Sherlock

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Because half the fun comes from the riffle-shuffle of the two, from taking the basics of the original and giving them a modern flavour. It is not "plagiarism", which implies an attempt at deception, but rather what the Romans called "variation", taking an original version and playing with it. And, by golly, it works well.

I take the points that you make above, but would reiterate my earlier comment about the creative writing ability of new modern writers to make totally new story-lines that would be just as enthralling as the original one.

Making a variation upon an existing scheme means that you are only building on someone else's creativity that developed the original storyline and not fully creating a new one.

Perhaps I am expecting too much of the modern writing fraternity....

 

[IanD]

I take the points that you make above, but would reiterate my earlier comment about the creative writing ability of new modern writers to make totally new story-lines that would be just as enthralling as the original one.

Making a variation upon an existing scheme means that you are only building on someone else's creativity that developed the original storyline and not fully creating a new one.

Perhaps I am expecting too much of the modern writing fraternity....

There are plenty of new dramas which should satisfy your need for originality. However, the re-working of classics such as Sherlock Holmes is not a new phenomenon. West Side Story - a reworking of Romeo and Juliet and just as enjoyable. Or would you suggest that Bernstein/Sondheim lacked creative writing ability? Or similarly Lerner and Loewe for nicking Shaw's Pygmalion and turning it in to My Fair Lady?

The first couple of series of Sherlock took the orignal Doyle stories as a base and reworked them with a modern twist and did it excellently. I particularly liked the flashing lights reference from The Hound of The Baskervilles in the Beware The Hound episode!

Even Shakespeare himself wasn't averse to nicking his basic storylines.

 

[tbtc]

I take the points that you make above, but would reiterate my earlier comment about the creative writing ability of new modern writers to make totally new story-lines that would be just as enthralling as the original one.

Making a variation upon an existing scheme means that you are only building on someone else's creativity that developed the original storyline and not fully creating a new one.

Perhaps I am expecting too much of the modern writing fraternity....

We've had modern adaptations of Shakespeare, we've had modern adaptations of Biblical stories, we've had modern adaptations of most great novels... the only surprise is that it took so long for someone to come up with a 21st Century Sherlock.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are plenty of new dramas which should satisfy your need for originality. However, the re-working of classics such as Sherlock Holmes is not a new phenomenon. West Side Story - a reworking of Romeo and Juliet and just as enjoyable. Or would you suggest that Bernstein/Sondheim lacked creative writing ability? Or similarly Lerner and Loewe for nicking Shaw's Pygmalion and turning it in to My Fair Lady?

The first couple of series of Sherlock took the original Doyle stories as a base and reworked them with a modern twist and did it excellently. I particularly liked the flashing lights reference from The Hound of The Baskervilles in the Beware The Hound episode!

Even Shakespeare himself wasn't averse to nicking his basic storylines.

You, in this posting, are only reiterating the points that were made by Oswyntail by the reworking of an already-existing theme.

My point covered the modern writing of completely new storylines which would be enthralling to their audiences and that had no reference whatsoever to any pre-existing ones.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

I taped last Sunday's Wedding episode and watched it yesterday, I really did not get it at all. Hope tonight's episode will be good.

 

[IanD]

I taped last Sunday's Wedding episode and watched it yesterday, I really did not get it at all. Hope tonight's episode will be good.

5 minutes of plot and the rest was sentimental/pretentious nonsense. Really going off this program.

 

[Butts]

I taped last Sunday's Wedding episode and watched it yesterday, I really did not get it at all. Hope tonight's episode will be good.

Traditionalists may not appreciate the finer points of this modern adaptation, however (surprisingly) for a luddite like me I thoroughly enjoy it

 

[EM2]

My point covered the modern writing of completely new storylines which would be enthralling to their audiences and that had no reference whatsoever to any pre-existing ones.

There are plenty of TV dramas which fulfil that remit, such as The Killing, The Bridge, Shadowline, Luther, Dexter, Breaking Bad, The Wire just to name a few.
The premise of Sherlock is specifically to reinterpret and expand upon the original Conan Doyle stories.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The premise of Sherlock is specifically to reinterpret and expand upon the original Conan Doyle stories.

I will now accept all that has been said upon this matter. However, the past portrayals of the lead character by both Basil Rathbone and by Jeremy Brett seemed to fit in well with the idea that the personage of Sherlock Holmes was reflected as one of a certain age group that would allow for the experience of time to have allowed for his accumulated vast knowledge to accrue.

May I therefore enquire what approximate age is the current Sherlock character supposed to be, as first visual impressions can indeed prove false.

 

[Starmill]

I know I've watched good detective programming when I start to realise just how many 'little things' are being dropped.

But a few...

What's with Sherlock's dad?
Who's Red Beard?
Mycroft's 'other brother'?
Mrs Hudson?

etc. Because I know if I am starting to pick up unanswered questions, there must have been hundreds planted already (and some which were answered before I realised they were there) which I didn't.

It's not like it was, watching Midsummer Murders with granny (it's a wonder there's anyone left alive in that village!) where it's a race to guess whodunnit and you know by the end.

I do hope they strike the balance between leaving you wondering and the satisfaction of what used to be 'The Big Reveal' but now is drip-fed reveal and adding more and more layers and enigma better than Doctor Who has. There is only so far that you can go with it and keep everyone enticed before people start to think you're patronising them and switch-off to your supposed genius as a writer.

 

[tony_mac]

May I therefore enquire what approximate age is the current Sherlock character supposed to be, as first visual impressions can indeed prove false.

I read somewhere that he is supposed to be about the actor's age - 36.

(Here's an article from 1920 discussing Sherlock's age; that puts him at about 25 in his first cases - and I think over 60 in his final cases).
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Bookman-1920jul-00579
My reading of the stories gave me the impression that Holmes was mostly a reasonably young and athletic man; I always found Jeremy Brett to be rather more staid than I would have liked, at least for the earlier stories.

 

[tbtc]

Who's Red Beard?

Sherlock's (boyhood) dog (AFAICR)

Mycroft's 'other brother'?

There was an allusion to further siblings in previous Holmes books (can't remember whether these were ACD or subsequent authors versions of).

I like the way that the backstory gets drip fed though

It's not like it was, watching Midsummer Murders with granny (it's a wonder there's anyone left alive in that village!) where it's a race to guess whodunnit and you know by the end

The problem with those kind of programmes is that once you've worked out the one question (whodunnit) then its really just a case of watching the clock tick down. You are also much less likely to watch a repeat (one you know who it was).

Whereas, with Sherlock, there's sufficient layers and different things going on that you don't pick up on everything at once (e.g. when I rewatched the first episode of the latest series, I picked up on Mary's reference to a "Skipcode" - a slightly unusual thing for a normal member of the public to necessarily know about - but I hadn't noticed it the first time I watched it - but it planted seeds that bore fruit in the third episode).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Personally I like the way you actively have to think during the episodes to work out what is going on, rather then being spoon fed every little hint.

 

[Railway Kid]

I read on a website (trying to find the source) that they used a purpose built set to film the scene with the bomb on as they were not allowed to film on a real train. I wonder why then there were inaccuracies with the stock? Maybe visually it looked better in their minds the way they did it!