Cute. I really hope Sherlock explodes over in the US. I want it to get visible enough that CBS doesn't even dare to make that stupid Elementary thing they got cooking.
Sherlock (BBC) - Page 6
Yeah, that works well in contrast with Moriarty's "You always need for everything to be clever" jab.
While I basically agree, FWIW, the original idea and show title actually predate Sherlock by several years. If I'm not mistaken, it was put aside after House did its own version of an "updated Sherlock Holmes."
My thoughts on Series 1, let me show you them (working through Series 2 as we speak):
-Benedict Cumberbatch is a goddamn revelation as Sherlock Holmes. I had never heard of this man before, but there is not a single moment that rings false in his collective performance. He captures all of Sherlock's various moods perfectly, and he's one of those actors who feels intelligent. I cannot precisely explain what that means, but I think you get the idea.
-What makes Martin Freeman so equally fascinating is that he's completely different. He's once again The Everyman, but as usual there's always an edge to it, just lurking under the surface. I absolutely love the badass James Bond-esque shot of him holding his smoking gun after shooting the cabbie in "A Study in Pink". Little wonder that they cast him as Bilbo, another character who seems normal but has great heroism just waiting to get out. Together, they form a terrific team, and even when the writing falters (which isn't often, mind you), Cumberbatch and Freeman make it worth the while.
-The supporting cast is equally excellent: Una Stubbs is perfectly warm, lovely and motherly as Mrs. Hudson, Rupert Graves nails the difficult character that is Lestrade, Mark Gatiss has the strange ability to make me crack up at almost anything he says as Mycroft, and Loo Brealey is just too cute as Molly. I'm not terribly fond of Vinette Robinson or Jonathon Aris as Donovan or Anderson, but that's probably more because their characters are disappointingly one-note. Lady, I would have a hell of a lot more sympathy for you if you weren't helping Anderson cheat on his wife.
-I'm not sure what to think of Moriarty. On the one hand, Andrew Scott makes him legitimately unpredictable, funny, and dangerous; I like how he makes his voice wander between accents even after the big reveal. On the other hand... Cumberbatch kind of blows him away even when he's doing very little in that big cliffhanger. Moriarty's ranting, but Sherlock keeps his cool, which I find more impressive.
-I've never thought that Holmes and Watson were gay, and indeed it annoys me that no one can think of two men loving each other except in that fashion. There is no question that they come to love each other. I do not think it is a romantic or sexual love. They are blood brothers. In fact, I wonder if the constant stream of gay jokes from other characters is meant to be some sneaky satire by Moffat and Gatiss, as if even they can't conceive of the complicated relationship Sherlock and John have in any other way.
-It is really neat to see how a modern Sherlock would operate, such as referring to his brain as a "hard drive" and being completely immersed in modern technology. Yet it never feels obtrusive, as evidenced by the brilliant masterstroke of the floating text, which is helpful in keeping things moving, and can even be funny at times.
-The music is really cool in this show, and thankfully never runs into what I like to call the "Murray Gold Problem" (excellent music, is way too damn loud sometimes).
-Moffat and Gatiss know their Holmes shit, and it stuns me how much this feels like the old stories despite being so modern. I even picture Cumberbatch and Freeman in period-appropriate dress when I go back and re-read now.
Can't wait to see where things take us in Series 2 and any future series.
He's got that benevolent sense of aloofness that seems to fit the Doctor perfectly. As sort of, "Fine, if I have to save you because you're too dumb to save yourselves, but please don't get used to this."
And yes, I believe he did turn the role down.
I think it's just alluded to for shits and giggles. Nothing serious is meant by it. Others have said it before already, but I'll restate it: Sherlock's pretty much asexual. The character has said himself that he's shut off / pushed away all emotions and physical attractions like that because he finds them to be a distraction and useless. From having watched both series, I have found Sherlock's and Mycroft's personalities to be very interesting vis-à-vis each other. Mycroft is the smarter one and the one with his emotions still intact while Sherlock is the emotionless sibling who may not be as smart but is able to piece together things better. Mycroft's emotions led to his failure in the second series and we have been watching since the beginning how Sherlock's detachment from society has hampered on a personal level but still allows him to achieve some sort of success repeatedly. Watson coming in just magnified the underlying issues of both brothers that have probably been around their entire lives.
For the record, I've had a couple of bottles of cider so I may have rambled and whatever I've written doesn't match at all what my thoughts might have been with regards to a response to the original question.
No, no problem at all, I'm always interested in responses. Though I do think John has had an effect on Sherlock; his honest friendship has brought out Sherlock's emotions on more than one occasion. And Sherlock has clearly shown real affection for Mrs. Hudson; having just finished "Scandal", his defeat of the American agent and then tossing him out a window several times is one of the finest moments of the series.
