CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Sherlock (BBC)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sherlock (BBC)

post #1 of 387
7/22/10 at 7:49pm
Thread Starter 
The BBC's new adaptation of Sherlock Holmes starts this Sunday and it seems threadworthy as it is produced and written by Stephen Moffat and Mark Gatiss.

It is set in the modern day with Holmes played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Watson, from what I've seen of these two they sound like really good choices.

The first episode is titled 'A Study in Pink' I assume it will be a take on 'A Study in Scarlet' which I think was the first Holmes book?

Anyway some decent pedigree behind it and it looks like the Beeb have thrown a bit of money at it, anyone else looking forward to it?



Trailer here
Reply
post #2 of 387
7/22/10 at 8:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Savage View Post
anyone else looking forward to it?
Totally, absolutely. Haven't even seen the damn thing yet and I already want a tricked out Blu-ray that includes the junked pilot episode.

Thanks for the trailer! Very Good Giving and Game of you!
Reply
post #3 of 387
7/22/10 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Phibes View Post
Totally, absolutely. Haven't even seen the damn thing yet and I already want a tricked out Blu-ray that includes the junked pilot episode.

Thanks for the trailer! Very Good Giving and Game of you!
No probs.

I was just reading about that pilot, it was shot early last year, I wonder what happened to it.

I read the first of Gatiss' 'Lucifer Box' novels recently and it has me extra amped for this, it is a really fun, pulpy read. He seems like a perfect fit for Holmes.
Reply
post #4 of 387
7/22/10 at 8:30pm
I really hate this idea. If you're not going to keep the original setting, why use those characters other than as a cheap way to sell your show using the name? I remember the Rathbone movies which featured Holmes chasing Nazis and that was bad enough. Do we really need Sherlock Holmes living in the year 2010, running around the London Eye texting "The game is afoot!" to Watson or whatever nonsense they can come up with?

Simple answer: No.
Reply
post #5 of 387
7/22/10 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
Do we really need Sherlock Holmes living in the year 2010, running around the London Eye texting "The game is afoot!" to Watson or whatever nonsense they can come up with?
No shit; that sounds fucking awesome.
Moffat could write an episode about Holmes taking a shit and I'll watch it. Favourite writer on television at the moment. Can't wait. Hadn't seen the trailer so thanks for that!.
Freeman seems perfectly cast.
Reply
post #6 of 387
7/22/10 at 9:28pm
Thread Starter 
Well yeah, it could go either way but I have a lot of faith in Moffat, especially after the last series of Who.
Reply
post #7 of 387
7/22/10 at 10:22pm
Thanks for the heads up, Dan. Always game for another take on the material.

I guess the trick is to make it stand out from the dozen or so other "eccentric sleuth" shows jamming up the airwaves, themselves all spiritually descended from Holmes. I think that'd be my only issue with a contemporary setting. The thunder has already been somewhat stolen.

For myself, part of the appeal with most Holmes interpretations is the take on the period.
Reply
post #8 of 387
7/23/10 at 3:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
I really hate this idea. If you're not going to keep the original setting, why use those characters other than as a cheap way to sell your show using the name? I remember the Rathbone movies which featured Holmes chasing Nazis and that was bad enough. Do we really need Sherlock Holmes living in the year 2010, running around the London Eye texting "The game is afoot!" to Watson or whatever nonsense they can come up with?

Simple answer: No.
Simple answer: Steven Moffat's Jekyll. If you'd seen what he did with modernizing Stevenson for TV, you'd understand why we're all so psyched.
Reply
post #9 of 387
7/23/10 at 6:24am
Cumberbatch totally comes across as an incarnation of the Doctor in the TV ads.
Reply
post #10 of 387
7/23/10 at 6:41am
Moffat and Gatiss are both more than comfortable writing the late 19th century period, if they feel a modern version is what they need to do then I think they must have very good reasons. They could've just as easily written a period piece, but they didn't. It should be fun.
Reply
post #11 of 387
7/23/10 at 7:01am
Hey, I think the last Gods damned thing we need is another fucking period piece on the BBC. Thank Jesus it's set in the modern day.
Reply
post #12 of 387
7/23/10 at 7:14am
Exactly.

Anyway, RDJ just did a period Sherlock Holmes, no harm in trying something different.
Reply
post #13 of 387
7/23/10 at 7:23am
I was initially hesitant about this but then I saw who was behind it. Doc Phibes is bang on the money, anyone with doubts that Moffat can't update a classical literary character for the modern age should sit down and watch Jekyll, and then feel suitably ashamed of themselves.
Reply
post #14 of 387
7/23/10 at 8:39am
The start of the sixth episode of Jekyll is one of the most hilariously subversive things I've ever seen. To take up 5 minutes of your finale doing this shows so much balls. And a twisted sense of humour.

