Author Topic: New Sherlock from the BBC  (Read 2391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline teethering

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8188
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2010, 11:45:59 AM »
The second one sucked donkey balls.

Offline spiney

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8831
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2010, 11:51:36 AM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?


Eliot Gould made a fair 1970s Phillip Marlowe!

The Long Goodbye Theatrical Trailer

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7480
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2010, 01:28:58 PM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?


Eliot Gould made a fair 1970s Phillip Marlowe!

The Long Goodbye Theatrical Trailer


Keep meaning to see that. It's been in my queue for ages.

Online Tatyana

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2091
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2010, 04:46:57 PM »
I missed a bit of the last one, but the ending....................

I think this means there may be more.

Offline barocon

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Now we are at the edge of excitement!
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2010, 01:08:48 PM »
Quote
Sherlock, BBC1's Sunday night drama that has drawn both big audiences and critical acclaim, will be returning for a second series, the show's producer confirmed today.

Sue Vertue told BBC1's Breakfast programme that a meeting was planned with BBC executives to discuss production plans for the second series. "There will be more. We're having a meeting to talk about how many and when really," she said.


The updated tales of the consulting detective, created by Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat and writer and actor Mark Gatiss, have been a huge success for the BBC – with fans clamouring for more episodes on blog and online forums as soon as Sunday's final episode concluded.

"Steven and Mark are very busy – Steven is obviously doing Doctor Who as well - so it's just when we're going to do them," said Vertue. She also said that the episodes will remain at 90 minutes long.

Vertue was joined on the Breakfast sofa by Moffat, her husband, who described himself and Gattis as "massive, massive Sherlock Holmes geeks", before explaining how the pair had created their version of Moriarty - unveiled on Sunday night to somewhat mixed reviews.

"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.

"In a way Moriarty is the man who makes Sherlock a hero … he's a rather amoral character Sherlock Holmes, so you want someone for him to respond to that turns him into the hero he's sort of destined to be."

Moffat later told Radio 5 Live: "We're going in for a meeting any second now about it. But yes, of course it will [come back]. It's not officially confirmed yet but yes, it will – of course it will."

The BBC said last week that it had been "thrilled" by reaction to the programme. Overnight figures for Sunday's final episode had a combined audience of 7.3 million viewers on BBC1 and BBC HD.

Sherlock has turned Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays the consulting detective, into a television superstar.

"Benedict was the only person we actually saw for [the part of] Sherlock," said Vertue. "Once Benedict was there it was really just making sure we got the chemistry for John [Watson, played by Martin Freeman] – and I think you get it as soon as they come into the room, you can see that they work together."



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

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10431
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2010, 12:03:38 PM »
This is a totally modern Sherlock.  And it was very entertaining.

The new Sherlock was quite perfect, which is a very difficult thing considering how many fab Sherlocks there have been.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10725501





Is that Arthur Dent as Watson?


Yes, Martin Freeman. I think he is more readily identified as Tim in 'The Office' in the UK.


And Simon Jones is much more commonly associated with Arthur dent.

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10431
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2010, 12:06:51 PM »
Ep 1 is A Study in Pink if that helps you find it.

Whut? Seriously? What's their angle? Are they not following the stories?


EDIT: Found it....it's modern times? Okay, I hate it.



You're wrong.  Stop being wrong.

It's good, certainly worth watching.  I don't like their version of Holmes himself, I think he's too much of a dick and is too rude.

Yes, they got Conan Doyle's version of Holmes spot on.  Despite being set in modern times, I think this is one of the most "true to the spirit" of the original Doyle stories I've ever seen.

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10431
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2010, 12:10:39 PM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?

Go and read A Study in Scarlet or the first few stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and then say that this new TV show does not capture "the charm of the series".

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7480
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2010, 12:52:34 PM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?

Go and read A Study in Scarlet or the first few stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and then say that this new TV show does not capture "the charm of the series".

I've read every Sherlock Holmes story multiple times. Except for Valley of Fear....I can't seem to get through it...plods interminably in the beginning.

I haven't seen this show, what with not being in Britain and all. But I generally don't like when they change periods on literature. Like Branagh doing Hamlet set in the 19th century.

Offline goodthink

  • Deleted
  • Well Established
  • *
  • Posts: 1790
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2010, 02:07:05 PM »
I really like the new series. Holmes is supposed to be obtuse and dickish, anyone who is that good has to sacrifice in other areas. If you applied modern criteria to Holmes today he'd have Asberger's - just saying.

But I love how they have incorporated modern technology into the show, especially how they show it. IN one scene Holmes is talking to Watson while using his smart phone to web search (not using the term google anymore, they are a rectal cancer to the web) and on the screen in a fade white text you see the results of his searches. Brill.

In addition, I love Watson. The first show I kept thinking of Dent and Tim, but after that he just is. Although, at first I also kept thinking of how I would have prefered House as Holmes, but the new guy does a very good job.

Oh and Moriarty, loved it. Can't wait for the next one.

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10431
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2010, 02:42:28 PM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?

Go and read A Study in Scarlet or the first few stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and then say that this new TV show does not capture "the charm of the series".

I've read every Sherlock Holmes story multiple times. Except for Valley of Fear....I can't seem to get through it...plods interminably in the beginning.

I haven't seen this show, what with not being in Britain and all. But I generally don't like when they change periods on literature. Like Branagh doing Hamlet set in the 19th century.

