Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]

by azriel Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:48 am

The inside is stunning, your allowed to visit on opening days, ( the restoring guy isnt bad either ! ) Nod

by Norc Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:50 am

fancy shit. no i haven't seen that.

by Bluebottle Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:04 am

Fancy that, Azriel.

Sadly they had to write the windmill out in the recent specials as they didn't have the budget to rehire it apparently.

Well, you'll have a chance in February then. Nod

by Norc Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:50 am

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_myoavwSg4N1rxgpxco2_500

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_myoavwSg4N1rxgpxco3_r1_500

Two layouts of 221B Baker Street, published in the last issue of The Strand Magazine, March 1950.

by Bluebottle Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:31 pm

They do send themselves up as well, though. Laughing

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_lz33dk660P1qdhyj6o1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_lz33dk660P1qdhyj6o2_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_lz33dk660P1qdhyj6o3_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_lz33dk660P1qdhyj6o4_400

by Bluebottle Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

But, yeah, we really should get back to talking about that nice guy shouldn't we. Nod

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o2_r1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o3_r1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o5_r1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o4_r1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o6_r2_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o7_r1_400

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Tumblr_mrdirkgGmf1rffxo0o8_r1_400

by azriel Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:11 pm

I like the floor plan Norc, makes it seem more "real" ? that, a person lives here so, ergo, must be a person ! IE. Sherlock........ cosy !

by azriel Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:12 pm

Awh Isnt "Cumber-wumber-oh-my-gawd", sweet ?! Very Happy

by Norc Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:22 pm

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:59 pm

Been making my way back through the stuff I missed I wanted to respond to a couple of points raised-

"This is turning into another Robert Downey Jr. version of Sherlock Holmes - entertaining, but where do they take the shit from?......Mycroft and Sherlock hate each other, Lestrade adds nothing at all to the show... I have to say, though, I thought the two first seasons were a lot better"- Ringdrotten

" it feels more about a modern obsession with glamourous editing/camera effects/fan fiction rather than proper sleuthing.....I liked the first two seasons but this one is a let down."- Mrs Figg

Ok Ill start with the where did does this come from bit- in the episode in question the opening where Watson finds Holmes in the crack house comes from the start of a different story, where Homes is in an opium den.
Other changes include making it the neighbours son and not her bum husband as in the book, and using the opportunity to introduce Bill Wiggans, who in the original is the head of Sherlocks street urchin network.
The main bulk of the story concerning the blackmailer follows the original stories outline at least as closely as series two's much praised Scandal episode does.
The major change comes at the end where instead of Holmes and Watson covering up the murder Sherlock commits it.

"Mycroft and Sherlock hate each other"

Not sure where you get that impression from. Holmes in the originals is very proud of Mycrofts abilities and acknowledges them at every turn, when he first introduces Mycroft to Watson Holmes seems to delight in Watson's belief Holmes is flattering his brother, as a mind greater than Holmes at deduction could not exist in England without everyone knowing of it. They are quite competitive however.

"Lestrade adds nothing at all to the show"

Or to the books arguably. All dramatisations make all the Scotland Yard detectives Lestrade, in the originals Lestrade features in several, but so too do other detectives (the Scots one from Aberdeen is one of my favourites), and if the case is outside the London sphere then Holmes deals with the local police force.
There is obvious sense when adapting it in making all these different police characters into just one, and Lestrade historically, as the most frequently appearing detective in the early stories gets the job.
He has been given more depth and back story in Sherlock than he was given in the books but that seems typical of all modern tv drama.

"it feels more about a modern obsession with glamourous editing/camera effects/fan fiction rather than proper sleuthing."

I very much disagree with this Figg. I think that one of the genuinely new things Sherlock has brought to interpretations of the books is a means to truly transfer the process described on page into the visual medium of film.
Previous versions essentially rely on a lot of words, I love the Brett versions but you can listen to large chunks of them like radio plays and not look at the screen and miss nothing.
Sherlock tries to use the camera and the visuals and having words pop up on screen ect to give the viewer the insight into how Holmes works stuff out, and to allow them to take part as viewers in the deducting, without the need for lengthy exposition.

