BS: Sherlock is back...

Subject: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:30 PM

I've just been watching programme 1 of series 3 of "Sherlock" - great fun, full of in-jokes and puns on the Holmes cases that never got written, just mentioned, in the books. Such as "The giant rat of Sumatra"...

Totally improbable, hugely enjoyable.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 05:40 PM

I watched and thoroughly enjoyed it too. Next on Sunday :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 07:30 PM

Fun to watch, just forget the notion it's got any relationship with Sherlock Holmes. Ignore the plot too, unless your mind works that way. The good thing is the interaction between Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 14 - 09:47 PM

What channel?

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:01 AM

Wonderful escapism. I worried about over expectation due to the huge anticipation trailers and news items about reaction from press screenings.

It delivered though. The Conan Doyle nods were there, the characters were there as ever. As comedy, the posh restaurant leading to cafe to takeaway to street with ensuing nosebleed was hilarious.

Roll on Sunday.



I was told this morning that the man playing Mycroft writes the series and that Bilbo's girlfriend is his real life missus. Perhaps I should subscribe to Eyup magazine...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:39 AM

BBC1 Should be on iPlayer but I dunno who can get that,

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MartinRyan
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:44 AM

Wandering slightly…

While hunting for cheap treats for my Kindle a few months ago, I downloaded The Complete Sherlock Holmes for about 5 Euro and read the lot - for the first time in fifty years, I suppose! Still hugely enjoyable.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 04:45 AM

Gnu can if he gets one of those IP add ons for his PC that tells BBC iPlayer you are in The UK. I have relatives and friends all over who do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 06:35 AM

Having read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings several times, I can't recall Bilbo Baggins, or Frodo ever having a girlfriend, where did that come from Musket ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 06:43 AM

Martin Freeman (Watson) also plays Bilbo in the new film of the Hobbit - and the unlikely suggestion is that the actress playing Mary Morstan, Watson's girlfriend in Sherlock, is the girlfriend of Mark Gatiss (Mycroft and screenwriter).

Have I got that right... if so...

Highly unlikely!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 06:52 AM

forgot to say - Amanda Abbington, who plays Mary Morstan, is Martin Freeman's actual wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 11:13 AM

I wish I could share your enthusiam and I`ve every respect for those involved in the production but I would prefer they left the character of Sherlock Holmes in the fashion and period of which Conan Doyle wrote and invented their own detective.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 11:20 AM

Ah... Thanks Will. My mate reckoned it was the screen girlfriend... I can go back to him, push my glasses up and score a nerd point now!

Come to think about it, he never mentioned that Smaug plays a fiddle and smokes a curly pipe.



Steve!!   Wait! I've something to top trump your trivia!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 11:50 AM

Thanks, Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:15 PM

Gnu, Carol and I watched the first seasons during a free trial of Netflix. I've seen ads that the series will be on some PBS stations, check your local listings if they still show PBS on your cable.

We really enjoy the series. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman (Holmes and Watson) are superb actors and fun to watch in their interactions. The writing and producing is from the same team that does the current version of Dr. Who so the dialog has a wit and energy not normally associated with Doyle's writing.

Speaking of Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, people outside the series are recognizing how good they are. They are getting important roles in huge movies. I wondered if that would interfer with the producting of the series. Luckily, so far it has not.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 12:57 PM

It's got as much to do with Conan Doyle's Sherlock as Pride and Prejudice with Zombies has to do with Jane Austen. So what? This kind of stuff doesn't in any way harm the originals, or make it harder to access them. If anything it directs more people towards them.

I'll watch this, and enjoy it. But I can't imagine going back to it again and again, as I do with the stories.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 01:27 PM

I watched an episode on TV. Or most of it. Turned me off.