I have also read all of the Holmes stories many times, and I admit I was skeptical (to coin a phrase) was I first heard about this 21st treatment, but I watched it anyway, and I assure you it is very faithful to Doyle's version of Holmes.

It unfortunately seems quite common for people to dismiss new versions of old stories when the setting or time period is changed.  This seems like a very odd, very modern phenomenon.  Throughout history, human beings have told and retold the same stories in different settings and eras.  Sometimes the retellings are good, sometimes they are not, but one cannot determine whether a new version is good or not based merely on the setting or era.

When it comes to Shakespeare, the complaint is even more absurd, since almost all of Shakespeare's plays were intentionally anachronistic; they were all staged as if taking place in Elizabethan England.  So, would the "correct" setting of a Shakespeare play be the period of the original story Shakespeare is ripping off (as many contemporary film versions are done), would it be Elizabethan  England (as they were first performed), or would it be contemporary to the audience (as many Shakespeare scholars believe Shakespeare would have preferred)?  I don't think there is a correct answer to that question, I think it is best for producers to keep giving us all of those versions.

Getting back to Sherlock, I must point out that this new version of Holmes feels much closer to the original stories than the recent Robert Downey Jr. version, which took place in the 19th century.  Don't get me wrong, I liked the Robert Downey Jr. version a lot, and I'm not saying that this contemporary version is necessarily better, but it is much closer to tone and characterizations to the original, despite being set in the 21st century.
 

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7480
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2010, 04:22:21 PM »
Fuck that. Holmes is an 19th century man. That's part of the charm of the series. It's like setting The Great Gatsby in the 70s. What the hell?

Go and read A Study in Scarlet or the first few stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, and then say that this new TV show does not capture "the charm of the series".

I've read every Sherlock Holmes story multiple times. Except for Valley of Fear....I can't seem to get through it...plods interminably in the beginning.

I haven't seen this show, what with not being in Britain and all. But I generally don't like when they change periods on literature. Like Branagh doing Hamlet set in the 19th century.

I have also read all of the Holmes stories many times, and I admit I was skeptical (to coin a phrase) was I first heard about this 21st treatment, but I watched it anyway, and I assure you it is very faithful to Doyle's version of Holmes.

It unfortunately seems quite common for people to dismiss new versions of old stories when the setting or time period is changed.  This seems like a very odd, very modern phenomenon.  Throughout history, human beings have told and retold the same stories in different settings and eras.  Sometimes the retellings are good, sometimes they are not, but one cannot determine whether a new version is good or not based merely on the setting or era.

When it comes to Shakespeare, the complaint is even more absurd, since almost all of Shakespeare's plays were intentionally anachronistic; they were all staged as if taking place in Elizabethan England.  So, would the "correct" setting of a Shakespeare play be the period of the original story Shakespeare is ripping off (as many contemporary film versions are done), would it be Elizabethan  England (as they were first performed), or would it be contemporary to the audience (as many Shakespeare scholars believe Shakespeare would have preferred)?  I don't think there is a correct answer to that question, I think it is best for producers to keep giving us all of those versions.

Getting back to Sherlock, I must point out that this new version of Holmes feels much closer to the original stories than the recent Robert Downey Jr. version, which took place in the 19th century.  Don't get me wrong, I liked the Robert Downey Jr. version a lot, and I'm not saying that this contemporary version is necessarily better, but it is much closer to tone and characterizations to the original, despite being set in the 21st century.

I never said it what was incorrect....I only said what I prefer. And while I admit I am guilty of generalizing, I don't think it's a bad way to gauge if you're going to enjoy something. For example I generally dislike Jim Carrey movies.

When I watch movies I prefer internal consistency. So I prefer the time period be based on the tale told, not the time it was written, or the time it was performed. I especially don't like shakespeare being done in modern times, but still spoken like shakespeare....a la Romeo and Juliet. It takes me out of the film. I'm not averse to a retelling or sorts, like West Side Story, but that's pretty far removed from the source material and doesn't pretend to be the same characters. Sorry, but it's just what I prefer. Hamlet should be set in a castle in Denmark, in a time approximately equivalent to the time in which it is set (late medieval period circa 14th century). It's just a hang up I have, I guess.  :-\

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10431
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2010, 05:47:21 PM »
Hamlet should be set in a castle in Denmark, in a time approximately equivalent to the time in which it is set (late medieval period circa 14th century). It's just a hang up I have, I guess.  :-\

So by your reckoning, Shakespeare got the staging of his own play all wrong?

Offline MisterMarc

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7480
  • The universe seems ...merely indifferent.
    • Schlock Treatment
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2010, 08:39:16 PM »
Hamlet should be set in a castle in Denmark, in a time approximately equivalent to the time in which it is set (late medieval period circa 14th century). It's just a hang up I have, I guess.  :-\

So by your reckoning, Shakespeare got the staging of his own play all wrong?

I never said anything was wrong, just that I don't like it. I don't give a fuck how Shakespeare staged his play. You asked my opinion and I gave it. He set his play in a time period, and the story is the story, imho. Holmes is a character within a time period. Doyle himself could rewrite him as a caveman, for all I care, but it doesn't have the appeal of 19th century Holmes to me, because the period is so deeply a part of his character and the plots in my mind.

Offline spiney

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8831
Re: New Sherlock from the BBC
« Reply #44 on: August 15, 2010, 09:27:57 AM »
"A tiny sandwich shop has become Britain’s unlikeliest tourist attraction ..........."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1303224/Sherlock-Holmes-riddle-packed-sandwich-bar.html

 

personate-rain