 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Sherlock is back...
|
|
|
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... |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Jan 16 - 03:46 AM ☞〠☜ |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:25 PM Well, I rather liked it. Not sure what you blokes are going on about. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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 - 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,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 - 05:02 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
