# Sherlock BBC 1 9pm Sunday 25/07



## madzone (Jul 21, 2010)

So, what do we think? Is it going to be any good? I think it looks quite interesting


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 21, 2010)

I was getting confused - wasn't there some dreadful American film recently ? ...


----------



## madzone (Jul 21, 2010)

Yeah, there was a Robert Downey Jr thing. This is BBC. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 21, 2010)

I suppose I should at least attempt to watch it seeing as I paid for it ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 21, 2010)

madzone said:


> So, what do we think? Is it going to be any good? I think it looks quite interesting


 
link or stfu


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 21, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t4pgh


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 21, 2010)

This new outing is the work of Dr Who supremo Steven Moffat and Who-writer (and League of Pignoses guy) Mark Gatiss, and is set in modern times.


----------



## madzone (Jul 21, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> link or stfu



Google it moi luvver


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2010)

I'd rather see a Victorian Columbo.


----------



## rekil (Jul 21, 2010)

Santino said:


> I'd rather see a Victorian Columbo.


 
Colombo was based on the copper in Crime And Punishment.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 21, 2010)

I shall be interested to see how Bendict Cumberbatch and Freeman fit in the roles. Of course, it's not the first time Holmes and Watson have been taken out of their original time zone. 

Rathbone fought the nazis & there was a book which had Holmes and Watson cryogenically frozen. More recently, we had Richard Roxburgh & then Rupert Everett playing the title role set in the early 20th century.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 21, 2010)

I am going to give this a go, could be interesting.

Plus I liked the recent filum, RDJ was great - not really traditional Holmes but I liked it - and Jude Law, who I normally find a piling steam of poo but without even the pleasure of shitting it myself, was rather good too.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2010)

> Benedict Cumberbatch (Small Island, Starter For Ten) and Martin Freeman (The Office, Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy) star in Sherlock, a thrilling, fast-paced update of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic detective, set in present-day London, for BBC One.
> 
> Sherlock is co-created by the hugely talented partnership of Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Coupling) and Mark Gatiss (The League Of Gentlemen, Crooked House, Doctor Who) and produced by Sue Vertue (Coupling, The Cup).
> 
> ...


BBC

From that, they sound like standard whodunits. But it's obviously all in the writing and presentation.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 21, 2010)

Might give it a watch,Jeremy Brett will always be the yardstick for any potrayal of Holmes for me


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 22, 2010)

Sherlock Series Trailer good fucking god moden shit


Can't beat and will never beat Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke on ITV3 The Naval Treaty was on yesterday


----------



## susie12 (Jul 23, 2010)

I generally hate updated Holmes but Benedict Cumberbatch is a cracking actor & Martin Freeman seems a good choice for Watson too, also good writers - so - <overcomes irrational prejudice>


----------



## madzone (Jul 25, 2010)

Bump! This is on tonight


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 25, 2010)

I see they're drawing direct parallels with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Curious how Watson's previous location chimes in both the original and modern.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 25, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I suppose I should at least attempt to watch it seeing as I paid for it ...


 Cos of the licence fee?

In that case it applies to every programme they make.


----------



## strung out (Jul 25, 2010)

this is supposed to be pretty good


----------



## Corax (Jul 25, 2010)

I hope it's good.  Fuck all decent on since Who ended.

When's Merlin back?


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 25, 2010)

so was it any good? or can i just delete it?


----------



## strung out (Jul 25, 2010)

only 7 minutes in


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 25, 2010)

i assumed it was on yesterday.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 25, 2010)

Sky Plus-ing it.


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 25, 2010)

indeed, i'll check this thread to see whether it's worth 3% of my disk space


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2010)

ta madz this looks good


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

Why does _every_ new Holmes do the pocket watch (or in this case mobile) thing? I know it's a big part of their first meeting in the books, but _every_ time??


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 25, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Why does _every_ new Holmes do the pocket watch (or in this case mobile) thing? I know it's a big part of their first meeting in the books, but _every_ time??


 
purist pacification.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I see they're drawing direct parallels with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Curious how Watson's previous location chimes in both the original and modern.



Yeah - that doesn't need any adaptation at all. 



Lord Camomile said:


> Why does _every_ new Holmes do the pocket watch (or in this case mobile) thing? I know it's a big part of their first meeting in the books, but _every_ time??


 
Well, this episode is a fairly modernisation of A Study in Scarlet, though the plots are starting to diverge more now half an hour in.

I am enjoying it - the adaptation and the twists are clever - but I'd like to see some _new_ stories.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

oh god, this is awful


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

grace dent calls him bendydick cuminsnatch


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

There's a forum


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Why would anyone choose either bottle? Holmes might do it to prove how clever he is, but the others?


----------



## slake (Jul 25, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Why would anyone choose either bottle? Holmes might do it to prove how clever he is, but the others?


 
He used the gun to force the others to play.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Why would anyone choose either bottle? Holmes might do it to prove how clever he is, but the others?


The gun, I would assume. More of a chance surviving the pill than surviving the bullet.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Oh. I must have been looking away when the gun was shown the first time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

i'd have taken both pills. that would have shown him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

the climax of this is overextended and dull. the whole thing falls flat. dreadful television.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 25, 2010)

I quite enjoyed that, good Sunday night telly


----------



## metalguru (Jul 25, 2010)

The ending was a bit drawn out - but it was better overall than I thought it might be. It's ok for sunday evening viewing.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2010)

That was surprisingly really rather good with a few nice twists.


----------



## Bajie (Jul 25, 2010)

The BBC drama's have a particular visual style now, and Sherlock was very much in that vain which I found distracting, but as an update of Sherlock Holmes it was enjoyable in it's own way and it will be interesting to see how the series pans out.


----------



## madzone (Jul 25, 2010)

I found the deduction stuff at the beginning a bit over-egged but I liked it more than I didn't iyswim


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

what is good sunday night telly? ludicrous over-acting, poorly written and with unnecessarily flashy photography?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 25, 2010)

Thing is, it was obvious it was the taxi driver from the point that Holmes and Watson stopped the yank in the back, particularly given the 'blend in anywhere/hunting in a crowded area' stuff. So why the fuck did super detective genius Holmes not realise? Plot flaw.


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 25, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I quite enjoyed that, good Sunday night telly


 


madzone said:


> I found the deduction stuff at the beginning a bit over-egged but I liked it more than I didn't iyswim


 
I concur, better than i expected !


----------



## mrsfran (Jul 25, 2010)

And that was Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Wholmes, in Death By Derren Brownery.


----------



## killer b (Jul 25, 2010)

it was a bit rubbish. oh well.


----------



## tim (Jul 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, it was obvious it was the taxi driver from the point that Holmes and Watson stopped the yank in the back, particularly given the 'blend in anywhere/hunting in a crowded area' stuff. So why the fuck did super detective genius Holmes not realise? Plot flaw.


 
Probably because he wasn't familiar wi the works of either Conan Doyle or G k Chesterton.



> Nobody ever notices postmen somehow


----------



## two sheds (Jul 25, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what is good sunday night telly? ludicrous over-acting, poorly written and with unnecessarily flashy photography?



Well apart from all that, obviously . 

I enjoyed it, yes nice twists in there.


----------



## StanSmith (Jul 25, 2010)

I enjoyed it, it was far better than the shit normally dished up on tv. OK it wasnt that challenging but even I worked out it was going to be a cabbie that was the bad boy and thats from someone that doesnt know the story.

I shall be watching next week.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, it was obvious it was the taxi driver from the point that Holmes and Watson stopped the yank in the back, particularly given the 'blend in anywhere/hunting in a crowded area' stuff. So why the fuck did super detective genius Holmes not realise? Plot flaw.


That'd carry more weight if you posted it when it happened, before we all knew who it was.   You posted it 10 minutes after the end.

I enjoyed it, decently acted and written, some humour too.   Freeman's an unusual choice, I thought, for Watson but seemed to work.  

Benedict Timothy Carlton Cumberbatch  - there's a name.   Taught English at a Tibetan monastery, don'tcha know.


----------



## T & P (Jul 25, 2010)

I thought it was pretty good. Don't like those flashing words appearing on the screen much, but on the whole it was pretty enjoyable I thought.

There is a definity hint of Dr Who in Holmes as well.


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 25, 2010)

T & P said:


> There is a definity hint of Dr Who in Holmes IMO.


 
funny my eldest said the same thing.....


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 25, 2010)

The whodunit part was obviously truncated because the key relationships had to be set up as well as psychological sketches of both Holmes and Watson. Steven Moffat even squeezed in the sexuality issue and relationships. Presumably far more interesting plots in the next two.

I always feel conflicted about ‘American’ paced drama, or international if you will – this was another example of BBC drama with at least one eye on worldwide sales. You obviously get high quality production but there’s always a price . . .

Liked the nicotine patches replacing Holmes’s traditional pipe, the original Watson had just returned from Kandahar after serving in the  2nd Afghan campaign. Spot for yerselves similarities between tonights  'A Study in Pink' and the first SH book:  the original Study in Scarlet

tbf, anything Steven Moffat bangs out has to be watched until he seriously blows it. Hasn't happened yet, imo.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, it was obvious it was the taxi driver from the point that Holmes and Watson stopped the yank in the back, particularly given the 'blend in anywhere/hunting in a crowded area' stuff. So why the fuck did super detective genius Holmes not realise? Plot flaw.


Well, it does sound like he needs some help 


> This is one for the internet geeks out there. 'Anonymous' has been in touch:
> 
> 'I've emailed you a little message. A little game to play. I do like games.' And he has, indeed, emailed me.
> 
> ...


 


T & P said:


> I thought it was pretty good. Don't like those flashing words appearing on the screen much, but on the whole it was pretty enjoyable I thought.
> 
> There is a definity hint of Dr Who in Holmes as well.


 Yeah, definitely thought similar.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 25, 2010)

T & P said:


> There is a definity hint of Dr Who in Holmes as well.


 
You don't have to be Sherlock to work out why!


----------



## mrsfran (Jul 25, 2010)

I SAID SHERLOCK WHOLMES. I SAID IT.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 25, 2010)

That posh bloke playing his brother looked nothing like Eamonn. Rubbish!!1!


----------



## T & P (Jul 25, 2010)

He looked like an elder brother of the gay bloke from Gimme Gimme Gimme.

And the cabbie reminded me of Alex Ferguson a bit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

you people are mental. it was pure trash.


----------



## mrsfran (Jul 25, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> That posh bloke playing his brother looked nothing like Eamonn. Rubbish!!1!


 
Har!


----------



## feyr (Jul 25, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Well, it does sound like he needs some help
> 
> .



is it sad that i bothered to work it out?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

feyr said:


> is it sad that i bothered to work it out?


 not at all. what is it? spoiler code it please


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

feyr said:


> is it sad that i bothered to work it out?


Well, first you'll have to tell me what you think the answer is, just so I, y'know, know you've got it right...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

fucksake:
http://www.mollyhooper.co.uk/
http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/
http://www.connieprince.co.uk/


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 25, 2010)

I have _not_ been reading all those...


----------



## feyr (Jul 25, 2010)

how do i do spoiler code?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

feyr said:


> how do i do spoiler code?


 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/234702-How-to-use-the-spoiler-code!


----------



## feyr (Jul 25, 2010)

dp


----------



## feyr (Jul 25, 2010)

Spoiler: answer



the clue is a roman emperor will help with this one. Caesar cipher is a simple form of code. shift each letter a certain amount of times till you get a sentence makes sense, in this case 11. the answer is  Sherlock i am watching you


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 25, 2010)

It was pretty good, with some nice lines. Three patch problem, indeed.


----------



## jonnyd1978 (Jul 25, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you people are mental. it was pure trash.



You've made your point, you didn't like it. Most did it seems by this thread, myself included. I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed it. 

Why not keep out of the thread seeing as you didn't like the show instead of calling people who liked it _mental._


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

ooh get her!