Saw that a judge ruled the original "Sherlock Holmes" public domain, so I guess "Holmes the Undead" will be next.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: SINSULL
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:08 PM

I love it.
Jacqui and I watched two episodes New Years Eve and didn't know it was midnight until we heard fireworks. Sherlock,the Dominatrix and the beheading - all great fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Anne Lister
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 02:08 PM

I hate the way threads that start off so positively, with people enthusing about something they've really enjoyed, so rapidly become full of comments from those who don't like whatever it is. Puts me right off Mudcat, to be honest. What is so important about not liking something that means that your negativity has to be added to a positive thread? No one expects everyone to like everything - it'd be amazing if we all shared the same taste.
However I for one love "Sherlock" and want to cheer from the rooftops for some intelligent, well-written, well acted and original tv drama which nods to some classic fiction while putting it in a modern context. Don't like it? Simple - don't watch it!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 03:18 PM

You expect 100 percent positive? My, my.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 05:01 PM

21 posts, and only two from people saying they didn't like it.   Remarking that it is only remotely related to Conan Doyle's Sherlock isn't a hostile comment. The shame is there are so few episodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 05:09 PM

Disappointed to see the writers lifted the climax of V for Vendetta wholesale and rebranded it - just without the climax. Boo! Lazy writing.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 05:42 PM

Ah well, it's said that everything in fiction boils down to 7 basic plots...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 05:52 PM

I first read the Sherlock Holmes stories in my teens - over 50 years ago - and have re-read them many, many times since then. I have the 2-volume annotated version of the stories, which points out all the great inconsistencies and impossibilities in the "canon", and has notes at the side of each page - many from the pens of the Baker Street Irregulars. I have an original copy of the first "Strand" Magazine to contain a SH story, which is a prized possession.

None of which stops me from enjoying the modern TV take on the stories, which is done with great good humour and wit. It's just fast-moving fun and enjoyable television - something which seems to be all too rare these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 08:12 PM

I liked the characterization by Jeremy Brett- I have watched episodes more than once, and have considered buying the series.
Being intrigued by that characterization perhaps has prevented me from accepting other versions.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 14 - 09:09 PM

But Jeremy Brett's Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch's aren't in the same universe even. It's a bit like saying that after watching Errol Flynn playing Robin Hood you couldn't accept Walt Disney's cartoon fox in the same role.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket in tights
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 03:01 AM

That fox brought a depth of character that was truly appreciated by those of us growing up around Sherwood Forest I'll have you know!

They even managed to make Maid Marion look a bit foxy......

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 03:53 AM

There has never been a better portrayal of Shelock Holmes than Jeremy Brett, but the new Sherlock [ Benedict Cumberbatch ] is still excellent.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 04:23 AM

My favourite characterisation of Holmes was always Basil Rathbone in the 1940s films - perfect face and voice, very like the original illustrations - but he was let down by a facile Nigel Bruce as Watson and very poor plots.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 05:40 AM

Absolutely agree re Rathbone, Will: always the definitive Holmes for me; tho I rather liked Nigel Bruce's bumbling Watson SFAIR -- it was a very long time ago.

However, tho I use the word 'definitive', I appreciate that this is always a dangerous way to regard any particular performance of any character. My late wife Valerie would always assert that there should be a law against anybody but Sean Connery playing James Bond; when I asked if there should not therefore be a similar law against anyone but Burbage playing Hamlet [not Garrick, Kean, Irving, Beerbohm-Tree, Martin-Harvey, Fechter, Gielgud, Olivier, Redgrave, [cont p 94]), she would change the subject!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:28 AM

Totally agree regarding Basil Rathbone. The films were reaired on tele during my early teens, and utterly hooked me.

I'm with MtheGM on Nigel Bruce's Watson. Clearly non canonical but most entertaining. Matthew Bunson (author of 'The Sherlock Holmes Encyclopaedia) bemoans his buffoonery, but accepts that he was hugely loved. And were it not for Bruce, would we ever have had the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson"?

I have to say that I find the idea that Holmes shouldn't be re-imagined for a different age rather odd. After all, isn't that one of the wonderful things about folk music? That you can reinvent it in a myriad of ways?

I feel the same way about Sherlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:31 AM

Sorry, the above was me (not that it matters much)

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 07:34 AM

"Ah well, it's said that everything in fiction boils down to 7 basic plots..."

Sending a tube train carriage packed full of explosives into a disused and abandoned tube station underneath the Houses of Parliament in order to blow them up on Guy Fawkes Night, is a great original storyline! Or at least it *was* a great original storyline in V for Vendetta.

It's a shame the writers of Sherlock took two whole years just to copy someone else's work. I hope they do better next time. Demerits all round :-/

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 08:18 AM

It's not very different from the original story of Guy Fawkes is it? V for Vendetta did not have an original plot device there, just an updated one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 08:25 AM

Beerbohm-Tree?