I think its one of the genuinely original features of this adaptation over previous works.

"I have to say, though, I thought the two first seasons were a lot better"
"I liked the first two seasons but this one is a let down"

This puzzles me, as for me this episode is very much in keeping with season two. It stands good comparison with Scandal, they are both adapted in similar fashion, they draw in cases from more than one story and weave them together, they follow the outlines of the original closely and then deviate at the end into new territory.
In what way do you both see this episode in particular as being poorer than season twos? In what regards?

by bungobaggins Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:12 pm

Ok, so this has been bugging me. In the last episode of Sherlock they have that portion of time at the end where it's Christmas, but there's no snow. Is this common in the UK?

by Norc Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:16 pm

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-01-30/vote-for-your-favourite-british-tv-show-to-appear-in-captain-america-sequel-the-winter-soldier

vote for a classic BBC tv show to appear as a little cameo (it's gonna be mentioned, read the article) in the Captain America movie, winter soldier Very Happy

Sherlock is in the lead, but doctor who is just right under Very Happy

by Norc Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:17 pm

bungobaggins wrote:Ok, so this has been bugging me. In the last episode of Sherlock they have that portion of time at the end where it's Christmas, but there's no snow. Is this common in the UK?

yes.

by Ringdrotten Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:01 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

Ok Ill start with the where did does this come from bit- in the episode in question the opening where Watson finds Holmes in the crack house comes from the start of a different story, where Homes is in an opium den.
Other changes include making it the neighbours son and not her bum husband as in the book, and using the opportunity to introduce Bill Wiggans, who in the original is the head of Sherlocks street urchin network.
The main bulk of the story concerning the blackmailer follows the original stories outline at least as closely as series two's much praised Scandal episode does.
The major change comes at the end where instead of Holmes and Watson covering up the murder Sherlock commits it.

I've read the books too ;)It does use elements from the original stories and lots of them, which is something would have I appreciated more hadn't it all been so god damn dramatic. I think Sherlock shooting the guy is an example of that (I know Sherlock is no stranger to guns in the books either, but this still didn't sit right with me).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

"Mycroft and Sherlock hate each other"

Not sure where you get that impression from.

Oh, I don't know, every episode Mycroft's in, I guess. Watch the series again and tell me those two brothers like each other (except for that one drugged moment of weakness where Mycroft claims to love Sherlock). Maybe "hate" is a strong verb here, but I don't care one bit for the way their relationship is portrayed.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
"Lestrade adds nothing at all to the show"

Or to the books arguably.

Arguably, no, he doesn't. But I did like Lestrade better as the guy who humoured Holmes, but still thought Holmes was wrong and he himself was right, the guy who took the credit for Sherlock's cases without even understanding Sherlock let him. At least he offered some comedy in the books. I don't think he has any depth worth mentioning either in the show, he's a bland, boring character I find it hard to like or dislike. He's just someone with a name that features in more than one episode.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think that one of the genuinely new things Sherlock has brought to interpretations of the books is a means to truly transfer the process described on page into the visual medium of film.

On that much we agree, at least.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
In what way do you both see this episode in particular as being poorer than season twos? In what regards?

It's not necessarily this episode alone, but it certainly was the first episode to provoke me to a rant. Like I mentioned above, it's the drama - The unneccesary conflict and tension between the two brothers, the portrayal of Moriarty, Sherlock shooting a guy infront of a helicopter filled with trained soldiers or agents of some kind, Mary the agent-turned-assassin. That almost made me feel like I was back in the theatre watching Thorin jump out of the dragonfire's reach. In my opinion, the whole "modernise Sherlock Holmes" idea just doesn't work. Maybe a 2013 Sherlock would be boring without intrigues and action scenes, but for me it's not Sherlock Holmes any more.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:25 pm

Sherlock is indeed no stranger to a gun, nor to severely bending the law if he knows they have got it wrong.
So for me whilst its a departure within that particular story it did not seem out of character.
Yes the whole secret service turning up and the helicopter was pretty hyped up and thats not to my particular taste either (although the original are quite melodramatic in their own way for their own time) but the premise seemed still firmly embedded in the original bent of nature of the characters.