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Spoiler: Code



The 't' has to be either 'I' or 'A' and is much more likely to be I, since it's followed by a two-letter word. T is 11 letters on from I. D is eleven letters on from S, and so on. 'Sherlock I am watching you.' Don't know what Roman Emperors have got to do with it, but it's a really obvious code.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

unlike the spoiler one


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Feyr was much quicker at posting than me - I thought I knew how to do bloody spoiler code, but didn't.


----------



## London Eye (Jul 25, 2010)

I enjoyed it, but was quite amused at how posh the characters are getting in BBC dramas these days. Dr Who's angular elongated horse features and now this Cumberbatch fellow looking more or less the same. And to make matters worse in this new televisual class war, now the bad guy is once again a cokernee, working class oik, inney? So Americans have posh guys to be bad guys, but the BBC has posh guys as good guys and yer actual working class as the villains. What are we back in the 1950s again? Eton prime minister - I suppose we are.

Having said all that, I thought it was sharply scripted, sharply acted by the main characters and easy viewing, considering how much real trash is on tv these days. So it could just be relative, but was worth watching and I'd watch the next episode if I find myself in on a Sunday again.


----------



## jonnyd1978 (Jul 25, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> ooh get her!


 
Well really!

You hanging around this thread makes me think you enjoyed it really but don't want to admit it.  I'll bet you watch it next week!


----------



## Bajie (Jul 25, 2010)

Holmes as a fictional character was a bit posh though to be fair.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> unlike the spoiler one


 
Yeah, it's the same, but I can't know that till after I've posted.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Feyr was much quicker at posting than me - I thought I knew how to do bloody spoiler code, but didn't.


 gz lzw ajgfq


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 25, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Holmes as a fictional character was a bit posh though to be fair.


 
It's an outrage!


----------



## scifisam (Jul 25, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Holmes as a fictional character was a bit posh though to be fair.


 
Kinda. Watson was never sure what Holmes' background was.


----------



## Santino (Jul 25, 2010)

It was quite enjoyable for Sunday evening nonsense.


----------



## Santino (Jul 25, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Kinda. Watson was never sure what Holmes' background was.


 
He is part French.


----------



## Bajie (Jul 25, 2010)

Yer in the Victorian landscape middle-middle class most likely.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 25, 2010)

In fairness the villain was a serial killer- in fiction, that's generally the preserve of classier types.

And I refuse to believe Sherlock and Mycroft were _ever_ working class names


----------



## feyr (Jul 25, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> gz izw ajgfq



surely lzw, not izw?

and i may be able to break simple codes but i cant count


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2010)

feyr said:


> surely lzw, not izw?
> 
> and i may be able to break simple codes but i cant count


 yes


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 25, 2010)

bah, passed out halfway through- was that brolly twirling baddie a) morairty and b) mark gatiss?

iplayer on the morrow.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> bah, passed out halfway through- was that brolly twirling baddie a) morairty and b) mark gatiss?
> 
> iplayer on the morrow.



The most important thing about him was that I TOTALLY called who he was.


----------



## HAPPY CHEF (Jul 26, 2010)

I thought it was good,really entertaining telly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> The most important thing about him was that I TOTALLY called who he was.


 
And you totally didn't answer my questions.

It must be moriairty if he is bigging himself up as holmes biggest enemy.

Someone came in and turned the tele off while I was resting my eyes so I didn't even get woken up to Dramatic Music. FFS. I was enjoying it as well but had had too much chicken and cider.


----------



## Celt (Jul 26, 2010)

i enjoyed it


----------



## scifisam (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> And you totally didn't answer my questions.
> 
> It must be moriairty if he is bigging himself up as holmes biggest enemy.
> 
> Someone came in and turned the tele off while I was resting my eyes so I didn't even get woken up to Dramatic Music. FFS. I was enjoying it as well but had had too much chicken and cider.


 
Nope, it was Mycroft Holmes.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 26, 2010)

.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 26, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> fucksake:
> http://www.mollyhooper.co.uk/
> http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/
> http://www.connieprince.co.uk/


And then they wonder why there's not enough money to make decent bloody programmes and they have to fill schedules with repeats and loads of crappy reality tv?

I thought they were supposed to be shutting down loads of useless superfluous BBC websites, not creating more of them.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

I quite liked it. Reminded me of the Mentalist. It seemed a bit odd when Watson sat in the chair stage left when he first started getting settled into 221b. I don't know why I picked up on that particularly ... I think I've got some kind of subconcious thing going on that SH is always stage left. Hmmm


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2010)

nice reff to holmes smack habit where it sort of looked like he was belting up for a hit but then the camera revealed he was just on the nicotine patches.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

T & P said:


> I thought it was pretty good. Don't like those flashing words appearing on the screen much, but on the whole it was pretty enjoyable I thought.
> 
> There is a definity hint of Dr Who in Holmes as well.


A _hint_?  It was _totally_ the Dr.  

I enjoyed it.  It was fun.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> nice reff to holmes smack habit where it sort of looked like he was belting up for a hit but then the camera revealed he was just on the nicotine patches.


I thought Holmes was a cocaine man?


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I thought Holmes was a cocaine man?


 
me too...or was it morphine ?


----------



## gsv (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> A _hint_?  It was _totally_ the Dr.
> 
> I enjoyed it.  It was fun.


Cumberbatch was channeling the Doctor - though mostly the classic ones I thought? Freeman was channeling John Simm in Life On Mars.

It was fun !

GS(v)


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

I thought it was interesting to bring out the similarities/parallels between SH and Who, and it was done in a fun way. It certainly felt like Saturday tea-time tv for much of the time.

Probably going to be a while before I prefer Dr Watson to Ms Pond though.


----------



## Corax (Jul 26, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> me too...or was it morphine ?


 
Opium I thought.  Laudenum in fact.

I thought it was good fun.  Some people take television far too seriously.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you people are mental. it was pure trash.


 Don't watch it again then. No-one forcing you


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

cesare said:


> I quite liked it. Reminded me of the Mentalist. It seemed a bit odd when Watson sat in the chair stage left when he first started getting settled into 221b. I don't know why I picked up on that particularly ... I think I've got some kind of subconcious thing going on that SH is always stage left. Hmmm


 
I thought that too. When he sat down I though SH was going to tell him to get out of his chair


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> That'd carry more weight if you posted it when it happened, before we all knew who it was.   You posted it 10 minutes after the end.


 
Oh come on. It _was_ very obvious, after all they'd dropped a load of hints already. I apologise for not posting promptly enough though.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 26, 2010)

I enjoyed it


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Oh come on. It _was_ very obvious, after all they'd dropped a load of hints already. I apologise for not posting promptly enough though.


 
Yeah, it was... Should never feel that Holmes is one step behind you, and I did most of the time in this. Given the source material this was a pretty piss poor attempt at plotting too, no history to it, no depth.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 26, 2010)

I was entertained for the first hour but got bored for the last half hour - once the cabbie had him there it was very slow. I quite liked the words on the screen but then they are good if you're not really concentrating. I quite often watch telly with subtitles on too


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> Don't watch it again then. No-one forcing you


 
nope. i was going to hang on for an episode written by mark gatiss and see if it improves.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm sure we all await your verdict with even greater baited breath.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

Deep joy


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

you miserable people - this thread should support all views


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

You haven't got a 'view', you've got a single tone, one-dimensional, uncharacterised yelp.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

well it might broaden if the show gets better


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

We should be so lucky.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

why are you being so prissy about it?


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Not about me < insert grin>


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

i'm sure the show itself will survive harsh criticism from one idiot on the internet


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Thing is, it was obvious it was the taxi driver from the point that Holmes and Watson stopped the yank in the back, particularly given the 'blend in anywhere/hunting in a crowded area' stuff. So why the fuck did super detective genius Holmes not realise? Plot flaw.


Not really a plot flaw at all.  Holmes isn't infallible.  He gets some things wrong: He didn't consider Harry might be Watson's sister.  He didn't think a woman might still be upset about a dead baby after all those years.  He's not very good at inter-person relationships, empathy.  He described himself as sociopathic, so he will be used to using people as instruments.  To him a taxi driver is therefore more instrumental and unnoticed than for others.  He even dismissed Mrs Hudson's mention of the taxi driver several times before it dawned on him.  (Indeed, he treats Mrs Hudson instrumentally, too).

So he noticed that it was someone he wasn't noticing, but it's not really a plot flaw that he didn't notice who.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really a plot flaw at all.  Holmes isn't infallible.  He gets some things wrong: He didn't consider Harry might be Watson's sister.  He didn't think a woman might still be upset about a dead baby after all those years.  He's not very good at inter-person relationships, empathy.  He described himself as sociopathic, so he will be used to using people as instruments.  To him a taxi driver is therefore more instrumental and unnoticed than for others.  He even dismissed Mrs Hudson's mention of the taxi driver several times before it dawned on him.  (Indeed, he treats Mrs Hudson instrumentally, too).
> 
> So he noticed that it was someone he wasn't noticing, but it's not really a plot flaw that he didn't notice who.



Not so much a plot flaw as a distinct change in tone from the books, in which Holmes NEVER figures something out after the reader.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm sure the show itself will survive harsh criticism from one idiot on the internet


 
I'm sure it will but it's really fucking boring when you're trying to discuss something and someone continually goes, 'Nah, it was shit, nah it was shit, nah it was shit......'

So, you've made your point now stfu 
x


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

I'm not a great aficionado of Who or Holmes and wondered a little about that chase over buildings, up and down fire escapes, lots of no-entry and roadwork signs. I 'got' SH knows every street and even the current state of the street - maybe Moffatt was having a little fun with London traffic - but that seemed like it was more than that, anyone make connections?


----------



## maldwyn (Jul 26, 2010)

Thanks for the naked spoilers guys!


----------



## Griff (Jul 26, 2010)

Really enjoyed it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> I'm sure it will but it's really fucking boring when you're trying to discuss something and someone continually goes, 'Nah, it was shit, nah it was shit, nah it was shit......'
> 
> So, you've made your point now stfu
> x


 it's equally boring when someone gets offended by another point of view. you need a bit of balance on such a creamy thread.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Again, you haven't got a 'view'.

Post constructive criticism by all means, I'd certainly value that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Again, you haven't got a 'view'.


 i really don't understand why people are being so huffy. of course i have a view.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Not so much a plot flaw as a distinct change in tone from the books, in which Holmes NEVER figures something out after the reader.


 
Although he is of course established as having almost laughable gaps in his knowledge- not knowing the Earth goes round the sun for example.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Not so much a plot flaw as a distinct change in tone from the books, in which Holmes NEVER figures something out after the reader.


Ah, I see.  I read some of the books when I was young, and didn't think much of them.  I've always preferred screen interpretation.

One thing I really didn't like at all was the on-screen graphics.  It reminded me of that boy-genius flick directed by Jody Foster.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i really don't understand why people are being so huffy. of course i have a view.


Indeed.  Leave him alone, he's allowed not to like it, and say so.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed.  Leave him alone, he's allowed not to like it, and say so.


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Not so much a plot flaw as a distinct change in tone from the books, in which Holmes NEVER figures something out after the reader.



Yep. Also Holmes may be flawed but he'd never make a mistake as elementary as missing the significance of a cab... Holmes has always had his finger on the real side of London life, people see him as odd because he would give a cabbie the same amount of respect as a chief inspector, or he'd hire a load of kids over consulting the police. He may not always understand people's emotions, but he does understand their motivations, and their value.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

Stigmata said:


> Although he is of course established as having almost laughable gaps in his knowledge- not knowing the Earth goes round the sun for example.



Yes, I was waiting for a new version of that revelation. Some reference to Stephen Hawking or something.


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i really don't understand why people are being so huffy. of course i have a view.


 Do you do _anything_ other than troll?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

T & P said:


> Do you do _anything_ other than troll?


not a troll


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Yes, I was waiting for a new version of that revelation. Some reference to Stephen Hawking or something.


 I was waiting for Watson to say "No shit!" I really, really hope he does this.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

Yes. Orang Utan is the best known troll on the boards



(Have you taken a knock on the head T&P?)

