![]() ![]() |
Jun 2 2010, 05:55 PM
Post
#136
|
|
|
Hollywood Royalty Group: 1nmate Posts: 9,507 Joined: 17-October 01 From: Scotland Member No.: 14 |
Yeah, the publicity for it makes it look incredibly cliched. Haven't tried it though. I think I've only got room for one vampire show.
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 01:47 PM
Post
#137
|
|
![]() The Star, Baby! The Star! Group: 1nmate Posts: 1,084 Joined: 9-January 02 From: New York Member No.: 53 |
The BBC has launched a modern Sherlock Homes series. It's odd, considering everything from House/Monk to Doctor Who itself, all model themselves on Sherlock to begin with, but it felt more than a little derivative. There's really only so many shows I can watch that have quirky, out of touch but brilliant leads with long suffering sidekicks. And yet...
The initial mystery didn't feel terribly Holmesian. It must be difficult to translate into a modern setting that uniquely Victorian sleuthing style. I'm abysmal myself at plotting mysteries, so I usual give them slightly more leeway but I was so far ahead of the pilot it was almost tedious. And of course, given Moffat's pedigree, the similarities to Nu-Who were pretty glaring. Sherlock's a rakish, brilliant but oft-addle brained hero in a long coat who, wait for it, runs about quite bit. He's always leaving a room before anyone else has even stood up and muttering about how boring it must be to be as dull witted as everyone else must be. There are some genuine moments that hit to the heart of his character and I'm excited to see where they're going with the established lore. An obvious misdirect early on in particular seems rife with potential. Watson is at least slightly more interesting than Jude Law's turn last year so there's also that. I'll watch for a while, if for no other reason that I can dispose (gratefully) of The Mentalist. I still enjoy Psych most out of the genre, though. |
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 02:20 PM
Post
#138
|
|
|
Hollywood Royalty Group: Literary Inmate Posts: 11,525 Joined: 16-October 01 From: Los Angeles, baby! Member No.: 5 |
Is this airing here yet? I'm a great fan of Sherlock Holmes, but since it's set in modern day I don't know if I'd watch. That's like Miami Vice but not in the '80s.
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 04:52 PM
Post
#139
|
|
![]() The Star, Baby! The Star! Group: 1nmate Posts: 1,084 Joined: 9-January 02 From: New York Member No.: 53 |
Probably not on BBC America just yet, although history proves it'll be here eventually. Considering it's an update it's remarkably faithful. There's no pipe or deerstalker, but otherwise Watson is quite on the nose and the acknowledgements of modernity serve the character rather well.
I was reminded that Doyle intended Holmes to be repugnant in his adherence to pure logic and reason, which comes across a little in this iteration. |
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 05:03 PM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Hollywood Royalty Group: Literary Inmate Posts: 11,525 Joined: 16-October 01 From: Los Angeles, baby! Member No.: 5 |
I think the stories and their time period are inextricable... it's all about foggy Industrial Age London, and the beginnings of modern science.
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 05:16 PM
Post
#141
|
|
|
Emmy Nominee Group: Literary Inmate Posts: 2,603 Joined: 16-October 01 From: Philly Member No.: 11 |
Considering all the modern-day Holmesian TV shows out there (most of which you mentioned, and some of which are good), a modern-day remake seems almost cute. It's like making a modern-day Emma in the shadow of Clueless. Is he meant to be a relative of the original, or are they just dropping the story in modern-day?
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 06:01 PM
Post
#142
|
|
|
Hollywood Royalty Group: 1nmate Posts: 9,507 Joined: 17-October 01 From: Scotland Member No.: 14 |
The latter; you might be interested in this interview with Moffat and Gatiss where they give their case for the update (there's a better one in the Radio Times but I can't find it online). I think it's fair game that the character is the thing, not the setting, and the first episode was certainly entertaining (I like both actors and am thankful Freeman might be finding some regular role other than "Tim from The Office with a different name"). But that said, I agree they are being a bit disingenuous to suggest that to recreate the pace and style of the original in a modern setting requires them to keep the names and title as heaps of modern detectives are basically Sherlock (and also Dr House, Jonathan Creek etc), they just aren't labelled so. And I also really like the original setting - the Irregulars especially. Did anyone see Murder Rooms a few years ago, which was about a young Doyle as a medical student helping his tutor Dr Bell (who in real life inspired the character) solve crimes in Edinburgh which prefigured his later stories? Not bad.
|
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 06:03 PM
Post
#143
|
|
![]() The Star, Baby! The Star! Group: 1nmate Posts: 1,084 Joined: 9-January 02 From: New York Member No.: 53 |
Nope, it's all played straight. Holmes isn't a celebrity, although he has been doing his thing for some time when we meet him. They do mine a particular convention for some surprising humor through out, in what I imagine will be a running gag for the series. I'm trying to keep it vague because the idiosyncrasies are what kept me watching.
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th September 2010 - 01:47 PM |