|
|
Post by rueful on Oct 26, 2010 10:28:24 GMT
So glad you liked it - it's always a bit of a nail-biter to recommend something so highly, in case other people hate it. No worries in this case--it was excellent! However, the final one is back up to top form (same writer as the first), if at breakneck speed, so I'm sure you'll love that one, too. I usually use closed captioning when I'm watching British shows, to help me understand some of the thicker (to me) accents. (This is particularly useful for Tim Roth in Lie to Me. He mumbles so much that his own mother probably needs captions.) In Sherlock, there were a few points when they were talking so fast, the captions couldn't keep up! A line would appear for about a millisecond and then be replaced with the new one before I could read it. It was kind of funny to watch. My only real complaint was that PBS, as usual, cut parts out of the show!!! It's really annoying. The excuse is that they do it to fit the time slot. For Mystery and Masterpiece Theatre, it's a 90 minute time slot, and they typically cut about 10 minutes of the BBC or ITV programs in order to put in 10 minutes of commercials at the end for.....more PBS programs!!! So they're not "making money" from advertisers for the commercials, which at least I could understand. Instead they're cutting out relevant bits of the program I'm watching, in order to show me parts of the show that will be on next week. It's especially irritating for mysteries, when they sometimes remove relevant bits. Regarding Sherlock, according to another board I read, they removed the part where the killer says Sherlock's "fan" (Moriarty) paid him for each person he killed, and he was doing it to get money for his kids. Sort of important info for upcoming episodes, I'd think. By the way, if there are any US fans of this and other PBS programs, apparently many of the PBS versions of British shows are cut even in DVD form. (Like A&E did with the Charles II DVDs.) |
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Oct 26, 2010 12:04:17 GMT
[My only real complaint was that PBS, as usual, cut parts out of the show!!! It's really annoying. The excuse is that they do it to fit the time slot. For Mystery and Masterpiece Theatre, it's a 90 minute time slot, and they typically cut about 10 minutes of the BBC or ITV programs By the way, if there are any US fans of this and other PBS programs, apparently many of the PBS versions of British shows are cut even in DVD form. (Like A&E did with the Charles II DVDs.) Which is why I never, ever, buy DVDs of shows I like on PBS from PBS. I ran into this situation with Foyle's War a few years ago. I purchased the DVDs released by the BBC- a bit more pricey, but much, much more satisfying. The only good news - since Zen is released so much sooner in the UK than here the DVDs will be available almost immediately after the show runs on Masterpiece. Have not had a chance to watch Sherlock yet, DVRed it but have been to busy to sit down and watch. From eveyone's comments, I'm looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddruid on Oct 26, 2010 23:20:14 GMT
The show was very good, love the modern turn, and the acting is top-notch. I loved where he was lying there on the sofa like he was in a drug induced trance and it was only nicotine patches, very funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Oct 27, 2010 11:55:37 GMT
Got to watch Sherlock last night. Now, you have to understand that I am devoted to the original Sherlock. I first read Holmes when I was 12 and have read and re-read the stories a gazillion times over the years. And I HATED the Sherlock Holmes movie with RDJ. So, even with the good reviews here and other places I was a bit leery about the whole project.
Well I LOVED it. It was a wonderful adaptation of the original. I think my problem with the RDJ movie is that it was a bad parody - didn't respect the original at all. Not so with this version. I think the writers did a wonderful job bringing the characters into the 21st century.
I especially liked the treatment of Dr. Watson. So many adaptations show him as something of an idiot, when he wasn't. I know others have quoted some of Sherlock's choicer lines (high functioning sociopath - do the research) but I think Watson had one of the best.
At the crime scene Sherlock asks him what he would be thinking if he lay dying and Watson responds, "Please god, let me live." Sherlock kind of sneers and says something like "Use your imagination." Watson looks him right int he eye and says "I don't have to use my imagination."
The bit at the end was surprising and funny - I had that person pegged as Moriarty NOT Mycroft.
One minor quibble that I think is due to PBS editing. Did the murderer ever give Sherlock a reason why he picked the victims? Or were they picked at random?