WARNING: CONTAINS ONE *MAJOR* SPOILER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2N1-e6Kwkg
Reply
post #15 of 387
7/23/10 at 12:49pm
Personally I couldn't care less about Moffat, but as a LoG fan, and having just spent a couple of hours catching up with Crooked House on my multiregion, I'll follow Gatiss pretty much anywhere.
Reply
post #16 of 387
7/23/10 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
I really hate this idea. If you're not going to keep the original setting, why use those characters other than as a cheap way to sell your show using the name? I remember the Rathbone movies which featured Holmes chasing Nazis and that was bad enough. Do we really need Sherlock Holmes living in the year 2010, running around the London Eye texting "The game is afoot!" to Watson or whatever nonsense they can come up with?

Simple answer: No.
What about Sherlock Holmes In The 22nd Century. Surely you're not gonna dispute the genius of that.
Reply
post #17 of 387
7/23/10 at 5:03pm
The idea kind of put me off but after seeing the trailer it's Holmes through and through.

As for the texting Idea, the vibe I got from the trailer (and this is speculation nothing more) is that Holmes will be very old school and something of a Luddite.
Reply
post #18 of 387
7/23/10 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Phibes View Post
Simple answer: Steven Moffat's Jekyll. If you'd seen what he did with modernizing Stevenson for TV, you'd understand why we're all so psyched.
I did see Jekyll and I enjoyed it a lot. But there was a difference. Jekyll was almost a sequel to the original work and the two characters were different people. This could be any show about a brilliant detective solving crimes but, because of the name and some references, people will watch it. That's the only reason this updated Sherlock Holmes exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post
What about Sherlock Holmes In The 22nd Century. Surely you're not gonna dispute the genius of that.
I've never seen that. It looks.... strange.
Reply
post #19 of 387
7/23/10 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack_rabbit View Post
Hey, I think the last Gods damned thing we need is another fucking period piece on the BBC. Thank Jesus it's set in the modern day.
I laughed my fucking ass off at this. Truth!
Anyway, I'd wager the Moffat/Gattis update is closer in spirit to the original material than that Guy Richie guff. Bring it on.
Reply
post #20 of 387
7/23/10 at 6:48pm
"Shut up."
"I didn't say anything."
"You were thinking. It's annoying."

Did anyone else hear Matt Smith saying those lines?
Reply
post #21 of 387
7/23/10 at 7:01pm
I did get a doctor vibe from the trailer but hopefully Holmes will be different enough.
Reply
post #22 of 387
7/23/10 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascan42 View Post
"Shut up."
"I didn't say anything."
"You were thinking. It's annoying."

Did anyone else hear Matt Smith saying those lines?
Definitely!
Reply
post #23 of 387
7/23/10 at 8:25pm
I love that the dude playing Holmes is named "Benedict Cumberbatch". I'd totally watch a detective show called that.
Reply
post #24 of 387
7/26/10 at 4:08am
Goddamn but that was fun. Can't wait for next week.

Saxon, if you're dead set against a Sherlock who makes use of text messaging technology (despite the fact that Doyle regularly depicted Holmes using telegrams, private messengers, etc etc) then just don't watch the show and stay content with your preemptive critique.

For everyone else, the texting shit was cool.
Reply
post #25 of 387
7/26/10 at 4:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Phibes View Post

For everyone else, the texting shit was cool.
Holy shit; there is texting hijinks in the show? Lol Orsum.
Reply
post #26 of 387
7/26/10 at 5:00am
I loved it. The scene where he breaks down the crime scene piece by piece was a lot of fun and did more in 5 minutes to give a sense of how Holmes operates as a detective than the entirety of the Guy Ritchie movie.

Benedict Cumberbatch (love that goddamn name) and Martin Freeman came out strong and Mark Gatiss' role was a great surprise, too. I didn't know he was going to be starring in it, especially not in THAT role.
Reply
post #27 of 387
7/26/10 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasels Rip My Flesh View Post
Mark Gatiss' role was a great surprise, too. I didn't know he was going to be starring in it, especially not in THAT role.
Yes! That was surprising in many ways.

When they address one of Holmes' more notorious habits, leading to the most hilarious riff on a classic Holmsian line, I knew I was in love with this show.
Reply
post #28 of 387
7/26/10 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Cumberbatch totally comes across as an incarnation of the Doctor in the TV ads.
He'd be an ideal replacement if Smith skips out early, but I'm dreading that Moffat will default to James Nesbitt instead.

