Sherlock Page 51

Quote: KLRiley @ January 12 2012, 4:22 PM GMT

You're not alone on this one Timbo but I left posting about it, although I grumbled about why does the army bod and Sherlock have to swipe but not Watson to the rest of my family? Obviously the army guy would to get in. But the point of Sherlock doing so was pure plot device so we could see how long it took before the message got to Mycroft.

View original

In a way, they might have been better with just straight up period adaptations, as quite often when new technology rears its head (such as with the phone that the tart never backed up) it all starts to get a bit wobbly.

The whole reason for them doing the show was to produce a modern day take on it, plus there's already a million takes on it in it's original time.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 10:24 AM GMT

The whole reason for them doing the show was to produce a modern day take on it, plus there's already a million takes on it in it's original time.

View original

Wasn't Jonathan Creek a modern take on it or did I miss something? Apart from the name of course?

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 10:24 AM GMT

The whole reason for them doing the show was to produce a modern day take on it, plus there's already a million takes on it in it's original time.

View original

Yes, but the modernity is often where the show comes a cropper. Keep up, Stottbot!

Quote: Marc P @ January 13 2012, 10:25 AM GMT

Wasn't Jonathan Creek a modern take on it or did I miss something? Apart from the name of course?

View original

Well not strictly of course, but it certainly owed a lot to Holmes.

Quote: chipolata @ January 13 2012, 10:26 AM GMT

Yes, but the modernity is often where the show comes a cropper. Keep up, Stottbot!

View original

In your darkened quagmire of a mind, yes!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 10:28 AM GMT

In your darkened quagmire of a mind, yes!

View original

As opposed to a well-lit quagmire!

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 10:28 AM GMT

Well not strictly of course, but it certainly owed a lot to Holmes.

View original

Even down to the writer type as his side kick. I would say there is more Conan Doyle in JC than in Sherlock.

I think a lot of shows handle "genius" characters better. House. Monk. Star Trek. Fringe. With Sherlock his genius never quite convinces.

I thought the stories in JC were very Sherlockian while the laid back acting style of Alan Davies never made me think of Holmes, in that way JC was both SHy and not SHy. I don't know about Sherlock yet because I couldn't watch more than the first half hour due to the slow pacing.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 10:24 AM GMT

The whole reason for them doing the show was to produce a modern day take on it, plus there's already a million takes on it in it's original time.

View original

This is beyond correct. Would anyone have tuned in for yet another crusty BBC period drama? Jesus, I couldn't move over Christmas for all the Dickens about. (please edit the last sentence out of context by removing the 'ens' from Dickens)

This show works because it is set in modern times, unfortunately as has been pointed out, the writers are having trouble with the challenges that modern technology throws up.

Allowing the show to happen in a contemporary setting allows the director to throw in lots of groovy, modern gubbins, like the subtitles on the clues - I do love that little trick stolen from Fight Club.

Quote: chipolata @ January 13 2012, 11:40 AM GMT

I think a lot of shows handle "genius" characters better. House. Monk. Star Trek. Fringe. With Sherlock his genius never quite convinces.

View original

There's a fashion for showing that such geniuses are fallible, which is all very nice, giving them a more rounded character and all that, but when it's overdone, you're left with someone who just isn't a genius any longer. I know the original Holmes would get things wrong, but modern Sherlock can be a bit too much of a buffoon.

Quote: Nogget @ January 13 2012, 1:20 PM GMT

There's a fashion for showing that such geniuses are fallible, which is all very nice, giving them a more rounded character and all that, but when it's overdone, you're left with someone who just isn't a genius any longer. I know the original Holmes would get things wrong, but modern Sherlock can be a bit too much of a buffoon.

View original

Buffoon doesn't fit what I've seen at all.

Quote: Matthew Stott @ January 13 2012, 1:22 PM GMT

Buffoon doesn't fit what I've seen at all.

View original

What about when he didn't guess that the pathologist's present was for him? Even I worked that out!

Quote: Nogget @ January 13 2012, 2:05 PM GMT

What about when he didn't guess that the pathologist's present was for him? Even I worked that out!

View original

That's to show he is emotionally damaged and thus sympathetic.

Yeah, he doesn't see himself as a potential 'boyfriend', not part of his makeup, so it doesn't spring to mind.