Monday, May 07, 2012

The New Sherlock Holmes series


I am kind of ambivalent about this series. On the one hand, I love the repartee and some of the uses of technology. Love the actors and the great production values. And yet, boy the narrative gets a bit murky and lost amidst all the hoopla. What do you think? Are they too fond of wit and tech? Do they basically find the stories a bit of a bore and feel they need to submerge than in special fx?

Do we really need Irene Adler to be a dominatrix?

Or, here is the real question, do I need to watch this earlier in the evening when my brain cells are still on play?

18 comments:

Heath Lowrance said...

Despite Irene Adler being a dominatrix in the new series, I still thought she was a really intriguing character and more than a match for Sherlock. I have to admit, I like this show. As you said, it's stylish and witty and the acting is uniformly great. What more could we ask from a TV show? Admittedly, the story seemed at first to be strangely random, but I thought it all came together quite nicely by the end. Count me as a big fan.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Too bad she is only in the one SH story. I get overly dazzled by the peripherals and don't pay enough attention.

Charles Gramlich said...

I saw the previews but it didn't really strike me.

Paul D Brazill said...

I love it. As has been said before, the stories don't stand up to a lot of scrutiny but, then, neither do a lot of Doyle's. But the shows got personality in spades. And personality goes a long way.

Chad said...

I like the show a lot--which surprised me since I've hated Moffat's run on Doctor Who. I think it's the most interesting thing that's been done with Sherlock Holmes and Doyle's character archetype in a very long time.

Adler being a dominatrix didn't bother me in the least. I thought it was another clever method of updating the cannon. For a story involving blackmail, doesn't a dominatrix have a little more punch than a theatre actress? Besides, in the text she's called a "well-known adventuress"--a euphemism for a courtesan.

The only complaint I've ever had with Sherlock is The Blind Banker episode. As a "Yellow Menace" pastiche, it wasn't nearly fun and over-the-top enough for me to overlook the racism.

Erik Donald France said...

Hey, whatever works . . .

Naomi Johnson said...

I watched the first two episodes and decided the show wasn't for me. Stylish and witty, yes, but self-consciously so. And may I confess that I really don't care for the guy playing Holmes? I do like the guy playing Watson. Anyway, I watched last night, figuring that as the show continues to garner raves that it deserved another look-see. And for the first half hour, I was amused, intrigued, impressed. By the last half hour, it just wore on my nerves. So I probably won't bother watching another.

pattinase (abbott) said...

I am sort of with you, Naomi. I see the charms of the current productions, but I do like more attention to presenting a story. Phil is in the other camp. Says how many times do we need to hear the same story. I say forever.

Richard R. said...

I don't need it at all. The canon and the Mystery! series from several years ago are more than sufficient.

Deb said...

I suppose for my generation Jeremy Brett will always be Sherlock Holmes, just as Basil Rathbone was for my mother's.

pattinase (abbott) said...

And I am stuck in the middle.

George said...

I'm with Phil on this one. The updating of the canon is just a bit of evolution. Liking SHERLOCK doesn't mean I don't like the Jeremy Brett series (or Basil Rathbone for that matter). The more the merrier! My only complaint is that I watch SHERLOCK with the Closed Caption on...and the character speak so quickly, the captioning can't keep up!

John said...

The cell phone/texting thing was annoying to me in the first season. Primarily because I am so anti-texting. I'm used to it by now. The script probably was written this way but it looks more like something a production design team made look really spiffy.

pattinase (abbott) said...

Now closed captioning would probably help me a lot but Phil can't stand it because the captions take up so much of the screen. And now I don't even remember how to use it.
I think the HOUNDS might be easier.

Cap'n Bob said...

Never heard of it until now. There was already a Young Sherlock Holmes. Is this a retread?

pattinase (abbott) said...

It's the second series of Sherlock Holmes stories on PBS Sundays at nine. It is brought forward to today but the stories are the same--sort of. Very slick, quick, young.

Al Tucher said...

On Saturday I turned the radio on in the middle of an interview with the head writer or producer (I'm not sure), who made the point that when Holmes first appeared in the Strand magazine, he was young, quick, dangerous and cutting edge. That's what this new series attempts to recapture.

Katherine Tomlinson said...

I liked the first season quite a bit but this first episode left me ealloy cold. The ending was just way, way over the top. That being said, I love the acting.