Holmes was done too well with Jeremy Brett back in the 80s-90s. Each version since has tried a "spin" or stunt casting. Going modern gives them their own bit of open ground to play on.
Reply
post #29 of 387
7/26/10 at 5:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCallaghan View Post
I love that the dude playing Holmes is named "Benedict Cumberbatch". I'd totally watch a detective show called that.
Cumberbatch, quoted at IMDB: "Cumberbatch - it sounds like a fart in a bath, doesn't it? What a fluffy old name. I can never say it on a Monday morning. When I became an actor, Mum wasn't keen on me keeping it."
Reply
post #30 of 387
7/26/10 at 5:52am
I really enjoyed it.

All the popups for texting and holmes mental process were very well done, and as watson said, the cell phone analysis in the cab was great. I really liked what they did with watson too, much better emphasis on his character than the typical holmes adaptation (and pretty true to source).

The taxi route stuff was cool too, so many one ways and round-about crap in london.

who was gatiss?
Reply
post #31 of 387
7/26/10 at 6:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brechtsky View Post
who was gatiss?
Spoiler: Gatiss played his brother, the "arch enemy"
Reply
post #32 of 387
7/26/10 at 6:16am
ha oh really ... as soon as sherlock said i know who he is, i said yep thats you-know-who ... kind of upset i didnt realize earlier, actually.

hes a good actor for a writer, or vice versa, what-have-you.... i could instantly see him as the character, but younger.
Reply
post #33 of 387
7/26/10 at 7:19am
Loved it, a near flawless adaptation that made me want more, my only gripe was the "it's like Christmas" line that Moffatt also used in the 2 part final from Dr Who (and that's a very minor gripe).

Funny side note, watched it with the wife who loved it but thought Sherlock Holmes was a bit of a rip off of Tony Hill (From Wire in the Blood) her face was picture when I explained that in fact it was the other way around.

Sometimes being married to a non geek is very amusing.
Reply
post #34 of 387
7/26/10 at 3:45pm
Thread Starter 
Just caught up now and loved it, every bit of it. The pacing was really good, it felt much shorter than 90 minutes, really flew over.

Cumberbatch was fantastic and very funny his chemistry with Freeman worked really well too. Didn't expect Gatiss to pop up but he was nicely creepy.
I did get a 'Doctor Who' feel in a couple of scenes but I don't mean that as a criticism as I love Moffat's style anyway.

"I'm not a psychopath - do your homework. I'm a higher functioning sociopath"
Reply
post #35 of 387
7/26/10 at 4:31pm
Loved it. Loved Cumberbatch, his introduction with the Riding Crop was fantastic.

I groaned when Gatiss showed up, I love Gatiss as an actor but I didn't want 'that' character to show up in another Holmes adaptation. Then I figured out who he actually was and was a lot happier, then 'that' character was referenced at the end and I groaned a lot.

Love the style of the show too, great energy whilst also keeping the intelligence of Holmes intact.
Reply
post #36 of 387
7/26/10 at 8:42pm
That was fantastic. LOVED that Mycroft showed up, particularly that it was Gattis. Brilliant writing; I prefered this to some of Moffat's Doctor Who stuff, actually. Bristled with enthusiasm for the material. Captured the essence and spirit of Holmes and his relationship with Watson more than any recent adaptation, particularly the Guy Richie shitpile.
Loved the text stuff
Reply
post #37 of 387
7/26/10 at 9:55pm
As Beeb pilots go, this was a blast! (loved the Rache/Rachel switcharoo from the novel). so much better than Dr Who. Hopefully they can add some more plot to the next two episodes to balance things out. (the geek in me wants a Fu Manchu appearance at some point
Reply
post #38 of 387
7/27/10 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love Machine View Post
As Beeb pilots go, this was a blast! (loved the Rache/Rachel switcharoo from the novel). so much better than Dr Who. Hopefully they can add some more plot to the next two episodes to balance things out. (the geek in me wants a Fu Manchu appearance at some point
i was gonna mention the switch from the source with the rache, and how i liked the way the other was suggested by the idiot, and scoffed at by holmes.

spike as far as "that" character, i think its kind of a given that he shows up eventually, and if they didnt people would just complain or expect it in the second series ... better to define and acknowledge it up front imo ....

And like everything else in this modern version, im intersted to see h ow they tackle him... the "sponsor" notion alone is creepy as hell, especially the "for every one..." delineation of it.
Reply
post #39 of 387
7/27/10 at 2:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo View Post
He'd be an ideal replacement if Smith skips out early, but I'm dreading that Moffat will default to James Nesbitt instead.
You shouldn't worry too much about that, because Nesbitt has been quoted as saying that playing the Doctor would be career suicide, so he wouldn't take the role if it was offered to him.
Reply
post #40 of 387
7/28/10 at 3:31am
I liked it quite a bit. So this is only three episodes? That's a drag. Hell of a lot more entertaining than Monk or House.
Reply
post #41 of 387
7/28/10 at 9:44am
Hey. Watched it last night via BBC iplayer.

