Sherlock!

[davoid]

The third series of Sherlock is coming to British TV soon. There is a pre-series teaser available to usher in the new season.

I'm really looking forward to it.

In case you are from outside the UK and have not watched this TV reboot, you should really check it out.

It is a contemporary reboot, with Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock (he played Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness), and Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit) as Watson.

I really like the dynamic between the two characters. Watson is not just a foil for Holmes, but is a strong character - in a similar way to Jude Law's Watson in the recent Sherlock films (I also think Watson's character and the chemistry between the two friends was the main strength in those films.)

I don't know if the series is available in the US, but if you can, I would watch it if I were you.

Each series is very short, so it should take no time to catch up and be ready for season 3.

 

[Italo]

It's available on Netflix. I agree, it's a really great show. Cumberbatch is fantastic as Sherlock. I don't know that there's any way to watch the new episodes as they come out for U.S. residents, though.

 

[kate]

I keep hearing good things about this show. I'll have to check it out sometime

 

[EarlyMon]

PBS Masterpiece Theater has started teasers about the new season coming to the US.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Have to agree with Davoid: Sherlock is superb!

The first two parts of the 3 (?) show series have been absolutely excellent - despite some of the solutions to the puzzles being total nonsense: victims not realising they'd been stabbed or showing them getting stabbed in the back when they'd been stabbed in the stomach earlier. But the solution bit is not really what it's about.

If you get the chance, you should definitely check it out.

 

[gbsa]

It's available on Netflix. I agree, it's a really great show. Cumberbatch is fantastic as Sherlock. I don't know that there's any way to watch the new episodes as they come out for U.S. residents, though.

Megashare, just watched the first 2 episodes of season 3

 

[pastafarian]

Previous seasons are available on Amazon, free to prime members.

 

[unnamedny]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Not sure whats the hype. I watched first episode of latest season and it was very lame. Him jumping off building? Gay Sherlock? Story that doesn't make too much sense? Besides I hate the fact that he is being huge ass to Dr. Watson all the time for no apparent reason. I'm not watching it any further.

 

[EarlyMon]

As many won't have the chance to see the new series for a bit, please hide and mark any spoilers, thanks.

 

[unnamedny]

As many won't have the chance to see the new series for a bit, please hide and mark any spoilers, thanks.

I would qualify it as sneak peak not a spoiler. Anyway Sherlock looks like a sissy hipster. Dr. Watson looks like nothing but doctor. I just wonder how did we go from Vasily Livanov to schmuck like Benedict Cumberbatch. Not saying that he is a bad actor, but why would producers pick someone who does not suite to the role of detective a tiny bit.

 

[EarlyMon]

I would qualify it as sneak peak not a spoiler.

Thanks for sharing that.

In the other TV threads, everyone has the common courtesy to hide and tag things until others have seen them.

Please do the same, regardless of what you call it.

If you want to debate it, drop me a line thanks.

 

[Slug]

why would producers pick someone who does not suite to the role of detective a tiny bit.

Perhaps because it's not producers who made the decision, but the writers/directors? Cumberbatch was chosen because he suited their characterisation of Holmes.

 

[EarlyMon]

For some reason Livanov seems to gain acclaim on the internet as the greatest Holmes ever.

Jeremy Brett portrayed his prissy side and was set in the Vicorian era.

Basil Rathbone portrayed his frenetic side and was set in the pre-war era. (Did I say frenetic - if that isn't a character amped up on drugs, who is?)

Holmes is founded on the idea that natural science and natural law, together with an encyclopedic knowledge of past crimes, chemistry, and a mind disciplined for logic will lead to the greatest detective.

A Study In Scarlet introduced me to Holmes, as it evidently did Watson, and the only thing about his physique given at their introduction was that Watson was surprised by the strength of his handshake, it wasn't what he expected.

Our images for a tall, hawk-nosed, deep-eyed character came much later.

I'm trying to imagine Livanov using Wikipedia and an iPhone and I got nothing.

So long as the stories adapted are reasonable and don't include Jack the Ripper, space aliens and everything else the film industry has trotted out for Holmes, then I'll give any actor a go while I decide if the stories are there.

These guys have done a great job of a modern interpretation of the characters and stories as far as I'm concerned.

And that includes Watson having to dealing with charges of being gay by gay innkeepers when that never happened in any of Doyle's writing - because what did happen in Dolye's writing was this -

• Highly eccentric, energetic detective with intelligence far above average using science, logic and facts that others would consider arcane
• Army doctor returned from service due to a wound or wounds who gives us our chance to relate to Holmes, mostly as his foil and our gateway, pursuant to the times portrayed

The stories are clever. They're not the same stories as those written by Doyle, nor are they simply teleplays of those writings. They're modern adaptations.


The actors are fine. They've been adapted along with the stories.


None of the actors portraying him yet match what I picked up by reading about him first.


And Livanov was no more Holmes than Cumberbatch is. He was simply a palatable actor for the 80s and the view of Victorian England filtered through a Russian lens colored by the 1980s at a time when Hollywood was trying to sell crappy movies.

Jeremy Brett did the same much better as a tv series.

And neither matched the character portrayed in the books.


They were liberal adaptations.

 

[pastafarian]

It's very rare for a TV or movie character to match the one made by the original author. Even when the author is involved in the production, the character is usually a thin caricature of the one originally created. Thankfully, there's still a reason to read!