I'm glad to hear that they are making more episodes. I'm looking forward to the next two.
|
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Oct 27, 2010 12:16:59 GMT
The bit at the end was surprising and funny - I had that person pegged as Moriarty NOT Mycroft. Me, too!  Can't help with your query - it's been a while since I've seen it. the whole thing was up on Youtube at one stage (in 10 minute chunks) so you might still find it there. |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Oct 27, 2010 13:58:37 GMT
Joyce, the things I have read online say that in the cut parts the murderer told Sherlock: that Sherlock's "fan" paid him for every person he killed and the cabbie was saving the money for his kids. But supposedly nothing was said about why the cabbie chose the individual victims he did. Even though I thought the above was a very stupid cut for PBS to make, it actually raised more questions for me: Does this mean Moriarty approached the cabbie with an idea for the murders in the first place? That would be kind of weird, because why would he imagine the cabbie would go for it? Or did Moriarty figure out what the cabbie was doing and then pay him after the fact? Neither choice makes much sense to me. The cabbie did say something about being on Sherlock's website, so maybe he and Moriarty met there and chatted in PMs. Scary to think some Rooftoppers could be plotting something dastardly in their PMs.  By the way, I agree with you about the RDJ version. I love RDJ, and if they had taken the same story, given the characters different names, not pretended it was set in Victorian times, and cut 3/4 of the action sequences, I would have thought it was fun fluff. But as a Holmes film, it was a travesty. |
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Nov 2, 2010 12:19:00 GMT
So, anyone in the US up to talking about the latest Sherlock (Rueful???). I understood from some of the UK members that this second episode wasn't as good as the first. I agree with that, but wonder. Is it because the first was so good and original and it suffered in comparison? Still thinking about that one. I have to say that I did find the beginning a bit confusing, but that could be due to PBS editing. Once they got into the story I think it flowed pretty well. I thought the underlying plot was actually a bit better than the first one. I'm not much of a fan of the random serial killer storyline, so this one was more to my taste. I enjoyed the fact that the case Sherlock ended up investigating and solving wasn't actually the case he got called in on. As I recall Conan Doyle used that plot twist himself. And yes, this was the kind of case the original Holmes could have investigated. Smuggling 'stuff' from China has long been a problem for the police. I hated that the young Chinese girl was killed. It might have been necessary for the plot, but I was hoping she could escape from the tong. I though the ending was intriguing. More hints as to Holmes' "fan"? |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Nov 3, 2010 13:48:52 GMT
I understood from some of the UK members that this second episode wasn't as good as the first. I agree with that, but wonder. Is it because the first was so good and original and it suffered in comparison? Still thinking about that one. I enjoyed the second episode too. It wasn't as good as the first, but my expectations were really low because people here and at other forums had given the episode poor marks. Reverse psychology always works very well on me. ;D So I didn't think it was too bad, although there were problems: somewhat confusing plot, racial stereotyping*, and an inexplicable lack of Rupert Graves . *This might have been made worse by PBS cuts, because apparently there were scenes with nonstereotyped Chinese individuals that were cut. I'm not complaining that they had Chinese criminals--there are criminals all over the world--but I didn't like the way the "general" was scripted or played. Also, I thought Sherlock's idea of looking for the key to the code was interesting but inefficient. Good idea--look for books they have in common. Inefficient--look at the first word and then immediately discard the book as not part of the code. How did he know, for example, that "imagine" was not the correct word? (That's the only one I can remember offhand.) And in that scene I had no idea what Watson was doing, because Holmes was looking through books and then handed them to Watson, and he put them down and looked at other books. I also wonder if my confusion there was due to PBS cuts. Speaking of which, someone at televisionwithoutpity.com linked this scene that was partially cut from the show (from around 0.45 to 2.00 min in the clip). It was entertaining, so you might want to check it out. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAH68dbySSMI thought the underlying plot was actually a bit better than the first one. I'm not much of a fan of the random serial killer storyline, so this one was more to my taste. I think I enjoyed the first plot more, although I agree with you about serial killers in general. Even though, on the face of it, the second episode was more puzzle oriented, it was a puzzle I couldn't solve, because I didn't have the tools to crack the code. Watching the first episode, I was actually able to put things some things together before Sherlock (because I watch far too much tv). To me, solving the puzzle is a lot of the fun of a mystery. Like you, I didn't like the fact that the Chinese girl was killed. Although it was sort of inevitable, what with them breaking the horror movie rules by separating when locked in a building with a killer inside. Looking forward to Sunday's ep. and sorry that it's the last. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddruid on Nov 8, 2010 5:52:54 GMT
Well the last episode was tonight, really enjoyed all three of them, but my what a strange cliff hanger on that last one. Considering it will be at least a year till we get new ones, the cliff hanger is a bit odd. I think everyone who enjoyed it this time will be back when they make new ones, but I for one will never remember where they left off on this last one.
