|
Post by Queen E on Oct 25, 2010 9:35:20 GMT -5
SherlockHolmes and Watson (or Sherlock and John) are here! This is the place to discuss the brand-new Sherlock, from Doctor Who showrunner and writer Stephen Moffat. In the interest of good international relations, please discuss ONLY those episodes and previews which have already aired in BOTH the United Kingdom and the United States. No spoilers shall trespass on these hallowed sacred pure unspoiled grounds. That could lead to being beat with a riding crop. Let's get this party started! [/b]
|
|
|
Post by angelique on Oct 25, 2010 10:02:48 GMT -5
My thoughts in no particular order:
I enjoyed the show. I was giggling through most of it.
I've actually been watching the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes on Netflix lately, but I had never read any of the stories. The idea of discussing the show with you all made me pull out JAson's copy of the Annotated Sherlock Holmes and started reading it this morning. Anywho, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two shows.
I think they've set themselves a high bar in the matter of continuing episodes.
The interplay between Holmes and Watson was fun and I thought very well done. I could believe in the instant comradery between the two. One thing that bugged me was the insinuation in the beginning that they had to be a couple, instead of just flatmates or friends.
I like this version of Lestrade. In the Jeremy Brett series, Lestrade has always seemed to me to be mediocre and a bit bumbling. In this version it seemed like he was an inspector who truly did care about what he did and knew when he needed help.
I thought the "three patch problem" was a funny update on the "three pipe problem" "It's impossible to maintain a smoking habit in London these days!" LOL
So those are some of my first thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 25, 2010 11:35:37 GMT -5
My thoughts in no particular order: I enjoyed the show. I was giggling through most of it. I've actually been watching the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes on Netflix lately, but I had never read any of the stories. The idea of discussing the show with you all made me pull out JAson's copy of the Annotated Sherlock Holmes and started reading it this morning. Anywho, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two shows. I think they've set themselves a high bar in the matter of continuing episodes. The interplay between Holmes and Watson was fun and I thought very well done. I could believe in the instant comradery between the two. One thing that bugged me was the insinuation in the beginning that they had to be a couple, instead of just flatmates or friends. I like this version of Lestrade. In the Jeremy Brett series, Lestrade has always seemed to me to be mediocre and a bit bumbling. In this version it seemed like he was an inspector who truly did care about what he did and knew when he needed help. I thought the "three patch problem" was a funny update on the "three pipe problem" "It's impossible to maintain a smoking habit in London these days!" LOL So those are some of my first thoughts... I took the "assume they're gay" thing as a bit of a call to any number of male/male pairs that exude even a smidge of HoYay: Kirk/Spock, Logan/Weevil, Dean/Castiel, and, probably Holmes/Watson. After a certain age, flatsharing does raise the question of the nature of the relationship.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Oct 25, 2010 11:45:45 GMT -5
My thoughts in no particular order: I enjoyed the show. I was giggling through most of it. I've actually been watching the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes on Netflix lately, but I had never read any of the stories. The idea of discussing the show with you all made me pull out JAson's copy of the Annotated Sherlock Holmes and started reading it this morning. Anywho, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two shows. I think they've set themselves a high bar in the matter of continuing episodes. The interplay between Holmes and Watson was fun and I thought very well done. I could believe in the instant comradery between the two. One thing that bugged me was the insinuation in the beginning that they had to be a couple, instead of just flatmates or friends. I like this version of Lestrade. In the Jeremy Brett series, Lestrade has always seemed to me to be mediocre and a bit bumbling. In this version it seemed like he was an inspector who truly did care about what he did and knew when he needed help. I thought the "three patch problem" was a funny update on the "three pipe problem" "It's impossible to maintain a smoking habit in London these days!" LOL So those are some of my first thoughts... I took the "assume they're gay" thing as a bit of a call to any number of male/male pairs that exude even a smidge of HoYay: Kirk/Spock, Logan/Weevil, Dean/Castiel, and, probably Holmes/Watson. After a certain age, flatsharing does raise the question of the nature of the relationship. The beginning bothered me. I remember the Jeremy Brett series which I thought was the quinessential Holmes. However, the problem drew me in and the snark kept me there. All told the update was well done. I liked the way we were shown how his reasoning worked based on the evidence he found. We saw what he saw and then we learned what he made of it. I liked that he was aware of his own arrogance and the fact that he was a sociopath--however high-functioning. The real enjoyment, though, was not Holmes but Watson. Showing him as a a modern soldier whose PTSD is not based on being in combat but on the lack it. This is not a bumbling fool like the Watson of Basil Rathbone's day, neither is he the star-struck fanboy of the Jeremy Brett series. This is man is a competent physician by trade, a cold-eyed killer by necessity and a mind not only compatible with Holmes' but in its own way very much Holmes' equal. Are they lovers? Really, I don't care. They are interesting and well-developed characters and I can't wait to see more of their adventures in the 21st Century. I'm looking forward to meeting Moriarty--and I want to see if we ever meet The Woman.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Oct 25, 2010 21:12:39 GMT -5
Loved it, loved it, loved it!
