| Author | Message | ||
     Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Any thoughts? I bloody loved it.  | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Same here. Looks like Mr Moffatt is on good form at the moment. I didn't even find Martin Freeman irritating which means it must have been good writing. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Or a (typically) good performance by Freeman.  | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.111.129.71 |
Yes....I really enjoyed it. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 62.254.173.35 |
The opening few seconds, I thought "Oh, dear. It's gonna be crap." I was wrong! It was ludicrous and riddiculous in all the right ways. Top scores for this one. I'll certainly be watching the rest. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I had the opposite reaction to the openng seconds - I thought (This is going to be great!"  Thankfully, it was. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.70 |
No shit Sherlock! | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.68 |
Freeman was great, I thought. Had his excellent comic timing pat. The guy playing Homes, despite having too many syallables in his name, grew on me. Odd-looking bloke. Moffat knows that Holmes is Doctor Who ithout being an alien, played up to that. In fact, this was better than his recent Who tales, I thought. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.68 |
(Surreal: just heard Colin Dexter making a guest appearance as himself on The Archers. What next? Ramsey on Emmerdale Farm?) | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
Lovely bit of misdirection over the identity of one of the charaters in this week's episode. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
Yes. I half suspected but was still thrilled at it. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.238.131 |
I liked it and boy, am I hard to please. I saw Benedict Chumbawhumbapatch a couple of months ago on stage, he was very good. Sherlock is certainly a lot better than the abysmal Luther... gcw | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.72 |
Ah, now that's interesting, GCW. I rather enjoyed Luther too. I think, despite all the dodgy cliches, the cast just about carried it off. And it was very good looking. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
Cracking fun, wasn't it? I went in fully intending to hate it, too. | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.158.238.131 |
"I rather enjoyed Luther too" Ah man! I used to adore Saskia Reeves! - What did they do to her??? gcw.. | ||
| Skip (Wolfnoma) Username: Wolfnoma Registered: 07-2010 Posted From: 216.54.20.98 |
Dang, I thought this was a thread to blast the movie Hollywood made last year. Now I am going to have to figure out if BBCA is gonna carry this show. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
Wonder why it didn't get the Who slot? | ||
| Skip (Wolfnoma) Username: Wolfnoma Registered: 07-2010 Posted From: 216.54.20.98 |
DW just finished this past weekend. Great series this year. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
I loved Smith and a few eps, but sadly this series has made me feel sort of flat. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.55 |
No, it was sleeping under a steam-roller that did that. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 142.179.14.129 |
Skip: the show is airing in America on PBS as part of MYSTERY starting 24 October. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 95.131.110.102 |
I enjoyed Sherlock too. Couldn't get on with Luther at all. Lasted most of the first episode and that was that. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.74 |
I have to admit to enjoying the Shane Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie. Sorry. But I did. Thought it was a real fun, throwback movie, could've been made pretty much the same in the 1970s. And well. Tony, I think Sherlock had too many cuss words and scenes of an adult nature - especially Sherlock's means of getting info out of the baddy at the end - to put it on the family viewing slot. | ||
| Skip (Wolfnoma) Username: Wolfnoma Registered: 07-2010 Posted From: 216.54.20.98 |
Barbara, thanks. I will make sure to set my DVR. I enjoyed the Smith as the new Dr. I liked the Fez in the last episode as well as the Bow Tie. And Amelia Pond, sorry I don't know her real name, is a sexy little minx. (God I hope she is not underage.) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
Just caught the first ep. I think it was classic stuff, had just the right atmosphere of excitement and wonder. It was almost quintessential. And Benedict Cummerbund might be the best none-Doctor Who we never had... God, I absolutely loved it. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
London BTW was about as magical as I've ever seen it, too. It didn't feel quite real, felt sort of timeless. It was a great achievement for the beeb, I thought. I loved the line about the nicotine patches too btw, which I won't spoil for people who haven't seen it. Hilarious, hilarious stuff. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
And yes, better and tighter and more exhilarating than most of Who. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
'Lovely bit of misdirection over the identity of one of the characters in this week's episode.' - YES! That was f*cking awesome that bit. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 142.179.14.129 |