I thought it was a little dull and overblown on a brief watch last night tbh. All a bit hackneyed and with affected showy direction. Par for the course really - it's another BBC drama serial with syndication options already widely considered-  but I must admit i craved something a little less familiar in feel and turned the channel quickly. May give it another try later in the series


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> All a bit hackneyed



Hackney carriaged, surely?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> I thought it was a little dull and overblown on a brief watch last night tbh. All a bit hackneyed and with affected showy direction. Par for the course really - it's another BBC drama serial with syndication options already widely considered-  but I must admit i craved something a little less familiar in feel and turned the channel quickly. May give it another try later in the series


It depends what you're looking for in Sunday night TV, I suppose.  I'm not after gritty realism on a Sunday night.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> I thought that too. When he sat down I though SH was going to tell him to get out of his chair


 
Yes!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

I hope they don't do Hound of the Baskervilles.  That's rubbish.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> It depends what you're looking for in Sunday night TV, I suppose.  I'm not after gritty realism on a Sunday night.


 
True, but equally I'm not sure that I really need a tritely updated Shelock Holmes version feeling like Dr-Who-Merlin-lite either. I probably need to give it more of a go, but it doesn't sing Holmes to me yet. It's another one of those less than amibitious updates of a tale to the modern day, a polite and not particularly surprising retake.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2010)

Being a fan of the ultimate Sherlock, Jeremy Brett, I'm always deeply sceptical of any fiddling about with the books, but this was an enjoyable romp that certainly seemed to regard the original with affection. 

The 'triple nicotine patch problem' was a lovely touch.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

We're getting an institutional message from the BBC that Doctor Who, King Arthur/Merlin, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes are all on a par as figures of British legend.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> We're getting an institutional message from the BBC that Doctor Who, King Arthur/Merlin, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes are all on a par as figures of British legend.


Maybe you are, but I'm not hearing that. What's an "institutional message" btw?


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> We're getting an institutional message from the BBC that Doctor Who, King Arthur/Merlin, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes are all on a par as figures of British legend.


 
You know I was thinking to myself just the other day how those four figures stand out as iconic fictional British heroes. Was trying to figure out what, if anything, they all had in common.


----------



## miss minnie (Jul 26, 2010)

I liked Holmes and Watson but the supporting cast were a bit lacklustre, except for perhaps Una Stubbs.  The police were particularly forgettable.  The Mycroft storyline seemed a bit pointless, perhaps it was just an introduction and it gets going in the next one.  A good deal of the 90 minutes was spent introducing people.

Also liked the use of the location, fair bit of attention to detail, even if their home address isn't quite on the mark - bit of poetic licence is ok though.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

editor said:


> Maybe you are, but I'm not hearing that. What's an "institutional message" btw?


 
Well, first they bring back Doctor Who, and that's successful so they look around for something similar to try to repeat the trick (i.e. popular entertainment drama), and come up with Robin Hood. Merlin next, and now Holmes, but a 'new' version of him, like there are always new versions of legendary figures. 

I'm not saying anyone in the BBC has sat down and thought 'Who, Hood, Merlin and Holmes are all now figures of British mythology', but I think there is a similarity in the way that these characters are all established in our imagination, and can be re-invented within certain limits. The US equivalents would be Batman and Superman, the Musketeers for the French, and so on. I think it's interesting that two of these are 'artificial' characters, while two are more traditional figures of folk tales, but they have all reached a kind of equivalency on the BBC.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Not really a plot flaw at all.  Holmes isn't infallible.  He gets some things wrong: He didn't consider Harry might be Watson's sister.  He didn't think a woman might still be upset about a dead baby after all those years.  He's not very good at inter-person relationships, empathy.  He described himself as sociopathic, so he will be used to using people as instruments.  To him a taxi driver is therefore more instrumental and unnoticed than for others.  He even dismissed Mrs Hudson's mention of the taxi driver several times before it dawned on him.  (Indeed, he treats Mrs Hudson instrumentally, too).
> 
> So he noticed that it was someone he wasn't noticing, but it's not really a plot flaw that he didn't notice who.



But he's supposed to be the world's greatest detective. Poor social skills, fair enough. Failing to notice some quite obvious clues, not so good.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

tarannau said:


> True, but equally I'm not sure that I really need a tritely updated Shelock Holmes version feeling like Dr-Who-Merlin-lite either. I probably need to give it more of a go, but it doesn't sing Holmes to me yet. It's another one of those less than amibitious updates of a tale to the modern day, a polite and not particularly surprising retake.


The Basil Rathbone films were set in the 40s, and made in the 40s.  They were modern day at the time.  So there's nothing unHolmsian about that.   The updating didn't seem trite, to me, either.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

Stigmata said:


> You know I was thinking to myself just the other day how those four figures stand out as iconic fictional British heroes. Was trying to figure out what, if anything, they all had in common.



Robin Hood and Arthur are both, in their own way, republican figures. This sounds contradictory, given that one of them is actually a King, but Arthur is democratic in some ways (the Round Table symbolises this) and perhaps more importantly in many versions he agrees that the law against adultery must be applied to Guinevere and Lancelot as it would to anyone else. He doesn't allow himself to ignore the law to suit his own ends.

Robin Hood taking it like a bitch from Richard I is counter to the spirit of the legends. I loved it in Robin of Sherwood that Richard turns out to be as much of a dick as Prince John.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

I wonder if people are overthinking this a tad


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> But he's supposed to be the world's greatest detective. Poor social skills, fair enough. Failing to notice some quite obvious clues, not so good.


Doesn't bother me in the least.  At least the clues made sense, unlike Morse, which I also liked.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> I wonder if people are overthinking this a tad


I look forward to the thread on the new series of Doc Martin.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Robin Hood and Arthur are both, in their own way, republican figures. This sounds contradictory, given that one of them is actually a King, but Arthur is democratic in some ways (the Round Table symbolises this) and perhaps more importantly in many versions he agrees that the law against adultery must be applied to Guinevere and Lancelot as it would to anyone else. He doesn't allow himself to ignore the law to suit his own ends.
> 
> Robin Hood taking it like a bitch from Richard I is counter to the spirit of the legends. I loved it in Robin of Sherwood that Richard turns out to be as much of a dick as Prince John.


 I watched a programme yesterday that suggested the round table was representative of the fort that he was based at - namely the Roman amphitheatre at Chester.


----------



## madzone (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I look forward to the thread on the new series of Doc Martin.


 I don't think I ever suggested that Doc Martin was on a par with King Arthur


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> I don't think I ever suggested that Doc Martin was on a par with King Arthur


No, I'm not suggesting that either.  But he's a bloody good GP.


----------



## cesare (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Doesn't bother me in the least.  At least the clues made sense, unlike Morse, which I also liked.



I miss Morse


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

-- --- .-. ... . / .-- .- ... / .- / .--. ..- ... ... -.--


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> -- --- .-. ... . / .-- .- ... / .- / .--. ..- ... ... -.--


..- .--.   -.-- --- ..- .-. ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Doesn't bother me in the least.  At least the clues made sense, unlike Morse, which I also liked.


 
It made my shit itch.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It made my shit itch.


Is that a real expression?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Is that a real expression?


 
It is. Means the same as 'got on my tits'.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> ..- .--.   -.-- --- ..- .-. ...


 
Couldn't be bothered to find the translator again.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It is. Means the same as 'got on my tits'.


Morse did?   I loved it.  Utter nonsense, of course, but I don't need my detective programmes to be realistic.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Couldn't be bothered to find the translator again.


I said "Thank you for your views, sir".


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Couldn't be bothered to find the translator again.


I said "Thank you for your views, sir".


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Twice.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

I like the 'institutional' idea but you should flesh it out - oh you have, got behind in the thread.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Morse did?   I loved it.  Utter nonsense, of course, but I don't need my detective programmes to be realistic.


 
No no, Sherlock. Although I was a bit meh about Morse too. Just a bit too twee at times.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

What's the reasoning for talking about Morse, Morse is SH's bastard son?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

I liked Banacek.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

Morse - like a lot of similar detectives - is caught between two stools. It's not pure deductive detecting, and it's not police procedural. He just arses about for 1 hour 40 minutes until a blatant clue comes along, or Lewis does some proper police work like analysing evidence.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

Plus it was all quite posh. Cracker was better.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

221B Tom Baker Street.

I just thought of that.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Every detective in fiction has a unique characteristic otherwise there's no point. Usually a flaw or several - gives them depth donchaknow, adds a little human interest to the plotting. I tend to find the closer you look the less detection there is and the more human interest there is. Like a Cornish Pasty mostly full of potato.

Could be an early lunch.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> 221B Tom Baker Street.
> 
> I just thought of that.


 
How about Doctor . . . . Watson!!1!


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

But a great detective story will unite detecting and character seamlessly, like a great song matches its lyrics and music. Columbo's character and his methods are inseparable.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

I don't disagree.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Plus it was all quite posh. Cracker was better.


Not really like with like.  Morse is great for Sunday evenings.  Cracker was more of a mid-week thing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> What's the reasoning for talking about Morse, Morse is SH's bastard son?


I think it came up because we were discussing what was required of a Sunday evening programme.  The clues in Morse were nonsense, I think I pointed out when someone opined that Sherlock was supposed to be a great detective but missed the taxi driver clues.  My view is that these things are not important in whether it is an enjoyable programme.  At least the clues in Sherlock made sense.


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 26, 2010)

I reckon people would have been slower to figure it out if there hadn't been IRL stories of dodgy cabbies preying on their passengers in recent months.


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

Stigmata said:


> I reckon people would have been slower to figure it out if there hadn't been IRL stories of dodgy cabbies preying on their passengers in recent months.


 
I think it was more the heavy-handed direction that kept putting shots of cabs driving past. They'd probably hired a dozen of them for the day, and goddammit, they were going to use them.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 26, 2010)

I really enjoyed this. Definitely what I want out of Sunday night telly.

My only complaint was that Watson seemed very nimble when he was running around Soho, considering he normally walks with a stick.




danny la rouge said:


> I was waiting for Watson to say "No shit!" I really, really hope he does this.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Maggot said:


> I really enjoyed this. Definitely what I want out of Sunday night telly.
> 
> My only complaint was that Watson seemed very nimble when he was running around Soho, considering he normally walks with a stick.


It was psychosomatic.  The excitement cured it.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 26, 2010)

I don't like it. When Holmes is deducing or deducting or whatever it was really rambling and unintelligible.


----------



## Boycey (Jul 26, 2010)

big thumbs up from me, holmes is one of those characters that i like when i see but have never really gotten into. like the modern day interpretation and immediately thought of the princess bride when the cabbie brought out the 2 pills (though there were obvious big differences it was a similar situation), kinda disappointed when he didn't use the word inconcievable.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Wikipedia is up and running on the show.


I feel I should have known the restaurant owner . . .


----------



## kittyP (Jul 26, 2010)

Boycey said:


> big thumbs up from me, holmes is one of those characters that i like when i see but have never really gotten into. like the modern day interpretation and immediately thought of the princess bride when the cabbie brought out the 2 pills (though there were obvious big differences it was a similar situation), kinda disappointed when he didn't use the word inconcievable.


 
Yeah. I was kinda hoping that they would analyze the pills and the cabbie would have built up an immunity to the pills.
I wanna know how he did it?

Still, thoroughly enjoyed it!!!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jul 26, 2010)

Boycey said:


> big thumbs up from me, holmes is one of those characters that i like when i see but have never really gotten into. like the modern day interpretation and immediately thought of the princess bride when the cabbie brought out the 2 pills (though there were obvious big differences it was a similar situation), kinda disappointed when he didn't use the word inconcievable.


 
Inconceivable? Was that his catch-phrase?

Elementary is the one everybody thinks of, but it wasn't actually in the books. The game's afoot was though, and I think they used that last night.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 26, 2010)

Princess Bride


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Wikipedia is up and running on the show.


I see there's only 3 episodes.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 26, 2010)

Another thing that struck me was they devised this show on the train between BBC meetings at TV Centre and Cardiff (obviously while writing Dr Who) - so the raining in Cardiff thing and the journey time were a bit of self referencing. Not exactly vital but the minutia is all part of it


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co.uk/

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2010)

madzone said:


> I wonder if people are overthinking this a tad


one person certainly is!


