RE: Sherlock

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Sherlock

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> Small Screen >> RE: Sherlock

Page: << < prev 17 18 19 20 [21]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 11:35:55 AM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

But the movies just have the names Holmes and Watson - it's nicking a background that the movie and the writing has nothing to do with? I just don't see one as anything to do with t'other, whether the Ritchie films are enjoyed on their own merit or not.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to AxlReznor)

Post #: 601

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 11:38:05 AM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

But the movies just have the names Holmes and Watson - it's nicking a background that the movie and the writing has nothing to do with? I just don't see one as anything to do with t'other, whether the Ritchie films are enjoyed on their own merit or not.�

It's more Holmes than the movies from the 40's. Ritchie at least recognises that Holmes had adventures, and was quite an action hero, instead of just a stuffy man in a hat with a magnifying glass.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 602

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 11:46:47 AM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

The movies from the 30s/40s had adventures too. Granted the films really fluffed up Watson

And it's more Holmes than, say, the Moomins - but it still doesn't make it Holmes/Watson. It's just a couple of characters with names that have a history.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to AxlReznor)

Post #: 603

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 11:52:52 AM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

I consider them to be pragmatic adaptations, exaggerating the more action-oriented aspects of the stories and for the first time bringing Holmes' social flaws to the screen, whilst keeping the essence of the relationship between the characters, myself. Basically, the way Holmes would have been if he were created by DC Comics.

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 604

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 11:57:39 AM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

And not written by Conan-Doyle.

Sorry - I just don't see Conan-Doyle's work in the films. In a way it's as you say - it's like they're written by someone who's vaguely heard of caricatures of the characters (ie DC!). But if they'd called them different names I'd never have linked them to Holmes/Watson - I'd have thought it was just another tedious buddy movie.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to AxlReznor)

Post #: 605

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 1:55:33 PM

musht

Posts: 1143
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

I have to agree with Axl, I do prefer the Ritchie movies and it's mainly because one of elab's argument against them; "it's just a standard buddy movie". Essentially the Conan Doyle stories are all buddy stories and the writers behind the Ritchie movies chose to focus on that aspect which I think works brilliantly especially given the chemistry between RDJ and Law who are actually believable as friends. I've expressed my views on Cumberbatch's Holmes before (I don't like him) but one of the things that annoys me is I don't understand why Freeman's Watson is "friends" with him, in fact it could be argued that in Sherlock they don't really come across as friends at all.

The stories in the Ritchie movies are not as good as good as the Doyle originals but I can overlook that because I love watching RDJ and Law onscreen together and I do enjoy the action. Whereas in Sherlock the stories are there but the characters and the relationships between them aren't as good which is a shame. I still like Sherlock but in my opinion it is overrated.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 606

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 2:16:16 PM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

I've said this poorly. I meant, IMO, the Ritchie films are just AN Other buddy movies - they aren't, for me, films that play up that aspect of the Holmes/Watson relationship because it's not Holmes and Watson. I'd be stunned if the writers had ever actually read any of the books rather than just conceived a caricature based on pop culture. So that isn't Holmes and Watson - not Conan Doyle's. I know Ritchie bleats on about Holmes being younger and more adventures blah blah excuse for them putting up whatever the hell they like on the screen. With RDJ's dodgy English accent (I do like him generally but the accent's gotten worse since Restoration, which I chanced across on a movie channel this week).

Beyond that, I'm not a fan of the films. Not just because I get fed up with lazy writers appropriating others histories to try and sell part of their stories as bad remakes tend to do.

Sorry - I know it might look as if I'm confusing thinking the films are crap with what they're supposed to be about, but I am separating it out

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to musht)

Post #: 607

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 2:19:14 PM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

Although that's also taking it a little more off-topic - apologies about that

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 608

RE: Sherlock - 1/2/2013 5:31:56 PM

Vadersville

Posts: 2903
Joined: 30/9/2005

I think what's most confusing about your posts, elab, is that all your complaints of the films seem to ring true more for the series. You keep saying that the Holmes and Watson of the films are not the characters from the book and are caricatures based off pop culture. I really don't get this. This is true, if a little harsh, of the series portrayal of the characters but definitley not of the films.