I know you keep telling us you are knocking on a bit... Give my regards to Gladstone.

Just a thought. I may well be wrong (as opposed to not agreeing with weird people) but..

There is always an obsession with earlier versions always being better than modern ones. I reckon you need to factor in nostalgia for bygone days before making such judgements.

Perhaps Mr Holmes may have written a vignette on the subject?

(Ok Michael. Cards on table. I even named my sprog Sean.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 08:50 AM

Portraying Watson as a buffoon was a mistake, Doyle wrote him as a distinguished ex army surgeon, invalided out after being wounded, you don't get to be like that if you are a buffoon.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 12:59 PM

Musket ~~ Did he demand his milk shaken not stirred?

Don't quite get your point re Beerbohm-Tree. I once mentioned Sophocles in a post, but I can't see that as a claim to have been at the first night of Antigone.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 01:26 PM

I remember meeting Basil Rathbone when I was much, much younger. I still have his autograph somewhere. I never missed his films.
Excellent in the role of Sherlock, but I think Brett was superior.

There have been several Miss Marple, but in my opinion, Joan Hickson eclipsed them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 03:07 PM

I heard the only reason you couldn't get a ticket for Antigone was that you weren't fast enough.

Any road up. Could I suggest you run pronto to the Xmas 1914 thread? Your mate is struggling a bit. He needs the credible respectability you bring to the proceedings.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 06:39 PM

"It's not very different from the original story of Guy Fawkes is it? "

And equally fictitious as that seems to have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:02 AM

No one has mentioned Downy's Holmes or Costner's Robin Hood. Talk about re-invention.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:59 AM

You forgot to add The New Testament Jack.







Sorry. I know. This is how it starts. I'll shut up now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 05:23 AM

I once saw about 5 minutes of an episode of this new Sherlock. Vile, vile, vile. It traduces the written original, makes oiks out of gentlemen, shows the brothers as squabbling bullies. Disgusting in every respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 06:56 AM

Oh Richard - say what you really mean - stop sitting on the fence!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 07:28 AM

What I like about the first episode, of this new series, is that it still keeps you guessing about the last scene, in the last series, in which Sherlock appeared to fling himself off the roof of Bart's Hospital and die on the pavement. Obviously, Sherlock survived this fall - but how? Two possible scenarios were presented in the programme - both of which may have been fictional. But there was a suggestion, in the script, that there are 13 possibilities!! Now I didn't see that coming!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 08:28 AM

I rather think that in the forthcoming episodes we'll be given more of those possibilities.

Subsequent variations on stories and characters can never damage the originals, and it really is pointless to rush to the defence of our fictional friends who are under no kind of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 11:20 AM

Sherlock season 3 schedule USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 11:59 AM

I would guess Richard Bridge and myself will be the only two not watching-

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 12:30 PM

Thank you for telling us that Q. Seem that you will have to avoid Moriarty's minions tying you to a chair and forcing you to watch it at gunpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 12:43 PM

I'll be all tied up with Jeremy Brett's portrayal. Moriarty loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 07:34 PM

Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,JHW
Date: 05 Jan 14 - 07:02 AM

Saw 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' at The Witham, Barnard Castle last night (4th Jan). Excellent. A fun night out provided by local amateur company The Castle Players.
Alas and I've just checked the Witham website it seems it was only on for the one full house show.
Better than watching television...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jan 14 - 01:49 PM

Several of Conan Doyle's stories lend themselves to amateur theatre, either straight-up or parody.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jan 14 - 07:52 PM

Second of the three-part series today.

I liked it a lot more than the first (which I did enjoy). Less high-octane charging around, and more of a puzzle element, with a good old locked-room mystery. And funnier.

I couldn't spot which Conan Doyle stories were referenced, if any. Apart from Sherlock praising Watson in words Watson used about him.

It does seem a bit mean rationing us to so few. The BBC does make a point of keeping many series down to relatively short runs, compared with the USA where they seem to go on for ever, but three episodes to a season is a bit extreme.

Interesting to compare how the BBC's version of a autistic spectrum detective phenomenon compares with the Scandinavian version on starting on last Saturday in The Bridge second series, with Saga, the blonde Data clone.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 02:27 AM

I found no redeeming features at all in series 3 episode 2, though a huge fan of series 1 and 2, 3-1 wasn't great, but I could tolerate that it was about the relationship between holmes abd watson because, after all, returning from the dead is a bit stressful for the mourners! But this 3-2 episode was common soap, nothing more

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 04:04 AM

In The Bridge, Saga has Aspergers Syndrome, not autism.