----------



## Maidmarian (Jul 26, 2010)

Sure, it was flawed, but we really enjoyed it.


----------



## kittyP (Jul 26, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Inconceivable? Was that his catch-phrase?
> 
> Elementary is the one everybody thinks of, but it wasn't actually in the books. The game's afoot was though, and I think they used that last night.


 
Inconceivable was what the man in the princess bride said over and over again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I thought Holmes was a cocaine man?


 
I can't recall now, but he injected regardless as I do recall.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 26, 2010)

Opium man was Holmes


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't recall now, but he injected regardless as I do recall.


According to Wiki, he injected cocaine. That was his main thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Use_of_drugs

It also suggests he did say "Elementary" in the books, but not "Elementary, my dear Watson".


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Opium man was Holmes


 
Nah, disapproved of opium (although used morphine from time to time), main poison was 7% cocaine solution - opium wouldn't be his style, he uses cocaine for stimulus, which opium is er... not great for. 

Don't think he'd have any truck with nicotine patches either personally.


----------



## Badgers (Jul 26, 2010)

Did he do meph?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Did he do meph?


No.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> It was psychosomatic.  The excitement cured it.


 
The excitement cured his limp....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> The excitement cured his limp....


Yes, for it had been psychosomatic.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 26, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm not a great aficionado of Who or Holmes and wondered a little about that chase over buildings, up and down fire escapes, lots of no-entry and roadwork signs. I 'got' SH knows every street and even the current state of the street - maybe Moffatt was having a little fun with London traffic - but that seemed like it was more than that, anyone make connections?


I just saw that as a device to emphasise it was set in the modern day by throwing in a parkour-style chase scene and have a bit of fun and creativity filming an action sequence.  I didn't see any greater significance or make any other connections.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 26, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I was waiting for Watson to say "No shit!" I really, really hope he does this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I can't recall now, but he injected regardless as I do recall.



Yup, coke. A 7% solution.


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 26, 2010)

That was surprising good. 
Didn't know Gary McKinnon was acting.

And The game is *afoot* 

When restaurant owner turn up with walking stick see him head on is that Bill Bailey or someone looks like him.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 26, 2010)

Just watched it this evening and really enjoyed it. Benedict Cumberlandsausage and Martin Freemen make a good pairing, thought Phil Davis was excellently creepy and liked all the stuff based on the book, like the mobile phone section. Good Sunday evening entertainment.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 26, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I'm not a great aficionado of Who or Holmes and wondered a little about that chase over buildings, up and down fire escapes, lots of no-entry and roadwork signs. I 'got' SH knows every street and even the current state of the street - maybe Moffatt was having a little fun with London traffic - but that seemed like it was more than that, anyone make connections?


 
I recall a chase scene like that in one of the stories, possibly even A Study in Scarlet, though it wasn't in as much detail.


----------



## Limejuice (Jul 26, 2010)

8/10

Liked it.

Good writing and acting.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 26, 2010)

That Science of Deduction site has the answer to the 'green ladder' text.   (Yes, I've just visited it for the first time. )


----------



## Cid (Jul 26, 2010)

To restate my previous views, now that I've had a few bevvies.

I'm in agreement with the Cumberbatch/Freeman pairing... Freeman especially, his back story works very well as a modern rework of Watson and his acting fits the character. Cumberbatch is perhaps a little nervous of the role, and also I think a little hampered by the scripting and direction - he does fit into the who/hood/merlin vein too much for my liking, flawed but not troubled I suppose. Look at Brett and you see a man always on edge, desperate and aware of it... 

My major criticism of this so far is the scripting and directing... I like the nods to _a study in scarlet_ (or ASS), but you can't get by on those alone. First of all the direction; as has been pointed out the taxi point was extremely laboured, the action perhaps too forced and Cumberbatch not really given time to show troubled Holmes/thinking Holmes etc. Then the scripting, it was just _basic_, no real surprises, no elaborate back story set in a dark world of religion, passion and abuse. ASS also has its false leads; convincing false leads at that. Of course the murderer in ASS is also the cabbie, but Holmes realises, that is precisely the kind of detail he picks up on... There is also motivation on the part of the killer in ASS, revenge for extreme cruelty - in this there is just a bitter man. 

Overall it had potential but just missed on being a real piece of Holmsian fiction, I hope the other episodes work better.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Jul 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> That Science of Deduction site has the answer to the 'green ladder' text.   (Yes, I've just visited it for the first time. )



And a new problem

'Dearest Sherlock

A Roman Emperor will help you work out what this means.

DSPCWZNV T LX HLENSTYR JZF

xx'

Which is easy to figure out...


http://www.simonsingh.net/The_Black_Chamber/caesar.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 26, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Well, it does sound like he needs some help
> 
> Yeah, definitely thought similar.


Not so new


----------



## feyr (Jul 26, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Not so new


 
scifisam and i already posted the answer up yesterday


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2010)

DexterTCN said:


> That Science of Deduction site has the answer to the 'green ladder' text.   (Yes, I've just visited it for the first time. )


 
hmm, no crime committed there tho. so no reason to arrest the brother even if he had a green ladder. not even in the 1890's

anyways, just watched it, enjoyable tosh with some nice one liners and little twists. I liked how SH ensured Mrs Hudsons husband got executed, clearly no liberal do gooder he!

Agree with most others on the annoyingness of the on-screen pop ups, but I'm fairly sure SH does miss stuff that is fairly obvious with the benefit of hindsight in the books, and the cabbie thing was only obvious because it was also in the beebs last big detective type drama. That and all the clues from the direction.


----------



## Corax (Jul 27, 2010)

dlx1 said:


> When restaurant owner turn up with walking stick see him head on is that Bill Bailey or someone looks like him.


 
Neither.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 27, 2010)

ivebeenhigh said:


> And a new problem
> 
> 'Dearest Sherlock
> 
> ...


Yes, it's



Spoiler: this



laxkehvd b tf ptmvabgz rhn


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Jul 27, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, it's
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no its



Spoiler: this



wlivpsgo m eq aexglmrk csy


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 28, 2010)

i thought this wasn't bad given it's trying to 'reimagine' timeless characters, thank god mark gatiss didn't turn out to be moriarty.


----------



## madzone (Jul 28, 2010)

Who _is_ going to be Moriarty?


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 28, 2010)

no doubt someone with quite a craggy and angular face.

i deduce


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 28, 2010)

Just watched it (had recorded it). Thoroughly well done to all concerned. Will await next episode eagerly, and hope more than three are made.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2010)

why do people only think three are going to be made? isn't it a whole season?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 28, 2010)

oh: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t4pgh


----------



## strung out (Jul 28, 2010)

nope


----------



## alfajobrob (Jul 28, 2010)

No Shit Sherlock!!!


----------



## Termite Man (Jul 29, 2010)

with that drug thing the bloke was saying it wasn't a 50/50 chance of picking the poison because he could read people . Now surely this would only work if the people tried to read him , if they just picked randomly then it reverts back to a 50/50 chance of getting the poison doesn't it ?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Jul 29, 2010)

Termite Man said:


> with that drug thing the bloke was saying it wasn't a 50/50 chance of picking the poison because he could read people . Now surely this would only work if the people tried to read him , if they just picked randomly then it reverts back to a 50/50 chance of getting the poison doesn't it ?



Reading people for which vial they thought contained the poison would inform his patter.


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 29, 2010)

it's 50/50 if the person can choose.


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

They never choose randomly. He's already got inside their heads and knows which they will 'randomly' choose.


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 29, 2010)

I wonder if they called him Benny Bumcatcher at school.


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 29, 2010)

madzone said:


> Who _is_ going to be Moriarty?


 
Eddie Izzard


----------



## Badgers (Jul 29, 2010)

madzone said:


> Who _is_ going to be Moriarty?


 
Mel Gibson


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 29, 2010)

madzone said:


> Who _is_ going to be Moriarty?


John Simm.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 29, 2010)

It should be Ken Stott who would also make a good regenerated Master played understated and malevolent as a good contrast to Simms. They have pushed the insanity angle too far and need to bring the Master back to a dark and manipulative genius.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 29, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It should be Ken Stott who would also make a good regenerated Master played understated and malevolent as a good contrast to Simms. They have pushed the insanity angle too far and need to bring the Master back to a dark and manipulative genius.


Ken Stott fof Master.  Cool idea.  He'd be great.  He'd need to be scruffy, though.  If you wanted a  manicured Master, how about Hugh Lawrie?  I reckon he could do dapper, posh malevolence.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 29, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> It should be Ken Stott who would also make a good regenerated Master played understated and malevolent as a good contrast to Simms. They have pushed the insanity angle too far and need to bring the Master back to a dark and manipulative genius.


 
This would be good. Also I have a bit of a crush on Ken Stott and as he is closer to my age than John Simm I feel fancying him would be more seemly.


----------



## kittyP (Jul 29, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> i thought this wasn't bad given it's trying to 'reimagine' timeless characters, thank god mark gatiss didn't turn out to be moriarty.


 
I think he is Motiarty.  
Sherlock just doesn't know yet.


----------



## madzone (Jul 29, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> This would be good. Also I have a bit of a crush on Ken Stott and as he is closer to my age than John Simm I feel fancying him would be more seemly.


 
God, me too.Though Simms age doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 29, 2010)

kittyP said:


> I think he is Motiarty.
> Sherlock just doesn't know yet.


 
all credibility would be lost in that case.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what is good sunday night telly? ludicrous over-acting, poorly written and with unnecessarily flashy photography?


 
as usual, you are wrong


----------



## nicksonic (Jul 30, 2010)

i much prefer 'heartbeat'


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 30, 2010)

It was the best thing i've seen on telly for a while. a class act, especially with those two actors. Loved the way they did the phone texting and also the text on the things Sherlock spotted.

About 400 times better than the wankpile that is Dr Who


----------



## madzone (Jul 30, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> i much prefer 'heartbeat'


 
Consider yourself dumped


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> About 400 times better than the wankpile that is Dr Who


Don't be daft.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2010)

it felt very Who to me- probably the familiarity of the writing and direction. Plus of course it is the classic madcap genius and mr. exposition sidekick thing.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 30, 2010)

Starts fantasizing about a Sherlock/Dr Who crossover


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> it felt very Who to me- probably the familiarity of the writing and direction. Plus of course it is the classic madcap genius and mr. exposition sidekick thing.


It was very Who.  And Sherlock was played exactly like the Doctor.  In this case his otherness wasn't being from Gallifray, but being a sociopath.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 30, 2010)

haven't read the whole thread   - but enjoyed the show (I may have already said this) agree on the Dr Who similarity - has anyone said that Sherlock would make a great Dr Who? I can't see the current Who being a great Sherlock though


----------



## madzone (Jul 30, 2010)

He'd be a better Dr Who than the current bellend.


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 30, 2010)

i think its different from Dr Who in the way that Dr Who is for children and Sherlock is for adults


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2010)

He is a bit Paul Mgann for the doctor- and people hated mganns Who


----------



## maximilian ping (Jul 30, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> i think its different from Dr Who in the way that Dr Who is for children and Sherlock is for adults


 
Ironically i could understand the plot of Sherlock but Dr Who always left me very confused


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

maximilian ping said:


> i think its different from Dr Who in the way that Dr Who is for children and Sherlock is for adults


You think?  I think the strength of Dr Who is that it's for families, in other words adults _and_ children.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

madzone said:


> He'd be a better Dr Who than the current bellend.


 I like the current bellend.  In fact, I think the current bellend is my favourite Doctor.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> You think?  I think the strength of Dr Who is that it's for families, in other words adults _and_ children.



is it? everytime i switch over to it, i switch back almost immediately cos it's clearly not aimed at me.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> is it? everytime i switch over to it, i switch back almost immediately cos it's clearly not aimed at me.


No, it isn't.  So, I dunno, go and knit some techno or something.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

it may be family viewing, but it isn't adult viewing. you watch it cos you have kids. no childless adult has any business watching it


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it may be family viewing, but it isn't adult viewing. you watch it cos you have kids. no childless adult has any business watching it


Unless they like being entertained on a Saturday evening.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 30, 2010)

or of course if one enjoys science fiction. It has been shown again and again that genre fiction is better than anything else ever. By Scientists


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> or of course if one enjoys science fiction. It has been shown again and again that genre fiction is better than anything else ever. By Scientists


I love genres, me.


