Sherlock

Lil0

Lil0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
3,805
Reaction score
15,690
Location
Whidbey Island, WA
Website
keraskitchen.com
I think I'm developing a love/hate relationship with this show. Last night's episode was both boring and confusing. I haven't quite decided what to think of the series as a whole. I like Dr. Watson, but Sherlock is an insufferable jerk. What did he call himself last night? A ________ sociopath. I don't remember the adjective he used, but it fit.
The PBS history of Sherlock Holmes is interesting. Sir Arthur Conan Doyles' inspiration for Sherlock was a doctor in Scotland. Today's forensic practices stem largely from that doctor's deductive reasoning.
 
A high-functioning sociopath. It comes from a line he said in a previous episode when someone else called him a psychopath. It also is a reference to a lot of literary criticism and study of Sherlock as perhaps having autism or Asperger's. The guys that write this version (Mark Gatiss is one of them, and he also plays Mycroft) are huge fans of the Sherlock stories and incorporate so many details from the stories as well as literary criticism and speculations. For example Hamish, John's middle name, is not in the original stories only the middle initial H. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle sometimes used the wrong character names and there's a part where Mary calls John 'James'. So a lot of readers speculated that perhaps his middle name was Hamish, Scottish for James.

Yes, last night's episode had a lot more back and forth in the flashbacks than usual and perhaps there was not as much forward progress of the story as other episodes. But I giggled so hard throughout the whole thing.
 
I loved the show. I wasn't sure at the beginning of the season how Mary would be shown to fit in with this Sherlock. The writers and actors are doing an incredible job of having Mary and Sherlock love each other in a brother/sister closeness kind of way. It makes me laugh that after such a short period of time that Mary knows Sherlock even better in some ways than John does.
 
Well, to me this interpretation is designed to appeal more to a certain demographic that would probably think of the original representation of Holmes and Watson as "stuffy." Which I can understand, but truly hope that at some point in their lives take a good look at the original sources and get a feel for Holmes as Conan Doyle intended him to be. IMO Granada Television's interpretation with Jeremy Brett stands above all other interpretations. It is the closest to original stories. That being said, I find the show to entertaining for what it is. Holmes and Watson come off more as perpetual fun loving adolescents, which IMO is how most popular entertainment like to present main characters these days.
 
I agree with the praise for Jeremy Brett's series as Sherlock. I have read all the stories, have the complete works of Arthur Conan Doyle, and although Watson got married to a woman named Mary, I really don't recall her being an integral part of the Sherlock stories.
 
I think it appeals to more than that demographic, Jnta. I know many who have read Conan Doyle multiple times, myself included, who love many of the different interpretations of Holmes/Watson. And the creators are using much of the original source material as well as their interpretations from some of other versions. The whole scene in the very first episode with Sherlock's 'reading' of John by his cell phone is nearly verbatim of the 'reading' of John's pocket watch in the original story. Obviously, to set it in the modern era, some things had to be changed. But so many details are interspersed throughout that are accurate or just tweaked slightly. There are many who look for every single reference to the original works throughout every episode. It's almost like looking for literary references in the TV series Lost. It is actually a very layered and complex show.
 
Yes I do get that they've included many original aspects of the stories, and that the pilot actually included more original references to initial first novel, A Study in Scarlet than just about any other interpretation that I've seen and that despite being set in modern times, they've captured the influence of Watson's wartime experience in Afghanistan. However, it has also taken some major liberties (Sherlock developing romantic feelings for the lab assistant?) and yes Barb, while Mary was featured in the story that introduced her to Watson, to my memory afterward she was only briefly mentioned in passing and Doyle was said to have regretted marrying Watson off because from then on he had to continually invent reasons for her to be away in order to have Watson available for continued adventures.

I appreciate a number of interpretations, everything from Spielberg's Young Sherlock Holmes to Murder by Decree (Holmes meets Jack the Ripper), etc... But I do think that the tone here tries to inflict more adolescent boyish overtones to make it more appealing to modern younger audiences.
 
I started watching Elementary, and while actor portraying Sherlock is very good, I did not like that Watson is female, and tried to accept it being set in modern times, but......it might as well be called something else. I guess it is too ingrained in me that Sherlock Holmes lived in foggy London, shared quarters for a while with Dr. Watson and lived in the late 1800s.
When they bring it to modern day, to me, might as well call it something else. Not Holmes & Watson to me. But that is just me.
I realize they are trading on the names and popularity of the characters/stories. Built in recognition and familiarity right off the bat.
 
Where have they shown Shelock having feelings for Molly, the lab assistant? She has a crush on him, but he hasn't reciporcated. I think the tone is one of the creators being such " fan boys" if you will, of the source material, that yes they do focus more on the Sherlock/Watson relationship more than simply relating the cases solved. It just seems to work for me, especially considering who the creators are. It's what I expected, and more, from Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffatt.
 