Really fun.
I thought the repeated "you're a couple" thing was, in part, another reference to "how things have changed" in the 21st century. You can't smoke the way Sherlock did in the 19th century, without encountering serious disapproval, and two men past a certain age can't live together and go out together the way they might have in the 19th century, without people immediately wondering about their "couplehood."
There are many reminders in the episode thatt this is the 21st century, to firmly move Sherlock into the present, and I thought the gay references were part of that.
I thought we saw the Doctor showing an interest in Mycroft's assistant, so I think we're going to see him presented as heterosexual, but who knows.
Sherlock seems to be presented as asexual so far - I mean, why do people who seem to have known him for awhile think that maybe John is his "boyfriend?" It could be a hint that he has had boyfriends in the past, but the overall "asocial" presentation of Holmes makes me think it is more likely that he "hasn't had a girlfriend," so they're thinking, "Hmmm . . . maybe he is gay then! That explains it."
But we'll see. Like Diane, I would like to see if they present "the woman" as they do in the original Sherlock Holmes stories. Sherlock was always completely consumed by his work, and it's obvious this Sherlock will be the same, but that one flicker of humanity and desire and need that was represented by "the woman," added some needed interest and depth.
At first, the actor (Holmes) sort of put me off, as he has such a babyface look, but he made it work. I totally forgot the babyface and bought into it 100%.
I loved the storyline and liked the presentation of Watson, and the regular and one-time secondary characters - to confused American in cab to serial killer cab driver, etc. (Loved the cab driver especially! Perfect.)
Loved the "Mycroft" surprise at the end. Also can't wait to meet Moriarity.
I had my usual tin-ear problems adjusting to the accent and missed some of the dialogue early on, but if I watch it on TV, I can have captions going to help.
Good, quick, funny writing, nice acting . . . good story . . . what's not to love?
|
|
|
Post by angelique on Oct 26, 2010 21:36:05 GMT -5
So just out of curiosity, has anyone read A Study in Scarlet, the story that the episode was based on? It would be kinda fun to do a compare and contrast there too.
I admit, they got me with the Mycroft bit. I really did think that they were introducing Moriarity really early with the whole arch enemy thing.
Diane I love your description of Watson! I agree that he seems to be the most competent of the cinematic Watsons, although Jude Law's Watson was fairly competent in the newest movie.
I'm reading the stories now and I look forward to seeing how they all compare to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 27, 2010 0:12:02 GMT -5
So just out of curiosity, has anyone read A Study in Scarlet, the story that the episode was based on? It would be kinda fun to do a compare and contrast there too. I admit, they got me with the Mycroft bit. I really did think that they were introducing Moriarity really early with the whole arch enemy thing. Diane I love your description of Watson! I agree that he seems to be the most competent of the cinematic Watsons, although Jude Law's Watson was fairly competent in the newest movie. I'm reading the stories now and I look forward to seeing how they all compare to each other. Jude law's Watson was a total badass. And they totally took me in with the Mycroft deception, but the clues for it being Mycroft were there from the start, too: Older, a bit chubby, in the government (control of the CC cameras) and a brilliant expert at deduction better than Holmes. What I particularly loved is how Mycroft's assistant went in my pereception from sinister aloof detachment(When we thought she was a femme fatale lieutenant of Moriarty's) to slightly vacant cheerful ditziness(when we find out who Mycroft was). I will be delighted if Watson continues to pursue her.