----------



## madzone (Jul 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> It was very Who.  And Sherlock was played exactly like the Doctor.  In this case his otherness wasn't being from Gallifray, but being a sociopath.


 
I'm quite sexually drawn to sociopaths. Conceptually, of course.


----------



## madzone (Jul 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> I love genres, me.


 
As much as oeuvres?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

madzone said:


> As much as oeuvres?


I fid that une oeuvre is enough.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

danny la rouge said:


> Unless they like being entertained on a Saturday evening.


 
well there's harry hill for that, or switching off the telly and going out cos there's no bairns to stop you


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 30, 2010)

"Next" .....


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> well there's harry hill for that, or switching off the telly and going out cos there's no bairns to stop you


Going out.  Yes you should definitely do that.  Start now in fact.


----------



## Corax (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> well there's harry hill for that


 
WTF.  So Harry Hill is now more entertaining than Dr Who...

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but - you're an idiot.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

Corax said:


> WTF.  So Harry Hill is now more entertaining than Dr Who...
> 
> I mean this in the nicest possible way, but - you're an idiot.


fuck yeah! t'is t'other way round, i'm afraid.


----------



## Corax (Jul 30, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck yeah! t'is t'other way round, i'm afraid.


 
In the nastiest possible way, I'm a genius?

Kewl.  I should be Moriarty.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 30, 2010)

harry hill should be moriarty. or the next doctor.


----------



## madzone (Jul 30, 2010)

He's not wacky enough to be the doctor


----------



## madzone (Aug 1, 2010)

Ooooh - bump for tonight 

I hope my mum fucks off before it starts


----------



## Stigmata (Aug 1, 2010)

I like Harry Hill AND Doctor Who AND Sherlock. I think I must be quite easy-going.


----------



## fogbat (Aug 1, 2010)

Stigmata said:


> I like Harry Hill AND Doctor Who AND Sherlock. I think I must be quite easy-going.


 
That isn't allowed, sorry.

I'm afraid you must make vague, unspecified criticisms of at least one of them. Have them on my desk by the end of the day.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2010)

Harry Hill is textbook wacky but whenever I see him do his funny eyebrow wiggle it cuts past my cynic heart and straight to the lol bone


----------



## madzone (Aug 1, 2010)

I'm going to get to watch this on my own 

Middle boy is away now for two weeks and small boys is going to a friends for a sleepover. Result!


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 1, 2010)

on early


----------



## madzone (Aug 1, 2010)

BUNCH OF CUNTS!!!!!! What have they done that for??? 

And my fucking sky box is on the blink and isn't recording anything.

CUNTS!


eta - it's ok - it's on BBC HD at 9.30.

Phew!


----------



## barney_pig (Aug 1, 2010)

still giggling over the case of the Jared Diamond gag.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Aug 1, 2010)

The book code was Valley of Fear, of course. It was Whitaker's Almanac then.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

that was such bollocks.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 1, 2010)

That was shit


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 1, 2010)

A touch of the wily and inscrutable oriental to that one. Was Ok though, more Holmesian than last week.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2010)

good fun though. Especially the nit where watson ended up on a charge but then the writers forgot about it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> that was such bollocks.



yup. I'm a super secret evil criminal organisation, I communicate with my henchmen in strategically placed graffiti codes. Wank.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

i promised to give it a second chance as the first episode is always going to struggle telling a decent story after setting up all the characters.

won't be bothering next week.


----------



## yardbird (Aug 1, 2010)

It was Sunday jollies - nought wrong with that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> i promised to give it a second chance as the first episode is always going to struggle telling a decent story after setting up all the characters.
> 
> won't be bothering next week.


 
aye fuck that
borderline racist as well
really badly written to - 'she has resigned her job' - fuck off!


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

yardbird said:


> It was Sunday jollies - nought wrong with that.


 
This ^.......

bit of easy light entertaiment !


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

does light entertainment have to be awfully written & dreadfully acted? that's letting it off the hook.


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Aug 1, 2010)

last week was better than this week.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> does light entertainment have to be awfully written & dreadfully acted? that's letting it off the hook.


 
No it doesn't, as demonstrated by this weeks installment.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> does light entertainment have to be awfully written & dreadfully acted? that's letting it off the hook.


 
that's only in your opinion


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

well yeah, obviously.

how does light entertainment differ from any other kind of entertainment then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

it is, however the correct opinion. if this is quality weekend television, i obviously haven't missed much in the past few years. weekend telly has always been shit come to think of it. they should bring back just amazing. barry sheene rip.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> well yeah, obviously.
> 
> how does light entertainment differ from any other kind of entertainment then?


 
no i meant it's only badly written and acted in your opinion


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 1, 2010)

What was I thinking of expecting anything worth watching on BBC1 ?


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> no i meant it's only badly written and acted in your opinion


 
why mention it's light entertainment then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> no i meant it's only badly written and acted in your opinion


 
no, it is. it really is. 'resigned her job'? what the fuck?


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> why mention it's light entertainment then?





I meant it was easy to watch i didn't mention anything about being badly written or acted..........


----------



## T & P (Aug 1, 2010)

Gosh they are are some bitter cynics about... 

Given that it is surely better than 95% of all entertainment broadcast on any channel at any time, I guess critics of it simply do not watch entertainment programmes at all, since it is a certainty they won't like any, period. Thank fuck for BBC4 eh?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

you have shit taste then!


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you have shit taste then!


 
and if we all had the same taste there'd be nothing to talk about much would there ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

T & P said:


> Gosh they are are some bitter cynics about...
> 
> Given that it is surely better than 95% of all entertainment broadcast on any channel at any time, I guess critics of it simply do not watch entertainment programmes at all, since it is a certainty they won't like any, period. Thank fuck for BBC4 eh?


fuck yeah - bbc4's output is excellent compared to bbc1
and there's nothing bitter or cynical about reacting honestly to this shit


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> and if we all had the same taste there'd be nothing to talk about much would there ?


 
for sure - which is why it's fun to discuss these things online


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2010)

These are the same people who watch Doctor Who with a disgusted expression on thier sour, lemon-twisted faces.

Ignore them MentalChik. We know what is good, leave them to wanking over french obscure crime thrillers and korean cinema that real people don't give a flying fuck bout!


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> I meant it was easy to watch i didn't mention anything about being badly written or acted..........


no, but you said it in response to a few people saying it was rubbish - as if it being light entertainment excused it's shortcomings.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> These are the same people who watch Doctor Who with a disgusted expression on thier sour, lemon-twisted faces.
> 
> Ignore them MentalChik. We know what is good, leave them to wanking over french obscure crime thrillers and korean cinema that real people don't give a flying fuck bout!


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

killer b said:


> no, but you said it in response to a few people saying it was rubbish - as if it being light entertainment excused it's shortcomings.


 
well and as i've just explained that's not what i meant......

jeebus guys lighten up !


----------



## Cid (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> This ^.......
> 
> bit of easy light entertaiment !


 
But this is Holmes. Holmes should not be light entertainment. Anyway I'm getting fucking pissed off with that excuse, seems to be pretty much the BBCs only drama output 'oh it's just monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday' light entertainment. Give me something that makes me wonder what the fuck is going on, that keeps me guessing until the last minute. 

Having said that have only just started watching so will give it a chance.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 1, 2010)

Is the Actor who plays Watson, the same one who played that copper who went back in time to the 70s ?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 1, 2010)

I fear whodunit may not be Moffatt's forte. 

Also, while 90 mins. worked for the intro episode, there wasn't 90 mins. in tonight's effort. Poor, and resorting to introducing a bit of skirt didn't paper over the cracks.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

Cid said:


> But this is Holmes. Holmes should not be light entertainment. Anyway I'm getting fucking pissed off with that excuse, seems to be pretty much the BBCs only drama output 'oh it's just monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday' light entertainment. Give me something that makes me wonder what the fuck is going on, that keeps me guessing until the last minute.
> 
> Having said that have only just started watching so will give it a chance.



Actually Jeremy Brett is my favourite Holmes............


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Is the Actor who plays Watson, the same one who played that copper who went back in time to the 70s ?


no
martin freeman played him. very badly indeed.


----------



## T & P (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck yeah - bbc4's output is excellent compared to bbc1


 Of course. But there is life after factual programmes. Sometimes, just sometimes, people might like to be entertained by their TV in the form of a light fictional tale.

If it was on another channel and made by different people few would bother the urge to rubbish it. But this series has the problem of being talked about widely, produced by the man behind Dr Who, and being shown on BBC1. And god forbid we should even consider such populist vehicle could ever be anythong other than shit. Oh no sir!


----------



## vokey (Aug 1, 2010)

I personally wanted this adaptation to tread the fine line between Sherlock Homo and Raffles the Gentleman Thug from Viz.  Unfortunately, it didn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> Actually Jeremy Brett is my favourite Holmes............


 
aye, this version doesn't hold a candle to brett's sherlock. sherlock holmes is serious business.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 1, 2010)

It reminds me a bit of that attempt to make a British "Law and Order" ...


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> aye, this version doesn't hold a candle to brett's sherlock. sherlock holmes is serious business.


 
And Brett had to compete with the pictures in my head from reading the stories ...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

T & P said:


> Of course. But there is life after factual programmes. Sometimes, just sometimes, people might like to be entertained by their TV in the form of a light fictional tale.
> 
> If it was on another channel and made by different people few would bother the urge to rubbish it. But this series has the problem of being talked about widely, produced by the man behind Dr Who, and being shown on BBC1. And god forbid we should even consider such populist vehicle could ever be anythong other than shit. Oh no sir!


bbc4 isn't all documentaries you know.
anyway, that's beside the point. i'm not down on populist entertainment, i'm just down on shite populist entertainment.


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> anyway, that's beside the point. i'm not down on populist entertainment, i'm just down on shite populist entertainment.


 
quite.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> bbc4 isn't all documentaries you know.
> anyway, that's beside the point. i'm not down on populist entertainment, i'm just down on shite populist entertainment.


 
shite populist entertainment _in your personal opinion_


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> shite populist entertainment _in your personal opinion_


 
pointless pointing that out really. but you are wrong.


----------



## Bajie (Aug 1, 2010)

Hmm, well, there have been lots of interpretations of Holmes over the years and Holmes in the modern age is an interesting concept, but contrasted to Jeremy Brett as Holmes there is no comparasion at all though it is entertaining in it's own way but will never be a classic.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

it was a bit racial too


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> pointless pointing that out really. but you are wrong.


 
Look for instance i don't watch any of the soaps......makes me very weird in the eyes of people at work and my mum and sister but i don't go around telling them they have shit taste and are wrong to enjoy it.......

anyhoo light doesn't = shite and sometimes you just want to watch something not so challenging and this, imo was very watchable and that's about it really !


----------



## yardbird (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> bbc4 isn't all documentaries you know.
> anyway, that's beside the point. i'm not down on populist entertainment, i'm just down on shite populist entertainment.


 
BBC4 has Wallander - now that's class. Is it populist though?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Aug 1, 2010)

T & P said:


> Of course. But there is life after factual programmes. Sometimes, just sometimes, people might like to be entertained by their TV in the form of a light fictional tale.
> 
> If it was on another channel and made by different people few would bother the urge to rubbish it. But this series has the problem of being talked about widely, produced by the man behind Dr Who, and being shown on BBC1. And god forbid we should even consider such populist vehicle could ever be anythong other than shit. Oh no sir!


 
Right, I like Dr.Who - not a massive amount but at least a bit. This was shit not because it was light entertainment, but because it was shit. Dr.Who can get away with fairly contrived storylines because it's sci-fi. But the main plot for tonight's episode of Sherlock was stupid. They've set them up as real detectives in a real place, you can't then have your main plot device as some ancient chinese gang with loads of lazy ethnic stereotype characters, mispronouncing their Ls, and pretending (badly) to not speak good english ("I give you vital clue, Mr.Sherlock, love you long time!"), which communicates via cryptic graffiti randomly strewn across london, when everybody else has a computer and a fucking blackberry, mostly comprised of circus performers, just so sherlock can do some really clever deductions and make all the regular police look silly (chortle, chortle, poor unobservant bobby hasn't noticed that he's left-handed).