As for Sundays episode of Sherlock, it was ludicrous, Conan Doyle must be spinning in his grave, Sherlock Holmes getting pissed and puking ? I think not.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 04:19 AM

And the murder method was just silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 05:23 AM

Such adaptations & continuations by another hand are always full of such "as if"s and "I think not"s. Another recent instance [drift but IMO not too far]:-

One of Jill Paton Walsh's post-Dorothy L Sayers Wimsey novels has His Lordship carrying a pack of visiting cards reading "Lord Peter Wimsey, Private Detective"!; and Bunter calling him "Peter"!

As if! I think not!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 05:58 AM

"Autistic spectrum' was the term I used, not "autism". Significant difference in how these terms are used. (See here)

Of course the murder method was silly. Intentionally so. The reasonable premiss of the show is that some people enjoy "silly".

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 06:02 AM

But it does have to consistent in its own world. There are lots of sillinesses to the method, but we were asked to believe that being pierced by some spike though a belt did not show up during an autopsy and the hole in a presumably closely inspected belt and/or uniform was missed by a detective who notices a single cat's hair at a glance.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 08:03 AM

We weren't "asked to believe" anything about that any more than the rest of the jollity. We were invited to pretend to believe it.

I don't actually think that as locked room mysteries go this was a particularly good one. But plausibility isn't what this programme is aiming at.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 09:14 AM

Couple of odd co-incidences yesterday. Mind you, there are no such things as co-incidences, Sherlock... :-)

I chanced upon Spielberg's 'Young Sherlock Holmes' yesterday and, although just as ludicrous as any of the other 'spin offs' it did have a good few features. I found the mixture of deduction and action pretty good. Nigel Stock (1983 Baskerville Watson) was good. Michael Horden was the voice of the older Watson and in both the opening titles and closing credits it was mentioned that the story was only based on the characters and also acknowledged the Conan Doyle estate.

Second thing was, on Celebrity Mastermind, one of the contestants scored quite well on their specialist subject 'Sherlock'. Pity she let her self down on General Knowledge quite dramatically.
Q. Which Andrew Lloyd-Webber Musical was narrated by Judas Iscariot?
A. Phantom of the Opera

:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 10:59 AM

We also had to pretend to believe that it would not be felt, and that it would be fatal, but only after removing belt.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: DMcG
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 12:27 PM

... And that no tell-tale blood would leak out. Asking us to suspend disbelief is one thing. But to do so so we can spend an hour plus watching a wedding?

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 01:47 PM

The wedding, or rather Sherlock as best man, was the central part, and highly enjoyable too. The detective part was a bit peripheral. Which in some ways is true of the original stories - what really holds most people is the domestic stuff, and Sherlock showing off with pointless deductions.

But then tastes differ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jan 14 - 05:36 PM

Only just watched it on i-Player, so a bit belated. The murder method with the belt buckle & all was obviously just meant as a sort of self-referential joke, which I thought was sort of quite funny. But what niggled me, with my passion for accuracy, were two things about the character Bainbridge.

i They kept calling him 'Private', even his Officers & NCOs; who would have known that, in the Brigade of Guards, soldiers of lowest rank are always called 'Guardsman', never 'Private'.

ii Bainbridge's uniform confused at least two regiments of the five which constitute the Brigade {Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots, Irish, Welsh}. I say at least two, because the buttons on the tunic might have introduced a third element, or might have been consistent, I am not certain, with one of the other two: viz, that his collar badge was the leek of the Welsh Guards, but the white plume in his bearskin indicated the Grenadiers.

With my passion for accuracy, I found these errors distressing. Surely any programme with a military setting should employ a competent military adviser to get such things right?! Though - I have just checked this - all this info is anyhow readily available on Wikipedia, in article "Foot Guards".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 02:47 AM

I agree, McGrath, tastes and perceptions differ. And we are talking about a TV programme here, not government policy or anything else that has a real impact on the world, so it doesn't do to take it too seriously.

