Yes, Columbo and Monk are great. What I liked about this Sherlock is that it captured a bit of their spirit. It certainly wasn't as good as either, but it's not the abomination you make out.
Sherlock Page 10
If it was just a humble 'tec show maybe I'd be kinder.
But it's trying to recreate a literary classic. Like a monkey making St Pauls out of sausage meat.
Did you sit down to watch it already resenting it?
Isn't the beauty of great books and characters that they're indestructable? No matter how bad an adaptation, or how many liberties taken with it, you can never damage the source material. The books will always be there. And at least this version stayed truer than most by not making Watson an idiot.
That was rather better than I was expecting; competent popular drama. I thought the Beeb had forgotten how to do that stuff.
And nice to see our own greensville popping up.
Quote: Griff @ July 26 2010, 10:30 PM BSTDoesn't appeal to me. I'm a big fan of the original books. If I want my fix of Sherlock I'll watch Jeremy Brett on ITV3.
Of course Moffat is not the only one who has been updating Sherlock Holmes...
I forgot to take note of the reporters. 
I did see his name in the credits at the end though.
After the suicide bomb that was The Prisoner I thought this was going to be complete and utter shit.
I'm looking forward to the next one. I haven't looked forward to a TV show since Miranda was on.
I haven't looked forward to a drama series since Life on Mars or the first seies of Skins.
Quote: zooo @ July 26 2010, 11:15 PM BSTDid you sit down to watch it already resenting it?
No not at all.
And if it was called "the eccentric detective" I might have liked it more.
Quote: Griff @ July 26 2010, 10:30 PM BSTDoesn't appeal to me. I'm a big fan of the original books. If I want my fix of Sherlock I'll watch Jeremy Brett on ITV3.
In some ways, it's a shame they called it Sherlock Holmes, because of the baggage some people clearly feel that gives it. They could instead have simply had an obviously Homles-esque central character, and avoided all that; plus all the differences, like his propensity to torture people, wouldn't have bothered anyone.*
I enjoyed it a lot, and was struck by how well-paced it was for such a long opener. It seemed to have been crafted with genuine love.
*In fact, they could have had a lot more fun with the differences, maybe going with the gay thing and making Mycroft into Sherlock's "can't live with him/can't live without him" lover, or have him as a genius gimp locked away in the attic. Have I gone too far?
Quote: Nogget @ July 27 2010, 8:41 AM BSTIn some ways, it's a shame they called it Sherlock Holmes
It's called Sherlock.
Quote: David Carmon @ July 27 2010, 9:11 AM BSTIt's called Sherlock.
True. It almost had me fooled.
Quote: Nogget @ July 27 2010, 8:41 AM BSTIn some ways, it's a shame they called it Sherlock Holmes, because of the baggage some people clearly feel that gives it. They could instead have simply had an obviously Homles-esque central character, and avoided all that
If people are so lardy-da precious that they can't watch a TV show because it might harm their enjoyment of the books, then they shouldn't be watching any television at all. Cretins! 
Quote: David Carmon @ July 27 2010, 9:11 AM BSTIt's called Sherlock.
I call it shit-cock because I'm witty and urbane.
Perhaps they should have called it Shylock and made it about a Jewish moneylender who solves crimes.
It was extremely well directed.