Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 12:52:59 GMT 1
Great series. My favourite ep is the one with Irene, so much fun
Another fantastic one is the latest ep where someone close to Sherlock is possibly smarter
Never watched the special that also screened on the silver screen. I kind of forgot it existed lol. It is now on the list. Although Im not really a fan of the Victorian London backdrop and no I havent read the original Sherlock Holmes. I can stomach it, like in Amazon's Carnival Row. I liken it to eating mushrooms on pizza
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Sept 10, 2020 14:34:15 GMT 1
Great series. My favourite ep is the one with Irene, so much fun I really have to watch the Irene Adler ep again…Heh, now that was the one I was going ballistic on earlier in the thread! I have seen some positive reviews—but, well, for me it really wrecked the show.Definitely give it a try, though I love Victorian London, so take my recommendations with a grain of salt. I wish they’d used the mystery plot for it in a different and better episode.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Sept 10, 2020 15:00:21 GMT 1
I'm a huge fan of SHERLOCK HOLMES... but this version has left me feeling disinterested and uninvested in the characters or plots... As for Muppet and the great Gatiss, I think they're are gnats, standing on the shoulders of giants. It took little discipline or effort for them to attain their goal, because they simply saw what others had done before them and copied it. The trouble is their copy is a pale and inferior version of the original.Then they try to claim all of the accolades and credit for themselves... Accolades and credit that often belong to their predecessors and betters. This also applies to their work down on DOCTOR WHO. Really? I think in the early episodes the show succeeded marvelously at modernizing Holmes, just as the Basil Rathbone series did in the ’40s, without losing the essence of the character. Not sure about “a pale and inferior version of the original”; no Sherlock Holmes adaptation—not even Brett’s—is perfectly faithful to Doyle’s characters or world (or plots, though they’re less important here), and all of them have their weak points. I’m not a huge Moffat-Gatiss fan, though, all things considered; they seem to specialize in wink-wink in-jokes and lording over the audience with their (often specious) cleverness. The same thing happened in their Dracula and in Gatiss’ own Crooked House and Lucifer Box book series. At this show’s finest, though, the cleverness was actually clever and (in my opinion) the characters at least as faithful to Doyle’s as they were in previous adaptations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 15:34:41 GMT 1
I'm a huge fan of SHERLOCK HOLMES... but this version has left me feeling disinterested and uninvested in the characters or plots... As for Muppet and the great Gatiss, I think they're are gnats, standing on the shoulders of giants. It took little discipline or effort for them to attain their goal, because they simply saw what others had done before them and copied it. The trouble is their copy is a pale and inferior version of the original.Then they try to claim all of the accolades and credit for themselves... Accolades and credit that often belong to their predecessors and betters. This also applies to their work down on DOCTOR WHO. Really? I think in the early episodes the show succeeded marvelously at modernizing Holmes, just as the Basil Rathbone series did in the ’40s, without losing the essence of the character. Not sure about “a pale and inferior version of the original”; no Sherlock Holmes adaptation—not even Brett’s—is perfectly faithful to Doyle’s characters or world (or plots, though they’re less important here), and all of them have their weak points. I’m not a huge Moffat-Gatiss fan, though, all things considered; they seem to specialize in wink-wink in-jokes and lording over the audience with their (often specious) cleverness. The same thing happened in their Dracula and in Gatiss’ own Crooked House and Lucifer Box book series. At this show’s finest, though, the cleverness was actually clever and (in my opinion) the characters at least as faithful to Doyle’s as they were in previous adaptations. Yes, mate, really... Sorry, but I'm just not a fan. I like most of the actors involved and have enjoyed their work on other productions, but not here. Personally, I think this might be because 1, I simply dislike the smug bastards responsible for it so much and, 2, this production attempts to modernize the original source too much. While I accept that the far from perfect Rathbone / Bruce film series did the same, they at least started the film series off in the right time period for the first two entries. The rest of that film series was made little over a decade after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his final set of SH stories... so they were not quite as badly out-of-time as some later film or TV adaptions. As for my personal favourite interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, 1. Jeremy Brett... He remains the benchmark upon which all others will be compared. 2. Sir Ian McKellen... I thought he was quite superb in MR HOLMES. 3. Ian Richardson... A special exception. He played Doctor Joseph Bell - the character upon whom Sherlock Holmes was based - in MURDER ROOMS: MYSTERIES OF THE REAL SHERLOCK HOLMES. 4. Tom Baker... Among his first work after DOCTOR WHO... and quite a surprising change of pace. 5. Basil Rathbone... Always a fan favourite.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA SALZ! on Sept 10, 2020 17:27:40 GMT 1