As far as the original stories go, it is a good few decades since I read them, but all I recall are the main detection sections, a few of the "show off demonstrations" and very little about the relationship. There are occasions, certainly. First introduction, the dying detective, the tone of "The Final Problem". But in the main, anything there was has gone from my memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 03:49 AM

The original Conan Doyle stories are full of mistakes and inconsistencies which, like all true devotees, the Baker Street Irregulars have fun with by pointing them out. William Baring-Gould's "The Annotated Sherlock Holmes" has lots of fun in the side-notes on each page, listing the arguments and counter-arguments of some of the Irregulars.

The most glaring inconsistency was Watson's wound, which travelled mysteriously from arm to leg and back again in the course of the stories. The trigonometry problem in "The Musgrave Ritual" is propounded on the height of a tree which had been cut down and which, at the time of its use in the Ritual, would have been many many feet smaller - and yet they found the treasure! The training and stabling of Silver Blaze and its sudden appearance at a race would have been impossible. And so on.

None of which matters - and my guess is that the TV team purposely mixed the guards' uniform. The use of "private" when "guardsman" is meant is, of course, unforgivable.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 04:15 AM

I think it more likely that they asked Wardrobe for a Guards tunic and a Guards bearskin, & they just came up with the ones shown, which they happened to have in stock, & which nobody even bothered to check: because, after all & let's face it, who the hell would ever notice, or care, except some pedantic obsessive who really needs to get out more!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 05:02 AM

Incidentally, Sherlockians, Douglas Wilmer, who also played SH, is 94 tomorrow:

http://www.sherlock-holmes.org.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 05:16 AM

Having only watched it last night, I have to say that I'm very much with McGrath on this. I really liked it. Lightweight? Yes. A little silly? Yes. Witty and very enjoyable? Absolubtly

Reading some of the comments on The Guardian website, I am astonished at the vindictive hatred of some of them. These people clearly haven't read 'the canon' After all, there are many stories that don't contain any crime. (A Case Of Identity, The Missing Three-Quarter, A Scandal In Bohemia, The Three Students etc.)

As Will has pointed out, some of the plot devices are also pretty questionable. A snake that can hear, anybody?

I think that Christopher Morley (founder of The Baker Street Irregulars) got it about right:

Even in the less successful stories we remain untroubled by any naiveté of plot; it is the character of the immortal pair that we relish..

And that's how I feel about 'The Sign Of Three'

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 05:17 AM

From the journal of the Sherlock Holmes Society of London:

At another excellent Annual Dinner, our Guest of Honour, Kim Newman, explained how Moriarty could live on, despite his apparent death at the Reichenbach Falls. Mr Newman's address was followed by an equally witty one from our Treasurer, Calvert Markham, who revealed that in his spare time John H Watson was a fine jazz pianist.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 06:37 AM

The first series was entertaining, this episode - IMO - was both a bore-fest and really crumbily plotted.

A knife too small to be felt when deeply penetrating the gut or when then sitting, standing, bending, eating and moving around, but damaging enough to kill on extraction? What a lot of cock! Rotten tomatoes for the writers again!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 08:21 AM

For those who prefer a more traditional Sherlock, may I recommend "Sherlock Ferret and the Missing Necklace" at just £3.73 from Amazon.

In this version, Sherlock Ferret lives with his friend Watson Mouse underneath Mrs. Hudson's bakery at the top of the hill - very quietly, of course, in case she hears them - where they're often visited by their friend, a small rhinoceros called Lestrade. One day, Leticia Rabbit calls to say that her necklace, which she left out on the lawn, has been stolen. Sherlock suspects Moriarty Magpie and his assistant, Sebastian Moorhen, of the theft. Helped by the Bakery Irregulars - including Wiggins the Caterpillar - they solve the crime in the usual way.

Thinks... must get out more...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 08:50 AM

LOL! That sounds brilliant, Will. I must invest.

Particularly like Lestrade as a rhinoceros. Inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 12:12 PM

It does look fun. See here for the YOUtube taster I love the music.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,The esteemed Musket Esq
Date: 07 Jan 14 - 12:55 PM

The problem watching it with a doctor was missing some of the dialogue towards the end as I had to hear first how the murder method wouldn't work, then the entry might if the blade was coated with lignocaine and the victim distracted at entry time, then self sealing pads, then compressed air in the blade, keeping the abdominal cavity from collapsing till withdrawal....

Then I got up and poured a drink.

I still reckon it couldn't happen by the way.