So you liked it, then, Tony? I think it's brilliant, and yes, Cumberbatch is the best non-Doctor Doctor I've seen. There's one moment in yesterday's episode where he really WAS the Doctor, for a moment. 'The Blind Banker' wasn't quite as Sherlockian as 'A Study in Pink', but the relationship between Holmes and Watson (or Sherlock and John) has hit the ground running, and I thought the story was a cracking adventure, which is, in the end, what I want from a Holmes movie. The misdirection about one character in the first episode was indeed well handled, and I hope we see more of said character in next week's finale. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
Hey Barbara - has you email address changed? I emailed you recently and unless you've been busy I think it might have bounced...  What makes you think I liked Sherlock? Was it something I might have said? Ha - no; it's making me want to read the books, watch the Rathbones, the Stephens (the one there was... )... | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.70 |
The second episode was a bit of a non-classic after the first episode's instant mini-classic, I thought. It wasn't written by Moffatt but by a relative newcomer apparant.y. But it was still worth a watch. The TV critics who've seen the third episode - written by Mark Gatiss - reckon it's as good as the first, so fingers crossed for that! | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.79.214 |
I just discovered this and now the whole series is suddenly over! Just three episodes, it seems. It's exciting stuff and unlike most 1.5 hour TV these days, it earned every one of its on-air minutes. Moriarty was too theatrical, but you can't have everything. Nice that they worked in that Holmes' knowledge of astronomy was almost nil. From A Study in Scarlet: "Sherlock Holmes — his limits. 1. Knowledge of Literature.—Nil. 2. Philosophy.—Nil. 3. Astronomy.— Nil. 4. Politics.— Feeble. 5. Botany.—Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening. 6. Knowledge of Geology.—Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them. 7. Knowledge of Chemistry.—Profound. 8. Anatomy.—Accurate, but unsystematic 9. Sensational Literature.—Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. 10. Plays the violin well. 11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman. 12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law." From the Telegraph review: "Dr Watson was an Army doctor injured in Afghanistan – as, funnily enough, was the original Watson, who had fallen foul of the second Afghan war of 1878-1880." Nice. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.79.214 |
And The Observer has: "...the show resembled a cross between Withnail and I and The Bourne Ultimatum..." Why do we suddenly like long-fingered swallow-tailed toffs? We'd hate them if we met them in real life. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.18.7.180 |
I agree about Moriarty. I didn't think he came close to being even vaguely frightening (or believable). Perhaps that wasn't the purpose of his casting, but he didn't menace me at all. However, that was the only let-down in what was generally a pretty good TV experience. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.155.48.70 |
I LOVED this series! My only problem was yes, quite a big one; Moriarty, as played by Graham Norton (or maybe Ant off Ant and Dec). He was just way too young, felt like he was off looking for a night club or something. He just did not feel like Moriarty. Did some reading on the wonderful Cumberbatch; he's a friend of the Moff and a long term Who fan. He wanted to play a character in Who who might be recurrent, goody or baddy, but then when the chance came to actually audtition for the part of Who himself he went and changed his mind. God, he would have been stunning. I've just picked up my Holmes books for the first time in ages and had a flick through them. They feel bloody new and are so electrifyingly written. Time for a good long wallow, methinks. (Holmes in them is a bit nicer, mind, I notice.) Toffs, Proto; maybe we're just bored by gritty working class types, and realism? Running through this series was a streak of wonder and strangeness we haven't seen since Sapphire and Steele or maybe even Twin Peaks, though that felt like a different thing. It was like all those old odd things like malformed weird killers had found their way back somehow, like at any point it might morph into League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Heck, maybe some other old duffer of a show could be revitalised in this way. The Moff said Holmes wasn't about gaslamps and carriages, but it was about streets in the dark and rushing off to odd places in vehicles at the dead of night... Did I say I loved this show? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.155.48.70 |
In the back of my mind I was hoping the Moriarty we saw was a double to be disposed with later... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.155.48.70 |
Moriarty was like a splodge of tomato sauce on top of some gourmet feast, wasn't he? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.216.51 |
Yes, Ant + Dec + Norton + telepod = Moriarty. "I've just picked up my Holmes books for the first time in ages and had a flick through them." Me too! | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 82.2.76.93 |
Moriarty was a bit rubbish. Particularly as the whole point of the original character was that his plans were so subtle and sophisticated that no one apart from Holmes even knew there was a Napoleon of crime. "Hmm, how can I keep a low profile? I know -- cryptic messages to the police and lots of semtex!" Even so, I preferred this to last week's effort. I like the programme better when it strikes a balance between the new stuff and riffing off the original stories -- "Oh, it's going to be an update of The Bruce-Partington Plans and The Five Orange Pips! And Holmes still shoots the wall of his flat when he gets bored!" | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 212.121.214.11 |