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

yardbird said:


> BBC4 has Wallander - now that's class. Is it populist though?


 
i dunno - i saw that english one with k-bran and it was mediocre. i don't like using terms like populist. all that matters is quality.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> Look for instance i don't watch any of the soaps......makes me very weird in the eyes of people at work and my mum and sister but i don't go around telling them they have shit taste and are wrong to enjoy it.......
> 
> anyhoo light doesn't = shite and sometimes you just want to watch something not so challenging and this, imo was very watchable and that's about it really !


i never said light = shite
 you should have fun discussing these things at work - go and disagree with them - you might have fun!


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

yardbird said:


> BBC4 has Wallander - now that's class. Is it populist though?


 
I've watched quite a few of those......would say probably not that populist especially with the subtitles.........

i liked the episodes i've seen !


----------



## yardbird (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i dunno - i saw that english one with k-bran and it was mediocre. i don't like using terms like populist. all that matters is quality.


 
No no not the English one - the Swedish one. High quality

I forget I'm reading subtitles after a few minutes.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you should have fun discussing these things at work - go and disagree with them - you might have fun!


 
Nope, not a good idea at all....i have a list of things i now don't get involved with discussing......


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

yardbird said:


> No no not the English one - the Swedish one. High quality
> 
> I forget I'm reading subtitles after a few minutes.



ooh, haven't seen that. mind you the only detective telly i've ever like was the agatha christie ones from the 80/90s and brett and hardwicke


----------



## Bajie (Aug 1, 2010)

Lo Siento. said:


> Right, I like Dr.Who - not a massive amount but at least a bit. This was shit not because it was light entertainment, but because it was shit. Dr.Who can get away with fairly contrived storylines because it's sci-fi. But the main plot for tonight's episode of Sherlock was stupid. They've set them up as real detectives in a real place, you can't then have your main plot device as some ancient chinese gang with loads of lazy ethnic stereotype characters, mispronouncing their Ls, and pretending (badly) to not speak good english ("I give you vital clue, Mr.Sherlock, love you long time!"), which communicates via cryptic graffiti randomly strewn across london, when everybody else has a computer and a fucking blackberry, mostly comprised of circus performers, just so sherlock can do some really clever deductions and make all the regular police look silly (chortle, chortle, poor unobservant bobby hasn't noticed that he's left-handed).


 
Yer pretty much agree, there is so much material in the Holmes stories that can be transplanted into a modern setting with the minimum of changes to the storyline that there was no need for all that guff and it is a shame really that this approach was taken as it would be interesting to see the Holmes stories in a contemporary setting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> Nope, not a good idea at all....i have a list of things i now don't get involved with discussing......


 
oh come on, it's hardly religion and politics


----------



## Cid (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> ooh, haven't seen that. mind you the only detective telly i've ever like was the agatha christie ones from the 80/90s and brett and hardwicke


 
It's good, well worth a watch... kind of flat, naturalistic style in the cinematography, stories are twisty, in-depth... They can be almost overblown, but the acting and characterisation manages to keep them realistic.


----------



## Cid (Aug 1, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't like using terms like populist. all that matters is quality.


 
Yep, don't know what kind of viewing figures Brett attracted, but I imagine they were pretty 'populist' - they commissioned most (all?) of the stories after all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Yer pretty much agree, there is so much material in the Holmes stories that can be transplanted into a modern setting with the minimum of changes to the storyline that there was no need for all that guff and it is a shame really that this approach was taken as it would be interesting to see the Holmes stories in a contemporary setting.


 true true true - there are so many much more adaptable stories. it was an odd choice of story to adapt. the red headed league and the man with the twisted lip would be adaptable to the 21st century, but something like a scandal in bohemia would be impossible or at least ill-advised.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 1, 2010)

Cid said:


> Yep, don't know what kind of viewing figures Brett attracted, but I imagine they were pretty 'populist' - they commissioned most (all?) of the stories after all.


 
it was on itv and it went on for 10 years, so i imagine it was pretty popular!


----------



## tim (Aug 2, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Hmm, well, there have been lots of interpretations of Holmes over the years and Holmes in the modern age is an interesting concept, but contrasted to Jeremy Brett as Holmes there is no comparasion at all though it is entertaining in it's own way but will never be a classic.



There is of course an alternative modern rendering "House" of which I've only ever seen one episode. Does Hugh Laurie play a more authentic Holmes than Cumberbatch?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 2, 2010)

house is not holmes


----------



## Bomber (Aug 2, 2010)

Load of Bollocks !!


----------



## tim (Aug 2, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> house is not holmes



A house is a home and that's why _House_ is called House. From the little I've seen the approach is more Holmesian that that of _Sherlock_. That opinion is admittedly based  on having seen one episode of each.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 2, 2010)

don't see it myself. the only quality they share is a certain irascibility and being good at working stuff out that no one else can. this is true of all detectives though.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 2, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> oh come on, it's hardly religion and politics


 
You don't know my workplace........was told i was weird for not watching soaps, Big Brother, Strictly Dancing, Britains Got Talent...etc etc (and that was by my manager)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 2, 2010)

Excellent programme.  Well constructed and well acted, and much better than the source material.  Very entertaining. 

Of course the basic plot with its cyphers and murders wasn't at all realistic, but nobody expects this stuff to be realistic; it's based on Conan Doyle.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 2, 2010)

On reflection, I'm finding it more of a mixed bag; on the one hand the plotting was seriously stretched to cover the 90 mins, yet Moffatt was clearly having fun. For example, he kicked bankers in the nuts with his odious former uni chum, and also self-serving journalists. It's mildly interesting that the 'companion' has a companion, a la Dr Who - also a nice line from Watson about "trying to pull her". The silly set piece finale with circus accoutrements and a damsel could have been out of almost any Victorian detective novel, while the street urchin of the original has become son of Banksy. It's also now got one more Dr than Dr Who.

So, at the same time, it's feeling referential (of the original books) and a mash up of topical influences and cultural trends.  Still a stretch at 90 mins. though - feels as if Moffatt is himself feeling his way in the format.


----------



## vauxhallmum (Aug 2, 2010)

Clearly inspired by Withnail and I as well. But I've been finding this really enjoyable/diverting.


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> no, it is. it really is. 'resigned her job'? what the fuck?


 
That is perfectly cromulent usage.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2010)

Santino said:


> That is perfectly cromulent usage.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 4, 2010)

Watched second part last night on t'iPlayer. 
I enjoyed it but no as much as the first one, not really sure why though.


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 4, 2010)

Just seen 2nd one tonight last week was better but today at 10:40 The Return of Sherlock Holmes The Second Stain pisses over both from a great hight.


----------



## Epona (Aug 6, 2010)

I don't care what anyone else thinks, and I've not even read the thread, I absolutely love this series.

It actually reminds me a bit of Christopher Fowler's "Bryant & May" series of books, which I love, it's so close that I find myself wondering mid-way through an episode whether Moffatt deliberately wanted it to turn out so similar in atmosphere and the type of dark humour, or whether it's just a bizarre accident.  I can't watch Sherlock without drifting off into thinking how good some of Fowler's novels could translate to telly if given the right treatment...

One of the best things that's been on telly for ages IMO.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 8, 2010)

Anyone sticking around for the final 1 12/ hours?

Moriarty makes an appearance . . . kick off in 40 mins. Just time for a shower,  sort out the cheese on toast, a nice mug of something . . . and  breath.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 8, 2010)

I spent a lot of today waiting for the final episode to appear on iPlayer  

Looking forward to _tonight's_ episode


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 8, 2010)

I'm watching it, has to be better than last week's.


----------



## Bajie (Aug 8, 2010)

Nope, though will probably watch it on catch up so I can fast forward any very lame parts.


----------



## madzone (Aug 8, 2010)

WTF?

Is all I have to say


----------



## Limejuice (Aug 8, 2010)

I'll go with WTF?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 8, 2010)

It was poo, that. He didn't even catch the massive bloke.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 8, 2010)

I needed to check again and, it turns out, the following occurred:

Week 1 - written by Moffatt
Week 2 - written by Stephen Thompson. No, nor have I.
Week 3 - Written by Gattis

Gatiss also plays Mycroft and is the Showrunner on Sherlock (rather than Moffatt who runs Dr Who). Hence the diff feel to week 2. Now it makes more sense.

I haven't been there since I did a sub-aqua course donkeys ago - was that Whitechapal Baths?


----------



## madzone (Aug 8, 2010)

I liked it but that was so not Moriarty. That was Graham fucking Norton.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 8, 2010)

if you like this programme you are a massive bummer


----------



## mauvais (Aug 8, 2010)

Well, I thought that was cracking.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 8, 2010)

I totally called the guy in the lab was Moriarty.

Alright, I suspected it.

Alright, the possibility crossed my mind and then I forgot about it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 8, 2010)

Early thoughts on this week: (a) very  . . . slick, and (b) Peter Crouch better stick to the day job.


----------



## Boycey (Aug 8, 2010)

BASTARDS!


----------



## madzone (Aug 8, 2010)

Boycey said:


> BASTARDS!


 
A little hint for you. If you haven't watched it yet DON'T READ THE FUCKING THREAD


----------



## Limejuice (Aug 8, 2010)

madzone said:


> I liked it but that was so not Moriarty. That was Graham fucking Norton.


 Exactly.

Moriarty is supposed to be the eternally wise, crafty manipulator.

What we got was G Fucking N's younger cousin with an audience holding laser pointers.

Scary? Freaky-outy? Menacing? Only in the sense that out-of-date yogurt can harm you.

Sell out.


----------



## madzone (Aug 8, 2010)

Limejuice said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Moriarty is supposed to be the eternally wise, crafty manipulator.
> 
> ...


 
I've been more frightened by reheated rice.


It was Graham Norton's younger cousin doing an impression of David Tennants Dr Who. 

WTFF were they thinking?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 8, 2010)

Was that an meant to be an irish accent?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 8, 2010)

I thought his "I will burn you " face was quite good. Well, entertaining at least.


----------



## Limejuice (Aug 8, 2010)

The taxi driver in episode 1 was more scary than Graham Norton's wee cousin with the wandering accent.

And Moriarty is supposed to be the shadowy menace behind all the serious crimes.

This version is like the ice-cream man tossing into the cones.


----------



## ginger_syn (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm still enjoying sherlock, it's nice simple entertainment that is easy to watch, and i will definatly watch the next series.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

I thought the first the more difficult to craft and the third highly polished – not sure you can compare them because Moffatt had so much to set up in the first he only had space for one plot (so, Gollum or State secrets). The thing about the second – written by someone seemingly still quite inexperienced – was that it was one plot stretched over the 90. I suspect we all felt the stretching.

The big shout last night was whether to show M or not, and if you show him what is he going to look like? Maybe Matiss thought you can’t have a huge set-piece, end-of-series cliff hanger – on a show that needs to get re-commissioned – and get away with just a bit of cleavage. 

If you do show M, perhaps the key is that M and Sherlock are contemporaries and if Sherlock is under 40 – as is the entire central cast – so must be M. And no one under 40 has gravitas. Bit of a Catch 22.

On the first issue though – whether to give M a face at all . . . I dunno, never tried writing a huge Victorian-style end-of-series cliff hanger without a villain . . . It’s certainly challenging accepting a still immature ‘consulting criminal’.

Fwiw, I loved the ‘I’m bored’ set up followed by the explosion, and SH using his detective skills on an episode of Jeremy Kyle/Tricia. Liked the idea of Watson’s blog and the tie in with A Study in Pink, playing and using SH’s understanding of the universe, a celebrity death,   . . well, Matliss threw a few of those kinds of ideas out there.

There was some clever stylised stuff - imagery merging with the script overlapping and then the series theme music interwoven  . . . and stuff that I haven’t seen with the BBC before. Very Hollywood.