The escapism was wonderful, the comedy exquisite, the nod to Sherlock Holmes good.

Roll on next week.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 01:33 AM

Tastes do differ re this series indeed, as someone remarks not far above. I see CS's point; but note that others have defended the episode ~~ I say again, it seems to me the absurdity of the murder method was meant as some sort of joke on the genre: perhaps the sort of perversely oversubtle sort of joke which is bound to misfire for many people. I return to the thread, with all this in mind, as I think it worth reporting that this episode got a maximum-possible ***** rating from The Times tv reviewer.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 05:15 AM

I watched the very first one again last night (on Alibi, possibly) - Very good and just as absurd :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:31 AM

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Plot lifts and implausibilities aside, I find it very entertaining and will keep watching. What's more, I've never read Conan Doyle's Sherlock, nothing I've seen before this series inspired me to. But I want to read them now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 14 - 11:41 AM

And that remark by Virginia confirms my view that those who rage against this as a travesty on the original stories are no friends of Conan Doyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 07:40 AM

Really disappointed in the latest, much over hyped episode.

"It was all a dream"

Please...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 09:36 AM

It was a bit of a Sherlock writers' group cluster fuck, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 10:56 AM

Agreed. They tried way to hard to be clever.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 12:06 PM

I'll just mention the mrs and me far prefer "Elementary"..

Jonny Lee Miller is a better actor and superior 'Holmes' than smarmy Cumbertwat;
and the drama and interplay between Sherlock and Watson is grittier and more satisfying.

Stroke of genius casting Lucy Liu as Watson.

Of course the plots are often complete bollocks,
that's the curse of USA TV - the series are too long, relying on too many 'filler' episodes...

But there is an engaging sense of grounded brutal reality,
which the BBC Sherlocks abandon for smug self satisfied scripting and irritating gimmicks....

..that bloody institutionalised BBC Dr Who smart arse elite in crowd...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:25 PM

Well, I rather liked it. Not sure what you blokes are going on about.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:29 PM

It was genial enough, but it wasn't up to any of the others in this particular series.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 03:35 PM

it wasn't up to any of the others in this particular series

Agreed, but that doesn't mean it was shit. The other episodes are exemplary, & this one was good but not great.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 04:09 PM

I liked it as well. There are no end of "realistic" detective stories but few have the wit of this episode. True, the 'it was all a dream" was a major let down; I would have had a Victorian episode with no more rhyme or reason than that first 'Alternatively'. Making it a dream also caused all the confusing back and forth towards the end, which we would have been better off without. But overall I tend to agree with the guardian reviewer who said 2016 TV is likely to be downhill from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:17 PM

Add me to those who enjoyed it. Yes, very odd and guilty of all said above but pleasant enough watching for a quiet day filled with beer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 16 - 05:36 PM

I tend to agree with the Guardian reviewer who said 2016 TV is likely to be downhill from here.

Get Outa Here!!! What about WWE, Marriage Boot Camp, Survivor, L.A. Hair, Donald Trump & all the rest of them awesome shows?

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 09:08 AM

Oh, I agree, definitely TV is downhill from here. The American presidential elections are coming up in November, starting with the Iowa stuff in a couple of weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 10:27 AM

Anyone old enough to remember the "dream" in Dallas, when Pam woke to find Bobby is alive and in the shower after being absent for a season or more, knows that the ploy of a dream can become a thing of disgust and ridicule when viewers are under-impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 02:35 PM

Wow, Maggie

You have a spectacular ability to miss the the point. Yes, we all remember Dallas, that is, oh never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 03:41 PM

No. The point is clear - that a dream sequence is about as cheap a shot as a showrunner can take to get away with doing something that otherwise makes no sense at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:10 PM

Do bear in mind that it was not a dream as such. It was Sherlock's 'mind palace'. The place he goes to figure things out. OK, I know it makes about as much sense as a dream but if we are investigating we need to get our facts right... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jan 16 - 05:48 PM

So how did that enable him to exist [even 'mind palace'·wise] in two different periods? Was he really in 1880s and presciently prolepsising a present day avatar; or was it all going on now but he 'mind-palaced' back to the time Conan Doyle had created him for -- maybe because he'd been reading Doyle' proleptic facto-fictionalisation about a man who didn't exist yet but would in about 130 years' time?...