Well my interpretation of the relationship with Molly (a character that as far I understand isn't based on anything in the original work) is that he cares enough for them to show him passionately kissing her in those fantasy scenes regarding how he'd escaped Moriarty (along with the line about the person assumed to matter least to him, mattering the most), to also seem concerned when Molly tells him that she's engaged after his return this season, etc... She's an invented character whose purpose is give the series a hint of potential or fantasized romance. They also turned Irene Adler into a sex dominatrix with the same purpose in mind (prancing around naked). I don't dislike the series, but I do still have issues with the change in tone to make it more appealing to a younger modern demographic. IMO the relationship between Sherlock and Watson has been the appeal for most interpretations, including the Granada series and many of the movies, that's not what I have an issue with. Its making changes to the tone of who the character is, Sherlock Holmes is not a persistent fun loving adolescent. Only my opinion.
 
Yes the character of Molly is not based off anyone in particular. She was to be a one-time character in the first episode, but the was a fan response to her. She is, in essence, a Mary Sue for the audience. The line about she mattered the most, he goes on to say she made it all possible, talking about the faking of his death. After the Christmas gift, he was aware of her feelings. But while he may have toned down his brashness a bit, he has not reciprocated her romantic feelings. Irene Adler, yes they added a sexual component to her character, but I do think it is not that far of a stretch considering that line of work would allow her to collect secrets on others, just as she did in the original story. I can't deny the younger and more energetic aspect to this Sherlock, but I don't see anything wrong with what they have done with it. I'm fine with it because most of the cases are still very much spot on with source material or tweaked enough to make it fit the modern day technology (cell phone vs. pocket watch, online dating site vs. letter writing).
 
It all comes to a matter of preferences. IMO the original stories don't need added sexual innuendo and a dreamed up fan girl to fawn over Sherlock or Sherlock showing an interest in said fan girl, which IMO he does. As stated before, I just hope that these new found fans eventually find their way to the original source and find appreciation for them without what I consider to be unneeded embellishments. As I think Barb implied very well, there's a distinct charm to the original Sherlock Holmes. He's a man of his original circumstance, times, habitat, residence, values and geographic origin. Taking him out of those circumstances changes him, when IMO he doesn't need the changes.
 
I highly contest the idea that Sherlock has romantic interest in Molly, which is what you stated previously. There is just no real evidence to back that up. Interest, maybe. As while she is not as integral to Sherlock as Watson, but still she's a resource, just as his homeless network is (Conan Doyle's Sherlock also used other resources such as the street boys for information). But romantic feelings, no. Someone in the medical field, especially a medical examiner who would let him have access to corpses and resources, would probably rank a bit higher than a street person in Sherlock's esteem, so I don't see anything wrong with Molly being a bit more visible in certain storylines.

I'm not sure what the issue is with 'new found fans'. Sure there are probably viewers that have not read Conan Doyle's stories or seen older versions of Sherlock. There are probably viewers that only know Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock, and I would say this Sherlock is a vast improvement on that interpretation (even though I did like some aspects of that version, it was definitely more bromance and action adventure). But there are many viewers that do know Conan Doyle's stories. I see it every single day online with people blogging, sharing on forums and fan sites and they do reference Conan Doyle extensively in discussion. And as much as I would love to point every single viewer to Conan Doyle's stories and get them reading because I am a huge fan of the books (and I was a librarian), I don't think watching one interpretation of the most portrayed literary character of all time really requires a review of the original source material. I would hope the show inspires them enough to "do their research" but if they chose to just watch this one interpretation, I'm fine by it because it is a really good interpretation.
 
You are as entitled to your interpretation of Sherlock's interest in Molly as I am mine (we can agree to disagree), and as I've already stated a few times already, I do not dislike the show, I've watched every episode and have no problem with others enjoying it. I've also enjoyed many other versions of Holmes, both based on the original material and imagined revisions. My point is that IMO much of the essence and intent of who Holmes really is gets lost when you try and make him more palatable to a younger modern audience. Again, for me its a matter of preference.
 
Again, there is nothing definitive to say that Sherlock is romantically interested in Molly. It is open to broad interpretation, but the actual events that happen between them show nothing of romantic interest on his part. I do disagree that Holmes' 'essence' is lost because I do think it comes across quite clearly.
 
We are not going to agree on this, you enjoy the show in your way and I enjoy it in mine, even though from "my" perspective I see major short comings. That's fine with me.
 
You're right, we won't agree. I see the show as a masterful interpretation of the Conan Doyle's stories and the many, many other film/TV interpretations as well. It is obviously created and written by people who have not only read the source material and reference it extensively, but have had a lifelong love of the stories and characters. Bringing it to a modern era isn't a shortcoming and making a version that will introduce a fairly canon-close version of Sherlock to a new audience isn't a shortcoming either.
 
Like I said, you don't see shortcoming, I do, fine. The show is entertaining, but "in MY opinion" falls short of full fledged Sherlock Holmes in its efforts. There are people having similar debates over various versions Star Trek, the Tom Cruise interpretation of Mission Impossible and which successions of James Bond are worthy. Its all a matter of preference.
 
And I absolutely do not like the modernization of Sherlock Holmes. He was not a young fellow...never mind. I just prefer him at 221 Baker St. (Have I told you I saw that in person?) in the late 1880s and beyond.
 
I don't see the shortcomings because nothing beyond appealing to a younger audience and the tone of the partnership between Holmes/Watson has really been mentioned.

According the the Conan Doyle stories, Sherlock was born in 1854 and met John Watson in 1881. That would put him around 27 years old at the beginning of his partnership with Watson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top