Yes, mate, really... Sorry, but I'm just not a fan. I like most of the actors involved and have enjoyed their work on other productions, but not here. Personally, I think this might be because 1, I simply dislike the smug bastards responsible for it so much and, 2, this production attempts to modernize the original source too much. While I accept that the far from perfect Rathbone / Bruce film series did the same, they at least started the film series off in the right time period for the first two entries. The rest of that film series was made little over a decade after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his final set of SH stories... so they were not quite as badly out-of-time as some later film or TV adaptions. As for my personal favourite interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, 1. Jeremy Brett... He remains the benchmark upon which all others will be compared. 2. Sir Ian McKellen... I thought he was quite superb in MR HOLMES. 3. Ian Richardson... A special exception. He played Doctor Joseph Bell - the character upon whom Sherlock Holmes was based - in MURDER ROOMS: MYSTERIES OF THE REAL SHERLOCK HOLMES. 4. Tom Baker... Among his first work after DOCTOR WHO... and quite a surprising change of pace. 5. Basil Rathbone... Always a fan favourite. Oh, no need to be sorry—I love hearing different opinions! I completely understand not liking Moffat-Gatiss; “smug bastards” can certainly be fair for them! I still haven’t seen Mr. Holmes; glad to hear McKellen was so good (but, then, isn’t he always?). Have you seen Richardson as Holmes in the ’80s TV movies? His performance is excellent, but Donald Churchill as Watson isn’t that great. And, yes, Richardson was great in Murder Rooms. Haven’t seen Baker’s Holmes; as for lesser-known Holmeses, one of my favorites is Arthur Wontner, though the movies around him aren’t so good. ( The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is, to use a Holmesian phrase, “the pick of a bad lot”—and probably the best Valley of Fear adaptation.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2020 20:56:17 GMT 1
Yes, mate, really... Sorry, but I'm just not a fan. I like most of the actors involved and have enjoyed their work on other productions, but not here. Personally, I think this might be because 1, I simply dislike the smug bastards responsible for it so much and, 2, this production attempts to modernize the original source too much. While I accept that the far from perfect Rathbone / Bruce film series did the same, they at least started the film series off in the right time period for the first two entries. The rest of that film series was made little over a decade after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his final set of SH stories... so they were not quite as badly out-of-time as some later film or TV adaptions. As for my personal favourite interpretations of Sherlock Holmes, 1. Jeremy Brett... He remains the benchmark upon which all others will be compared. 2. Sir Ian McKellen... I thought he was quite superb in MR HOLMES. 3. Ian Richardson... A special exception. He played Doctor Joseph Bell - the character upon whom Sherlock Holmes was based - in MURDER ROOMS: MYSTERIES OF THE REAL SHERLOCK HOLMES. 4. Tom Baker... Among his first work after DOCTOR WHO... and quite a surprising change of pace. 5. Basil Rathbone... Always a fan favourite. Oh, no need to be sorry—I love hearing different opinions! I completely understand not liking Moffat-Gatiss; “smug bastards” can certainly be fair for them! I still haven’t seen Mr. Holmes; glad to hear McKellen was so good (but, then, isn’t he always?). Have you seen Richardson as Holmes in the ’80s TV movies? His performance is excellent, but Donald Churchill as Watson isn’t that great. And, yes, Richardson was great in Murder Rooms. Haven’t seen Baker’s Holmes; as for lesser-known Holmeses, one of my favorites is Arthur Wontner, though the movies around him aren’t so good. ( The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is, to use a Holmesian phrase, “the pick of a bad lot”—and probably the best Valley of Fear adaptation.) Well, variety is the spice of life. Unfortunately, I haven't seen the 80's TV films of which you speak... however, I know a few video-sharing platforms where they might be found... fingers crossed. The trouble is there's a lot of SHERLOCK HOLMES material - or inspired material - out there, but unfortunately, not a lot of it is actually any good. PS - I also happen to think Benedict Cumberbatch is an inspired choice to play Holmes... if only the production was more faithful to the original source material.
|
|