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Oct 27, 2010 16:01:16 GMT -5
So just out of curiosity, has anyone read A Study in Scarlet, the story that the episode was based on? It would be kinda fun to do a compare and contrast there too. I admit, they got me with the Mycroft bit. I really did think that they were introducing Moriarity really early with the whole arch enemy thing. Diane I love your description of Watson! I agree that he seems to be the most competent of the cinematic Watsons, although Jude Law's Watson was fairly competent in the newest movie. I'm reading the stories now and I look forward to seeing how they all compare to each other. I think Watson has gotten a bad rap over the years and in a way it could be said to be his own fault. Since all the stories are writen from Watson's POV, he (actually Doyle, but we'll buy into the mythos for now) uses the then-fashionable self-depreciating tone in his descriptions. By that I mean he downplays his own part in each tale. In so doing, he does himself a disservice which has followed the tale down through the years. The fact is that Holmes NEEDS Watson on several levels. In The Canon he says so a number of times. First, Watson provides a necessary link for the mysoginistic Holmes to relate to the rest of humanity. Without Watson he would have a far more difficult time questioning witnesses and getting cooperation. Second, Watson provides a sounding board. Holmes retreats when he needs to concentrate but while he is formulating a theory he will sound out his ideas and Watson listens. Third, Watson is always the errand boy/bodyguard/gofer whose courage and willingness to act are never called into question. "Watson, stay with ( fill in any client) until I return. Do you have your Webley?" Okay, the modern Watson does not carry a Webley but an imposing automatic that I could not identify, but the idea's the same. Fourth, Watson provides the one thing Holmes' Spockian intelletual genius cannot: intuition. As the embodiment of logic, Holmes cannot or will not accept his own ideas or concepts unless they are the product of pure reason. Watson uses reason, but subconsiously. He makes leaps of thought that Holmes can't. Even if he comes to the wrong conclusion, he provides the inspiration Holmes may need to solve his problem. Fifth, Watson is loyal as a pet spaniel. He displays unwavering devotion to his friend regardless of what mood Holmes may be in, what kind or degree of danger he must face or what outlandish thing Holmes will ask of him. Lastly, of course, Watson provides companionship. That Holmes would be very lonely withiout him, is a given. That he can acknowledge it is, for Holmes, a quantum leap. When you recall all the ways Watson proves helpful and loyal to Holmes the idea of being his lover as well becomes all but redundant. As far as he is capable in any sense of the term, Holmes loves Watson in what is probably an entirely asexual way.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 14, 2010 22:59:23 GMT -5
That last episode, now that was a cliffhanger. It's really beginning to grow on me. I want more.
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Nov 22, 2010 12:05:46 GMT -5
Enjoyed this modern version of Sherlock.
Definitely skews much, much younger than the classic Sherlock and even the recent movie w/ Robert Downey.
Couldn't help thinking that this updated rational thinker is the British cousin of Sheldon Cooper, although Sheldon's idolization (as far as his ego will allow idolization of others ;D ) turns to the future and rational Spock instead of to Conan Doyle's prototype rational man.
At least Sheldon has a girlfriend that matches his mind, we'll have to wait and see what Masterpiece Mystery will do to come up with an updated Irene Adler to brfit their Sherlock.
leftylady
|
|
|
Post by S'ewing S'cubie on Nov 22, 2010 13:44:41 GMT -5
Love to see ya, Lefty!
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 30, 2012 22:10:14 GMT -5
Well, I know the second series won't be debuting here until May, but I couldn't help myself; I ordered it from Amazon UK.
Of course, that means I really can't discuss it here. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 1, 2012 20:41:45 GMT -5
Sara:
I think a lot of the criticism depends on whether you consider yourself a second-wave or third-wave feminist. A lot of the criticism is very second-wave in flavor, because of the complaints about her power being purely sexual. That doesn't bother me, and I find that critique to be less than compelling, because she is intelligent and uses her sexuality.
