Sherlock - BBC [3]

yeah, i read that, that is so great love it ^^

https://youtu.be/7GbbD2bYVAc?t=1m55s

 

This is simply brilliantly done-

Brilliant.   

And that's just a fan made thing?   

The characters do overlap a bit though. If you've seen Talons of Weng Chiang for instance Tom Baker pretty much plays it as Sherlock Holmes.

11 wears the 4th Doctor Sherlock outfit pretending to be Holmes in the Snowmen xmas episode. Trust the Doctor to never throw a ridiculous item of clothing away.   

Haha, I actually quite liked that outfit.   

Tom did say something quite insightfull about the similarities of the character of the Doctor and Sherlock Holmes somewhere. Can't find the video now, but I found a quote:

When you’re playing Doctor Who or James Bond or Sherlock Holmes or any of those sort of people, they are utterly predictable. They’re always going to win. They’re always going to get their man or whatever it is, so the fun of it is finding how, within that predictability, you can be surprising or witty or amusing and divert the audience.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/03/30/tom-baker-interview/

He's also fond of telling the story of how he played Holmes and Moriaty in the same play leaving the audiense completely bemused.  

He does everything his own way I think.
And I love his honesty about his fans- they give him his lifestyle and they adore them, so he adores them back for it!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This is simply brilliantly done-

oooh, that's so cool although the animation is a bit obvious though..though it took more time to realize they did that to matt smith too

i don't think the doctor and sherlock holmes are character that overlap each other. the doctor is someone desperately trying to be human and sherlock is someone trying to not be human.

although the animation is a bit obvious though- Norc

Yeah its very obvious in some places and much better in others- but for one person making a fan thing I was quite impressed.

yes, impressive indeed

Ah, I see I almost norced the thread again.  

Glad I didn't though.  

You know Nora, you being a Sherlock fan, I think you should give Talons of Weng Chiang a go. Though it's does stand out a bit from the foibles of modern television.

maybe..

It is recognized as one of the best classic Doctor Who stories, and Tom Baker is pretty much channeling Sherlock Holmes all the way through it.

Though it is 70s british television and quite different from modern Doctor Who. It was was sent in 6 parts over 6 weeks with each part ending in a cliffhanger. So it's quite differently paced to the one story 40 minute modern version.

If you are going to watch any of the classic Doctor Who stories though, it's probably not a bad choice.

And it has a ludicrous giant rat in it!    (It is a great story, putting aside the 70's inadvertent racist undertones!)

I only got the Giant rat/Giant rat of Sumatra tie in now.   

Wow. Well, they did take some care in tying in the story with Sherlock Holmes then I guess.

I'm not going tell you to watch it Nora. It is very different from modern television. Particularily in pacing as everything in modern telvision is rushed and very on at all times. And the last thing I would want is you watching it and not liking it. So only if you're interested.

It is quite interesting though, that I actually became a fan of both Tom Baker and Benedict through watching hignfy. I think Angus Deyton, the original host, called Tom his favourite ever guest after his first appearance on the show.

Benedict? was he there?

wait, are you talking about have i got news for you? jeesus, stop putting everything in fuckin aah.. stop. jeez.. 


of course i've seen it, it's like Nytt på Nytt.

Yeah, it's very commonly used online.

They both appeared, but on different epsiodes. I shared the Tom Baker one over on the Who thread.

It's a shame they haven't had Benedict back really, he was great. But I guess his schedual is rather crazy.

yeah...

National Public Television is about to air a two hour special on how the methods of Sherlock Holmes changed the world. It may be only a gimmick to talk about modern crime investigation, but I hope they dig up some real influences.

Interesting.

Well, let us know if you can see it somewhere online.   

"How Sherlock Changed the World" - two hours, I wasn't too convinced during the first hour, which was mainly showing that Holmes' techniques were in fact decades or even a century ahead of their time, during which the accepted crime solving technique was to gather the usual suspects and beat information out of them. This was interspersed with modern investigators all saying how much they were inspired by Sherlock Holmes, and all the techniques they use can be found in Holmes and were developed after him. Plausible, but I wasn't ready yet to be convinced.

