--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > We're going to have to agree to disagree on this series. And opinion seems equally divided on the comments below on-line reviews. > For me, the whole point of the Holmes stories was to see the great man solving crimes. This series is far too involved in the characters of Holmes's immediate circle and is way too self indulgent. Watson's wife, Mary, is scarcely mentioned in the original Conan-Doyle stories; here she's become a central character and has out-stayed her welcome. Another example of the series being too much up itself is that the parents of Sherlock are played by Benedict Cumberbatch's real-life parents; and Watson's wife is played by Martin Freeman's real-life partner! Ugh! > And can you buy Sherlock as a seducer of women? He's not James Bond. > I watch the series as it does have some excellent set pieces. In this last episode the internal dialogue following Sherlockâs shooting was brilliant. And Charles Augustus Magnussen as Holmes's foe has to be one of the creepiest villains I've seen - even disturbingly perverse. (Pity we won't see him again.)
OK, I've had my coffee now, so I will try to give your post a better reply. :-) Yes, the bottom line is that we will have to agree to disagree. But that's probably because I appreciate Steven Moffat's schtick as what it is -- jazz. Did you ever see his series "Jekyll?" In that one he did the same thing, taking the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story, putting it into a modern setting, and (most important IMO) *having some fun with it*. What he does is IMO closest to jazz in that he takes a familiar plot (melody), establishes it in the opening bars so that the audience knows what is being riffed on, and then fucks with it, taking it into new and more interesting directions. Like jazz itself, some in the audience can follow these riffs and explorations, and some cannot. On another level, where is the fun in doing a remake of a popular entertainment crafted for the sensibilities of people in another era that was completely different from ours? Conan Doyle's tales were aimed at the people of his time, and *at that time* they were new and interesting. Here was a detective using the new (at the time) scientific method to solve crimes, as opposed to the brute force method used by most of the real police and detectives of the time. Plus, back in that day it was easier to craft a "whodunnit" because audiences had not seen hundreds or thousands of them in their lifetimes and thus been trained how to figure out whodunnit in the first few pages or chapters. In my case, I've seen so many movies, read so many classic whodunnits, and watched so many TV detective series that if I *can't* figure out whodunnit by the halfway point of the show, it's a rarity. It almost never happens, because writers, actors, and directors "telegraph" their intentions, even when they're trying not to. It takes real out-of-the-box writing, acting, and directing to fool me...the only example I can think of at this moment being the brilliant film "The Usual Suspects." Most writers and directors simply aren't good enough at misdirection to craft a whodunnit for modern times that is effective and yet still entertaining. But that word "entertaining" is still key. Conan Doyle and Stevenson wrote *popular entertainment for their times*. Moffat takes the originals, and turns them into equally popular entertainment for *his* time, and my bet is that he's doing it as much for his *own* benefit as the audience's. Where is the FUN or challenge of "doing a remake?" BORING. But take the basic scenario and riff on it as jazz, and it becomes FUN. I'll agree with you that Lars Mikkelsen (older brother of Mads Mikkelsen, so good in "Hannibal") was a great villain. He was *much* more interesting to me than the series' Moriarty. I didn't mind all the jazz explorations of the characters around Sherlock and his own character because (as I've said many times) I'm more interested in good character development than in plot.That's where the writing "rubber meets the road" IMO. Moffat's always been good with characters. My first experience with him was with his classic comedy series "Coupling." On the surface, it was a blatant ripoff of the American show "Cheers," with a number of friends hanging around one joint and interacting. But IMO it was *much* better than "Friends," and better written, funnier, and more clever. And part of the reason was that the characters were real *characters*. I've been lamenting lately no longer being able to find a certain clip from "Coupling" on YouTube, because Jeffrey's rap about and term for ex-girlfriends who refuse to admit that they have been dumped and turn into stalkers is the perfect metaphor for the situation I find myself in on FFL. He called them "unflushables," drawing a parallel to those occasional giant turds that refuse to go forth gracefully out of one's life. :-) Anyway, I like Moffat. Yes, he tends to the flamboyant and the occasionally unbelievable in this series, but I don't mind that either, because after all, it's an *entertainment*. What was he supposed to do, make up *new* whodunnit plots for those who have read all the original stories? Rehash the ones they already know? Instead, he played jazz riffs on the basic theme of Sherlock Holmes, and I don't mind that. To fault him for not following the formula is like faulting Miles Davis for deviating from the original score of Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez on his classic album "Sketches Of Spain." It kinda misses the point.
