Author Topic: Sherlock  (Read 25629 times)

Sherlock
« on: July 25, 2010, 09:16:53 pm »
Liking it so far...

pixieannie

  • Partial to a dash of chainsaw oil
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2010, 09:19:08 pm »
So am I, particularly liking the 'crop' thingy.

Eccentrica Gallumbits

  • Rock 'n' roll and brew, rock 'n' roll and brew...
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2010, 09:55:55 pm »
This is Doctor Who without space aliens.
My feminist marxist dialectic brings all the boys to the yard.


Re: Sherlock
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2010, 10:02:28 pm »
More allusions to being gay than Dr Who, so it's Torchwood meets Morse.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2010, 10:36:13 pm »
It was very well done we thought.  Liked it very much.
I agree on the Dr Who view, but Sherlock is better IMO.

rower40

  • Not my boat. Now sold.
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2010, 10:47:28 pm »
I enjoyed it, but...
Some of the dialogue was very very fast, and while I would normally have the subtitles on, my sister (who was watching it here too) has an aversion to text-on-the-screen.
I'll be reading the subtitles next week.
Be Naughty; save Santa a trip

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2010, 11:10:10 pm »
I really enjoyed it. It made me laugh without trying to be a comedy and I liked the way several parts from the originals were included and brought up to date (I'm thinking of Holmes's examination of Watson's phone).
Have set the tape for next week.
Bread of heaven, bread of heaven.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2010, 11:23:10 pm »
Sharp, clever, well paced, great dialogue, excellent cast. I was really sceptical about it beforehand but I loved every second of it.  :thumbsup:

True to the spirit of the original too.

d.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2010, 11:49:39 pm »
I've been a big Holmes fan since my early teens.  Therefor I have not seen the Guy Ritchie film.  I loathe Martin Freeman.

But I loved this.   :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Can't wait 'til next week.


Re: Sherlock
« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2010, 12:00:53 am »
The Mycroft twist was very good. The image in my mind of Mycroft being Charles Gray from the Jeremy Brett series may finally have been supplanted.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2010, 12:24:42 am »
The Mycroft twist was very good.

Twist? Perhaps if you're not familiar with the original Conan Doyle stories...  :smug: ;)

(click to show/hide)

I've read a lot in the press about the various "in jokes" but all the write-ups overlooked my favourite, which was the way they flipped the meaning of "Rache" from A Study In Scarlet. As if a dying woman would scrawl some obscure German word!  ;D

d.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2010, 04:33:50 pm »
No, no, no!

To take this seriously, we have to accept that the brilliant Sherlock Holmes overlooks the most obvious things, & that runs counter to the basic premise.

I correctly guessed the murderer's trade while Sherlock was standing over the dead woman pontificating, & that's not because I'm brilliant, but because it was bleedin' obvious that someone in that trade was the most likely suspect. At first, I expected the police to come up with that idea (they would, you know! In real life, they bloody well would!) & Sherlock to come out with some stroke of genius, something he'd spotted but they'd missed, which ruled it out. But then I realised that the writers were too thick for that, & I spent much of the rest of the programme getting increasingly irritated, wondering why everyone (& especially Sherlock, who kept hovering on the brink) was overlooking what I had become gloomily resigned to being revealed - until it was. I still hoped for some kind of twist to prove me wrong, but was disappointed.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2010, 05:11:37 pm »
I liked it apart from the sound.  Could be because we get our TV via a cable, but in parts it was very difficult to make out what the actors were saying.  Obviously, turning it up helped, but then it'd switch to the next scene and our ear drums would be imploding.

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2010, 05:28:49 pm »
I correctly guessed the murderer's trade while Sherlock was standing over the dead woman pontificating, & that's not because I'm brilliant, but because it was bleedin' obvious that someone in that trade was the most likely suspect.

Hmm, I'm not sure this is a fair criticism - iirc Holmes doesn't suss whodunnit that quickly in the original A Study In Scarlet either.

d.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2010, 08:19:04 pm »
I liked it apart from the sound.  Could be because we get our TV via a cable, but in parts it was very difficult to make out what the actors were saying.  Obviously, turning it up helped, but then it'd switch to the next scene and our ear drums would be imploding.