As for Mycroft the main change is his increased activity involvement. The rivalry, the occasional stinging barb mixed with praise are al in the original stories, just less emphasised.
In the opening series of this we see Mycroft do something genuinely out of character, which is t put himself in the field directly to get Sherlock back. And whilst thats a significant change I am not entirely comfortable with I think it does belie the notion that they hate each other.

On Lestrade I think they are stuck a bit, I think they wanted to avoid to portraying him to much as just the hapless cop who takes all the credit- he is not that in the books where Holmes fame and Watsons accounts in the Strand magazine mean everyone knows when he has been involved. Holmes also often gives evidence in trials that are widly covered by the press.
Lestrade is much less the foolish figure than he has often been portrayed.

The Mary one is interesting from a adapting point of view.
The original ends essentially with the scene where she has the blackmailer at gun point.
This is similar to how Scandal is adapted, which also reaches the original story conclusion half way through the episode.
How well you like the new twist in this one that allows the story to continue for the second half is a matter of taste of course, but its hard to see how to make the original blackmailer story the necessary length without such a twist occurring allowing previous story strands and clues to come together (just as they do in Scandal in fact in the last act).
And as they seem to be using Mary as a single representative of Watsons first two wives they have some latitude in her background (the reader never does find out what happened to Mary beyond that she died young and offpage)

by Ringdrotten Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:34 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote: but its hard to see how to make the original blackmailer story the necessary length without such a twist occurring allowing previous story strands and clues to come together (just as they do in Scandal in fact in the last act).

I get your point (and most of your other points to be fair, though I disagree about Mycroft), but to me expanding the story to justify an episodes length is the same as adding Azog and Radaghast to a film they don't belong in, as I pointed out earlier. As ever it seems to boil down to personal taste, and also personal interpretation of the changes made. Let's say we're even now - you have issues with the LotR trilogy, I have issues with BBC Sherlock, but we both have bigger issues with The Hobbit Laughing

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 30, 2014 7:48 pm

"to me expanding the story to justify an episodes length is the same as adding Azog and Radaghast to a film they don't belong in"- Ringdrotten

I think that's the difference for me, 'they dont belong'- Azog and Radaghast dont belong not only because they were not in the original, but because one goes expressly against what the author wrote and the other looks and acts unlike anything the author would ever have written- they truly do not belong.

When Sherlock expands the original story to incorporate their own story telling it never feels to me like it explicitly undermines anything in the originals, or that it gravely misrepresents the characters (although moments in the first two episodes of series three skate pretty close for me) but especially not in the last episode where the additions were new, but not without reference to the originals.

by Ringdrotten Thu Jan 30, 2014 8:44 pm

In a sense they do belong - at least the White Council and Radaghast - their roles were just expanded Wink

Okay, now I'm being an arse on purpose, I would never say that BBC's Sherlock is anything close to the mess they made of TH. You are quite right, the characters are there, they belong, but some of them have been changed in ways that I can't agree with. Benedict's still a great Holmes, just not quite the Holmes I imagined. I have no problems with that, however, as Brett is the Holmes I imagined and I don't need another one. And Watson has been treated with respect and both in terms of script and choice of actor. So for me this is just another Holmes show/movie that makes for good entertainment, but just doesn't satisfy the Holmes nerd in me. Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Sherlock_Holmes_emote_by_Mirz123

Sherlock - BBC [3] - Page 36 Sherlock_Holmes_emote_by_Mirz123

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:52 am

Finally getting the local broadcast of The Sign of Three tonight. Very excited.

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:31 am

Quite delightfully brilliant. It definitely wasn't Doyle, it was writers who had gotten to know their characters so well they could have fun and construct a poem of personalities.