As we discussed earlier in the thread, you can absolutely read "Belgravia" as having nothing to do with sexual attraction. Gatiss is quoted to that effect. You can read the whole series as Holmes being either gay or asexual.
While Cumberbatch could indeed make a good Doctor, his performance as Sherlock doesn't really map onto the Doctor. The Doctor is arrogant, but he's also generally warm and moral, even in his crotchetiest incarnations.
I don't think we've seen enough evidence to make anything more than educated guesses at Holmes' sexuality. First of all, the Holmes/Watson allusions are simply played for comedy in the show. Anything more is the internet being the internet. Second, I don't think that Holmes' reaction to Irene gives us too much to go on either. We know he's in control of himself well enough to view her initial nudity as a distraction ( measuring her, doing the safe trick) but not enough that her most overt expressions of sexuality were ineffective on him. And I don't think that if someone like Holmes was also gay he'd get as thrown off by Irene as he did.
Then again, as made clear by the scene where he's utterly unable to read anything about her, the attraction may have nothing to do with physical or emotional ties, but instead with the fact that she's a mystery to him. He's the first person he's met that he can't "solve".
But they showed him noticing Watson used an electric razor, which indicates he doesn't necessarily need clothing to read a person.
Yes, Holmes's sexuality is extremely ambiguous, and they give us nothing to go on. That's my point. And they do at least *raise* the possibility that he's gay--multiple times (not just in relation to him and Watson, either), not to mention the fact that this is something that people have been speculating about Holmes, the character, since long before Moffat came along.
Thoughts on "Scandal" and "Hounds":
-Lara Pulver eats Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler alive. And I say that as someone who likes McAdams a lot, but felt her Irene was somewhat lacking in the 2009 film (which I also enjoyed immensely). The reinvention of the character as a bisexual (?) dominatrix is brilliant, but equally brilliant is how that is subverted and then subverted again; Sherlock ultimately defeats her by exploiting her attraction for him, but she has gotten under his skin to the point where she knows he will rescue her from terrorists.
-Martin Freeman continues to be a master of understated physical comedy, as seen in his trying-not-to-stare reactions when Irene is naked.
-It always amuses me when Brits portray Americans as aggressive, stupid gun-toting assholes.
-Resolving a tense cliffhanger with unexpected humor seems to be a Moffat trademark; look at "The Empty Child"/"The Doctor Dances", where The Doctor gets rid of the creepy-ass gas-mask kids by ordering them to their room. And it works. However, I can't help but feel that the use of "Stayin' Alive" is a bit predictable and easy.
-The Christmas scene is great, especially when Sherlock actually apologizes to Molly for making her upset. And then John mistakes his soon-to-be-ex girlfriend for his previous one.
-"Mrs. Hudson? Leave Baker Street? England would fall." Sherlock's awakening humanity and how Cumberbatch plays it is quickly becoming one of my favorite things about the series.
-Again, throwing an American agent out a window several times in a row is supremely badass. Lestrade's resigned reaction makes it even better.
-The original Hound of the Baskervilles is one of my favorite Holmes stories, so to see it adapted so well for a modern Sherlock is immensely gratifying. There are changes, sure (Stapleton is a completely different character here, Sherlock actually does leave the story for a significant period of time in the original), but the changes work well for it. And it plays on our fears and suspicions of government experimentation while still keeping the classic "trying to drive a man nuts" story, ominous shots of wet, foggy moorlands, and that big-ass hound.
-Sherlock in crazed detox mode is unexpectedly hilarious, especially since Cumberbatch commits to a completely different physicality than usual. I also loved how Russell Tovey played the "WTF?" reactions as Sherlock sniffed in his secondhand smoke.
-It's actually pretty damn scary, especially with stuff like the floodlights and the ever-present growling.
Onward to Reichenbach!
I kind of don't like that Sally remains an utterly one-note bitch (Anderson is at least slightly more reasonable in his objection to Lestrade), and that the reporter Kitty is equally one-note and idiotic.
Otherwise, "Reichenbach" is a terrific finale.
More thoughts on "Reichenbach":
-In retrospect, Sally's objections are slightly more reasonable, but I still want to throw her off a roof when she's all "I told you so" to John.
-I love that it cuts from John winding up the punch to the superintendent holding his bloody nose and Watson getting *slammed* against the car next to Sherlock. It's an old trick, but a good one, and they use it to great effect earlier when it cuts from Sherlock about to show off again in court to him being put in a cell for contempt of court.
-Speaking of John, Freeman broke my goddamn heart. Even more impressively, he doesn't overdo it. You can feel him struggling to maintain his dignity as he thanks Sherlock at the grave: "I was so alone, and you gave me so much". And he doesn't believe Sherlock was a fake for a moment.