Or what? As if I cared in the face of so confusing & cop-outish a bit of 'have it both ways'·ism. Don't think shall bother with a new series if one comes along [was this meant as a pilot for some sort of alienatory Theatre·Of·The·Absurd self-indulgence -- or what?].

Pity. Quite enjoyed the first series, before they started sodding about with the space-time-continuum.

Don't think it's me, Guest Ed, who may be missing the point. But OTOH.....

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:49 PM

Coming to it seriously peeved with Dr Who for the way in which the last episodes did not clear up a host of anachronisms and rubbish in the 2015 series, and discussing somewhere else the use of "it was all a dream" by Masefield in "A Box of Delights" (a technique I banned in story writing at school, back in the days when we did story writing before it was banned for being too girly), I was actually not too disappointed by the use of the imaginary world, especially the way it was left open at the end that the present was a dream from the past. I rather liked it.

But I am still seriously peeved with them over Dr Who. All they needed to do with it was to suggest that the Time Lords had been interfering with things, either through a dream state or a holodeck type experience from at least the Vikings onwards, for exactly the same purpose as the confession dial rubbish - 4 1/2 billion years, and Ashildr survives without the piece of kit going wrong at all. Or going mad. And then he gets over Clara so fast and has the real thing with River Song.

The big difference between Sherlock and Who is, of course, that they don't have to invent characters or plots from scratch for Sherlock, even if they then tinker with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 02:51 PM

Forgot to add, my friend's comment on Sherlock was "I must have missed the first few minutes when they got out of the blue box".

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 03:54 PM

err.. spoilers... please no more spoilers...
some of still have the last series recorded and still waiting to be watched.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:27 PM

Sorry, Guest; but this is a discussion forum. Spoilers are ∴ inevitable. If you are so peculiarly anal about watching what you have recorded and putting it indefinitely on the backburner, don't take it out on us. Just get the hell off our thread and leave us to get on with it. It isn't mandatory to read it, you know!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Penny S.
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 04:38 PM

Watch it soon - boxes have funny habits - I lost a lot of stuff from an unasked for factory reset.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Jan 16 - 05:05 PM

"If you are so peculiarly anal.... Just get the hell off our thread" !!!???

I was being polite.

Now I won't be.

Whatever reason you are in a nasty bitch mood, don't take it out on folk here.

Can't stand people who justify their unreasonable inconsiderate behaviour
by blaming those at the receiving end of it.

There is an intelligent art to discussing what you have watched, whilst minimising spoilers which ruin the experience
for those who have, for whatever diverse reasons, not yet watched...
Take that on board before you show yourself up with such a petulant hissy fit...

It's also wise to learn how to set up and use system sub menus your PVR
before you patronise more experienced users... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 03:46 AM

☞〠☜

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jan 16 - 03:57 AM

Cracking good yarn. There had to be a way to get those two into the Victorian Holmes and Watson and other than just doing it, being a pure "Rathbone did that bit better but he..." comparison, there had to be a twist. I enjoyed the twist.

Mind Palace has been a fascination with writers for years. Hannibal Lecter was the first character I came across who used it in that sense.

On balance? I reckon they should stick to their present day concept for future ones. It's their niche.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 02:59 AM

Sorry I come down on the 'I hated it' side. I was a bit reluctant to watch it in the first place as I think I gave up half way through the last one I watched however my daughter was looking forward to it so I joined her. Never going to get that hour and a half back now!

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 10:26 AM

Whatever reason you are in a nasty bitch mood, don't take it out on folk here.

EmGee can't help himself. Its his standard MO.

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 03:09 PM

Having read all the novels and stories and seen most of the film versions at one time or the other, I didn't think I was going to like Cumberbatch's take on these classics, but I found myself pleasantly surprised at being drawn into something I believe survived the quantum leap (the one where Mary Watson shoots Sherlock - and that Irene Adler (always my favourite story) - something else!!)   
Having a great deal of trouble with 'Elementary' though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 03:52 PM

What is that yellow door, Holmes?

It's a lemon entry my dear Watson...

Subject: RE: BS: Sherlock is back...
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 06 Jan 16 - 03:53 PM

Jim Carroll,

Taste is a strange beast. Apart from some of the later stories (collected in 'The Case-Book'), 'A Scandal in Bohemia' stikes me as one of the weakest stoies.

Each to their own, I suppose...