But there is a level of disrespect that smacks of author-intrusion (by Moffat, Gattis, et al) that is very specific to how the original stories ends..the idea that Irene Adler is The Woman, the only one who could best Sherlock. The way it is played in this version...well, if you've not seen it, I won't spoil it for you. But watch how Cumberbatch says "the woman." When combined with the particular updates to the source material, there seems to be a level of contempt or condensation that is troubling.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on May 1, 2012 20:52:30 GMT -5
Sara: I think a lot of the criticism depends on whether you consider yourself a second-wave or third-wave feminist. A lot of the criticism is very second-wave in flavor, because of the complaints about her power being purely sexual. That doesn't bother me, and I find that critique to be less than compelling, because she is intelligent and uses her sexuality. But there is a level of disrespect that smacks of author-intrusion (by Moffat, Gattis, et al) that is very specific to how the original stories ends..the idea that Irene Adler is The Woman, the only one who could best Sherlock. The way it is played in this version...well, if you've not seen it, I won't spoil it for you. But watch how Cumberbatch says "the woman." When combined with the particular updates to the source material, there seems to be a level of contempt or condensation that is troubling. That was the impression I got, mainly from this discussion of the episode and Moffat's work (I haven't watched it yet myself, but was accidentally spoiled for it before I saw the article). I've been going back and forth on the overall question of Moffat's sexism or lack thereof. On the one hand, some excellent points are made supporting the contention that he has some sexist tendencies. On the other hand, he brought us River Song, who is made of awesome. So, yeah, I have no idea what to think.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on May 1, 2012 21:31:19 GMT -5
Sara: I think a lot of the criticism depends on whether you consider yourself a second-wave or third-wave feminist. A lot of the criticism is very second-wave in flavor, because of the complaints about her power being purely sexual. That doesn't bother me, and I find that critique to be less than compelling, because she is intelligent and uses her sexuality. But there is a level of disrespect that smacks of author-intrusion (by Moffat, Gattis, et al) that is very specific to how the original stories ends..the idea that Irene Adler is The Woman, the only one who could best Sherlock. The way it is played in this version...well, if you've not seen it, I won't spoil it for you. But watch how Cumberbatch says "the woman." When combined with the particular updates to the source material, there seems to be a level of contempt or condensation that is troubling. That was the impression I got, mainly from this discussion of the episode and Moffat's work (I haven't watched it yet myself, but was accidentally spoiled for it before I saw the article). I've been going back and forth on the overall question of Moffat's sexism or lack thereof. On the one hand, some excellent points are made supporting the contention that he has some sexist tendencies. On the other hand, he brought us River Song, who is made of awesome. So, yeah, I have no idea what to think. You know what irks me? Is the sense that if one complains about it, we're pedantic and living in a fantasy world where we think these characters are real. Which is such a cop-out, because we all consume a vast amount of media, invite it into our heads, and yes, it can have an influence on how we think. Here's where the problem lies, I think, and it's a problem SPN has as well. There are not enough female characters to provide a decent range of representation. I'm not trying to kill the fictional impulse, or dictate what an author should write. But Joss (and it always comes back to Joss) offered a WHOLE RANGE of female characters on Buffy, Firefly, and Dollhouse (Angel, not so much, which is why it sometimes fell prey to some of these issues). If one female character came off as, for instance, man-hungry or looks-obsessed (early Cordelia) it was balanced by another who was book-smart and socially awkward (Willow), or one who is smarter than she thinks, has agency, and kicks ass (Buffy). In shows that are SO male-dominated (SPN, Sherlock), when a female does appear, it is hard for her not to end up a caricature (Bela/Irene as the "femme fatale" or Jo/Molly as the sweet girl who harbors an unrequited crush for the hero [although to SPN's credit, Jo Harville ended up developing beyond that dimension, to some extent]). That's what I find a bit troubling about Moffat's Sherlock: the women that are there come off as shrill (like the female detective, Sally Donovan), motherly (Mrs. Hudson), or sweet (Molly)...but what else are they? (And that's not even getting into the fact that Sherlock's response to Sally was to basically slut-shame her. Yikes.) Does that mean I hate the show? Not at all. The source material has some serious issues as well. (The Sign of Four? Holy CRAP is it racist.) As for River Song...well, that's a WHOLE other story, and this is turning into an epic post. I would probably say that my favorite Moffat-created female character is Sally Sparrow. She took control, she wasn't man-obsessed or defined by a relationship, and she had female friends.
|
|