-Cumberbatch is a scary motherfucker at points here, especially on "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels... but don't think for one second that I am one of them."
-Molly got a pretty awesome scene when she declares that she can tell what Sherlock is thinking. And this, I believe, is what prompts him to come back to her for help; she's earned his respect, even if she never needed it.
-Rupert Graves continues to be the most underrated performer in this show as Lestrade; he never has to say that he doesn't want to capture Sherlock and John, because Graves' body language is so clear and honest about it.
-Panning over to Sherlock, alive and well, is a great reveal. I'm eager to see how they explain this Sherlock's resurrection, which I am almost positive has to do something with his request for Molly's help.
Think about where Molly works and how that could be useful to someone who wants to fake a death.
Well... yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. I'm betting that his initial fall was some kind of trick, and the corpse John sobs over is the fake one.
Also, after watching Deathly Hallows Part II and looking at the first Skyfall pictures this past week, I now have the strange desire for Daniel Radcliffe, Daniel Craig and Benedict Cumberbatch to work on something together. I have no idea what it would be, but seeing Potter, Bond and Sherlock metaphorically cross swords would be exciting no matter what the project.
I was under the impression that Sherlock only threw the guy out the window once, but gave him several falls worth of ass beating in his flat beforehand. Makes more sense.
Sorry but Elementary just got even funnier: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/feb/15/sherlock-holmes-jonny-lee-miller
I don't care. Merely by its title it's apparent that the show runners do not have the first idea what Sherlock Holmes is. Probably their only exposure to the stories is from a Basil Rathbone youtube tribute video.
This needs to suffer the same undignified and miserable death the Spaced pilot did.
Ha, like they could pick Basil Rathbone out from a lineup. Far more likely their only exposure to Holmes is Hugh Laurie in 'House'
Which was written as essentially an ode to Sherlock Holmes. As I think is your point.
The interesting bit, of course, is that he and Cumberbatch received rave notices on the London stage a year or so ago, when they appeared together in Danny Boyle's Frankenstein, where they swapped roles each night: one would play the monster, one the doctor, with the roles reversed the next performance. I believe they shared London's version of the Tony Award for it.
EDIT: Or, I could have just followed the link upthread and not made a redundant post. Sorry 'bout that.
Edited by Jeb - 2/16/12 at 8:55am
Why not put some interesting twist on the concept? Hell, nobody remembers Without a Clue, do a riff on that, with Watson as the genius and Sherlock as the front. Of course, that's pretty much Remington Steele, but it would be better than aping BBC's Sherlock and the inevitable drubbing it would take because of it.
The nerdrage over this is amusing. Why expend any energy getting upset about it, or time thinking about it? Just don't watch it.
Also, allow me to indulge you guys in preemptively getting upset about something you totally made up just now and have no concrete reason to believe will happen: what would be so terrible about a female Watson? Sounds dangerously close to being disgusted by the idea of a *gasp* BLACK Spiderman, or any other superficial change to a fictional character.
Well, as I said over in the Walking Dead thread, you can be interested enough in a topic to discuss it without necessarily liking the thing. And conversing about things on the Internet isn't a specific indication that one is particularly upset or expending untoward amounts of energy.
Personally, I have no specific problem with the idea of an American knockoff of Sherlock for precisely the reasons you cite; as with the American Life On Mars, I'll probably sample one episode to see if it's as bad as I expect, and ignore it afterwards.
As to the idea of a female Watson, it's not so much that it's a bad idea (though they'll never top Joanne Woodward); it's just the amusing predictability of the show being crafted by focus group and Q rating more than anything resembling a creative impulse.
I don't think it's people caring about a female Watson as much as it is people riffing on the sort of shit they'd expect a network to do for no reason other than make their Sherlock more modern or edgy. you know, like making Watson a sexy female upstart who's secretly got the hots for Holmes. And who knows, maybe they even get together in the season 3 finale.
But it hasn't actually happened! We know next to nothing about it so far, and the idea of a female Watson is something you made up yourself. Lets reserve judgment for the finished product, not an imaginary worst case scenario.
I mean, seriously, why not spitball the possibilities? I can't see what harm it does.
And, let's face it, American TV adapting British programming doesn't have the strongest track record-- no one who is cynical about the possibility can be said to making an unreasonable leap to a conclusion.
No harm, per se. except that wasn't really "spitballing the possibilities," it was jumping to a conclusion based on nothing but cynicism, seemingly as an excuse for snark. I guess that's what I'm reacting to, the cynicism and snark. You're right, it's probably earned sometimes, but why do we always default to it?