BBC's Sherlock

[Teddybrown]

Just finished watching the new series opener, absolutely loved it, all the twists and turns that a Moffat production normally has...
Really want to catch up on the rest of the 2 series now.

[KEK]

On a side note, that mind palace thing is real, anyone can do it. By chance I was watching a Derren Brown video a few days before the latest episode of Sherlock aired, and he was talking about how you do it.

[Quizziard]

On a side note, that mind palace thing is real, anyone can do it. By chance I was watching a Derren Brown video a few days before the latest episode of Sherlock aired, and he was talking about how you do it.

The mind palace technique is described in great detail by Thomas Harris in the novel "Hannibal", with IIRC, an appendix or similar at the back about it.

[Easter Lily]

I have tried to watch the first few minutes of episode one. But I can't go any further..
I suppose I never percieved Sherlock and Watson to be like the BBC version. To me (this is my opinion entirely)..

Spoiler:

It felt like children overacting

I may seem harsh.. but I cant really connect with the BBC's version as I do with the movies' version.

Thats just me. And my opinion may change.. but for now.. *walks away*

I don't agree with the overacting part but I think that's a valid perception of the characters. I think it myself from time to time and after watching Scandal in Belgravia, it seems to be deliberate apparently.
Cumberbatch is my favourite Sherlock though because he gives the most multidimensional portrayal of the character.

I don't think there is such a thing as a definitive Holmes though.

[mi_guard]

I have tried to watch the first few minutes of episode one. But I can't go any further..
I suppose I never percieved Sherlock and Watson to be like the BBC version. To me (this is my opinion entirely)..

Spoiler:

It felt like children overacting

I may seem harsh.. but I cant really connect with the BBC's version as I do with the movies' version.

Thats just me. And my opinion may change.. but for now.. *walks away*

Everyone may see it differently, but the BBC Sherlock reminds me much more of the original Conan Doyle books than the movie version does. In the movie version (great by the way), he is more the superhero type (like Iron Man, etc) who solves the crimes more with force rather than with his mind, but that's not the feeling I had from the original books. I remember him as an eccentric genius, extremely observant, sometimes lost in his thoughts, who often needed to be brought back to reality by Watson. But I read the books over 20 years ago, so my memory might not be very clear on that anymore ...

*decides to borrow the Sherlock books from the library again*

[KEK]

I think the movies are just heavily Americanized, which is ironic given who made them. In American culture killing the antagonist seems almost inherently justified, in British culture not so much. While their hero's tend to use force and assorted kick arsery, I think British hero's, especially modern ones are written to use their brains. The Doctor, Sherlock, Harry Potter etc, all with a pretty deep aversion to killing. Bond I suppose is themost obvious exception, but then he is arcaic in most senses, in fact I'm not sure how long someone with his attitude toward women can really be justified as a likeable protagonist...

[iJOKE]

Everyone may see it differently, but the BBC Sherlock reminds me much more of the original Conan Doyle books than the movie version does. In the movie version (great by the way), he is more the superhero type (like Iron Man, etc) who solves the crimes more with force rather than with his mind, but that's not the feeling I had from the original books. I remember him as an eccentric genius, extremely observant, sometimes lost in his thoughts, who often needed to be brought back to reality by Watson. But I read the books over 20 years ago, so my memory might not be very clear on that anymore ...

*decides to borrow the Sherlock books from the library again*

Oh, I have only just started to read S.H canon..... so i can't really judge it like that 'yet'

I might try to watch it again, without judging it instantly.

I don't think there is such a thing as a definitive Holmes though.

Hmmm.. but Conan Doyle did describe Holmes in such a way to make it definitive. All the writers could do is try to emulate the description.. right?

[Quizziard]

Hmmm.. but Conan Doyle did describe Holmes in such a way to make it definitive. All the writers could do is try to emulate the description.. right?

From the top of my head, outstanding observation, phenomenal memory for detail and an encyclopaedic memory of certain subjects. Yet, as Doctor Watson records in one of the books, a staggering lack of normally common knowledge on other topics.

