck wearing the damn deerstalker and country tweeds in town?? Too many versions go for the characateur.

I doubt I'll be seeing this series anytime soon (being a Yank and all lol), but from what I heard "Sherlock" doesn't smoke a pipe in this series, and instead uses nicotine patches......... Somehow it isn't the same to me if that's the case.

 

[James71]

Im afraid that on this occasion I will have to side with the purists. As a lifelong devotee to Doyle's works (I first read them as a nine year old under the blankets with a torch), I have to say that the setting is all part of the escape for me. The stories are so grounded in that particular world that to have them displaced into modern times seems an anachronism.

I have only recently discovered the Jeremy Brett series and I think it captures the spirit of the books admirably. Im yet to see them all, (the ABC is showing them on their Iview online doohickey), but have enjoyed the ones I have seen.

As for the movie with Jude Law et al....the less said the better. I had high hopes but ended up turning it off halfway through in disgust.

If you are going to completely destroy and rewrite a character, do the fans of the character the service of calling him something new and not try to cash in on the name with only a cursory nod to the original.

Heres an idea:- if you want to write a series about a similar character in a modern setting, give him a new name, a new back story relevent to the time he is dropped in and write something original.

 

[Dav]

Wouldn't that be similar to inspector Morse then.

 

[Miss Scarlet]

I already made a thread for Sherlock TV series lovers so maybe admin can merge them?

I personally loved the new series. I didn't watch it to begin with because I absolutely abhor poorly interpreted Sherlock movies and TV series. Fortunately my other half convinced me to watch it and I love it! Sherlock definately had an air of Brett and they managed to update the series very successfully I felt.

 

[Jasmine Jolene]

i enjoyed it. i have read some of the books, but i guess i don't love them enough to really hate a modern adaptation.

i loved the casting (missed the last bits with Moriarty so can't comment on that) but i was a little disappointed with the story lines. maybe it was just me?

 

[Edward]

I doubt I'll be seeing this series anytime soon (being a Yank and all lol), but from what I heard "Sherlock" doesn't smoke a pipe in this series, and instead uses nicotine patches......... Somehow it isn't the same to me if that's the case.

One of the better modern additions, I felt - "This is as three patch problem.... it's impossible to maintain a smoking habit in London nowadays..." What was especially lovely was that when Watson first finds him applying the patches, the camera angle shot from Watson's POV makes it look as if Sherlock is shooting up - implicit, but a much closer nod to Holmes' drug habit than any screen version I have previously seen. Nice touch.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I truly look forward to the opinions of people once they've seen the new show, hopefully viewing with something of an open mind.

I fear that the Brett characterisation as "best" has more to do with his resemblance to the Pagett illustration than anything else. To my mind the very best Holmes, TV or Movie, was Ronald Howard. He managed to combine the humour and intensity of Holmes in a way that others have failed, or have come across as pastiche, a la Brett.

I was very skeptical about the new series. And Gatiss as Mycroft i'm afraid didn't help this. But the series grew on me as I saw what it was trying to do.

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

What about the Rathbone "Hound of the Baskervilles"? The final scene:

Holmes: "Oh Watson … The needle!"

[dashes off upstairs towards bedroom of manor house; Watson looks after him regretfully, then follows]

I really quite like this edit, but the scene is about 23-25 seconds.


[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LdNIn49kWr0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LdNIn49kWr0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Watson's POV makes it look as if Sherlock is shooting up - implicit, but a much closer nod to Holmes' drug habit than any screen version I have previously seen. Nice touch.

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

 

[Mrs. Merl]

For me, I like the Brett series because - I like the actual stories. In my experience they are some of the only screen adaptations that stay true to Doyle's plots. I don't think I really care one way or the other about the people playing the characters, but I get really put off when someone makes a Sherlock movie/series and calls it one or the other of the stories and then rewrites the whole thing. I have not seen the new series so I cannot comment on it.

I think that they can be adapted to different eras, but I think that if you really love the stories you will be tied in some way to the setting/time/place. I say this because a great deal of the plot depends on idiosyncrasies of the times. I am not saying a person cannot produce something in the style or flavor of Doyle's Sherlock, but the stories as they are should in my mind stand as they were written.

 

[ukali1066]

I've boycotted this series

I need my Holmes to be set in the Victorian era....this "take" on it is as bad as setting Wyatt Earp in the 1970's Bronx....

And I've never seen anyone top Jeremy Brett.....superlative....slightly mad...but with a razor sharp intelligence

 

[James71]

I've boycotted this series

I need my Holmes to be set in the Victorian era....this "take" on it is as bad as setting Wyatt Earp in the 1970's Bronx....

And I've never seen anyone top Jeremy Brett.....superlative....slightly mad...but with a razor sharp intelligence

I agree completely. Holmes lives in Victorian London. I like to visit him there. A good detective story can be written in a different era, but to me Holmes is as Doyle intended him to be.

Nocotine patches indeed.....

Friends of mine loved the recent movie, but they had never read the books. I think that probably stands for most who like the modern adaptions as well. If you havent spent time getting to know Holmes in his natural setting then meeting him somewhere else is no big deal. If, like me, you love the original literature then the displacement into another era seems anachronistic.

As for Jeremy. He and the gentleman playing Watson so closely meet the descriptions given by Doyle in "A study in Scarlet" (from memory) that when I saw first saw them on the small screen they instantly rang true to from. I didnt have to change my mental picture of them at all to meet their appearance.

 

[retroladybird]

Some may be happier about this than others... it has been confirmed that the series has been recommissioned.
Link to BBC press release

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Good news, and not unexpected. What did I want to add the other day?


***minor spoilers***

Moriarty: the idea of a baby face is acceptable, but the actor just doesn't convince me. Also, that something was wrong with him when he turned up first was a bit too obvious.

Mycroft: fine with Gatiss. The twist of fooling people into believing the person was Moriarty was funny (the "arch-enemy" was a bit unfair), and I fell for it.

Ronald Howard: yes, excellent. The series as a whole was a bit too much in the old stereotypical way, but nice to watch. Watson wasn't a complete buffoon, but Lestrade was. Deerstalker and all. The marvellous music of the Grenada (Brett) series seems to loan a bit from there, by the way.

Lestrade: They updated him, too, from 1895 to 2010. These days, it's not even just chic but a matter people don't think about anymore that you use "European" vowels, so Lestrahd, not Lestrayd. Good actor and personage, of course, but not ferrety enough maybe.

 

[Edward]

Another successful Gatiss project has got to be a good thing - I'm desperately hoping that one day the Beeb will back down and let him make the Lucifer Box series the way he wanted.

 

[Shaul-Ike Cohen]

Could turn out funnier than the novels (all right, I only read the second one), which tried to parody the genre, but were simply ridiculous.

 

[vintage68]

Never heard of this one, but would love to see it. I love gaslights and horse-drawn carriages as much as anyone, but I'm one that believes Sherlock would be Sherlock in any era. Technologies come and go, but human nature remains.

Any idea when it might come to the states?

 

[vintage68]

I too have become somewhat of a purist when it comes to this, so much that I have refused to see the most recent Hollywood production. I absolutely love the foggy London streets and horsedrawn hansomes and cannot get my mind around the idea of anything else. But that's just me [huh].

Regards,
J.S.

What would happen if people decided Basil Rathbone was the only Holmes worth watching and missed out on Brett? I saw the latest Hollywood production and it completely won me over, so you might want to keep an open mind. And yes, I belong to the Baker Street Irregulars and have been a hardcore fan since way back so I'm not exactly easy to please.

AND btw, there are plenty of "foggy London streets and horsedrawn handsomes" in the latest Hollywood one too.