I thought so too.  I had had my finger on the volume control for most of the programme.   ::-)  Why do they do this?  If you want to hear the dialogue, your neighbours get the music basting through the walls too.  >:(

Pancho

  • لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2010, 08:50:14 pm »
Dr Watson had returned from the (current) Afghan war - the original Dr Watson had also just returned from the (then current) Afghan war. Depressing, eh?

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2010, 09:13:03 pm »
We both quite liked it. Compared with most televisual offerings rather witty.
Let right or wrong alone decide
God was never on your side.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2010, 09:43:58 pm »
This is Doctor Who without space aliens.

My impression - the whole "What am I missing" theme was straight out of Dr Who

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2010, 09:51:33 pm »
It was pleasant enough viewing but I rather think it will head in the same direction as many other series in that only 'special' people will be able to follow the stories and 'get it' after week 3 or 4....and they will snigger at people without piss-stained trousers and a cupboard full of pot noodle and a 'girlfriend' with a permanently open orifice.  Oh how clever.

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2010, 10:10:50 pm »
I correctly guessed the murderer's trade while Sherlock was standing over the dead woman pontificating, & that's not because I'm brilliant, but because it was bleedin' obvious that someone in that trade was the most likely suspect.

Hmm, I'm not sure this is a fair criticism - iirc Holmes doesn't suss whodunnit that quickly in the original A Study In Scarlet either.

d.
No, but I think it isn't blatantly obvious in that (unlike this one), & I don't think the idea of crime by that particular group was so high profile back then. This time, the slowest cop should be wondering why nobody has started checking the obvious, let alone Holmes.

BTW, I got it without making any connection with the original, which I hadn't read for 40 years & had completely forgotten, & I've just found that a friend who'd never read A Study in Scarlet had also worked it out quickly.

Suspension of disbelief shouldn't be pushed too far. There are appropriate levels for the type of entertainment. Farce can stand a hell of a lot, drama much less.
"A woman on a bicycle has all the world before her where to choose; she can go where she will, no man hindering." The Type-Writer Girl, 1897

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2010, 10:48:22 pm »
Just watched it. The murderers trade was laid on rather thick.

And I'm surprised nobody has said ' <a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/TUee1WvtQZU&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/TUee1WvtQZU&rel=1</a>' yet?

But jolly good entertainment none the less. Can't wait for the next one.

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Sherlock
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2010, 10:58:19 pm »
Well, I enjoyed it.  The guy who played Holmes was pretty good - the physical resemblance to the Sydney Paget illustrations of Holmes probably helped.  It was fun to pick out the references to the original stories such as the rache/rachel thing mentioned above, and the nicotine patches standing in for Holmes's opium habit.  I was also pleased to see that Watson wasn't portrayed as a bumbling idiot, which he sometimes is.  There was a good range of supporting characters - Mark Gatiss being especially sinister as Mycroft. 

I remembered most of the plot from having read the original novel, so it wasn't terribly hard to work things out.  They replaced the slightly iffy Mormon backplot with a less-than-believable tale of serial killers for hire, which was a bit weak, but it bodes well for the future.  I'm looking forward to the next one immensely.

urban_biker

  • " . . .we all ended up here and like lads in the back of a Nova we sort of egged each other on...."
  • Known in the real world as Dave
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2010, 08:30:49 am »
Best show on TV at the moment. And it cleverly manages to link the Doctor Who audience and the murder mystery audience. I bet even my parents would like it. I suspect it will become a BBC classic and sell well in the US as well. Lets hope they can keep up the quality of the writing.
Owner of a languishing Langster

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2010, 08:36:37 am »
Hmm, yes - Matt Smith would have made an excellent Sherlock. And Benedict Cumberbatch a fine Doctor Who.

d.

Tigerrr

  • That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
  • Not really a Tiger.
    • Humanist Celebrant.
Re: Sherlock
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2010, 11:20:56 am »
It was pleasant enough viewing but I rather think it will head in the same direction as many other series in that only 'special' people will be able to follow the stories and 'get it' after week 3 or 4....and they will snigger at people without piss-stained trousers and a cupboard full of pot noodle and a 'girlfriend' with a permanently open orifice.  Oh how clever.
Crikey noodles - sounds like you need to escape from the weight of those chips, or change your newspaper, or eat more sugar to sweeten up?
Humanists UK Funeral and Wedding Celebrant. Trying for godless goodness.
http://humanist.org.uk/michaellaird