The first RDJ film went to great lengths to distance itself from the Basil Rathbone image that the average joe associated with the character. Gone is the stupid hat, over-sized magnfiying glass, brim and proper Holmes with his bungling, stupid and perpetually in awe watson. instead we get a Sherlock who is actually far closer to the books. The substance abuse, the master of disguise, the loner that has few freinds but values Watson more than anything else, it's all there. Even the aspects that a lot of people seem to take issue with, say the action, are born out of the original source material. In the very first story Watson notes that he is an expert boxer and swordsman, he survives the fight with Moriarity using bar Jiistu and I do remember him more than once, disarming someone with his bare hands. Sure the action is exagerrated in the films from the books but it how they have chosen to modernise Sherlock and its made abundatnly clear that his expertises in combat are due to his superior intellect and ability to read people / situations. (The BBC series also shamefully copied the slo-mo fighting, rather unsuccesfully in my opinion, in Series Two)

The allusion to Sherlock of DC Comics being negative is also a slightly confusing one as the majority of the Sherlock books were published as short stories in The Strand Magazine and that two of the four full length novels were originally published as a serial. They were the then equivilent to comics. Exciting, monthly adventures of a hero with special abilities.

I also have to echo Musht's post about the lack of any friendship on screen with the BBC series. What i find particularly interesting is that RDJ's Sherlock film abadoned the origin route so popular at the time with batman begins and casino Royale and jumped straight in with Holmes and Watson already best friends and a working paternership, yet within little time we quickly get a firm grasp of their believable friendship and what each other gets out of the relationship, and why they need each other. The series decided to go the origin route, showing Sherlock and Watson's first meeting and first case together and yet after two series I still don't know why Sherlock needs Watson or why Watson sticks with Holmes. This meant that despite great performances from Cumberpatch and Freeman, the final scenes of The Reichenbach Fall fell a little flat for me. Why? Because I didn't believe their friendship.

< Message edited by Vadersville -- 1/2/2013 5:33:31 PM >

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 609

RE: Sherlock - 5/3/2013 8:14:50 PM

Professor Moriarty

Posts: 8571
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca

For some reason I'd not got round to watching the final episode of the second series until today. Quite possibly imo one of the best episodes of TV ever made. Absolutely engaging and fascinating on many levels and supremely well acted, with at least 4 or 5 stand out moments in the single episode.

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 610

RE: Sherlock - 5/3/2013 11:32:51 PM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

Vadersville/Musht. (Sorry, my quote box isn't working for some reason)

But a tickbox of character traits does not a living, breathing character make.

And this conversation does, I think, simply come down to one thing. I think the films are badly written and, worse, bore me - I see a cliched buddy movie (hence the friend stuff being so shouted out because it's standard shallow action fare, nothing, for me, to do with Conan Doyle - and that is down to the writing, again. I'd be worried if they were just happy they were a step beyond Rathbone - what about Brett?). You don't believe, I think, that the writing of the friendship in Sherlock the TV series has convinced you of the relationship you believe should exist between the characters.

I don't think we have common ground on this.

Have you tried the Russian series? Baskerville is out on UK DVD now.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)

Post #: 611

RE: Sherlock - 6/3/2013 1:09:48 AM

musht

Posts: 1143
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Vadersville/Musht. (Sorry, my quote box isn't working for some reason)

But a tickbox of character traits does not a living, breathing character make.

And this conversation does, I think, simply come down to one thing. I think the films are badly written and, worse, bore me - I see a cliched buddy movie (hence the friend stuff being so shouted out because it's standard shallow action fare, nothing, for me, to do with Conan Doyle - and that is down to the writing, again. I'd be worried if they were just happy they were a step beyond Rathbone - what about Brett?). You don't believe, I think, that the writing of the friendship in Sherlock the TV series has convinced you of the relationship you believe should exist between the characters.

I don't think we have common ground on this. � Have you tried the Russian series? Baskerville is out on UK DVD now.

No I don't think we have. Don't get me wrong I don't think the Ritchie movies are perfect I just think they got the relationship but I see your point about the generic buddy action thing.

To be honest I haven't seen many other Holmes adaptations; I've seen the Baskervilles with Peter Cushing and I thought I'd seen another one but now I'm not so sure. I've been watching Elementary recently and I actually feel that Lee Miller is a far better Holmes than both Cumberbatch and RDJ it's just a pity the stories in that show are bloody awful. On another note I've always thought Basil the Great Mouse Detective was a great version of Holmes, I don't know the name of the actpr who voiced him but he was great and even watching it as an adult it's quite a decent attempt at capturing the essence of Holmes even if they did go down the doddery, older Watson route.