It was unfair to finish the series there though. Not nice. If I see Mark Gatiss I'm going to hit him on the head with a boiled haddock for leaving the ending so up in the air. I really loved the show BTW | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.108.128 |
Woo hoo! http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=51;-1;-1;-1;-1&sku=4104 | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.157.22.238 |
Did anyone else know that Jeremy Brett auditioned for the part of James Bond - twice? One for OHMSS and the other for live and Let Die. Amazing to think Bond could have been so 'different'. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.157.22.238 |
Wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcu3BpYPofs | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.0.116 |
We've just managed to watch the first episode of this and I liked it a lot, with some splendid casting choices right down to the inspired inclusion of Una Stubbs (I do hope Lionel Blair turns up somewhere). David Arnold's theme tune is basically his music for the Randall & Hopkirk remake with a couple of minor chords altered (and which was itself a rejected James Bond theme) but that's about the only thing that felt derivative about this. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.180.184 |
Una Stubbs is indeed wonderful. 'I'm your landlady, dear, not your housekeeper.' There are other Sherlockian duos I'm very fond of, but I think this one most perfectly captures the great friendship of the original stories. | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
Interesting to see that the second series will still only be the three episodes. I thought the Beeb would try and stretch this out to six at least, but I suppose it makes sense not to change a successful formula. Look forward to seeing what you think of the other two episodes, John. Opinions on them seem quite divided. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.180.184 |
I suspect there are several factors at work behind the decision to only have three episodes in the second series, including Steven Moffat being busy with DOCTOR WHO, Martin Freeman being busy with a couple of small independent films based on some obscure fantasy novel, and the desire of all concerned to keep the quality high, which is easier to do if you're not having to write too much and dilute what you've got. I'd rather have three really good episodes than six so-so ones. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.0.116 |
We've just watched the second episode of the first series, "The Blind Banker" and while I probably enjoyed it almost as much as the first I was amazed at how Victorian this particular story was. In fact I wouldn't have been surprised if this was an old period Holmes script that had been dusted off and updated, what with its themes of the 'dastardly Chinese & their terrible tongs', the 'cosification' of street urchins (updated to hoodies helping out in solving crimes) and even the Victorian tradition of travelling circuses to provide a major set piece. Don't get me wrong - I thought it was splendid, and the best possible way to update Holmes for the 21st century. I look forward to more of this sort of thing. As a footnote, how do we think this compares with the Guy Ritchie version? I rather think that in a fight (intellectual or otherwise) Messrs Cumberbatch & Freeman would win over Downey Jr & Law. I have to say one of the delightful things about the TV series is how it takes great pains not to be "knowing" or "camp". Having Holmes deliberately describe himself as a 'sociopathic personality' will hopefully spare us from a lot of drama-sapping navel gazing about why he is the way he is and leave our chaps free to have some terrific adventures. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.180.184 |
I think the Ritchie version was what the Holmes franchise needed on the big screen: a vibrant and exciting boot up the backside. SHERLOCK, meanwhile, works perfectly on the small screen as a series of continuing adventures. I think Cumberbatch's Sherlock would have the edge on Downey Jr.'s, and while Jude Law is a fine Holmes, I think Martin Freeman just beats him out. I'm just thankful that after such a long drought of decent, serious Holmes on the big screen (1979, MURDER BY DECREE) and the small one (1993, which was the end of the Brett series; although I really liked the Roxburgh HOUND the BBC did in 2002) the character is back front and centre in two franchises. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.180.184 |
And yes, John, 'The Blind Banker' did have a rather 'Talons of Weng-Chiang' feel to it (which is only fitting), not to mention Fu Manchu, and even Steve Coogan's 'Frenzy of Tongs' from DR TERRIBLE (which of course starred Mark Gatiss). | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.0.116 |
Barbara - in spite of Mr Gatiss' appearance in the previous episode (and am I the only one who guessed who his character was straight away?) a tiny part of me wondered if he would play the oriental mastermind in this one! | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.140.190.159 |
I thought the second ep was flat compared with the other two. The first and last are stunning, the middle feels sort of rushed and less rich. Oh, there's a bad guy in the last ep who is pure victoriana. It's like a monster movie. I loved this series - in fact all my family did. Hope people saw my Jeremy Brett clips above; what a guy. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.140.190.159 |
This audio interview is just wonderful. Really revealing. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4197258 | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.0.116 |