The second hour finally brought in the bacon. It's well known that Doyle got his method from his mentor the Dr Jacob Bell, for deductive reasoning in medicine was far ahead of what passed for forensic investigation of the time. In fact Dr Bell was once called in to do a time of death estimate, and in passing performed the first ballistics analysis to prove that the death could not have been self inflicted.

But what is not so well known is that 6 years after the first Holmes story was published, a Judge in Vienna named Gross, an avid reader of Sherlock Holmes, put out the first forensics manual because he was appalled at the quality (or lack thereof) of the evidence presented to him. The manual very neatly outlines everything you find in Sherlock Holmes. There is no clear admission of a connection, but it's tempting.

But what happened next is another avid reader of Sherlock Holmes in France not only opened the world's first forensics lab, but frankly attributed it to inspiration by Holmes. He pioneered the technique of blood splatter analysis, found of course in the Doyle canon, and formulated the rule that there is no such thing as clean contact between objects: there is always a transfer of material in both directions. The name of Locard is revered by forensic scientists to this day.

The only detective novels or police procedural shows that modern forensic scientists do not deride are those of Sherlock Holmes, and they laud the modern BBC version as perhaps the best due to it's focus on trace evidence and the realistic way it ties into solving a crime.

Conan Doyle himself repeatedly got letters asking for him to help out, but the only one he did was to clear the name of a man convicted of a bizarre number of animal mutilations. He was a foreigner in a small village, and the police seemed to focus on him for the same reason the villagers did: racism. Upon meeting him Doyle immediately realized the man was almost blind, so incapable of carrying out such night time activities. He agitated for a retrial, and the man was eventually exonerated.

Based on this experience Doyle used his fame to put pressure on the government to establish a court of appeal, which did not exist before then. It's rather amazing to realize that an important part of the British justice system might never have existed without Sherlock Holmes.

That sounds really interesting, Halfy. I have to be honest, when you mentioned the title earlier my first thought was that it was a load of bunk, but reading your summary it sounds like there's some truth to it.

interesting indeed.

They did a thing on QI about how the Polygraph and the electronic tagging were invented in superhero comics.

This sounds a lot more interesting though.   

Particularily the Court of Appeals thing. Interestingly we had the same system in Norway until quite recently where the most serious criminal cases couldn't be appealed.

I remember hearing about Conan Doyles attempts at investigating cases himself using Sherlock Holmes methods, but that it never worked that well. But reading up on it I might have been misremembering.

Doyle was also a fervent advocate of justice and personally investigated two closed cases, which led to two men being exonerated of the crimes of which they were accused. The first case, in 1906, involved a shy half-British, half-Indian lawyer named George Edalji who had allegedly penned threatening letters and mutilated animals. Police were set on Edalji's conviction, even though the mutilations continued after their suspect was jailed.

It was partially as a result of this case that the Court of Criminal Appeal was established in 1907, so not only did Doyle help George Edalji, his work helped establish a way to correct other miscarriages of justice. The story of Doyle and Edalji was fictionalised in Julian Barnes's 2005 novel Arthur & George and dramatized in an episode of the 1972 BBC television series, "The Edwardians". In Nicholas Meyer's pastiche The West End Horror (1976), Holmes manages to help clear the name of a shy Parsee Indian character wronged by the English justice system. Edalji himself was of Parsee heritage on his father's side.

The second case, that of Oscar Slater, a German Jew and gambling-den operator convicted of bludgeoning an 82-year-old woman in Glasgow in 1908, excited Doyle's curiosity because of inconsistencies in the prosecution case and a general sense that Slater was not guilty. He ended up paying most of the costs for Slater's successful appeal in 1928.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle

So there was at least one more successfull one.