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 612

RE: Sherlock - 6/3/2013 8:57:01 AM

Vadersville

Posts: 2903
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Vadersville/Musht. (Sorry, my quote box isn't working for some reason)

But a tickbox of character traits does not a living, breathing character make.

And this conversation does, I think, simply come down to one thing. I think the films are badly written and, worse, bore me - I see a cliched buddy movie (hence the friend stuff being so shouted out because it's standard shallow action fare, nothing, for me, to do with Conan Doyle - and that is down to the writing, again. I'd be worried if they were just happy they were a step beyond Rathbone - what about Brett?). You don't believe, I think, that the writing of the friendship in Sherlock the TV series has convinced you of the relationship you believe should exist between the characters.

I don't think we have common ground on this. � Have you tried the Russian series? Baskerville is out on UK DVD now.

I don't think we have any common ground either, but I have to say it's been refreshing to have a discussion on here with someone with an opposing viewpoint without it descending into name calling or other negativities.

_____________________________

Confusion is a way of life, not a state of mind

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 613

RE: Sherlock - 6/3/2013 3:06:08 PM

musht

Posts: 1143
Joined: 21/1/2009
From: Oireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vadersville

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Vadersville/Musht. (Sorry, my quote box isn't working for some reason)

But a tickbox of character traits does not a living, breathing character make.

And this conversation does, I think, simply come down to one thing. I think the films are badly written and, worse, bore me - I see a cliched buddy movie (hence the friend stuff being so shouted out because it's standard shallow action fare, nothing, for me, to do with Conan Doyle - and that is down to the writing, again. I'd be worried if they were just happy they were a step beyond Rathbone - what about Brett?). You don't believe, I think, that the writing of the friendship in Sherlock the TV series has convinced you of the relationship you believe should exist between the characters.

I don't think we have common ground on this. � Have you tried the Russian series? Baskerville is out on UK DVD now.

I don't think we have any common ground either, but I have to say it's been refreshing to have a discussion on here with someone with an opposing viewpoint without it descending into name calling or other negativities.

It's not too late

_____________________________

"SAVE ME, BARRY!!"

"What the hell are Regionals!?"

(in reply to Vadersville)

Post #: 614

RE: Sherlock - 7/3/2013 10:35:13 PM

Musefan

Posts: 115
Joined: 21/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

I have to agree with Axl, I do prefer the Ritchie movies and it's mainly because one of elab's argument against them; "it's just a standard buddy movie". Essentially the Conan Doyle stories are all buddy stories and the writers behind the Ritchie movies chose to focus on that aspect which I think works brilliantly especially given the chemistry between RDJ and Law who are actually believable as friends. I've expressed my views on Cumberbatch's Holmes before (I don't like him) but one of the things that annoys me is I don't understand why Freeman's Watson is "friends" with him, in fact it could be argued that in Sherlock they don't really come across as friends at all.

Really I think it's made incredibly clear why Freeman's John is friends with Cumberbatch's Sherlock:

The opening of A Study in Pink immediately demonstrates that John is bored, isolated & lonely since returning from the war. The big line he gives pre-titles remember is 'nothing happens to me'. Throughout the episode we learn that John's disability is not caused by trauma from the war, but because he misses the excitement of it. Therefore we immediately have one strong reason for what John gets out of the friendship - adventure.

But it's more than that - you say RDJ & Law are believable as friends in the films (and I agree), but as elab points out it's really just believable in the same way that Chan & Tucker are believable as friends in Rush Hour, or Smith & Jones in Men in Black. They probably have more fun together than Freeman & Cumberbatch's versions do, but then RDJ's Holmes is generally a lot 'funner' character. You say you don't like Cumberbatch's Sherlock, but I'm not entirely sure you're supposed to alot of the time (he is a highly functioning sociopath, after all). To me, this is one of the most interesting aspects of the friendship - that Cumberbatch's Sherlock doesn't really like anyone (John being one of the only exceptions to this), and that hardly anyone really likes Sherlock (again, John being one of the only exceptions to this). They need each other in a way that is just so much more powerful than their film counterparts. As Sherlock puts it in Hound of the Baskervilles - 'I don't have friends. Just the one'.