|
|
|
|
Post by stama on Nov 8, 2010 9:18:17 GMT
What? Sherlock at this time? Someone is mad?  Damn but it works and how well!  It's exciting, fun, with great pace and the music and the actors are simply incredible! |
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Nov 8, 2010 14:57:16 GMT
Rueful - your point about the books was good. Furthermore, they screwed up that scene by the way they had Holmes and Watson going through them. If you're looking for the same books both men had, why aren't you systematically comparing them instead of rooting through them? I mean, there were literally hundreds of books, and you couldn't begin to crack the code until you had the proper book. So why waste time randomly flipping though ALL the books? Just watched the third episode now. Liked it more than the second, less than the first. The mysteries were good - not in the play fair mode, but interesting. Liked the byplay between the various characters. Loved that Watson was blogging about his adventures with Holmes. Cause that's what he would be doing now, not publishing them as short stories in the Strand. I was also pleased that they are working in dialog, plots, etc. from the original. They have such great source material, they should dip into it! But that was some cliff hanger to end the season with! We have to wait what, a full year, to find out what happens. Not sure how impressed I am with Moriarty. Maybe it's just me, but he struck me more as a young punk and not a criminal mastermind. I mean, really, wouldn't it take time and money to build up the criminal organization he seems to have at his command? But to be honest, for all it's problems, it's still a lot better than what appears on commercial TV. Now, if only they would get around to scheduling Zen! |
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Nov 8, 2010 16:38:04 GMT
What? Sherlock at this time? Someone is mad? That is just what I thought when I originally heard about it, Martina! But you are right, they have done a fantastic job! I also liked the third episode a lot. Very exciting and good character development. I thought the cliffhanger was sort of pointless though, even if they didn't know they would get a second series when they filmed it. It's not as though I actually believe they're going to get killed. I never like those kinds of cliffhangers, where the lead character is "in danger" at the end of the season. Now if they had put a secondary, more expendable character in danger, like Sarah or the St Barts employee (poor thing, I can't remember her name), that might have had me worried. Joyce, I agree with you about the bad guy, although I guess all criminal masterminds start out young, he came off more loopy than cunning. Did you know Watson's blog is online? The comments (from Sherlock, among others) are hilarious. There are spoilers, so only read if you've already watched. www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/Here are links for the other Sherlock webpages. www.bbc.co.uk/drama/sherlock/disclaimer.shtmlBest line: Rupert Graves as LeStade in this exchange: Watson: Fabulous! Holmes (correcting him): Meretricious. Lestade: And a Happy New Year to you!  This, unfortunately, is the kind of thing PBS likes to (and did) cut.  |
|
|
|
Post by joyceinva on Nov 8, 2010 19:50:12 GMT
Rue, Thanks for the link to the blog. The comments are hilarious. It took me a minute to remember that Murray was the orderly (nurse) who saved Watson in Afghanistan. And it answered your question - it seems that the girl at St. Bart's is named Molly Hooper, she's one of the commenters on the blog. Glad you agreed with me on the bad guy. It takes TIME to build up an organization. I don't care how dastardly you are, or how young you start. It takes time to become feared. I also liked that in the original, Moriarty had a very respectable cover, which is why the police never believed Holmes when he complained about him. And yes, the old, the lead characters in jep cliff hanger. You know nothing will happen to them. Now, if it had been that woman who's Lestrades' assistant - she could be killed off realistically. |
|
|
|
Post by sewellme on Nov 9, 2010 1:02:23 GMT
Came across The Great Game episode today (very intreaguing) and noticed they'll do it again toningt at 9pm. So, I'll be on it.
Always enjoy Mr.Cumberbatch and Mr.Sewell was right about him; he's the upcoming talent!
|
|
|
|
Post by sunshineprincess78 on Nov 14, 2010 21:17:53 GMT
Loved this series !! Can't wait for Series Two. Funny about the mention of PBS cutting scenes. I watched The Great Game 8 times and this line ...
Watson: Fabulous!
Holmes (correcting him): Meretricious.
Lestade: And a Happy New Year to you!
was in the episode that aired in my area. Same as the A Study in Pink, the cabbie did reveal the "fan" as Moriarty in our episode.
|
|
Damn but it works and how well! 
It's exciting, fun, with great pace and the music and the actors are simply incredible!