[mi_guard]

Has anyone been reading "The personal blog of Dr. Watson" on the official BBC Sherlock website? It's interesting and sometimes funny. I like Sherlock's comments or when he and Watson chat on the blog although they are sitting in the same room

if anyone is interested, here is the link: http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/

[Easter Lily]

Hmmm.. but Conan Doyle did describe Holmes in such a way to make it definitive. All the writers could do is try to emulate the description.. right?

Well, it's not that simple unfortunately. Onscreen versions generally take liberties of some sort due to format constraints and every actor/director, depending on their acting talents and take on Holmes, portray aspects of the character differently or with different degrees of emphasis.

Also, it's important to remember that the stories cover about a thirty year period. Holmes and Watson are actually quite young when they first meet in A Study in Scarlet. Holmes is in his late 20s and Watson, his early thirties.
Holmes is arrogant in the stories, arrogant enough to diss Poe's Dupin. Different actors have chosen either to ramp that quality up or tone it down. So when Cumberbatch does a bratty Sherlock, I can see where that comes from.

Even Jeremy Brett's portrayal, which is much beloved by fans, doesn't sit comfortably with me. He played Holmes with a theatrically mannered eccentricity which I don't really see in canon. That's not to say I don't enjoy each of the Granada adaptations with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

Everyone may see it differently, but the BBC Sherlock reminds me much more of the original Conan Doyle books than the movie version does. In the movie version (great by the way), he is more the superhero type (like Iron Man, etc) who solves the crimes more with force rather than with his mind, but that's not the feeling I had from the original books. I remember him as an eccentric genius, extremely observant, sometimes lost in his thoughts, who often needed to be brought back to reality by Watson. But I read the books over 20 years ago, so my memory might not be very clear on that anymore ...

*decides to borrow the Sherlock books from the library again*

The RDJ movie versions explore the more action oriented side of Holmes that A Conan Doyle alludes to in the books. It's certainly pretty ramped up to create a screen spectacle. Watson notes in A Study in Scarlet that Holmes is "an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman." I believe elsewhere he talks about Holmes being an exponent of bartitsu (I think ACD spelt it baritsu).
Even when Holmes engages in punch ups, it's an intellectual exercise as much as a physical one. I don't think the action sequences take away from the man's intellectual prowess. It's believeable to me that when Holmes is taking on violent opponents, he's thinking 10 steps ahead of them.

I agree, however that the BBC version although set in the 21st century, is reasonably close to canon in spirit. In fact, I don't think they could have done it any other way except locate in the 21st century. That is without being repetitious and turning it into a parody.

[Inquisitor]

Have you seen the website http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co.uk/?

It's Sherlock's!

The hidden messages are a bit of a joke, though.



I don't see how their clue helps
"Also, where is it the pigs live?"

The deciphered text is:

Spoiler:

Sherlock I have found you


The cipher is

Spoiler:

the tic-tac-toe cipher, you form 2 3x3 grids and 2 cross grids, and in the second of each you put a dot in each cell. Then, you fill in the letters and match the symbols.

[Quizziard]

I don't see how their clue helps
"Also, where is it the pigs live?"

That's because you've apparently never studied cyphers, or you'd be familiar with the simple substitution pigpen cypher, i.e. where pigs live...

[Inquisitor]

I've never heard of that term for it. I've always called it the tic-tac-toe cipher (which is actually stated in the wikipedia page).

[mi_guard]

Have you seen the website http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co.uk/?

It's Sherlock's!

The hidden messages are a bit of a joke, though.
http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co....enmessage3.gif

yeah, I had seen it but had given up with the first one (the one you showed) because I had no clue what to do

That's because you've apparently never studied cyphers, or you'd be familiar with the simple substitution pigpen cypher, i.e. where pigs live...

thanks for the link I think I understand it now

[KEK]

Great episode.

Spoiler:

I think they hinted a bit too early on that he would have to fake his own deathe though, I guessed that in about the first 10 minutes, but ultimately not for the same reason. I'm guessing he did it with Molly's help. A clever ending really, because it allows them to potentially avoid casting problems next series.