4 ½ hours is a fuck of a lot of drama. If the guy writing the middle had been up to the standard of Moffatt and Matiss . . . maybe it’s a reminder of just how high a standard those two now write. As it was, it was a bit Lennon/McCartney plus Ringo.


----------



## Boycey (Aug 9, 2010)

madzone said:


> A little hint for you. If you haven't watched it yet DON'T READ THE FUCKING THREAD


 
if you're going to end a series after just 3 (albeit long) episodes then don't do it on a massive fucking cliffhanger.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2010)

Boycey said:


> if you're going to end a series after just 3 (albeit long) episodes then don't do it on a massive fucking cliffhanger.


 
I didn't write it


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 9, 2010)

I agree with most everything LC has said about age, the middle episode... and jeremy kyle.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 9, 2010)

2nd episode was weaker than the other 2 but enjoyed it overall - despite the annoying cliff hanger ending.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> I totally called the guy in the lab was Moriarty.
> 
> Alright, I suspected it.
> 
> Alright, the possibility crossed my mind and then I forgot about it.



Where as I called it instantly, and stuck with it throughout (apart from those very brief moments my brain melted and I entertained the idea it could be his not-girlfriend or Mycroft <-- stupid brain).


----------



## marty21 (Aug 9, 2010)

Epona said:


> I don't care what anyone else thinks, and I've not even read the thread, I absolutely love this series.
> 
> It actually reminds me a bit of Christopher Fowler's "Bryant & May" series of books, which I love, it's so close that I find myself wondering mid-way through an episode whether Moffatt deliberately wanted it to turn out so similar in atmosphere and the type of dark humour, or whether it's just a bizarre accident.  I can't watch Sherlock without drifting off into thinking how good some of Fowler's novels could translate to telly if given the right treatment...
> 
> One of the best things that's been on telly for ages IMO.



I can see that as well, I love those books! I'm amazed they haven't been made into telly tbh, although the 2 main characters are ancient, and telly loves youth


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2010)

I hated the ending. I hate those kinds of endings. I hated it. I loved it.  

Fucking brilliant series, love it loads. Love that Sherlock is so outrageously dramatic and unbelievable it just about makes him believable. Watson is played brilliantly. Do we know for sure they're writing more? I really hope so - 3 feels too few.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2010)

marty21 said:


> I can see that as well, I love those books! I'm amazed they haven't been made into telly tbh, although the 2 main characters are ancient, and telly loves youth


 
What are these books?


----------



## marty21 (Aug 9, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> What are these books?


 
Christopher Fowler - Bryant and May series - there are 7 I think, they are elderly police detectives in charge of the Peculiar Crimes unit - a Met police department investigates crimes that befuddle the police (that'll be most crime then ) 

All of the novels are based in London, and Fowler draws up on a lot of ancient folklore and history of the city.

He's written loads of other books, sort of sci-fi/horror/fantasy type deal

I think he's great!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2010)

marty21 said:


> Christopher Fowler - Bryant and May series - there are 7 I think, they are elderly police detectives in charge of the Peculiar Crimes unit - a Met police department investigates crimes that befuddle the police (that'll be most crime then )
> 
> All of the novels are based in London, and Fowler draws up on a lot of ancient folklore and history of the city.
> 
> ...


 
I may just have to indulge, thanks


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2010)

It feels to me like the whole series has been a kind of clear-the-decks exericse. Set up Holmes and Watson, deal with Moriarty, and get Holmes' death and resurrection over with. I suspect the first episode of the second series will be about Sherlock being officially dead and then coming back. There was a lot of references to real Holmes stories (The Five Pips and A Scandal in Bohemia - probably loads more I missed), so perhaps the idea was to get that all out of the way and then make the second and subsequent series based on completely new material.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> It feels to me like the whole series has been a kind of clear-the-decks exericse. Set up Holmes and Watson, deal with Moriarty, and get Holmes' death and resurrection over with. I suspect the first episode of the second series will be about Sherlock being officially dead and then coming back. There was a lot of references to real Holmes stories (The Five Pips and A Scandal in Bohemia - probably loads more I missed), so perhaps the idea was to get that all out of the way and then make the second and subsequent series based on completely new material.


 
This sounds about right.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 9, 2010)

That ending was great


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2010)

what a terrific series that was


----------



## T & P (Aug 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what a terrific series that was


 I thought so too. I want more.


----------



## Cid (Aug 9, 2010)

The pips reference made me crack up, Moriarty was a bit crap though. Quite a good bit of acting in some ways, just not really the right character.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2010)

Did anyone notice the title - 'The Great Game'? This is often used to refer to the struggle between Russia and Britain for central Asia, i.e. Afghanistan, where Watson (both original and new) did his service.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 9, 2010)

Cid said:


> The pips reference made me crack up, Moriarty was a bit crap though. Quite a good bit of acting in some ways, just not really the right character.


 
I liked him, I thought he fitted in with the style of everything else quite well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2010)

marty21 said:


> Christopher Fowler - Bryant and May series - there are 7 I think, they are elderly police detectives in charge of the Peculiar Crimes unit - a Met police department investigates crimes that befuddle the police (that'll be most crime then )
> 
> All of the novels are based in London, and Fowler draws up on a lot of ancient folklore and history of the city.
> 
> ...



Bear in mind that Bryant and May also feature in a few of Fowler's short stories too, plus are supporting characters in Roofworld, Rune and Darkest Day (IIRC).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2010)

Question:
Was "Jim Moriarty" actually Moriarty, or just some camp psycho that Professor James Moriarty had schooled to be his cipher?
Totally agree with the Norton/Tennant comparisons!


----------



## marty21 (Aug 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Bear in mind that Bryant and May also feature in a few of Fowler's short stories too, plus are supporting characters in Roofworld, Rune and Darkest Day (IIRC).


 
yep, regular characters

roofworld is probably my favourite of his other novels


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

Boycey said:


> if you're going to end a series after just 3 (albeit long) episodes then don't do it on a massive fucking cliffhanger.


 
What, is that it? Three?

Well this whole thing has been a big anticlimax. All that fuss for three poxy episodes. I only watched last night in the hope it might get better.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What, is that it? Three?
> 
> Well this whole thing has been a big anticlimax. All that fuss for three poxy episodes. I only watched last night in the hope it might get better.


 
three  90 minute episodes, or three films, or a trilogy, I'd have felt short changed with 3 hour long episodes


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

"three poxy episodes" that in duration lasted a Hollywood film plus the sequel, plus half the sequel to the sequel. It was a 5 1/2 hour mini-series in USA terms, not that any mainstream network would ever have the balls to make it there.

People do make me laugh about what they think they're entitled to expect.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 9, 2010)

I think part of the trouble is we've got used to twenty four 45-60min episode 'seasons' of high-quality (in production values at least) drama from America. In comparison to that 5 1/2 hours does seem a little short...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2010)

i would imagine the beeb initially commissioned 3 just to see how successful it would be - they're very expensive to make.
now it's been a tremendous success (people are idiots), it won't be long before another batch are commissioned.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

Plus the issue of who writes it and when. It's not like Moffatt and Gatiss are sitting around begging for work.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

marty21 said:


> three  90 minute episodes, or three films, or a trilogy, I'd have felt short changed with 3 hour long episodes


 


London_Calling said:


> "three poxy episodes" that in duration lasted a Hollywood film plus the sequel, plus half the sequel to the sequel. It was a 5 1/2 hour mini-series in USA terms, not that any mainstream network would ever have the balls to make it there.
> 
> People do make me laugh about what they think they're entitled to expect.


 
But they're not films. They're telly shows.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> "three poxy episodes" that in duration lasted a Hollywood film plus the sequel, plus half the sequel to the sequel. It was a 5 1/2 hour mini-series in USA terms, not that any mainstream network would ever have the balls to make it there.
> 
> People do make me laugh about what they think they're entitled to expect.


 
Also, why wouldn't the US produce a show like it? Much better in fact?

I can't imagine a UK station ever having the balls to make something like The Wire.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

The UK doesn't have the writers to make The Wire.

As Sherlock shows to some extent, if you've got the writers, the BBC will put proper money behind them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The UK doesn't have the writers to make The Wire.
> 
> As Sherlock shows to some extent, if you've got the writers, the BBC will put proper money behind them.


 
Probably not. Mind you, that new Shane Meadows series based on This Is England looks like it could be decent.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The UK doesn't have the writers to make The Wire.


 
not sure about that


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2010)

Right. They're all over the place, beavering away on Casualty and The Bill too busy to knock out something so simple.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Right. They're all over the place, beavering away on Casualty and The Bill too busy to knock out something so simple.


 
there are talented writers out there, but they tend not to be attracted to TV


----------



## DRINK? (Aug 9, 2010)

I quite liked it as a series and as something a bit different....though felt last nights was a bit meh....the whole series started well though tailed off a bit....the subtle and not so subtle touches to cd's work was on the whole well done.

I'd watch another series, wouldn't buy the box set


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

Sherlock is in the same category of telly show's as New Tricks, as far as I'm concerned. New Tricks.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Sherlock is in the same category of telly show's as New Tricks, as far as I'm concerned. New Tricks.


 


oof.


----------



## Macabre (Aug 9, 2010)

I've just watched the last one and I've mixed emotions about there series.  I like the concept and the dynamic between Holmes and Watson but there are some piss poor plot devices, particularly in the second one.  I thought the first one was good apart from the 'short cut' over the roofs in soho and the showdown with the taxi driver was just shit IMO.  The second one's faults have been well covered on other post and the third was good apart from the overall story arc.  They did the stereotypical, NCIS style scripting with the main bad guy being introduced with a fleeting talking part, expecting you to forget him and then brought back in later as a revelation.  Paint by numbers crime drama plot device, my girlfriend has banned me from talking when one's on the telly as I always point out who did it about a third of the way in (did it twice with this one with Moriarty and the brother)

The Moriarty character was terrible, it was like a bad copy of Ledger's Joker with a dodgy accent.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2010)

Macabre said:


> The Moriarty character was terrible, it was like a bad copy of Ledger's Joker with a dodgy accent.



Nope; it was a genuine Irish accent. Moriarty is an Irish name; very prevalent in Cork and Kerry, actually.

But what a fabulous episode and loved the planetarium scene and it's allusions to Nosferatu. The chemistry between the two leads is pitch perfect and sometimes when SH is being sarcastic, I'd swear he's channeling Alan Rickman...


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

I'm still enjoying it. I've no idea why people are comparing it to The Wire which is an extraordinarily rare piece of top notch writing. 

If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to the kind of stuff that normally goes out on a Sunday evening in the UK.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2010)

don't think people are seriously comparing it to the wire
it reminds me of that awful hyde thing with james nesbitt
ETA: ah, the same writer - hang your head in shame steven moffatt


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 9, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm still enjoying it. I've no idea why people are comparing it to The Wire which is an extraordinarily rare piece of top notch writing.
> 
> If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to the kind of stuff that normally goes out on a Sunday evening in the UK.


 
New Tricks


----------



## Espresso (Aug 9, 2010)

jer said:


> Nope; it was a genuine Irish accent. Moriarty is an Irish name; very prevalent in Cork and Kerry, actually.
> 
> But what a fabulous episode and loved the planetarium scene and it's allusions to Nosferatu. The chemistry between the two leads is pitch perfect and sometimes when SH is being sarcastic, I'd swear he's channeling Alan Rickman...


 
I'm glad it's not just me. At the beginning of last night's episode, where Sherlock was interviewing the man in Minsk and they were both in profile in silhouette, I really and truly thought that they'd got Alan Rickman, as a guest star. 

And also, a pal of mine from Wexford is called Moriarty and her Dad's from Kerry and his name's Jim. Ooooooo!


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> New Tricks


 If you think New Tricks is as good as Sherlock, I fear I'll simply have to ignore any further opinions you may have on the subject of TV drama.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2010)

i think he's suggesting that it's as bad as new tricks


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i think he's suggesting that it's as bad as new tricks


 
Yes.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i think he's suggesting that it's as bad as new tricks


 Yes, I understood that. And that's why I know his opinion on TV drama isn't worth listening to.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2010)

i think he has a point - it's very much in the vein of dreary sunday night telly, except for the flashiness intended to impress the gullible


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 10, 2010)

Shit comes in different shades.