(in reply to musht)

Post #: 615

RE: Sherlock - 7/3/2013 10:41:10 PM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

Excellently put (much better than my argument

)

In other news - apparently filming starts next week if the fervid rumour apparently quoting Freeman is to be believed.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to Musefan)

Post #: 616

RE: Sherlock - 7/3/2013 11:05:45 PM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

Heh... I actually think that Downey Jr. and Cumberbatch play the character in the exact same way, and the only real difference between the films and TV show is setting, and the movies have the budget to go crazy.

EDIT: To elaborate on that, and my thoughts on the discrepancies in the portrayal of their friendship...

In the TV show, Watson has just met this brilliant but infuriating man, who at points shows enough signs of humanity for him to think that maybe he's worth persevering with. The first two seasons are about how their relationship grew into what will become a lifelong friendship.

Whereas the movies are about the two of them when they've been best friends for some time. Law's Watson is still often exasperated by Holmes, and finds himself wondering why he even bothers with him, but there's a sense of loyalty that I don't believe is there for Freeman's Watson until Moriarty began targeting Holmes personally. That episode made Freeman's Watson realise what Law's Watson has known for sometime.

So I believe both will have very different reactions when they find out Holmes is alive. ie. Law will be annoyed that he let his only friend think he was dead for years, whilst Freeman will most likely be more glad to see him.

Other than the (noticeable and understandable considering) differences in their friendship, I believe that both sets of actors are playing the characters from the novels, and therefore are portraying them pretty much identically.

Or to put it another way, TV show Holmes and Watson are Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon, and movie Holmes and Watson are Riggs and Murtaugh from Lethal Weapon 4.

< Message edited by AxlReznor -- 8/3/2013 9:28:11 AM >

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 617

RE: Sherlock - 8/3/2013 1:41:07 PM

spark1

Posts: 5789
Joined: 18/11/2006

s3 filming soon-

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s129/sherlock/news/a464225/sherlock-series-three-filming-in-two-weeks-confirms-martin-freeman.html

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 618

RE: Sherlock - 8/3/2013 4:30:44 PM

elab49

Posts: 51617
Joined: 1/10/2005

See 2 posts up

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

Films watched 2012

Annual Poll 2012 Countdown Started.

(in reply to spark1)

Post #: 619

RE: Sherlock - 14/3/2013 12:52:18 PM

spark1

Posts: 5789
Joined: 18/11/2006

s3 in december and an xmas special?-

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-03-13/sherlock-series-3-could-air-at-christmas-says-benedict-cumberbatch

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 620

RE: Sherlock - 28/3/2013 10:29:39 AM

spark1

Posts: 5789
Joined: 18/11/2006

s3 on set video-

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-03-27/sherlock-watch-series-three-being-filmed-in-bristol

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 621

RE: Sherlock - 21/4/2013 10:44:24 AM

Marky_Mark

Posts: 1498
Joined: 8/12/2005
From: Yorkshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musefan

Really I think it's made incredibly clear why Freeman's John is friends with Cumberbatch's Sherlock:

The opening of A Study in Pink immediately demonstrates that John is bored, isolated & lonely since returning from the war. The big line he gives pre-titles remember is 'nothing happens to me'. Throughout the episode we learn that John's disability is not caused by trauma from the war, but because he misses the excitement of it. Therefore we immediately have one strong reason for what John gets out of the friendship - adventure.

Plus in the reverse...in 'Baskervilles', Sherlock describes John as being a conduit for his genius, helping him reach connections he hasn't yet made.

Back to 'Reichenbach'...surprised no-one has mentioned the squash ball that Sherlock was playing with before he goes to meet Moriarty on the roof. The scene is edited in such a way as to draw attention to it a couple of times...and I wonder if it is in some way another clue as to how he did it.

I definitely think Moffat's clue about something out of character is the phone call he makes- explained in many posts above because he wants to position John correctly to experience the 'effect' properly.

The missus and I have been rewatching S1 & S2 recently. SUCH brilliant telly!

< Message edited by Marky_Mark -- 21/4/2013 11:44:35 AM >

_____________________________

Ramblings of a musician, telly addict, and tech-head...

www.twitter.com/MarkSaysThis

XBOX Live Gamertag: Roost N Roll

(in reply to Musefan)

Post #: 622

RE: Sherlock - 22/4/2013 10:13:00 AM

Chief

Posts: 7016
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The Kingdom, Scotland

Possible spoilers:

Did anyone see the pictures of Derren Brown on set? It could be a red herring but it looked like Derren was playing a character similar to what he does in real life and he was hypnotising John into seeing something that never happened and that was who Sherlock called. Could all be bullshit though.

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 623