And so we get to the last episode, which I thought was quite marvellous up to the last ten minutes or so when we are introduced to a villain that really doesn't deserve the buildup he's had. The 'Jim'll Fix It' gag shows that Gatiss really is writing for an audience of a certain age who spent Saturday nights just like he did (although surely Holmes didn't. If he doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun how on earth does he know about Jimmy Saville?). So the ending was a bit of a let down on several counts. Never mind, though - we'll be watching the second series. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.140.190.159 |
I HATED Moriarty! Ant McPartlin possessed by an overly camp version of Graham Norton. Apparently the reasoning behind the casting was they wanted to make Holmes look more like a Hero, which they said he hadn't by then. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.180.184 |
The jury was out on Moriarty, for me, after the first time I saw the episode; he's grown on me since then, and I can appreciate what Gatiss and Moffat were trying to do (I think), which is emphasise that Sherlock and Jim are very similar in many ways (consulting detective/consulting criminal), but while Jim has chosen the dark path (as it were) Sherlock chooses to work on the side of the angels (more or less). See, for example, Sherlock reminding Jim that people have died, and Jim's cold 'That's what people DO!' - Sherlock retains his humanity, Jim has lost his. And Jim's hissed 'I'll burn the heart out of you', which is chilling, followed by Sherlock's 'I've been reliably informed I don't have one', and Jim's rejoinder 'But we both know that's not true.' Holmes does have a heart; Jim doesn't. So the characterisation has gone up several notches in my book, and I'm looking forward to how they a) resolve the cliffhanger and b) develop Sherlock and Jim's battle in the second series. And John, I did figure out who Gatiss was playing in the first episode, before the ending, and thought it a pity he wasn't able to turn up in disguise in the second episode. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.131.0.116 |
Also forgot to mention that I loved the inclusion of the Rondo Hatton / Hoxton Creeperesque Golem character - I hope he turns up again! | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
See, for example, Sherlock reminding Jim that people have died, and Jim's cold 'That's what people DO!' Yes, that was the line that sold me on both the character and the portrayal of Moriarty. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.157.26.5 |
Was "the gigantic hound" wording in Sherlock last night important because of H.P. Lovecraft's use of it in 'The Hound'? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.157.26.5 |
To answer my own question - presumably not, because, as someone has pointed out elsewhere, it is a direct quote from the original Conan Doyle story: 'Dr. Mortimer looked strangely at us for an instant, and his voice sank almost to a whisper as he answered: '"Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"' ---------------- Or did Conan Doyle get the phrase from HPL? Or vice versa? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Is it just me or is this series of 'Sherlock' not quite as tight as the last one? Still highly entertaining and the cast are as charismatic as ever but, by God, they're leaving some gaping plot holes. Maybe it's just watching them with my expectations raised to unfair levels after enjoying the original stories so much this last while. Still unpacking boxes and still haven't come across my copy of 'His Last Bow'... but it's in there. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.5.36.69 |
Liberty, In ... a bit of a cheat (given that we knew nothing about it and no-onew had mentioned it before), or an acceptable plot device? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
And the coincidence of the killer happening to have a hound on his "Project Hound" t-shirt while there just happened to be a real and unrelated hound running around at the same time - that left real and unfeasibly large paw-prints. They'd have done better to follow Doyle's original plot a bit more closely, imo. The characterisations are still a joy but this playing fast and loose with daft plot contrivances is stretching the patience a bit. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 92.8.28.217 |
As a young chap Lovecraft was a great admirer of the Holmes tales, Des. Joshi points out references in "The Hound" to Bierce and Poe as well as Doyle. | ||
| Paul_finch (Paul_finch) Username: Paul_finch Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 92.5.36.69 |
As I watched it, that old phrase came to mind, "if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it", but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy last night's episode. The bit where Holmes just delved into the back of his mind, physically throwing ideas and theories around like Tom Cruise did in MINORITY REPORT, was quite amusing. Very Dr Who-ish. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.157.26.5 |
Thanks, Ramsey. That's interesting. I think the scriptwriters last night were giving a knowing nod to HPL fans by making such a dramatic 'play' on the use of those words, even though the words originated with Conan Doyle.. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