Now I'll have to go digging back in this thread and see what everyone else thought.

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:43 am

But what was up with the beakers for beer? I loved the whole sequence but there didn't seem to be any logical point to it.

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:57 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
When Sherlock expands the original story to incorporate their own story telling it never feels to me like it explicitly undermines anything in the originals, or that it gravely misrepresents the characters (although moments in the first two episodes of series three skate pretty close for me) but especially not in the last episode where the additions were new, but not without reference to the originals.

Sherlock is an impressionistic tone poem using elements of the original, they never claim to be telling any of the stories explicitly. The Hobbit is in fact purporting to be The Hobbit, and that's what pisses so many people off. I think if the Sherlock creators had started with Hound of the Baskervilles they would have ruined for the audience, for that story is too well known (like the Hobbit). By morphing stories that people already have an impressionistic memory of anyway, they end up doing more of a riff on Doyle's original rather than a retelling. I feel this version is a more pleasing jazz take than most versions which quote the Doyle stories just as loosely.

by Eldorion Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:14 am

halfwise wrote:But what was up with the beakers for beer? I loved the whole sequence but there didn't seem to be any logical point to it.

Wasn't it because Sherlock had calculated precisely how much alcohol they could consume before getting drunk?

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:39 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Been making my way back through the stuff I missed I wanted to respond to a couple of points raised-

"it feels more about a modern obsession with glamourous editing/camera effects/fan fiction rather than proper sleuthing."

I very much disagree with this Figg. I think that one of the genuinely new things Sherlock has brought to interpretations of the books is a means to truly transfer the process described on page into the visual medium of film.
Previous versions essentially rely on a lot of words, I love the Brett versions but you can listen to large chunks of them like radio plays and not look at the screen and miss nothing.
Sherlock tries to use the camera and the visuals and having words pop up on screen ect to give the viewer the insight into how Holmes works stuff out, and to allow them to take part as viewers in the deducting, without the need for lengthy exposition.

I get that this is visually attractive, but its a bit gimmicky. Its often too fast to read properly because obviously its supposed to be his thoughts flashing onscreen, but my personal taste is not for these 'trendy' camera thingies but for ACTING where you see his thought processes slowly come to fruition. ok to use a crappy metaphor, Sherlock style is like a kid crying gimme gimme gimme and not being patient enough to wait, the audience is spoonfed clues and hints because it doesnt have the patience to wait for Sherlock to slowly and methodically get to the point, its like this modern obsession for inclusion, like kids (us the fans) need to be included at all times, the scrolling of his thoughts is to keep us included, it takes away some of Sherlocks mystery if we get to see inside his brain, but this is my take on things and you may not agree with it, but this is what I think.

I think its one of the genuinely original features of this adaptation over previous works.

its original but a bit of a gimmick and i dont think it really adds much

"I have to say, though, I thought the two first seasons were a lot better"
"I liked the first two seasons but this one is a let down"

This puzzles me, as for me this episode is very much in keeping with season two. It stands good comparison with Scandal, they are both adapted in similar fashion, they draw in cases from more than one story and weave them together, they follow the outlines of the original closely and then deviate at the end into new territory.
In what way do you both see this episode in particular as being poorer than season twos? In what regards?

thats because the first two seasons were great and this one was a bit rubbish, at least the first two episodes were

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:46 pm

I thought the first episode of season three was largely rubbish, the second episode was not anything that Doyle intended, but was largely such an interesting character play that I enjoyed it. Haven't see the third episode yet.

There were weak parts in all seasons: the gimmicky chinese episode for one, and though I at first hated the strange take on Moriarty I've grown to almost like it. Damn near made it worth it for the 'kiss' in the Empty Hearse. I rather like what they did with Mycroft, but hated the cap scene in the Empty Hearse: deduction based on minute observation is Sherlock's bailiwick, not Mycroft's.

It's a mix, but largely a fascinating one. It likely wouldn't work without Benderstick Cumberbums carrying it with his often mesmerizing take on Sherlock.