Sherlock

[altariel]

Sherlock was brilliant. Why has nobody thought of doing that with text messages before? Inspired. I love how the set at 221B Baker Street looks like a thirties refit of the set from the Granada series.

Only false note for me (and it was a very slight false note, barely a semi-tone) was the too-whimsical Mycroft, who seemed to have stepped out of an episode of The Avengers. But otherwise - yes, more of that, thank you very much. I request that telly be like this more of the time, otherwise I'll have to go back to my West Wing uber-mega-marathon.

Upon which subject: Jed Bartlet is such an arse.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

They didn't actually reveal how the killer had worked his trick, because they couldn't work it out themselves, apparently. Which is just cheating.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I thought he'd just been lucky four times?

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Which is cheating.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Is it? I thought it was consistent with the theme of Sherlock (and Watson) being risk-takers and needing danger. The cabbie's luck was no worse than that of Paul the Psychic Octopus! Anyway, YMMV.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

They ran through twenty minutes of faffing about how the murders could have worked, it was the climax of the episode and the whole point of the plot and the mystery, but it was dismissed with the comment that he "got lucky". It was quite obvious from about a third of the way in that the cabbie did it, and after that we just sat watching Holmes floundering about while, at the end, Mrs Hudson waved the solution as to the who under his nose.

So we went on to the method, and a giant build-up as to how it was done, but in the end, with a wave of the magic want, dismissed as pure luck and Holmes saved by GPS and an illegal handgun.

In the 30s, that would have got the writers drummed out of the Detective writers club (I forget what it was called) as cheating.

Furthermore, the whole of the way Holmes detected in canon is now part of the mainstream. You can watch The Mentalist doing the observation thing (and better than it was done last night) every week. Holmes was the first 'scientific detective' but scientific detection is now also part of the mainstream and there is nothing he can do that isn't done every week on CSI.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

Well, I enjoyed it.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

No one is suggesting you shouldn't have enjoyed it, but there is a difference between bad-but-fun and good.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

I didn't think it was bad at all. I thought it was stylishly made, nicely acted, energetic (apart from the brief dip in the middle), witty, and that it had great affection for and fun with the sources. I didn't catch it was the cabbie, but then I'm quite content to switch off my brain and let myself be entertained on a Sunday evening. I'll be tuning in next week. As I say, YMMV.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

But detective fiction and drama is about plot. Which is where this fell flat on its face.

[altariel.livejournal.com]

As I say - I didn't guess the villain and his motivation made sense to me, and that plus the entertainment factor was more than enough for me. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I think having it down to luck was unsatisfactory, though it might have been improved slightly if the murderer's luck had run out, Sherlock worked out enough to get them there just in time to find him dying, and they arrested the lucky not-dead person as the serial killer. And then, of course, Sherlock would have to work out and prove she/he was telling the truth, but with the real killer already dead and no longer posing a threat that might have been a bit anticlimactic.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I think trying to stick to at least part of the plot of A Study in Scarlet was a mistake. It's a weak plot as Doyle goes, and they had to drop the Mormon connection as not being PC. In order to make this Sherlock as extraordinary as he was in his own time, they are going to have to predict, as Doyle did in some stories, the methods that will be used in the future.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

It's so many years since I read A Study in Scarlet that I don't think I remember anything but the Mormon connection, and a vague image of people struggling across a desert. I just had to look at a synopsis to see what they'd lifted.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I know. Funnily enough, all I remembered of it myself was the Mormon historical thing (which is boring enough to etch itself into granite) and the meeting in the lab. However, once it was pointed out to me that they were actually using bits of the plot, I went to look it up too.

[manna]

It was quite obvious from about a third of the way in that the cabbie did it, and after that we just sat watching Holmes floundering about while, at the end, Mrs Hudson waved the solution as to the who under his nose.

For me, it stalled at the point where Holmes was listing all the points which applied to a taxi driver, while about eight black cabs drove aimlessly around in the street behind him. I'm really not sure what they were trying to achieve -- if they wanted the audience to feel smarter than Holmes, that seems like a misguided thing to do when you're trying to establish the character as a genius.

So we went on to the method, and a giant build-up as to how it was done, but in the end, with a wave of the magic want, dismissed as pure luck and Holmes saved by GPS and an illegal handgun.

It was a very poor ending.

The worst part of the plotting, though, I thought, was the ridiculous set-up with the mobile phone. Let's suppose that you think you've been kidnapped by someone who's going to kill you. Do you:

a) Hide your mobile phone in his taxi, trusting that at some point between then and your horrible death you will be able to leave an extremely obscure clue which will allow the police to track your phone by GPS, and catch the person who is about to kill you, or,

b) PHONE BLOODY 999 AND GET HELP!

That was just lazy, slipshod writing, really. It was like someone had read the Holmes stories, but didn't really understand how they worked. I'm hoping that Mark Gatiss will be able to make a better fist of it. His Lucifer Box stories suggest be might.

Furthermore, the whole of the way Holmes detected in canon is now part of the mainstream.

That's an excellent point. I think a really good, fun Holmes pastiche is still be a workable concept, though, but it can't afford to be lazy about the plot.

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

So we went on to the method, and a giant build-up as to how it was done, but in the end, with a wave of the magic want, dismissed as pure luck and Holmes saved by GPS and an illegal handgun.

Like the giant build-up during an entire season in "Supernatural" for the final confrontation between Michael!Dean and Lucifer!Sam and then... Adam taking Dean's place.

You can watch The Mentalist doing the observation thing (and better than it was done last night) every week. Holmes was the first 'scientific detective' but scientific detection is now also part of the mainstream and there is nothing he can do that isn't done every week on CSI.

Both, true.
Still, I enjoyed watching it! I found clever and innovative the text messages popping up. I loved the music. Their banter just before Holmes introduced himself to Watson made me happy, same as Rupert Graves' presence (which is actually the main reason I watched "Sherlock"! I'm weird that way! :P).

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think they are going to find it very difficult to keep finding riffs on Holmes canon to make jokes about.