----------



## Cid (Aug 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> there are talented writers out there, but they tend not to be attracted to TV


 
Yep, England (and Scotland) is still right at the top of the theatre world, tend not to appreciate it when you live here, but there's a staggering variety of top-end stuff from DV8 and Shunt, to the RSC and the West End.


----------



## Macabre (Aug 10, 2010)

I know Andrew Scott is Irish but the way he spoke just sounded odd, like he was trying to put on a voice but it didn't gel with his accent.  He speaks differently in the show compared to the interviews of him on youtube.

Overall I'm enjoying the show, it's just disappointing when the very good aspects of the program are let down by the nonsensical parts.


----------



## madzone (Aug 10, 2010)

To the people saying they're 'enjoying' it - you do know it's finished now, don't you?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

Macabre said:


> Overall I'm enjoying the show, it's just disappointing when the very good aspects of the program are let down by the nonsensical parts.


 And the "nonsensical parts" couldn't be that you maybe didn't quite get the idea? Fwiw, I don't think any of us get everything, but most tend to trust that what we're seeing is probably coherent.


----------



## T & P (Aug 10, 2010)

I do find it amusing how so many of the people who thought it was shit (and of course, *not* for snobbery reasons at all- no sir!) still watched the second episode, and watched the third episode a week later, and still felt the urge to come back to this thread week after week to tell us all how unsufferable the series are.

Masochism? Something else? A mystery worthy of Holmes himself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2010)

you can't criticise something you haven't seen.
i watch a lot of dire films too.
you learn a lot about writing from doing this.


----------



## Macabre (Aug 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> And the "nonsensical parts" couldn't be that you maybe didn't quite get the idea? Fwiw, I don't think any of us get everything, but most tend to trust that what we're seeing is probably coherent.


 
What's _not to get_ about catching up with a taxi going around a couple of corners by starting at ground level, going up stairs to the roof tops of Soho, then leaping from building to building and getting infront of it?  Or, as mentioned earlier, the use of graffiti for the chinese gangester to put out their hits when technology excist that would be much better.  They're just tired cliches that don't fit. 

Plus the point I mentioned earlier that any character with a small talking point early on is always the criminal.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

On the chase, I've also asked about it. I guess it referenced something in the original, or perhaps to illustrate the extent of SH's  4-D familiarity with London - it was also obviously playful.

The second of the three was written by someone else - the one with the Chinese code. It was weaker. Fwiw, I guessed the idea was to put the message out in the community but so only people in that community could understand.


----------



## Macabre (Aug 10, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> On the chase, I've also asked about it. I guess it referenced something in the original, or perhaps to illustrate the extent of SH's  4-D familiarity with London - it was also obviously playful.
> 
> The second of the three was written by someone else - the one with the Chinese code. It was weaker. Fwiw, I guessed the idea was to put the message out in the community but so only people in that community could understand.


 
I don't recall a roof top chace in the orginials and even if it was a reference they could have made it much less daft and unrealistic.  They could have had the same effects with back lanes, going through shop/restaurants, and jumping fences. WTF is 4D familiarity?

We all understand the idea behind the messages but it could be done with a website or phones and would more up to date and logical.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

Macabre said:


> Plus the point I mentioned earlier that any character with a small talking point early on is always the criminal.


 I forgot the end bit. I thought this was about M outwitting SH - SH bought the gay thing, M knew he would. SH is fallible and they both now  know it. All part of 'The Great Game'.


----------



## T & P (Aug 10, 2010)

So it is agreed the second episode was the weak link.

Still a fucking cracking series. Well scripted, well acted and engaging.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

Macabre said:


> I don't recall a roof top chace in the orginials and even if it was a reference they could have made it much less daft and unrealistic.  They could have had the same effects with back lanes, going through shop/restaurants, and jumping fences. WTF is 4D familiarity?
> 
> We all understand the idea behind the messages but it could be done with a website or phones and would more up to date and logical.


It wasn't really a roof top chase, one party used the roof top. 4-D = time. SH made the intersection using his knowledge of the quickest routes vs. one-way roads and road closures. He computed respective times as well as routes.

I'm not claiming definitive understanding btw.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

Macabre said:


> We all understand the idea behind the messages but it could be done with a website or phones and would more up to date and logical.


 
In my understanding it wasn't a particularly strong mechanism. But the pay off is it gets you right into the whole exclusively Chinese thing as well as the street urchin/Banksy stuff. You could even make an argument for  - ho-ho - 'the writing is on the wall' .  . . I dunno  . . . .


----------



## Macabre (Aug 10, 2010)

Yes, I am quite capable of following what is going on.  The point is that it was done badly and could have been much better without anymore effort.

Fiction works best when it's as real as possible because the more turth surrounds it the easier the unreal things are to believe.  Illogical plot devices and actions pull you out of the fantasy because you question more.  Someone on here said 'you can suspend reality but not logic' with regard to fiction.


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2010)

Second series confirmed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/10/sherlock-second-series-bbc


----------



## madzone (Aug 10, 2010)

From Santino's link



> "We knew what we wanted to do with Moriarty from the very beginning. Moriarty is usually a rather dull, rather posh villain so we thought someone who was genuinely properly frightening. Someone who's an absolute psycho," Moffat said.




Errrrrrrr........


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

oh dear, moriarty was absolutely dreadful but overall the 3 episodes were better than 95% of what currently passes for drama on tv. hardly original though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> oh dear, moriarty was absolutely dreadful but overall the 3 episodes were better than 95% of what currently passes for drama on tv. hardly original though.


 
Moriarty was excellent; insane criminal mastermind, master of disguise and surprise and the yin to SH yang. What's not to like?


----------



## Espresso (Aug 10, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> oh dear, moriarty was absolutely dreadful but overall the 3 episodes were better than 95% of what currently passes for drama on tv. hardly original though.


 
Yeah, but who really expects originality from a Sherlock Holmes adaptation? The stories are aaaaaaaaaaaancient.
That's like being shocked the boat sank in Titanic. Or being surprised when James Bond saves the day, foils the dastardly foreigner's plans and shags a lot.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Moriarty was excellent; insane criminal mastermind, master of disguise and surprise and the yin to SH yang. What's not to like?


 
fine if you think a criminal mastermind should sound like graham norton.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

Espresso said:


> Yeah, but who really expects originality from a Sherlock Holmes adaptation?


 
i meant original in that they went back to 'reimagine' sherlock holmes at all rather than do something new.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> fine if you think a criminal mastermind should sound like graham norton.


 
He sounds nothing like Norton. Unless you think we all sound the same


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

well, in my opinion he sounded like GN but that's my opinion, don't know what you mean by 'we'.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2010)

He's no less or more immature than is SH, is he? They're youngish, vainish, silly contemporaries. What can you do . . .


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> well, in my opinion he sounded like GN but that's my opinion, don't know what you mean by 'we'.


 
Some people can't tell Irish accents apart, that's all.


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

yes exactly, it was more like young sherlock holmes rewritten for the beeb rather than sherlock holmes rewritten for the beeb. anyway, at least it's made me finally get round to buying the 'complete works'


----------



## nicksonic (Aug 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Some people can't tell Irish accents apart, that's all.


 
i just thought it sounded ridiculous, fwiw.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> i just thought it sounded ridiculous, fwiw.


 
Uh huh


----------



## Bajie (Aug 10, 2010)

Bet they won't show him jacking up in the 2nd series

“Sherlock Holmes took his bottle from the corner of the mantelpiece, and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco case. With his long, white, nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate needle and rolled back his left shirtcuff. For some little time his eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist, all dotted and scarred with innumerable puncture-marks. Finally, he thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-lined armchair with a long sigh of satisfaction.” ("The Sign Of Four", 1890)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 10, 2010)

It did sound ridiculous, fuck how authentic or not it is.

E2a - the accent


----------



## DRINK? (Aug 11, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Bet they won't show him jacking up in the 2nd series
> 
> “Sherlock Holmes took his bottle from the corner of the mantelpiece, and his hypodermic syringe from its neat morocco case. With his long, white, nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate needle and rolled back his left shirtcuff. For some little time his eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist, all dotted and scarred with innumerable puncture-marks. Finally, he thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-lined armchair with a long sigh of satisfaction.” ("The Sign Of Four", 1890)


 
Aye was disappointed they didn't show him bang on the gak....would have been more realistic than him taking pot shots in the flat for this day and age


----------



## Bajie (Aug 11, 2010)

Yer one of the many aspects of the mini-series that is totally unrealistic, no one can fire a hand gun repeatedly in central london without a police armned response unit showing up within 5 minutes, plus the mandatory 5 year sentance for carrying a hand gun.

I have a feeling though they will not show Holmes smoking or in any kind of drug stupor, or even breaking the law (hand gunS aside), as it is all a bit too clean cut and freshed face for that, rubbish.

My favourite part about the Holmes character is his many flaws, that is what makes the orginal stories so interesting.


----------



## Griff (Aug 11, 2010)

Loved the first one, got bored by the second one, and was too pissed to notice the third one. Might give it a go on iplayer.


----------



## madzone (Aug 11, 2010)

Jer - stop being so bloody touchy. The actor _did _sound like Graham Norton. It was ridiculous and not in the least bit scary.


----------



## T & P (Aug 17, 2010)

I see that some unexpected quarters are benefiting from the popularity of the series...

http://uk.travel.yahoo.com/p-promo-3359558


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 17, 2010)

nicksonic said:


> oh dear, moriarty was absolutely dreadful but overall the 3 episodes were better than 95% of what currently passes for drama on tv. hardly original though.


 
I hated Moriarty too - terrible acting, comic rather than sinister. I think they should have gone with someone a little older and, well, frankly better than the actor they chose. I just didn't believe that he could be a master criminal that had arranged all these things and so terrified people i.e. the women at the end of the previous episode.

Shame because oitherwise I thought the episode was excellent and rather spooky.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I just didn't believe that he could be a master criminal that had arranged all these things and so terrified people i.e. the women at the end of the previous episode.


Well, he didn't speak to her directly, he did it all through text, so she didn't hear his voice


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 17, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Well, he didn't speak to her directly, he did it all through text, so she didn't hear his voice


 
Very true - though I didn't really like his voice either, a bit shrieky I felt


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

I have to say, while understanding completely why people didn't like him, I quite liked Moriarty. Perhaps because I've never read any of the original stories that featured Moriarty, plus I've always been quite fond of the slightly unhinged ones, and I thought some of the stuff he did with his delivery was interesting at the very least, if not all together appropriate.

He did stumble around the panto-villain territory, but overall I enjoyed him.

And I did like the 'consulting criminal' idea.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 17, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Very true - though I didn't really like his voice either, a bit shrieky I felt


 
That's what I quite liked about it. 
Less mwuh huh huh and more crazy guy.


----------



## Maggot (Jul 20, 2011)

This is being repeated.  On BBC1 at 8.30 tonight. I shall be watching again.


----------



## madzone (Jul 20, 2011)

I considered it but I'm not sure. Might record it and make my mind up later.


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 20, 2011)

It was well worth watching again.


----------



## Santino (Jul 20, 2011)

Better second time around. Enjoying the jokes and characters and not worried about the plot.


----------



## Ceej (Jul 21, 2011)

Missed this last time around - found this very good and quite clever, with a comfortable level of nod in the direction of the novels..there's three, I believe. Looking forward to the rest. Loving Martin Freeman's character - seems to have lost his usual blandness for this one...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jul 21, 2011)

Santino said:


> Better second time around. Enjoying the jokes and characters and not worried about the plot.


That's what I thought, as well.  New series later this year, I think.


----------



## moonsi til (Jul 22, 2011)

ooh I found this by accident on Iplayer yesterday & ended up watching it. I enjoyed it & laughed a lot. So now I have Sherlock Holmes and Holby city to watch my BF. Perfect...


----------