Also thought it very good indeed and I was predisposed to dislike it: I remember seeing a piece about it in The Observer some time ago and my heart sank. I should have had more faith really, considering the pedigree involved.

I will sound stupid for saying this but I had no idea that was 90 minutes. This is a good sign. Saddened that there are only three episodes. I suppose there is a finite amount of time Moffat and Gatiss can bring to this.

Other thoughts - Freeman was excellent and the feel of the episode cleaved closer to the 'classic' or traditional interpretations than I thought it would. Cumberbatch did feel Whoey at times but his performance was brilliant. Slightly alien, almost.

But: Too many gay jokes. Gatiss' foxy texter (who was just irritating). Too many references to "God it must be wierd being so slow" comments. Hated the '3 patch problem' clunking line (which I hated when I read about it) but these are minor gripes when the episode turned out to be so much better than almost any other mainstream UK drama in a long time. Very very promising. I would say Moffat for Head of BBC Drama but that'd mean missing out on this and the excellent Dr Who.

Can I ask other more learned folks - what happened with the pilot?
Reply
post #42 of 387
7/28/10 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toshlines View Post

Can I ask other more learned folks - what happened with the pilot?
Was there a Pilot? I thought this was just a three instalment special? Dont the BBC do this kind of wacky stuff from time to time?
Reply
post #43 of 387
7/28/10 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OCallaghan View Post
Was there a Pilot? I thought this was just a three instalment special? Dont the BBC do this kind of wacky stuff from time to time?
There was a very expensive unaired pilot. Apparently the BBC thought it sucked, but had enough promise to grant a tweaked three-episode series.

Thankfully the reviews have been good, the ratings great and audience satisfaction very high according to polls. So I'm sure there'll be more episodes after these three, which is good as I absolutely, positively loved the first episode.
Reply
post #44 of 387
7/28/10 at 9:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeShaynePI View Post
I liked it quite a bit. So this is only three episodes? That's a drag. Hell of a lot more entertaining than Monk or House.
It's already a ratings hit. I'm sure there'll be more next year.

I finally get why everyone is so hot for Freeman to play Bilbo Baggins. It's perfect casting.
Reply
post #45 of 387
7/29/10 at 5:26am
I think Cumberbatch was more of an insight into how Moffat would write the Master than how he would write The Doctor. I was watching it again and whilst I can see the eccentric alien-ness that would be good for the Doctor, it’s balanced against a genuine lack of regard for humanity, a rampant narcissism and a self destructive streak. It’s classic Holmes, but it sort of gives you a good idea of how Moffat’s Master would probably work, if he ever used the character.

I also kind of dig the fact that Watson was wounded in Afghanistan, it’s a nice little mythology gag.
Reply
post #46 of 387
7/29/10 at 5:34am
I just learned Moffat was the one to script the Tintin movie. That's great news to me. No one better to take up an established property & turn it into something fresh while keeping it true to the spirit of the original.
Reply
post #47 of 387
7/29/10 at 6:08am
Dude, it's Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish (of Adam and Joe fame). That's a tight and talented team right there.
Reply
post #48 of 387
7/29/10 at 6:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post
I also kind of dig the fact that Watson was wounded in Afghanistan, it’s a nice little mythology gag.
That's exactly what I thought too. Also on a meta level, a very nice nod to the cyclical nature of history.
Reply
post #49 of 387
7/29/10 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Murder View Post
Dude, it's Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish (of Adam and Joe fame). That's a tight and talented team right there.
Yeah seriously; I couldn't be more excited for Tin Tin because of this line up. When Tin Tin was first announced in the thread for it American Chewers are all like "TIn Tin WTF HOO CARES" and I'm like "Dude. Moffat FTW".
Was kinda frustrating.
Excellent observation re: The Master, Spike. I was kinda hoping we wouldn't see the character again but a new regeneration with that kind of flavour would be terribly exciting.
Reply
post #50 of 387
7/29/10 at 6:18pm
Fantastic opener. Sucks that it's only 3 eps.

Possibly my favourite thing about it is how they portrayed the inner-workings of Holmse's mind and the fact that the writer really is smart enough to make his deductions seem genuine. Whenever I watch a show like House or Monk, I see the characters make such stupidly improbable leaps of logic (which, of course turn out to be right) that I'm never sitting there thinking "Man, that guy is a genius!" but during this episode it happened a couple times.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Sherlock (BBC)