 

[davoid]

It's very rare for a TV or movie character to match the one made by the original author. Even when the author is involved in the production, the character is usually a thin caricature of the one originally created. Thankfully, there's still a reason to read!

True, but with one notable exception - the perfect casting of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Misery.

Ultimately, an adaptation should be judged on whether it is a good film or TV production, and not on its 'fidelity' to the source material.

 

[unnamedny]

It's very rare for a TV or movie character to match the one made by the original author. Even when the author is involved in the production, the character is usually a thin caricature of the one originally created. Thankfully, there's still a reason to read!

Game of Thrones? They match perfectly. Evil characters can give you nightmares. You can fall in love with protagonists. Are you sure is it that rare or too much to ask of the show? (By the way, bunch of UK actors)

Breaking bad. is another good example. Tell me you don't think of Soal's actor as "criminal lawyer"

Even actors in show such as Episodes are matched pretty well.

 

[unnamedny]

True, but with one notable exception - the perfect casting of Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in the movie adaptation of Stephen King's Misery.

Ultimately, an adaptation should be judged on whether it is a good film or TV production, and not on its 'fidelity' to the source material.

I get that adaptation is up to creators, but I just don't see that actor as Sherlock Holmes. I don't find jokes funny as well. I love British humor by the way.

Story is confusing and not sophisticated. I can bet you if it was not called after Sherlock Holmes it would have had very different ratings.

I mean come on I don't drink often but my phone charging port is all scratched up, and I only drink beer once in few weeks. It's like walking up to someone saying "You look so happy today, you probably got laid last night" It's just sounds like a stupid assumption and not a diduction method.

 

[davoid]

Game of Thrones? They match perfectly.

I understand that you think a "good" adaptation adheres as closely as possible to the original, but the Game of Thrones TV series is a period drama of sorts, and not a contemporary reinterpretation.

If Sherlock were a drama series set in the period of the original Conan Doyle tales, you could expect the characters to be more like the originals, but as it is you can't expect the characters to act like a bunch of Victorians.

 

[unnamedny]

I understand that you think a "good" adaptation adheres as closely as possible to the original, but the Game of Thrones TV series is a period drama of sorts, and not a contemporary reinterpretation.

If Sherlock were a drama series set in the period of the original Conan Doyle tales, you could expect the characters to be more like the originals, but as it is you can't expect the characters to act like a bunch of Victorians.

Well would you like to see Arnold Schwarzenegger in adaptation of Romeo and Juliet instead of Leonardo Di Caprio? or maybe Danny Devito in "Great Gatsby" as main character? Don't think so. So I don't see Cumberbatch acting all nerdy and hipstery with low self-esteem he has portrayed as great detective. Most Sherlocks looked wise and intellectual and did not talk and act like they are on Ecstasy the whole time.

 

[EarlyMon]

Well would you like to see Arnold Schwarzenegger in adaptation of Romeo and Juliet instead of Leonardo Di Caprio? or maybe Danny Devito in "Great Gatsby" as main character? Don't think so. So I don't see Cumberbatch acting all nerdy and hipstery with low self-esteem he has portrayed as great detective. Most Sherlocks looked wise and intellectual and did not talk and act like they are on Ecstasy the whole time.

How many episodes have you seen?

Low self esteem?? What??

Didn't you say that you weren't going to watch any more?

 

[unnamedny]

How many episodes have you seen?

Low self esteem?? What??

Didn't you say that you weren't going to watch any more?

I watched first season almost. And 1st episode of season 3. I was hoping for it to improve.
Wasn't he able to take out that lab geek girl for quite a while? Aso he is not very good with people, and then he cries like alittle baby how he needs Watson. He acts pathetic in some scenes as well.

 

[EarlyMon]

I guess it's a matter of opinion.

In print, he was completely pathetic when Watson was getting married, or when he couldn't get to the syringe, he was dysfunctional with women, sullen when Watson was away and abusive of him when he wasn't. The guy that introduced them in A Study In Scarlet warned Watson that he was a bit much to get on with and that seemed true all along.

We all take different things away from reading when we're done.

The things I took away don't leave me bothered with this portrayal.

Clearly, you see the same things far differently.

Proves that YMMV.

And the first episode of 3 has to tie to the last episode of 2. The character portrayal may not work for you but without seeing them in order, the story can't work.

 

[cybersa]

My Favorite one is Sherlock.
I like it very much.

 

[unnamedny]

I guess it's a matter of opinion.

In print, he was completely pathetic when Watson was getting married, or when he couldn't get to the syringe, he was dysfunctional with women, sullen when Watson was away and abusive of him when he wasn't. The guy that introduced them in A Study In Scarlet warned Watson that he was a bit much to get on with and that seemed true all along.

We all take different things away from reading when we're done.

The things I took away don't leave me bothered with this portrayal.

Clearly, you see the same things far differently.

Proves that YMMV.

And the first episode of 3 has to tie to the last episode of 2. The character portrayal may not work for you but without seeing them in order, the story can't work.

I respect your opinion. I think Sherlock is professionally made series with some major mistakes for my taste(again its just IMO). I like the soundtrack. I think sometimes Watson does better job playing as secondary character than Sherlock, but I think I'm done with Sherlock. I honestly lost interest in the middle of few episodes I've seen, and I turned my TV off.

 

[EarlyMon]

Some people like chicken, some like crab, some like veggies and there's nothing wrong with that.