It has always been my contention that Lovecraft was the unholy spawn of Poe, Wells & Hodgson... but after reading the Sherlock Holmes books in chrono order for the first time last year then Doyle most definitely belongs alongside them. The man's mastery of storytelling and characterisation is all too often decried as "silly" or "populist" but I firmly believe now that he was a writer of genius. Popular art that stands the test of time and spreads its influence through successive generations is always a thing of beauty due to its espousal of eternal truths... and infallible ability to communicate same. Discuss. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.188.106 |
Stevie: "And the coincidence of the killer happening to have a hound on his "Project Hound" t-shirt while there just happened to be a real and unrelated hound running around at the same time - that left real and unfeasibly large paw-prints." The killer wearing the 'Project Hound' T-shirt was 20 years in the past; his get-up and garb inspired the then-young Henry to turn his dad's killer into a monstrous hound. This story of his - combined with the fears/suppositions about what sort of animal experiments were going on at Baskerville - in turn inspired the blokes in the pub to buy the big dog in the present, and let it loose on the moor. Thus the events aren't/weren't concurrent. Glad to see Gatiss obeying Chekhov's dictum about how if you show a minefield in the first act, someone has to wander into it and detonate a mine in the second. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Thanks, Barbara, but don't you think they were stretching the point at least a tad - albeit to entertaining results. And, yes, I am a pedantic sod. The best scene was when Sherlock was shitting himself in the pub. The acting was just superb - a pitch perfect blend of character comedy and really quite ominous drama. That's it! If it takes all night I'm unearthing 'His Last Bow' and getting stuck in. I've missed that world. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.59.115.60 |
I thought it was fun but not up to the standard of other episodes. For one, being able to walk out of a hugely secure place like that just because some bloke says "it's ok, I know him" wasn't particularly convincing, and even getting in with a face unlike the one on the security system was daft too. Again, though, like Paul, I did really enjoy it. | ||
| Barbara Roden (Nebuly) Username: Nebuly Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 216.232.188.106 |
I thought it was a clever updating/reworking of the original, and I loved Gatiss's little tease, where Sherlock kept cutting Henry off as he was about to utter one of the most famous lines in the canon ('Dammit, he can't leave out THAT line, surely!"). And then we got it twice, which okay, might have been over-egging the pudding a bit, but I was in fangirl heaven. Plus a clever incorporation of elements from "The Devil's Foot", and I liked that while the character names were kept from the original novel, that didn't necessarily indicate whether the person in question was villain, good guy, or red herring. For one mad moment, when Henry was flipping between channels, I thought the black-and-white film playing was the 1939 HOUND. And how great would that have been? I'm loving this second series as much as the first. Gatiss and Moffat are walking, to my mind, a perfect line between clever update for a mass audience and knowing (and fond) nods to the originals. For example, it was great that Gatiss found a way to get Lestrade in at the end, as in the novel; a good many faithful adaptations of HOUND drop him altogether. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.131.109.2 |
I want to know if Moriarty is a biological weapon now, used to stop the likes of Holmes. Hence Mycroft wanting to keep tabs on him. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 82.2.64.245 |
I've posted blogs on the first two episodes of this series of Sherlock if anyone's interested. http://stuyoung.blogspot.com/2012/01/sherlock-scandal-in-belgravia.html http://stuyoung.blogspot.com/2012/01/sherlock-hounds-of-baskerville.html | ||
| Matthew Fryer (Matthew_fryer) Username: Matthew_fryer Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 94.12.171.50 |
"being able to walk out of a hugely secure place like that just because some bloke says "it's ok, I know him" wasn't particularly convincing" Absolutely Mick, that bit really annoyed me. But it was still clever fun. My only general complaint is the occasional times when Dr. Watson still acts like the baffled Holmes newbie he was at the start of series 1. | ||
| Stu (Stu) Username: Stu Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 82.11.92.225 |
Watson's ability to keep up with Holmes intellectually varied quite a bit in the original stories. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Not half! And Holmes ability to keep up with Watson emotionally, ditto. That's what made them such a memorable pairing. To my mind the original stories read as much like a case study of mental illness, by Dr Watson, as they do a portrait of frequently tested friendship. Watson clearly states throughout the tales that they go for long periods without any contact but that he always finds Holmes' company "fascinating" when he reappears even when most "intrusive"... and often after years of separation. I was surprised to discover that their cohabiting together at 221B Baker Street is a myth created by film and TV adaptations. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
My mistake - apart from the earliest stories and novels, of course, when they do indeed share rooms out of necessity. But there is a clear undercurrent of relief, on Watson's part, when their lives diverge at the end of 'The Sign Of Four' and Holmes becomes a kind of phantom out of the past in the remaining tales. There is more to these simple yarns than is at first apparent and I'm finding them endlessly intriguing - as much for what they do not say as what they make explicit. |